Recently, the YouTube creator Viki1999 published a video called ["Why (I think) the labour theory of value is dead!"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OAQepN4Q7o) and exposing her arguments, which you can check by watching the video. I have written a criticism in the comments of her video, and I will adapt them here to publish here. Viki1999's main argument is that the so-called labor theory of value (LTV) may not be useful to agitate workers towards revolution. In the middle of her arguments, she distances herself from her point to bash the LTV altogether, in what sounds like a liberal deviation from Marxism. I argue that she is blinded by imperialism. She claims: > *"Most Western nations have service economies. Huge part of the economy are people who serve people in diners. Quantifying the value of a service job is close to impossible. The same is true for haircuts. The value of a haircut is very hard to quantify."* First of all, this argument ignores that capitalism is a world-market, a service economy (or consumer market) can only function if there is production elsewhere. This argument is from a viewpoint of someone living in the imperialist core, ignoring the reality of the productive sphere of the world-market, mainly restricted to the periphery countries where all the cheap labor is available to be exploited. For a service economy to exist, there needs to be hundreds of millions of workers in poverty producing the goods for the consumers in the "service economy". Still, there is a measure to "quantify" the labor related to service sector: time. Serving people in diners and cutting hair both have this measure. The work someone does needs to earn them enough value so that the worker can reproduce their lives, especially by eating and resting. If a work does not earn them enough value, i.e., if they cannot sustain themselves with their work, they cannot continue working otherwise. The question then becomes, how come big employers have enough value to maintain thousands of service workers? The answer: imperialism. The value extracted from the proletariat in the periphery countries of the Global South is what maintains the the wages of service workers and the international labor aristocracy. By being a worker living in an imperialist country, you are certainly exploited, but not by the degree of exploitation which workers in the South face. Exploitation for a labor aristocrat is much less *apparent*, to the point some of them deny it altogether, like Viki1999. > *"Raising children is not compensated by the economy at all"* It's true. But does that mean raising children is not work? Or, rather, that it does not create value? Raising children creates workers, which create value. It's reproductive work that makes productive work exist in the first place. It follows that we should fight for it to be compensated fairly. Mostly women are exploited by this circumstance, and the LTV actually helps understand this condition so that the inherent exploitation becomes apparent. Later in the video, she gives the old liberal example of "bucket of water in a desert" which supposedly would determine a high price for water based on its need, and that value is therefore subjective, a common liberal argument. But then she contradicts herself mentioning the example of unskilled workers, how the average working time and skill affects the value of the work and the commodities produced by work. The same goes for a bucket of water in a desert. A bucket of water in a desert can be overpriced by someone selling to another in great need, but this would be only an isolated exchange not at all representative of the value of extracting and transporting water, and of water as a commodity. Exploitation exists in the Western imperialist countries including in the productive sphere, especially in the United States where it's more apparent (even on the skin color). One common example is Amazon and the exploitation of workers inside its factories. Another example is the production line of the packaging of many food industries, which harshly exploits cheap and even uncompensated prison labor (quick reminder that slavery in the US is constitutionally permitted in the case of punishment for crimes). And later in the video, Viki1999 even claims "there are plenty of reasons to get rid of capitalists even if they don't take surplus-value," insinuating that capitalists do not exploit surplus-value from workers. This outrageous claim ignores the obvious reality that billionaires continue to enrich themselves while the mass of the workers in the whole world continue to live in poverty conditions more and more extreme (search for the Oxfam studies on global inequality). This enriching of capitalists and impoverishment of workers CANNOT be attributed to anything else except exploitation of workers on a global scale. For a handful of capitalists to be criminally rich, there needs to be hundreds of millions of workers criminally poor. Conclusion: While I respect Viki1999's work, I have noticed that the content of her videos has been tending towards a liberal perspective and sometimes even anti-communist and opportunist tone. The fact that she thinks the LTV is not a good argument to use for workers living in imperialist countries such as herself does not mean that the LTV is false or incorrect. The fact that the LTV, up to this day, still correctly predicts certain phenomena of capitalism means it shouldn't be discarded, only updated to our material conditions, such as explaining how a service economy can maintain itself (e.g.: through imperialism). At some points in the video she even considers that "value is subjective" using a common liberal argument and she even claims that capitalists "don't take surplus-value." One thing is to argue that exploitation is not a good argument to convince workers to organize a revolution in the imperialist core, the other thing is to argue that exploitation does not exist, which is an anti-Marxist, anti-worker claim, coming from someone living in the imperial core. Either her understanding of Marxism is lacking in its theoretical basis, or she is purposefully deceiving her viewers to discard some nonnegotiable principles of Marxism and adopting a liberal worldview. I rather think that it is her lack of study, not an arrogant attempt at falsifying the only theoretical concise explanation for exploitation from the point of view of the working class.

It comes with competent generals and fully planned socialist transition

Mostly a reflection of our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/prolewiki). Our most active Twitter editor is from the United States, and so he tends to speak about Statesian trends, events, etc. The fact that we achieved more users by doing that shows that it's an approach that's giving us more readers than doing nothing. **EDIT:** This map is generated from data produced between 16 and 23 June

Beautiful rendition by comrade Robeson

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/282917 > Our viewership is somewhat restricted to the capitalist-imperialist countries, probably because ProleWiki is mostly only offered in the English language Had to post this here as well lmao

Our viewership is somewhat restricted to the capitalist-imperialist countries, probably because ProleWiki is mostly only offered in the English language

If you use gmail when trying to request an account, please check your spambox for messages and mark our email message as "not spam." Gmail began marking our e-mail messages as spam a few days ago.

A certainly infamous figure which is dreaded by most Marxists-Leninists, with good reason at least. However, one thing that the dialectical principle teaches us is that to overcome something, its useful, positive, or correct aspects must be preserved. I became less and less against the historical figure of Trotsky, but I remain anti-Trotskyist, because there are a big difference between Trotsky and Trotskyism. What made me change my mind over time was realizing that I have actually never read anything by Trotsky, I still don't know his biography, but it's a fact that he was very relevant in the October Revolution. After reading the first two chapters of *The revolution betrayed*, I noticed how Trotsky's 1936 analysis on the relationship between the peasantry and the state industry under the NEP was correct up to the academic standards of E. H. Carr (1950–1978),[^1] Charles Bettelheim (1978)[^2] and R.W. Davies (1980)[^3], using statistical data available at their time. I don't know about Trotsky's conclusion on the character of the Soviet state because I haven't read his work in full. Much like Stalin, Trotsky is a very contradictory figure, so it's very hard to simplify them by picking a side and denying the usefulness of the other. It's a dogmatic mentality that we should strive to avoid at all costs, because the truth is *the whole*, not the single perspective we pick. The intention of this post is a call for us to overcome these barriers that hamper our understanding of the past, and therefore, the present. I have noticed how many Marxists-Leninists are able to read works produced by bourgeois academics, yet preserve a hatred for certain figures (such as Trotsky, Bukharin, Khrushchev, etc.) so big that they cannot understand the historical place of them. [^1]: 14 volumes of *A history of Soviet Russia*, published between the years of 1950 and 1978. [^2]: Charles Bettelheim (1978). *Class struggles in the USSR, second period: 1923–1930*. New York: Monthly Review Press. [^3]: R. W. Davies (1980). *The socialist offensive: the collectivisation of Soviet agriculture, 1929–1930*. The industrialisation of Soviet Russia, vol.1. Palgrave Macmillan

Unknown author, possibly made by [@frnnd.ds](https://www.instagram.com/frnnd.ds/) on Instagram, as it resembles his style. In Georgian, on the left, is written: \ პოპულარული ძალა [People's power] In Russian, on the right, is written: \ Коммунизм победит! [Communism will win!] In Portuguese, on the bottom, is written: \ "Só é marxista aquele que expande o reconhecimento da luta de classes até o reconhecimento da ditadura do proletariado. Nisso reside a diferença mais profunda entre o marxista e o vulgar pequeno-burguês (e também o grande)." \ [A Marxist is only one who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what constitutes the most profound distinction between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois.] Quote from [*State and revolution*](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch02.htm#s3)

Anti-colonial and anti-imperialist leaders. This pic goes hard as fuck Made by Fernando Dias. You should check [his instagram](https://www.instagram.com/frnnd.ds/) out, his art is dope as fuck

Original message: GenZedong users and moderators warned the Lemmygrad administration of chauvinists and people who harassed other users creating a community called Dongistan. Admins from both Discord and Telegram warned us of these reactionary elements and they were preemptively removed from the community **EDIT**: We were working on the assumption that they were PatSocs, because that was the information given to us, and we decided to act upon that without further evidence. It was a mistake on our part. The community was therefore restored, but we are investigating the case further. We are banning trolls which were harassing admins and other members inside Lemmygrad, and we've found out that they are a part of a group called "Horde's People's Republic of Dongistan" on Telegram.

If you look at the largest shareholders of several different US companies, even "competing" companies on the appearance, you will notice some recurrent names: **The Vanguard Group, Inc.** and **BlackRock, Inc.**. For instance, these are the same holding companies owning the largest shares in [Coca-Cola](https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?symb=COKE&subView=institutional) and [PepsiCo](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PEP/holders?p=PEP); [Apple](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders?p=AAPL) and [Google](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOG/holders?p=GOOG) (and [Microsoft](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MSFT/holders?p=MSFT)); CNN (owned by [Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/WBD/holders?p=WBD)) and [Fox Corporation](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FOX/holders?p=FOX); from [Netflix](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NFLX/holders?p=NFLX) to [Disney](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DIS/holders?p=DIS), [Meta Platforms](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/FB/holders?p=FB) (Facebook), [Amazon](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN/holders?p=AMZN), [PayPal](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PYPL/holders?p=PYPL), etc. BlackRock, Inc. itself is owned by Vanguard Group, Inc., and Vanguard's shares are not publicly available. It's hard to find an US company which doesn't have their fingers in it. It's hard to describe these companies as imperialist, because they seem *"larger"* than imperialism, they are imperialism behind imperialism. It's hard to describe them using our usual understanding of imperialism, and I'm asking for suggestions on how to best describe this company for a ProleWiki article

I have laid out a very crude description of the purges. The article doesn't mention how disorganized and disorderly Yezhovshchina was and many other details. I have begun my research on this topic very recently, and I'm overwhelmed by the complexity of the subject. If anyone can contribute to this subject but don't feel like creating an account, you can put what you know in a comment, or write paragraphs to be added in the comments, preferably with sources

Comrades, [ProleWiki](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/ProleWiki:About) is a project that began in September 2020 in which we use MediaWiki, the same software that Wikipedia uses, to create a collaborative encyclopedia on [Marxism-Leninism](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) in particular and [Marxist thought](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Marxism) in general. We began with just a few [Lemmygrad](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Lemmygrad) comrades and articles, and grew to up to 1,041 pages and more than 10,468 edits inside our wiki in less than two years. We are happy to be growing after all these years, however, we haven't been able to achieve the true potential of this project, and we believe we can grow it further. During this time, we have learned that ProleWiki can not only be a great resource for those who are new to Marxism-Leninism, but also a resource to deepen our studies. By sharing our knowledge, we make sure that it never ends on us, and thus, making sure our ideas survive, transforming individual knowledge into collective knowledge. We learn by seeing others' contributions, improving their articles, and critiquing them in a comradely manner when necessary. Developing the articles motivate us to research and annotate the sources of our claims, which invariably improves our knowledge on the subject, while leaving the sources open for a critical review of the information presented. In our era, we are still presented with the historical task of overcoming [exploitation](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Capitalism) in our society and achieving a [social system capable of providing the material needs to fulfill the potential of all human lives](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Communism), irrespective of race, gender, nationality and other identities. This is why we need to unite our efforts in studying and developing an accessible understanding of Marxism, so that this knowledge becomes available to more people until this historical task becomes evident to the working class, and class struggle can reach newer grounds. For this purpose, we are reaching to comrades from [GenZedong](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/GenZedong_(subreddit)) so that the community can [create an account](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Special:CreateAccount) if they wish to do so, and share their thoughts both here and [inside ProleWiki](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/ProleWiki:Critique) (if you have an account), or in the [ProleWiki community](https://lemmygrad.ml/c/prolewiki) in Lemmygrad, how we can grow ProleWiki's efforts. Hasta la victoria, siempre!

~trans.~ > *There are only two options: \ **Bolsonaro** | **Communism** \ Honesty  | Stealing (corruption, perhaps?) \ Progress  | Backwardness \ Freedom  | Slavery \ Wealth   | Hunger \ \ God, Fatherland and Family. \ It's your choice* Meanwhile, the people are poor and hungry. More than half of our population (~100 million) face food insecurity, and more than 19 million are in hunger. The people are in extreme debt, facing evictions, unemployment and poverty, which fuels crime. There are criminal factions growing stronger, which are in practice capitalist enterprises employing terrorism with their own mercenaries, and they are supported by large international private banks. There are millions in sub-employment under large corporations which exploits their workers like slaves, kids as young as 14 years old are working traveling full kilometers in a bicycle carrying food for a middle class consumer who ordered something on an app, in return of 5 reais per kilometer, which can't even pay a full meal. Meanwhile the Congress are trying more and more to pass bills which would "flexibilize" the contract between employers and employees, in essence, trying their best to legalize this slavery That's it – Corruption, backwardness, slavery and hunger. So, following the "reasoning" of this propaganda piece, Brazil is definitely a communist country

Brazilian Integralism was a huge mass movement of fascists led by Plínio Salgado in the 1930's. Also Integralism was a position defended by Action Française at some point. Action Française was considered the first fascist movement in France, preceding fascist movements in Italy and Germany

This is one work ([link](http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9C3F8ADB9A7B2B671D1F7D861589CF89)) that made me more critical about China. It contains a series of excepts of speeches made by Xi Jinping around 2012–2013. Most of the initial speeches are just a constant repetition of something along the lines of "over the years, the reforms have been successful, this is why we need to deepen reform and opening up". But what does "deepening reform" mean? You can't tell from the first pages alone, since different speeches contain the same sentences over and over. But more and more, it becomes clear what "reform and opening up" mean: > *Making sure that the market plays the decisive role in allocating resources and that the government plays a better role is a major theoretical stance set forth in the resolution of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee. This is because economic structural reform is still the focus of comprehensively deepening reform, and the core issue we face in economic structural reform is still how to delineate the roles of the government and the market.* [...] \ \ > *Economic growth requires more efficiently allocating resources, especially scarce resources, so that minimal resources can be used to maximize production and benefits. Both theory and praxis prove that the allocation of resources by the market is the most efficient means to this end. It is a general rule of market economies that the market determines the allocation of resources. In essence, a market economy is one in which the market allocates resources. To improve our socialist market economy, we must follow this general rule in our efforts to establish a robust market, control excessive government intervention, and address insufficient government oversight. The decision to let the market play the decisive role in allocating resources will help the entire Party and all of society to develop a correct understanding of the roles of the government and the market. It is also conducive to transforming the growth model and government functions, and to reining in corruption and other forms of misconduct.* Xi Jinping speaks very positively of the market economy as efficient, and that government intervention is negative. He echoes this view when talking about state-owned enterprises: > *State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are an important force for modernizing China and protecting the common interests of the people. After many years of reform, SOEs have, on the whole, assimilated themselves into the market economy. However, these enterprises have also developed a number of problems and flaws in their systems, so they need to be further reformed.* By "further reformed", again, becomes clear once you keep reading it: > *The resolution of this session incorporates multilevel reform measures to encourage, support and guide the development of the non-public sector, and to stimulate its dynamism and creativity. [...] With regard to property rights protection, it makes it clear that the property rights of the non-public sector are inviolable just as those of the public sector. With regard to policy treatment, it stresses ensuring equal rights, opportunities, and rules for businesses in both sectors, and implementing a unified market access system. It also encourages non-public enterprises to contribute to SOE reform, encourages the development of mixed-ownership enterprises **in which private capital holds a majority stake**, and encourages qualified private companies to establish modern corporate structures. All this will promote the healthy development of the non-public sector.* The book is TL;DR: No matter what is the situation, we must comprehensively deepen reform. Deepen reform, and reform depths, until reaching ultimate depths of capitalist hell. P.S.: As an interesting note, I recently found out this quote by comrade Kim Jong-un, in his [report to the 7th Congress of the WPK:](http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=9C3F8ADB9A7B2B671D1F7D861589CF89) > *Our Party resolutely overpowered the imperialists and crushed their outrageous pressure and challenges by responding with the tougher countermeasure of wielding a sword when the enemy were drawing a knife and levelling a cannon when they were pointing a gun. With the spirit of the arms of Songun it raised a shield to the **indecent wind of bourgeois liberalism and “reform” and “opening-up”** blowing in from around us, allowing us to advance straight ahead along the road of socialism, as we chose.*

100 ANOS DE LUTA E COMPROMISSO COM A CLASSE TRABALHADORA A UNIDADE CLASSISTA, corrente sindical do Partido Comunista Brasileiro (PCB), saúda e comemora o centenário do mais importante operador político da classe operária brasileira. O Partidão, como ficou popularmente conhecido ao longo da história do Século XX, foi organizado a partir da inspiradora Revolução Russa, comandada por Vladimir Lenin e os Bolcheviques, construindo o primeiro Estado Operário e implantando o socialismo, formando a União das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas (URSS) em 1917. Com essa revolução que abalou o mundo e apresentou a classe trabalhadora à possibilidade de mudar os rumos da história, foi organizado e fundado no dia 25 de março de 1922 o Partido Comunista Brasileiro. O Partido Comunista Brasileiro – Seção Brasileira da Internacional Comunista (PCB-SBIC) passou menos de 05 meses de vida legal logo após a sua fundação. Porém, mesmo com todas as adversidades, o Partidão seguiu seu compromisso com a classe trabalhadora, organizando em 1930 o Bloco Operário e Camponês (BOC), apresentando o operário negro Minervino de Oliveira como candidato a presidência da república. Ao longo do Século XX o Partidão enfrentou a ditadura Vargas, fundou sindicatos de operários e também no campo, impulsionou greves, prestou solidariedade e foi uma das forças internacionalistas do continente sul americano. Foi o grande impulsionador pela “Campanha do Petróleo é Nosso” e corresponsável pela criação da Petrobrás. O PCB lutou pelas liberdades democráticas durante o período da Ditadura Militar em 1964-1985, foi fundamental na construção do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), garantindo a universalização do atendimento. Mas nem por isso o PCB deixou de sofrer forte repressão ao longo de sua história, tendo seus militantes perseguidos, torturados e mortos. Não podemos esquecer que a repressão contra esse operador político é uma marca traumática na história do PCB, pois dos seus 100 anos de existência, 61 anos foram na mais dura clandestinidade (1922 a 1945 – 23 anos) e (1947 a 1985 – 38 anos). Porém, com erros e acertos o Partidão nunca tergiversou sobre o propósito de construir a revolução brasileira e criar o poder popular para a classe trabalhadora. A UNIDADE CLASSISTA (UC) é uma experiência recente na vida política do PCB. A UC foi fundada em 2012 e é parte da estratégia do PCB para retomar a inserção na classe trabalhadora, sendo um operador político que vai influenciar de forma qualitativa as lutas operárias nessa quadra histórica. A UC faz parte constitutiva do processo de Reconstrução Revolucionária do partido, reafirmada no XVI Congresso (Outubro de 2021). A UNIDADE CLASSISTA SAÚDA O CENTENÁRIO DO PARTIDÃO E ENCERRA COM O TRECHO DO POEMA DE FERREIRA GULLAR “O PCB não se tornou o maior partido do Ocidente nem mesmo do Brasil. Mas quem contar a história de nosso povo e seus heróis tem que falar dele. Ou estará mentindo.” (Poema de 1982, por ocasião dos 60 anos do velho Partidão, fundado em 25 de março de 1922) In Memoriam de Lúcio Bellentani – Militante comunista, operário em fábricas do ABC paulista, onde foi dirigente metalúrgico In Memoriam de Laudelina de Campos Melo – Militante comunista, fundadora do primeiro sindicato de trabalhadoras empregadas domésticas do Brasil. In Memoriam de Oswaldo Pacheco – Militante comunista, estivador do Porto de Santos (SP), também foi presidente da Federação Nacional dos Estivadores.

They have no interest in dialogue, and they have been consistently attacking us, our communities, and harassing our members. Let's use this post to share threads which we could intervene with comments, not attacking anyone but by unironically responding to their arguments, engage with each other's comments, upvoting, imperializing EnoughCommieSpam into becoming a new GenZedong. This will piss off many anti-communists and we will have fun in the process. It's a win-win.