redtea

You're supposed to sit in those ones, though, so it doesn't splash.

evidence reveals that Hezbollah members continued to live under the kindergartens in the territory that they were supposed to leave.

Unfortunately, you and I are the soft landing.

I'm an optimist but this is wildly optimistic!

Well, if he didn't stop at Berlin…

Good points. A few rejoinders. Not to disagree so much as to expand on what you're saying.

I'm unsure if it's accurate but the quote is dated 1975, when the USSR was still a world power. Not that I disagree with the principle, though. I'd say communism begins with (or begins to emerge alongside) workers organising against capital. It's a long process, which can be divided into stages.

Then fascism is the reaction to worker organisation. Again, it's a process that can be split into stages.

From this perspective, the October revolution is the first time that workers were organised to such an extent that they could expell capital from a state. As such, it requires a more extreme reaction from capital, which must utilise states of its own. We see a complete restructuring of Germany, Italy, Spain, to prevent their own revolutions. I.e. capital's reaction to Marxism-Leninism.

As for today, as workers continue to resist capital, the forces of reaction continue to push back. Marxism-Leninism has been contained to a few countries for now. But the fascists are waiting in the wings to protect capital if progress towards communism increases pace.

In the meantime, many fascist practices have simply been built in as a prophylactic. So much so, that it's been naturalised and assimilated into vanilla liberalism.

Maybe Fidel's is colourful language where 'fascism' may need to be replaced with 'forces of reaction' in some places. The overall sentiment seems true.

Anyway, this is where I agree with you: reaction turning into fascism is intended to re-secure capitalism after it faces certain shocks.

What do you mean by communism?

What about Christopher Hill's Lenin and the Russian Revolution? Less than 200 pages, all in. Published by a reputable publisher, which would likely have required a review process. Hill was an historian. Not sure if it's more about Lenin than the revolution but it's worth a skim. I think there is a pdf available if you search the right places. At the least, it could give you some other sources to look through.

As you mention the need to use peer reviewed books—how are you making sure the requirement is meet? The trouble with monographs is that they don't go through the same kind of 'peer review' as articles or (most of the time) chapters in edited collections. Have a look at the requirements for authors on Verso, Pluto Press, and e.g. Harvard UP for examples of what publishers ask for. You don't want to be setting yourself a threshold that nobody really meets.

Edit: one way of finding a suitable book would be to search for you terms in your university library to find articles on the topic. List the authors (there probably won't be many). One of the authors might have published a book on the same topic that isn't obviously about gender/sexuality in the revolution but covers it in depth in a chapter or two.

I'm sure they'll make you work for it lol

But you are right.

It's not a textbook, if that's what you mean.

Open it, ctrl+f your search terms.

If it's not what you're after, I may have other suggestions but it depends on what you're after/why Imperialism isn't helpful.

E.g. are you just after an account of corporate forms? An intro into companies? An explanation of how companies extract wealth from workers? Or how northern companies extract wealth from the global south? A history of the development of companies? A discussion of the role of companies in colonialism? An analysis of the relationship between companies and the state? Info on the role of the state in setting roles on stocks/shares purchases and transfers?

I'd say the bulk of Marxist texts cover private companies in some way. What is it exactly that you want to know?

Have you read Imperialism by Lenin?

That's the thing, Russia cannot de-escalate unilaterally. De-escalation requires both sides to want it. We know that neither NATO nor the current Ukrainian leadership want peace. They want everything else, no matter how unrealistic or unreasonable but they don't want peace. That doesn't give Russia much room. It's options are to capitulate or continue matching the escalatory moves.