Communism and Socialism megathread

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I wish there was a social democratic political party in the usa that was as popular as its European counterparts

Same here. I fight for Social Democratic ideals in the Democrats, but if you (understandably) see that as a losing cause, then there's a third party option. No power to speak of, but at least they're there.

[Constantinopolis]

I wish there was a social democratic political party in the usa that was as popular as its European counterparts

I wish there was a social democratic political party in Europe that still advocated social democracy, as opposed to Austerity Lite. But there isn't.

Americans who look up to European social democracy are about 40 years out of date. European social democracy hasn't made any progress since the 1970s. Yes, many European countries have all sorts of social democratic measures in place, but these were all passed before 1980 and have simply continued up to the present day. The European left has been on the defensive - just trying to protect what we already have, not pushing for anything new - since before most of us were born.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I wish there was a social democratic political party in the usa that was as popular as its European counterparts

I wish there was a social democratic political party in Europe that still advocated social democracy, as opposed to Austerity Lite. But there isn't.

Americans who look up to European social democracy are about 40 years out of date. European social democracy hasn't made any progress since the 1970s. Yes, many European countries have all sorts of social democratic measures in place, but these were all passed before 1980 and have simply continued up to the present day. The European left has been on the defensive - just trying to protect what we already have, not pushing for anything new - since before most of us were born.

And we have less than that over here. Look, we're not 40 years out of date. We're far more out of date than that. We don't even have serious Social Democratic policies to have a backlash against, so they're going after meager programs that we do have!

[Constantinopolis]

I wish there was a social democratic political party in Europe that still advocated social democracy, as opposed to Austerity Lite. But there isn't.

Americans who look up to European social democracy are about 40 years out of date. European social democracy hasn't made any progress since the 1970s. Yes, many European countries have all sorts of social democratic measures in place, but these were all passed before 1980 and have simply continued up to the present day. The European left has been on the defensive - just trying to protect what we already have, not pushing for anything new - since before most of us were born.

And we have less than that over here. Look, we're not 40 years out of date. We're far more out of date than that. We don't even have serious Social Democratic policies to have a backlash against, so they're going after meager programs that we do have!

The Grand Compromise of social democracy - keeping a basically capitalist society while introducing serious social safety nets, protections for workers' rights, and free services like healthcare and education - was only possible because the capitalists were afraid of communism during the 20th century, and decided to protect themselves against communist revolution by giving the working class a better deal. "Workers of the world... have some nice stuff from us and please don't rebel, mmmkay?" That was the principle at the heart of social democracy.

But now that the prospect of world revolution has receded, the capitalists are not afraid any more, and they see no reason to continue upholding the Grand Compromise. The deal is off. We can't have social democracy any more.

So the 21st century will be like the 19th. Free-market capitalism, robber barons, massive inequality and injustice. It is coming. In many places it's already here. We can't stop it.

But what we CAN do is pave the way for the inevitable revolutionary backlash against free-market capitalism. Just as the socialist movement rose in the second half of the 19th century, it will rise in the second half of the 21st, as well. And at the end, a new age of revolutions will come, just as it did in the early 20th century. Only this time, there can be no half measures. This time, we have to win.

There can be no permanent compromise with the capitalists. Social democracy is only a temporary ceasefire in the class war. In the end, there can be only victory or defeat.

And that is why I'm a communist and not a social democrat. There is no hope for the immediate future, but if we play our cards right, world capitalism can be defeated by the year 2100.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And we have less than that over here. Look, we're not 40 years out of date. We're far more out of date than that. We don't even have serious Social Democratic policies to have a backlash against, so they're going after meager programs that we do have!

The Grand Compromise of social democracy - keeping a basically capitalist society while introducing serious social safety nets, protections for workers' rights, and free services like healthcare and education - was only possible because the capitalists were afraid of communism during the 20th century, and decided to protect themselves against communist revolution by giving the working class a better deal. "Workers of the world... have some nice stuff from us and please don't rebel, mmmkay?" That was the principle at the heart of social democracy.

But now that the prospect of world revolution has receded, the capitalists are not afraid any more, and they see no reason to continue upholding the Grand Compromise. The deal is off. We can't have social democracy any more.

So the 21st century will be like the 19th. Free-market capitalism, robber barons, massive inequality and injustice. It is coming. In many places it's already here. We can't stop it.

But what we CAN do is pave the way for the inevitable revolutionary backlash against free-market capitalism. Just as the socialist movement rose in the second half of the 19th century, it will rise in the second half of the 21st, as well. And at the end, a new age of revolutions will come, just as it did in the early 20th century. Only this time, there can be no half measures. This time, we have to win.

There can be no permanent compromise with the capitalists. Social democracy is only a temporary ceasefire in the class war. In the end, there can be only victory or defeat.

And that is why I'm a communist and not a social democrat. There is no hope for the immediate future, but if we play our cards right, world capitalism can be defeated by the year 2100.

Yeah, I just don't see that happening. The thing about revolutions is that they're messy, bloody, hugely unpredictable, and the biggest assholes on the winning side tend to end up in charge once all is said and done.

[Edgy Opinions]

And we have less than that over here. Look, we're not 40 years out of date. We're far more out of date than that. We don't even have serious Social Democratic policies to have a backlash against, so they're going after meager programs that we do have!

The Grand Compromise of social democracy - keeping a basically capitalist society while introducing serious social safety nets, protections for workers' rights, and free services like healthcare and education - was only possible because the capitalists were afraid of communism during the 20th century, and decided to protect themselves against communist revolution by giving the working class a better deal. "Workers of the world... have some nice stuff from us and please don't rebel, mmmkay?" That was the principle at the heart of social democracy.

But now that the prospect of world revolution has receded, the capitalists are not afraid any more, and they see no reason to continue upholding the Grand Compromise. The deal is off. We can't have social democracy any more.

So the 21st century will be like the 19th. Free-market capitalism, robber barons, massive inequality and injustice. It is coming. In many places it's already here. We can't stop it.

But what we CAN do is pave the way for the inevitable revolutionary backlash against free-market capitalism. Just as the socialist movement rose in the second half of the 19th century, it will rise in the second half of the 21st, as well. And at the end, a new age of revolutions will come, just as it did in the early 20th century. Only this time, there can be no half measures. This time, we have to win.

There can be no permanent compromise with the capitalists. Social democracy is only a temporary ceasefire in the class war. In the end, there can be only victory or defeat.

And that is why I'm a communist and not a social democrat. There is no hope for the immediate future, but if we play our cards right, world capitalism can be defeated by the year 2100.

This also sums up my views.

As much as I'm not for revolutionary movements as a rule... The other side is constantly oppressing us and sucking our blood dry in their class self-interests. I don't see it as aggression, but as self-defense.

[Constantinopolis]

The Grand Compromise of social democracy - keeping a basically capitalist society while introducing serious social safety nets, protections for workers' rights, and free services like healthcare and education - was only possible because the capitalists were afraid of communism during the 20th century, and decided to protect themselves against communist revolution by giving the working class a better deal. "Workers of the world... have some nice stuff from us and please don't rebel, mmmkay?" That was the principle at the heart of social democracy.

But now that the prospect of world revolution has receded, the capitalists are not afraid any more, and they see no reason to continue upholding the Grand Compromise. The deal is off. We can't have social democracy any more.

So the 21st century will be like the 19th. Free-market capitalism, robber barons, massive inequality and injustice. It is coming. In many places it's already here. We can't stop it.

But what we CAN do is pave the way for the inevitable revolutionary backlash against free-market capitalism. Just as the socialist movement rose in the second half of the 19th century, it will rise in the second half of the 21st, as well. And at the end, a new age of revolutions will come, just as it did in the early 20th century. Only this time, there can be no half measures. This time, we have to win.

There can be no permanent compromise with the capitalists. Social democracy is only a temporary ceasefire in the class war. In the end, there can be only victory or defeat.

And that is why I'm a communist and not a social democrat. There is no hope for the immediate future, but if we play our cards right, world capitalism can be defeated by the year 2100.

Yeah, I just don't see that happening. The thing about revolutions is that they're messy, bloody, hugely unpredictable, and the biggest assholes on the winning side tend to end up in charge once all is said and done.

I don't disagree.

I just think free-market capitalism is inevitably coming, and some violent backlash is going to follow it. We can't stop either one of those things from happening. There WILL be free-market capitalism, and it WILL end in a bloody mess of some kind (see also: World War One). We just have to make the best of it, and ensure that the inevitable violence will include successful communist revolutions across the world, so that we don't have to go through the entire cycle a third time.

If we don't have communist revolution, we're not going to have peace. We'll just have different forms of widespread violence instead.

[Constantinopolis]

The Grand Compromise of social democracy - keeping a basically capitalist society while introducing serious social safety nets, protections for workers' rights, and free services like healthcare and education - was only possible because the capitalists were afraid of communism during the 20th century, and decided to protect themselves against communist revolution by giving the working class a better deal. "Workers of the world... have some nice stuff from us and please don't rebel, mmmkay?" That was the principle at the heart of social democracy.

But now that the prospect of world revolution has receded, the capitalists are not afraid any more, and they see no reason to continue upholding the Grand Compromise. The deal is off. We can't have social democracy any more.

So the 21st century will be like the 19th. Free-market capitalism, robber barons, massive inequality and injustice. It is coming. In many places it's already here. We can't stop it.

But what we CAN do is pave the way for the inevitable revolutionary backlash against free-market capitalism. Just as the socialist movement rose in the second half of the 19th century, it will rise in the second half of the 21st, as well. And at the end, a new age of revolutions will come, just as it did in the early 20th century. Only this time, there can be no half measures. This time, we have to win.

There can be no permanent compromise with the capitalists. Social democracy is only a temporary ceasefire in the class war. In the end, there can be only victory or defeat.

And that is why I'm a communist and not a social democrat. There is no hope for the immediate future, but if we play our cards right, world capitalism can be defeated by the year 2100.

This also sums up my views.

As much as I'm not for revolutionary movements as a rule... The other side is constantly oppressing us and sucking our blood dry in their class self-interests. I don't see it as aggression, but as self-defense.

I completely agree. Basically, the way I see the future is this:

The movement towards free-market capitalism (a movement currently known by the name "neoliberalism") will continue in one form or another for many decades. This will create increasing discontent among the working class, pushing people towards radical ideologies of all kinds (NOT just left-wing ones!), as well as increasing rivalry between the leading capitalists, pushing them towards military confrontations. Eventually, some time in the second half of the 21st century, things will come to a head, and there will be a period of widespread violence and war (hopefully not an actual world war, but rather many small regional wars and civil wars at the same time). When this time of instability comes, we - meaning communists and revolutionary leftists of all kinds - will have our chance to end capitalism once and for all. We have to prepare for that day by building large, well-organized political movements and parties committed to the idea of revolution, so that we can win when the time comes. If we don't win, the cycle will just repeat again, and we'll have to wait another 100-150 years for a realistic chance to end capitalism.

[The New Sea Territory]

Why? Marxist theories have failed.

Irony: Saying that the most popular and far-reaching anti-capitalist movement in the modern world has "failed", while your own ideology doesn't even have an organized movement behind it, and is supported by almost no one.

First, Marxism isn't a movement. It's a collection of various ideologies, which each have their own movements. Trotskyism and Stalinism aren't in the same movement.

Secondly, Left-wing market anarchism is a relatively new ideology.

Third, popularity doesn't change history nor does it make any Marxist theory any more valid in the modern day.

Last, what do you mean by " "failed" "? Marxism has most definitely failed to bring about radical, positive social change. You can thank anarchists for the labor movement, and Marxists for the Berlin Wall.

[Constantinopolis]

Irony: Saying that the most popular and far-reaching anti-capitalist movement in the modern world has "failed", while your own ideology doesn't even have an organized movement behind it, and is supported by almost no one.

First, Marxism isn't a movement. It's a collection of various ideologies, which each have their own movements. Trotskyism and Stalinism aren't in the same movement.

Fair enough.

Secondly, Left-wing market anarchism is a relatively new ideology.

Sure, your own personal form of anarchism is a relatively new ideology in the same way that my own personal form of Marxism is a relatively new ideology. But I don't pretend I re-invented the wheel just because I'm not 100% the same as past Marxists, and you shouldn't pretend you re-invented the wheel just because you're not 100% the same as past anarchists.

Third, popularity doesn't change history nor does it make any Marxist theory any more valid in the modern day.

I never said it did.

However, popularity is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for changing the world.

Last, what do you mean by " "failed" "? Marxism has most definitely failed to bring about radical, positive social change.

Is this some kind of joke? You are aware that both social democracy and revolutionary communism are ultimately descended from Marxism, yes? And they were the two major left-wing movements (or families of movements, if you prefer) of the 20th century. So, in fact, ALL of the positive social change of the last 100 years was carried out by either Marxist or ex-Marxist or Marxist-inspired political movements.

You can thank anarchists for the labor movement, and Marxists for the Berlin Wall.

Oh, I see now. You're not joking, you're just engaging in outrageous historical revisionism.

Anarchism has not been a major force in world politics since the end of the First World War, and the last time it was relevant at all was in 1936. That's almost 80 years since the last time anarchists did anything important, and about 100 years since anarchists were at the forefront of the labor movement.

[Kubra]

Irony: Saying that the most popular and far-reaching anti-capitalist movement in the modern world has "failed", while your own ideology doesn't even have an organized movement behind it, and is supported by almost no one.

First, Marxism isn't a movement. It's a collection of various ideologies, which each have their own movements. Trotskyism and Stalinism aren't in the same movement.

Secondly, Left-wing market anarchism is a relatively new ideology.

Third, popularity doesn't change history nor does it make any Marxist theory any more valid in the modern day.

Last, what do you mean by " "failed" "? Marxism has most definitely failed to bring about radical, positive social change. You can thank anarchists for the labor movement, and Marxists for the Berlin Wall.

So uh
Marx and marxism were around since before trotsky and stalin were even born, bruh.
And come to think of it, the labour movement was around before all of them. Before Proudhon, as well.

[Camelza]

And we have less than that over here. Look, we're not 40 years out of date. We're far more out of date than that. We don't even have serious Social Democratic policies to have a backlash against, so they're going after meager programs that we do have!

The Grand Compromise of social democracy - keeping a basically capitalist society while introducing serious social safety nets, protections for workers' rights, and free services like healthcare and education - was only possible because the capitalists were afraid of communism during the 20th century, and decided to protect themselves against communist revolution by giving the working class a better deal. "Workers of the world... have some nice stuff from us and please don't rebel, mmmkay?" That was the principle at the heart of social democracy.

But now that the prospect of world revolution has receded, the capitalists are not afraid any more, and they see no reason to continue upholding the Grand Compromise. The deal is off. We can't have social democracy any more.

So the 21st century will be like the 19th. Free-market capitalism, robber barons, massive inequality and injustice. It is coming. In many places it's already here. We can't stop it.

But what we CAN do is pave the way for the inevitable revolutionary backlash against free-market capitalism. Just as the socialist movement rose in the second half of the 19th century, it will rise in the second half of the 21st, as well. And at the end, a new age of revolutions will come, just as it did in the early 20th century. Only this time, there can be no half measures. This time, we have to win.

There can be no permanent compromise with the capitalists. Social democracy is only a temporary ceasefire in the class war. In the end, there can be only victory or defeat.

And that is why I'm a communist and not a social democrat. There is no hope for the immediate future, but if we play our cards right, world capitalism can be defeated by the year 2100.

Hey you think communists in our current society will be vastly different from social democrats? Because frankly, some of us actually tried, helped and voted a fucking eurocommunist party to power. Hell, most people still haven't realised what actually happened here.
But truth is they can't do shit because of the constitution, which can't be altered before 2017 even if a majority is secured(P.M Samy passed a constitutional ammendement that makes rabid constitutional change impossible a little before he got the sack, what a dick).
But the more important thing is that even if they could I don't think they would.

[Constantinopolis]

The Grand Compromise of social democracy - keeping a basically capitalist society while introducing serious social safety nets, protections for workers' rights, and free services like healthcare and education - was only possible because the capitalists were afraid of communism during the 20th century, and decided to protect themselves against communist revolution by giving the working class a better deal. "Workers of the world... have some nice stuff from us and please don't rebel, mmmkay?" That was the principle at the heart of social democracy.

But now that the prospect of world revolution has receded, the capitalists are not afraid any more, and they see no reason to continue upholding the Grand Compromise. The deal is off. We can't have social democracy any more.

So the 21st century will be like the 19th. Free-market capitalism, robber barons, massive inequality and injustice. It is coming. In many places it's already here. We can't stop it.

But what we CAN do is pave the way for the inevitable revolutionary backlash against free-market capitalism. Just as the socialist movement rose in the second half of the 19th century, it will rise in the second half of the 21st, as well. And at the end, a new age of revolutions will come, just as it did in the early 20th century. Only this time, there can be no half measures. This time, we have to win.

There can be no permanent compromise with the capitalists. Social democracy is only a temporary ceasefire in the class war. In the end, there can be only victory or defeat.

And that is why I'm a communist and not a social democrat. There is no hope for the immediate future, but if we play our cards right, world capitalism can be defeated by the year 2100.

Hey you think communists in our current society will be vastly different from social democrats? Because frankly, some of us actually tried, helped and voted a fucking eurocommunist party to power. Hell, most people still haven't realised what actually happened here.
But truth is they can't do shit because of the constitution, which can't be altered before 2017 even if a majority is secured(P.M Samy passed a constitutional ammendement that makes rabid constitutional change impossible a little before he got the sack, what a dick).
But the more important thing is that even if they could I don't think they would.

You're absolutely correct about Syriza.

However, Syriza isn't a communist organization. It's a broad left-wing coalition that includes communists but is not led by them. Also, Syriza campaigned on a basically social democratic platform, not a radical one, let alone a revolutionary one. In the 1960s and 70s Syriza's electoral platform would have been advocated by mainstream social democratic parties. If Syriza's platform looks radical today, that is only because everyone else has moved so fucking far to the right.

Also, "eurocommunism" isn't communism. It's just plain old social democracy, as it stood in the 1970s, except under a different name because all of the official social democratic parties have become neoliberal. Syriza is precisely what PASOK used to be, two generations ago... so don't be surprised if it ends up the same as PASOK.

[Edgy Opinions]

You're absolutely correct about Syriza.

However, Syriza isn't a communist organization. It's a broad left-wing coalition that includes communists but is not led by them. Also, Syriza campaigned on a basically social democratic platform, not a radical one, let alone a revolutionary one. In the 1960s and 70s Syriza's electoral platform would have been advocated by mainstream social democratic parties. If Syriza's platform looks radical today, that is only because everyone else has moved so fucking far to the right.

Also, "eurocommunism" isn't communism. It's just plain old social democracy, as it stood in the 1970s, except under a different name because all of the official social democratic parties have become neoliberal. Syriza is precisely what PASOK used to be, two generations ago... so don't be surprised if it ends up the same as PASOK.

I still cry when I think that the Greeks managed to vote for their PSOL, though. In Brazil that would never happen.

Communism as we define it won't be born again before shit actually hits the fan.

[Constantinopolis]

The lesson I draw from the failure of Syriza is the same lesson I draw from the decline of social democracy: All these leftists are trying to compromise with capitalism, to find a middle way, to avoid a stark choice between free-market capitalism and full-blown socialism (with nationalizations of the means of production).

But such a compromise is simply not possible any more. There is no middle way. There is no room to negotiate. Either surrender to the capitalists or nationalize their property. Those are the only options. If you're going to form a leftist government, you can either go all the way or go home.

[Edgy Opinions]

The lesson I draw from the failure of Syriza is the same lesson I draw from the decline of social democracy: All these leftists are trying to compromise with capitalism, to find a middle way, to avoid a stark choice between free-market capitalism and full-blown socialism (with nationalizations of the means of production).

But such a compromise is simply not possible any more. There is no middle way. There is no room to negotiate. Either surrender to the capitalists or nationalize their property. Those are the only options. If you're going to form a leftist government, you can either go all the way or go home.

The thing is left-wing class coups will never be a thing while people are mildly comfortable by consumerism.

Much on the contrary. If we attempt anything unorthodox, what we will get will be a pre-made right-wing class coup right after us.

[Camelza]

Hey you think communists in our current society will be vastly different from social democrats? Because frankly, some of us actually tried, helped and voted a fucking eurocommunist party to power. Hell, most people still haven't realised what actually happened here.
But truth is they can't do shit because of the constitution, which can't be altered before 2017 even if a majority is secured(P.M Samy passed a constitutional ammendement that makes rabid constitutional change impossible a little before he got the sack, what a dick).
But the more important thing is that even if they could I don't think they would.

You're absolutely correct about Syriza.

However, Syriza isn't a communist organization. It's a broad left-wing coalition that includes communists but is not led by them. Also, Syriza campaigned on a basically social democratic platform, not a radical one, let alone a revolutionary one. In the 1960s and 70s Syriza's electoral platform would have been advocated by mainstream social democratic parties. If Syriza's platform looks radical today, that is only because everyone else has moved so fucking far to the right.

Also, "eurocommunism" isn't communism. It's just plain old social democracy, as it stood in the 1970s, except under a different name because all of the official social democratic parties have become neoliberal. Syriza is precisely what PASOK used to be, two generations ago... so don't be surprised if it ends up the same as PASOK.

You're right regarding Syriza's platform.
However, you're wrong in a few facts of yours, allow me to illustrate.
First of all Syriza is not a coaliation ever since 2012 and even then it was "The Interiors and their petty unimportant trotskyist allies".
The leading caucus of the party is that of "Synaspismos", which is the direct descendant of KKE-interior; the anti-stalinist communists, Synaspismos still exists as a caucus and claims to be Communist, Feminist and Radical in its ideological declaration. The party opposition is led by the radical trotskyists of Lafazanis(Minister of Energy)known as "Left Current" and only a very small minority (I think they have five MPs combined) is non-communist; DIKKI(Democratic Socialists) and EDIK(Social liberals <3).
To conclude; they talk like communists, they actually support communism and know what it is(not the fake Stalinist state-socialist kind), many of them even came from KKE(Tsipras even), but they can't change anything radically because the people that voted them didn't vote them as the (ideologically at least) communists they actually are, but as meek social democrats that would stop further decay.
Communists can't do shit without popular support and that's a proven fact in history, so they compromised and adopted a social liberal/social democratic way of governance. I personally don't have the slightest problem with it, since I'm not a communist.

They're communists that were forced to go keynesian and let's call it a day.

The lesson I draw from the failure of Syriza is the same lesson I draw from the decline of social democracy: All these leftists are trying to compromise with capitalism, to find a middle way, to avoid a stark choice between free-market capitalism and full-blown socialism (with nationalizations of the means of production).

But such a compromise is simply not possible any more. There is no middle way. There is no room to negotiate. Either surrender to the capitalists or nationalize their property. Those are the only options. If you're going to form a leftist government, you can either go all the way or go home.

The thing is left-wing class coups will never be a thing while people are mildly comfortable by consumerism.

Much on the contrary. If we attempt anything unorthodox, what we will get will be a pre-made right-wing class coup right after us.

^This exactly.

[Socialist Tera]

Who here is actually willing to discuss some Marxist theory with me?

[United North Atlantic States]

Who here is actually willing to discuss some Marxist theory with me?

Sure! I would love to. I have a few of my own in fact…

[United North Atlantic States]

Social democracy and democratic socialism are overrated.

If you're gonna be a socialist, at least be consistent about it and go full-scale Marxist.

Why? Marxist theories have failed.

What's your point? Can you name an economic ideology that hasn't failed? Besides, Marxism has failed in the past because humans were allowed to control it, and humans are fucking stupid.

Social democracy and democratic socialism are overrated.

If you're gonna be a socialist, at least be consistent about it and go full-scale Marxist.

"If you're going to have vegetables on your burger, at least be consistent and go full-scale vegan."

I'm pretty sure that the reasoning behind putting together a meal is far removed from the reasons for which people favor certain economic theories over others.

[Socialist Tera]

Who here is actually willing to discuss some Marxist theory with me?

Sure! I would love to. I have a few of my own in fact…

What is your opinion on the time Unity, struggle, unity?

[United North Atlantic States]

Sure! I would love to. I have a few of my own in fact…

What is your opinion on the time Unity, struggle, unity?

Oh, I can't do it right now though. I have to go; I'll be back in 8 to 9 hours. Sorry!

[Noraika]

I was hoping that someone here could direct me to some good sources or literature regarding the works of Friedrich Engels, which I am trying to better inform myself of. Does anyone know of any good places to look, or any particular pieces of literature I should prioritise?

[Bolnoa]

From totalitarian Socialism to Anarcho Capitalism. Somalia really jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Somalia is not anarcho-capitalist, and to say it is would be equally as dumb as saying Sweden is socialist.

As a guys who visited the nation. I am pleased to say that it practically is like it previously was 5 years ago and before...Ya visited the place yet?

[Constantinopolis]

I was hoping that someone here could direct me to some good sources or literature regarding the works of Friedrich Engels, which I am trying to better inform myself of. Does anyone know of any good places to look, or any particular pieces of literature I should prioritise?

Well, Marx and Engels are almost always lumped together to such a degree that it's very hard to find a list of works by Engels alone. Even the Marxists Internet Archive has a combined list of the most important works of Marx and Engels rather than any separate lists for each of the two authors alone. But still, I think that's where you should start.

Off the top of my head, some of the most important works authored by Engels alone include:

The Principles of Communism
The Condition of the Working Class in England
Anti-Dühring
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy