I'm skeptical about the anti-colonial movement ideologically. While it claims to strive towards independence, it also tends to coincide with right wing nationalist movements among former colonies.
I remember reading a write up about this in the case of India. The claims of the British impoverishing the subcontinent of X trillions of dollars came originally from the Marxist anti-colonial camp but were then taken up by the Hindu nationalist movement.
>>2156164Hamas isn’t the MB though?
I’m not pro-Hamas in any way, but your claim isn’t true.
>>2156216 (Me)
Hello???? Anyone?
>>2156093there have been multiple national liberation movements which have adopted Communist-aligned factions against Imperialist and Colonialist governments- prime examples being the PFLP, the PKK, and even the PRC and the Yugoslav Communist party.
However, in regards to all of them- there are also opressed nations of people who also sell out to bourgoise powers and wish to maintain a form of capitalist relations- from Iraqi Kurdistan, the KM/ Taiwan and the Chetniks. There is a difference between bourgoise nationalists and revolutionary nationalists.
I'd recommend reading Franz Fanon's wretched of the earth for further information:
https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/fanon/pitfalls-national.htm>>2156168They were deliberately overthrown and robbed of resources- look no further than the congo or Burkina Faso. In spite of having a socialist elected as a president and a deliberate attempt to nationalise their mineral rich lands- they were assassinated, overthrown and had their resources seized by foreign capital, keeping them in a state of under-development and poverty.
how is any of this a "fault of the environment"? Have you read the book that this woman holds in her hand?
>>2156093>right wing nationalist What do you mean by right wing?
My immediate assumption is that you mean nationalism is right wing, which would be in contradiction with national liberation being historically progressive, which makes it left wing.
>>2156330True, and such ideas can turn into a vulgar anti-imperialism, with even organisations like Hezbollah being responsible for the deaths of Lebanese marxist activists.
I think a thing which communists need to consider is that siding with nationalists is a double edged sword- yes, you may remove the imeprialist entity, but if you don't deal with the reactionary elements you're primed for an inevitable civil war.
Honestly, I'd say this- make revolutionary socialism and nationalism liberations indistinguishable and get that idea fermented in the masses. This will lead to getting a one up over your usual nationalists in so far that you will have land reform and communal ownership as a given when a communist party occupies an area- prime example: Cuba, Rojava, China.
Once that's done, any reactionary elements of the bourgoise or so-called nationalist economic parties and their policies which may be left lingering are easier to expose and/or combat.
>>2156229>I'm a commieCould've fooled me
>I really hate nationalism and religion<So I'm fine with a group being genocided because they happened to be religious and their anti-imperialism has a nationalist tone with it.<I hate thatYou would be laughed at in any communist meeting. I can see how. I can see how ultras ended up trying to justify destroying the USSR during the 1930s and 40s.
>>2156093>I remember reading a write up about this in the case of India. The claims of the British impoverishing the subcontinent of X trillions of dollars came originally from the Marxist anti-colonial camp but were then taken up by the Hindu nationalist movement.What the fuck are you talking about? The modern Hindutva movement has nothing to do with Indian independence. India was ruled for decades after independence by the Indian National Congress, sometime in a popular front with Communists on a regional level, a fairly progressive party, that established positive rights in the constitution (almost all European states still don't have this) and central planning under Nehru. Close ally of the USSR as well.
If anything, the modern BJP is probably more apologetic about colonial times than the INC, considering how much they suck Israel's dick.
South Africa same story, the ACP is not a right-wing party.
Secondly, nationalism in the global south can be progressive and is almost always an element of national liberation, because those coalitions are likely also including the petty bourgeoisie and sometimes the national bourgeoisie against the imperialists and the comprador bourgeoisie. If is often the communists who have the longest breath here, which is why so many African and Asian countries had nominally Marxist-Leninist governments are the won the anti-colonial struggle. You might confuse this with "post-colonial studies" which sometimes says shit like "kill the whiteness inside you", but that doesn't mean you shouldn't support anti-colonial struggles lol
>>2156533Moscowite Russians are pretty much Europeans you retard. I'm not the one who wants to balkanize Russia when "Sibiria" is not homogenous entity - if a Sibirian nation wants independence you can ask them, in my experience they are even more Russian nationalists than people from Moscow or Saint Petersburg.
Or are you an American/Canadian/Australian desperately trying to project the complete genocide by your state against the indigenous on Russia and China? Because even in tsarist times Russia never anything disgusting like that.
>>2156534 (me)
Also, non-ethnic Russians are often more supportive of the SMO than the former, especially Muslims and people from the Far East
>>2156534>Moscowite Russians are pretty much Europeans you retard.Barely. Russia is a fake country with fake artificial "russian ethnicity" being colonial overlords to rest of the hundreds of actual real ethnicities and peoples.
>I'm not the one who wants to balkanize Russia when "Sibiria" is not homogenous entity Where did I claim this sibiri whatever is homogenous? At least balkanized Russia would anti-colonialist like you liberals like countries to be.
>>2158012>I would like to know which decolonial movement has led to socialism, like actual socialism not "government doing things" socialism. Not so very many. A lot of times, these "people's democratic republics" called themselves that as a way to align with the Soviet Union, but the stuff on the page about socialism had as much to do with reality as U.S.-allied regimes during the Cold War calling themselves liberal democracies or whatever they did. Or they were led in many cases by junior officers who came to power because they had the support a few hundred armed men, like Gaddafi, which is not especially socialist. Also Marx presupposed a highly industrialized and civilized society to make socialism, and there's a strong case that a lot of societies which have attempted it (or said they were going to) lacked the material and political conditions to live up to that.
But I don't know if this is the right way to look at it either. Like the framing "does this help socialism or not?" Like, decolonization happened, y'know? Major transformation throughout the world happened but it's impossible to see how it's all going to end up when it's going on, and it was also paradoxical in many ways. Then it seems inevitable when it does happen.
Also, people don't say "third world" anymore because it no longer exists. People say "global south" to distinguish it from U.S./Europe/Japan. (People tend to say "third world" as a pejorative when they encounter something really fucked up and backwards – like "this is like a third-world country!") But there are countries that used to be really poor and feudal that are now mega-millionaires by global standards like the UAE. South Korea used to be a third-world country. Is Brazil a third-world country? Maybe parts but there are huge megacities there and factories. The Workers' Party (PT) emerged in the 80s with a base in a motor city with communist militants and factory-floor union organizers like Detroit in the 1930s.
So why did decolonization? The answer is massive population growth. You introduce modern technology, medicine, and transport to really poor countries of subsistence farmers, suddenly the birth rates start to shoot up. And they kept going up faster than the economic and political structures could keep up. And there was no way Britain was going to rule a billion Indians. It's just not possible. So you get Nigeria and India and China (although China really tried to control its population). But you look at India, it's just unbelievable, and you start to think "this place is just way too overcrowded." But everyone has a phone. These Peruvians have a drone filming them and they're putting it on YouTube, and they have electronic instruments, but what was it like out there in Andes mountains in the 1950s? Or 1910? Probably pretty primitive.
>The fetish for the rebel fighter, like in Star Wars, has blinded the vast majority of leftists. Seriously, how has the Taliban taking over help international socialism?Doesn't seem like it has. It's just that modernization of what used to be called the third world was not universally received with approval. Especially in the Islamic countries, there have been fundamentalist movements which just flat-out don't like the modern world. And that appears to be pretty reactionary to me.
>>2158012>I would like to know which decolonial movement has led to socialismVietnam, China, Cuba, DPRK, Laos, Yugoslavia, Albania. All of these were socialist at least for a time before the global counterrevolution of 1989-1991. Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Angola and a few other African states had ML governments though I don't know enough about them to comment on how far they got in terms of actually building socialism. Arguably Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua too if you regard them as being on a path to socialist construction.
>Decolonialism is where socialism goes to die because the abolition of the bourgeois nation-state, open borders, free association, and the elimination of all class distinctions now just becomes "Blood and soil! Ethnostates are good!"It's not that at all. Are you actually aware of the reasoning behind communist support for anti-colonial movements? Lenin identified imperialism as the form taken on by capitalism in its finance-monopoly stage, creating a contradiction between the imperialist and colonized nations that dovetailed with the contradiction between labour and capital. This made them natural allies. Plus most post-colonial socialist states were not ethnostates, frankly I can't think of any that were.
>Seriously, how has the Taliban taking over help international socialism? Because weakening US imperialism damages its ability to crush communists globally as well as its ability to keep control of its own population at home. The Taliban aren't going to topple a socialist government on the other side of the world, the US will.
>Typically, some ultra-orthodox religious ruling class which is even worse.Typically? Wtf are you even talking about? Most post-colonial states were not theocracies, especially during the Cold War when most anti-colonial movements were secular. The predominance of religious anti-imperialist movements is A) mostly confined to the Islamic world and B) a relatively recent phenomenon.
>>2158163>It seems now it isn't a sound strategy.Why not? Where the struggle for socialism and the struggle for national liberation coincide, communists should aim to lead both of them no? If the national liberation struggle fails and a country remains under the control of a comprador bourgeoisie then it can't become socialist. Anti-imperialism is a prerequisite for socialism.
>>2158167>They will topple one on their side of the world tho.They won't be able to do so nearly as effectively. They have no power projection. Think of it this way: If the Americans had won in Afghanistan then there would be no socialism there, but America's ability to crush socialism across the region and the world would be strengthened. If the Taliban win then there is still no socialism in Afghanistan, but the Taliban can't do really do anything to suppress socialism across the region.
>>2156093Picrel, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”, is genuinely good Marxist theory, not anti-colonial literature, it gets a pass because it’s easy to pretend it’s about black people and not the development of capitalism via the global market.
Also, anti-colonialism should never take precedence over communism, anti-colonialism is not the same thing as pro-socialism, you can be anti-colonial but pro-capitalist, hence why most of these people, despite opposing the West, will shill anti-western capitalist ruling classes.
>>2158198> Anon if you don't think any ML states achieved any form of socialism then you're asking the wrong questionI think there’s only a single form of socialism, and that involves the working class abolishing its conditions of existence. I proudly spit in the face of any MLoid that champions socialist wage labor, socialist commodities, socialist top down management, socialist industrialization, and all the other nonsensical obfuscations spewed by you shitlibs in red paint.
“Oh, but the achievements of industry, the modernization of the country, the electrification, mass literacy, WELFARE” indeed, praise the bourgeoisie and the unions and the bureaucrats. What the fuck does this have to do with how anyone other than Ferdinand fucking Lasalle would define “socialism”?
> Instead of asking why no anti-colonial movements ever achieved socialism you should maybe concern yourself with why no socialist movements ever achieved socialismMLs cannot provide a worthwhile strategy once one examines the reasons, since all they truly offer is the pathetic worship of historical failures and attempt to produce apologetics in defense of said failures in a sad attempt to feel vicariously strong through purely ideological proximity.
> ML definitely wasn't perfect but it was by far the closest we've ever gottenAnd it’s canards like this wherein MLs reveal that, at their core, they’re nothing but cynical liberal defeatists in red paint. If you faggots don’t actually think socialism is meaningfully separate from capitalism, purely by how you choose to “understand” it, and promote historical failures that failed on every ground other than entirely redefining socialism to mean “state led industrialization, state-led capital accumulation, state-led production” why in the fuck do you feel emotionally attached to any of this?
> Maybe I'd take non ML socialists more seriously if they had a viable alternative to point to but they don't, so I'll stick with the one tendency that actually managed to implement a planned economy and marginalized private property, wage labour, and generalized commodity production.Literally just
<I already accept socialism is impossible, so I’ll take things that aren’t socialism and call them socialism so I can feel goodIf this is what you think, just embrace liberal capitalism ya retarded fag, since it came entirely out on top while the system you stroke off to as the only “approach” truly capable of “defeating” capitalism (by doing it better until it turned out they actually couldn’t do it better lmao) utterly fucking failed
<<My failure failed less than whatever failure I project onto you!Wow what a stunning argument
Even liberals have more faith in their political project, weak bitch
>>2158210>I think there’s only a single form of socialism, and that involves the working class abolishing its conditions of existence.That's a totally not vague answer. Thanks comrade.
You're unhinged rambling is really irritating so I'm gonna try to focus the conversation a bit for you and narrow it down to two questions.
>Does socialism require the abolition of wage labour, generalized commodity production, private property, and market anarchy?>Were these things achieved by ML states?My answer to these questions is yes and yes, ergo ML came the closest to abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism, even if they still had a long way to go. Why don't you tell me why you disagree with my answers to one or both of those questions.
>>2158210>I think there’s only a single form of socialism, and that involves the working class abolishing its conditions of existence. I proudly spit in the face of any MLoid that champions socialist wage labor, socialist commodities, socialist top down management, socialist industrialization, and all the other nonsensical obfuscations spewed by you shitlibs in red paint. This is being a little excessive. The Soviet Union was basically modeled on a WWI-style total war economy. That's not particularly socialist but Lenin and those guys saw it as a potential basis for socializing production. But put yourself in their galoshes in the 1920s and 1930s and the lead-up to World War II. That's the context in which this kind of system emerged and existed for awhile. You have militarized economy with a militarized party that runs it like a military command and control system. That played a role in the collapse because they tried to reform the economy while also downgrading the party command structure (as the reformers saw entrenched interests in the party as blocking reform) which was like pulling the brain out of a robot. It doesn't work very well. It's like having an army without a headquarters.
But that's how it was. Also, being a cadre in these ML parties was expected to be a lifelong commitment. If the party told you to do something or go somewhere, you did it. You might have been required to sacrifice your life like a soldier in a war. Just abandoning or position or not following orders is like treason. Even in Western countries where there were these parties, the party could tell you "don't date that woman" because she's not a party member (and thus a potential spy) and you would break up with her. That's how they thought.
>>2158236> This is being a little excessive. The Soviet Union was basically modeled on a WWI-style total war economyLove the immediate answer
Yea no shit, MLoids are fucktards that literally think socialism is when war economy
> That's not particularly socialist but Lenin and those guys saw it as a potential basis for socializing productionWell looks like that assumption turned out to be completely wrong?
> But put yourself in their galoshes in the 1920s and 1930s and the lead-up to World War II.Why the fuck does this matter to me in 2025? This is the problem with MLoids and MLoid-adjacents, they actually think apologetics for failure is a meaningful, worthwhile use of their time.
>>2158227> That's a totally not vague answer. Thanks comradeIt’s only “vague” because in your rotten empty fucking skull a system can have every single aspect of the Capital system of production save private capitalists themselves and, having every other feature of this system aside the single private actor, is called “socialism” because “hey they tried!” It’s idealism to the highest degree, only surpassed by the dengoid belief that socialism is something to be built in the future presumably based on a state development plan that has to use the fucking market to boot LMFAO
> You're unhinged rambling is really irritating so I'm gonna try to focus the conversation a bit for you and narrow it down to two questionsNah I just repeatedly ask MLs what separates them from any other liberal and thus far the answer is always that they don’t like the West
> My answer to these questions is yes and yes, ergo ML came the closest to abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism, even if they still had a long way to go. Why don't you tell me why you disagree with my answers to one or both of those questions.I think apologetics for failure is pathetic, weak, even vile. It shows all Marxism-Leninism amounts to, after its utter outcompeting by more stable capitalist arrangements that didn’t rely on telling proletarians their exploitation and alienation as wage laborers was cool because it was “socialist wage labor”, is the limp-wristed attempt by powerless westoids to feel a tiny bit strong by their support for, uhhh, utter failure. “They came the closest to abolishing capitalism!” What in the everloving fuck does this even mean? Abolishing capitalism….where? Do you mean they industrialized in places not yet fully integrated into western-style capitalism? The even more cynical position that they just happened to hold state power for a set period of time you find commendable? I think MLs follow a failed pathetic joke of an ideology that starts from the standpoint that abandoning or revising every single objective of the socialist movement for the purpose of “controlling a government”; they take pride in telling non-MLs, unironically, with their chest out, that 10*0 may equal 0, but 1*0 has a number lower than 10 in it! “Uhhh we got further than anyone else”, in what? Creating an entirely new form of insufferable social democrat?
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) >>2158263You named several things the Soviet Union did, in fact, possess, vaguely claimed they were “working towards abolishing them” (FUNNY HOW THAT TURNED OUT, HMM) and doubled back to the actual pathetic stance of MLism, namely, “I am too much of a cowardly worm to admit I am trying to construct something fundamentally new, I need a historical model of success to justify my own opposition to capitalism” jfc just vote for a democrat at this rate!
Funny to see “market anarchy” on there, when monopolization tends to strangle said market anarchy without any pretense of that being socialism either.
Some of your argument is actually funny in how aggressively nonsensical they are, how in the fuck was wage labor “marginalized” in the Soviet Union for instance? Please tell me your answer isn’t price fixing, lmao!
>>2158274>You named several things the Soviet Union did, in fact, possessIn what sense? They may have existed in the small margins, but that doesn't make them capitalist. They existed in marginalized forms under feudalism too. The vast majority of the means of production were in the hands of the state, especially after Khrushchev nationalized most of the collective farms, therefore they had marginalized private property. They produced goods for use according to state plans, distributed by state stores with no structural imperative of profitability, therefore they had abolished generalized commodity production. Workers received what they put into the economy with necessary deductions made to maintain/expand the means of production and support those who could not work, national defense, etc. This conforms to the system of socialist remuneration described by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program. This was all carried out according to a national plan, abolishing market anarchy and distribution.
>vaguely claimed they were “working towards abolishing them”No I'm saying that they either succeeded in abolishing them or else rendering them so marginal that they couldn't be called definitive features of the economy.
>Funny to see “market anarchy” on there, when monopolization tends to strangle said market anarchy without any pretense of that being socialism either. Market distribution might have been a better term. The point is goods were not distributed by individual producers operating independently for their own sake, but state producers distributing as the national plan dictated.
>>2158279So your main argument is that it wasn't socialism because there wasn't sufficient direct democracy? Is that correct?
>>2158284> In what sense? They may have existed in the small margins, but that doesn't make them capitalist. They existed in marginalized forms under feudalism tooMy retarded friend
What in the fuck does it mean, they were, “in the margins”?
Since we both know MLoids actively pretend socialism and communism are separate things, I won’t even ask you if production was done in accordance with need, I will just ask, were workers compensated via labor vouchers, or money wages that would circulate back into the economy? Did the working class (notice how in every MLoid “socialist” regime the working class continues to exist?) collectively decide upon production and distribution, or was this decided upon by state functionaries MLs generally use as a shoddy substitute for the working class? I already notice your explanation of what “socialism” is in your next sentence retardedly conflates state ownership with “socialism”.
Actually, damn dude, everything you replied here is a pretty perfect demonstration of how none of the shit MLoids promote is socialist. Lmao, like holy fuck, you may as well just openly state socialism is whatever you want it to be, or more accurately, when the government does things. What a joke.
Just look at this shit?
> The vast majority of the means of production were in the hands of the state, especially after Khrushchev nationalized most of the collective farms, therefore they had marginalized private property. They produced goods for use according to state plans, distributed by state stores with no structural imperative of profitability, therefore they had abolished generalized commodity production. Workers received what they put into the economy with necessary deductions made to maintain/expand the means of production and support those who could not work, national defense, etc. This conforms to the system of socialist remuneration described by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Program. This was all carried out according to a national plan, abolishing market anarchy and distribution. And with a vague appeal to religious text at the end, fuckin Christ is substitutionism a powerful drug.
Quite literally
>It was socialist because the state owned things, the workers may have been waged laborers having their surpluses accumulated by politically prominent cliques that determined what was their “fair contribution to society” for which they were “compensated”, a bunch of shit about how stupid proles needed a state to develop society the proper way lmaoMLs are so boring to talk to because they begin most conversations by openly stating they think socialism is impossible and want to drag you into feeling so emotionally attached to fallen societies that you join them in mutually pretending things that are not socialism, such as state ownership and wage labor, actually are. Talking to you feels almost the exact same as talking to a liberal anticommunist. Mate how in the fuck did the USSR even determine what was needed and what the “proper” prices for products were? Do people like you even have an explanation for why this society reintegrated with the West that doesn’t amount to “something something
jews”? Does the eternal operation of the law of value not matter at all to vulgar economic determinists such as yourself?
> Market distribution might have been a better term. The point is goods were not distributed by individual producers operating independently for their own sake, but state producers distributing as the national plan dictated. Based, glad to know socialism actually has nothing to do with the proletariat itself, as we be knowing, the state is the subject of history, Ferdinand Lasalle, welcome back ❤️
>>2158290And it’s the new sycophancy to China that signals MLoids are all but ready to stop pretending they are literally anything other than liberal nationalists that just wanna kill their neighbors
>>2158325>What in the fuck does it mean, they were, “in the margins”?It means they only operated on a very small scale and had very little influence on the lives of the vast majority of people.
>Since we both know MLoids actively pretend socialism and communism are separate thingsI mean that's already there in Marx man, he draws a distinction between higher and lower stages. The only difference in Lenin's usage of those terms is semantic not conceptual.
>I will just ask, were workers compensated via labor vouchers, or money wages Money, but not wages since there was no private appropriator or imperative of profitability. The failure to abolish money was one of their shortcomings to be sure, but that alone doesn't create capitalism.
>Did the working class… collectively decide upon production and distributionYes. Workplaces generally operated on a highly egalitarian bases and managers and workers would frequently collaborate on relatively equal footing. Policy at higher levels was determined through extensive consultation with the general public and monitoring of public opinion. Not quite a formal democracy I would say, but it had sufficient mechanisms to make the state generally representative of the interests of workers, giving it a democratic content which is more important. I would argue that the absence of a formal democracy doesn't make a state un-proletarian any more than the absence of bourgeois democracy makes a state un-bourgeois.
>It was socialist because the state owned thingsState ownership doesn't equal socialism, but it is a prerequisite.
>the workers may have been waged laborers They were not. You can't have wage labour without any appropriation of the surplus by a private actor. Under your logic anything less than being paid the full value of your work without any deductions would be wage labour, which is a Lasallean notion that Marx debunked.
>accumulated by politically prominent cliquesThey didn't. Party apparatchiks didn't pocket surpluses from state industries, as shown by the very low levels of inequality between the richest and poorest Soviet citizens. Almost all of it was either reinvested in production or spent on the needs of the population (e.g. healthcare, housing, infrastructure, etc.). More importantly, accumulation was not an internal structural imperative of the economy. A capitalist economy will collapse if it cannot grow indefinitely, the Soviet economy did not need to be profitable to function as normal.
>Do people like you even have an explanation for why this society reintegrated with the West that doesn’t amount to “something something jews”? Misguided reforms in response to slowing growth led to the emergence of a proto-bourgeoisie that saw the Soviet system as an impediment to their interests. Frankly if you were correct then the Soviet Union probably never would have dissolved in the first place. According to you the whole thing was a scheme by managers and bureaucrats who took on the role of capitalists. If that was the case then why did they feel the need to put an end to it?
>>2158373How about you
Maybe you’d stop being a Stalinist
Nah I’m sure you’d probably race to the legitimate canon promoted by the USSR long before half of Marx’s works got translated
The sooner every stalinist gets placed in a hole the better for our movement 🤧
>>2158446>Wow, seethe more loser, seethe as I cling to the ideology defeated utterly by Western imperialism before I was even born because the thought of revolution terrifies me and I’m desperate to feel strongI have a decent solution to Stalinism
It’s called suicide
>>2158351*Higher stage communism is impossible unless communists command the world economy.
China's on track to achieve that by 2075.
If you see a more expedient means, like say having your own communist revolution or just imploding so the timetable moves up that would be nice.
Such a simple concept – Everything is a process, strictly speaking, there are no concrete things.
Communism, like any concept doesn't actually exist in reality.
All the purists / ultras etc. can be summed up, in the last instance, as failing to understand this.
>Being asked questions regarding this or that, he resorts to verbal contortions, to eel-wriggling: ‘I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not.’ -Buddha
>Nowadays many people are calling for a transformation to a national, scientific and mass style. That is very good. But "transformation" means thorough change, from top to bottom and inside out. Yet some people who have not made even a slight change are calling for a transformation. I would therefore advise these comrades to begin by making just a little change before they go on to "transform", or else they will remain entangled in dogmatism and stereotyped Party writing. This can be described as having grandiose aims but puny abilities, great ambition but little talent, and it will accomplish nothing. So whoever talks glibly about "transformation to a mass style" while in fact he is stuck fast in his own small circle had better watch out, or some day one of the masses may bump into him along the road and say, "What about all this 'transformation', sir? Can I see a bit of it, please?" and he will be in a fix. If he is not just prating but sincerely wants to transform to a mass style, he must really go among the common people and learn from them, otherwise his "transformation" will remain up in the air. There are some who keep clamouring for transformation to a mass style but cannot speak three sentences in the language of the common people. It shows they are not really determined to learn from the masses. Their minds are still confined to their own small circles.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_07.htmWar is bad and love me, I'm a liberal: An exercise in futilityI think what I'm gonna do is, I'll stitch together some old posts. Apologies if you heard this one before. This discussion is very much exhausted. The premise is a distraction, as we can see there is no end to it. Maybe you cannot drag the western leftoid into becoming something fundamentally different, else it would have to be put down anyway.
Whether Putin actually "believes" multipolarity constitutes progress is of course immaterial. Whether the CPC actually "believes" in communism is immaterial. Playing a several decades spanning prank on 1.4 billion and 8 billion people respectively just seems an absurd notion to me. Strictly speaking I am agnostic. But therein is all the difference. How do you take the third option?
At this point, I'll break a lance for western liberals. I will lay out why they are preferable to the third camp of both-siders and whatnot.
I tried to play this game (of trotskyism, or whatever) with my left-liberal friends. I said concerning ukraine-russia, I am against countries (as well as war of course) in general. They weren't too impressed. One of them even said they are against the existence of countries as well but it's a cheap and meaningless answer (don't I know it). So I don't know who this whole song and dance is for. This is all to say it's funny to be on the other side of this. I don't think people (even westerners) are as stupid as trots (etc.) believe them to be. I prefer standard liberals to this eel-wriggling western "left". More honest.
There is no third position between empire and imperialized. Even liberals understand this simple reality. We may see it in humanity's future, the promised land, Shangri-La, but that's purely speculative, not actionable or realistic even. So understandably, most people are not very impressed by talk of a perfect communist state (of rapturous bliss). Have you noticed that you are not moving anything even an inch by engaging in this level of discussion? There is no talking to the puritan western faux-communist, that's really all there is to it. Their position, such as it is, is something purely born out of their rather desperate need for self-aggrandizement. It's very much akin to generic conspiracy theory (which goes something like: there's the elite and the sheeple and me, the chosen one). It's all twisted religiosity.
Everything is a process, strictly speaking, there are no concrete things. Communism, like any concept doesn't actually exist in reality. All the purists / ultras etc. can be summed up, in the last instance, as failing to understand this. To someone like that, the pure trot, who thinks "there is only capitalism and communism", which easily translates to: nothing anyone does matters (Zeno's paradoxes, nothing can ever happen), other people aren't even real. Like they don't have a real life. The proletariat is some funny abstraction that must bring about communism because they (the "Zeno's paradox ultras" for lack of a better term) will it. I think the theory of brainwashing is insufficient. There is always some level of collaboration if you fail to see the most basic conditions of reality. Being incurious is not something that is just a fact of life.
See also:
https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/https://blackagendareport.com/western-marxism-loves-purity-and-martyrdom-not-real-revolution>>2156214>hamas was funded by israel against the plo and the communists not so long agoFirstly, the PLO are literally the armed police of the Zionist entity, they're a puppet regime armed by the Zionists, they have no democratic mandate or legitimacy, they're an occupation force. Secondly, the only communists in Palestine (PFLP and DFLP) both support Hamas' leadership of the Palestinian Resistance and they agree with me that the Palestinian Authority are Zionist puppets.
Hamas have overwhelming support from Palestinians, including in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority have been violently suppressing an uprising of Palestinians in Jenin who want to open up a second front in the war against the Zionist entity.
Are you also one of those people who claim that Oct 7 was a false flag, and not a glorious victory of the Palestinian people?
>Hamas is an off shoot of mb which was funded by the actual nazis You understand that just because nazis fund something doesn't mean that thing is nazi. You literally admit they did it to undermine british colonialism and zionism. nazis partially funded the Red Army Faction in the 1970s, no one would deny that the Red Army Faction were anti-fascist despite this (>inb4 Hort Mahler)
>>2161914Religious ideology will never liberate the masses.
>>2156143Terrorism, pograms, leech off Palestinians
>>2170495This post mentions rape and buttfucking way too much
You alright little bro?
Unique IPs: 66