/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

It's one thing to call China revisionist but to call it fascist is so mind bogglingly retarded that nothing else you say matters because only a moron could ever reach that conclusion.

>anti-revisionist
>upset people won't change their minds
Lol

>gore and CP spam
You know it doesn't reflect well on you when you do that, revisionist dog.

>>2885798
>>2885837
No it isn't projection, I openly apologise if I say something I later realise is wrong, and have made whole threads in the past self-critisizing. I am a namefag so you can even validate this. And you don't even know how I act IRL.

>>2885794
is there a right for anti-revisionist parties to be active in China?

>>2885845
What makes you feel entitled to talk shit without getting hit?

If I'm a premier and see any gaggle of armchair fucks calling themselves "The True Communist Party", they're all getting killed.

>>2885843
anon have you considered that what you call revisionism is just adapting to the material conditions? Marxism isn't a dogma, but a constantly evolving science
the only true revisionism is abandoning class struggle which Chyna very much haven't

The problem is anti revisionists haven’t produced a mechanism to keep any given party on the proper path. Mao undermined his own Cultural Revolution and literally the minute Hoxha died the PPSH went revisionist and self liquidated. There’s flaws in the mechanics of the party form itself but I’m not literate enough to articulate them or present a positive alternative, for that I’m sorry.

>>2885882
>haven’t produced a mechanism to keep any given party on the proper path
what is le trve prvper path?

>>2885887
Repressing the bourgeois, advancing towards classlessness and moneylessness, dissolving the division of labor and “the economy” writ large. I’m not an ultra in the sense that I think any one nation state or even a continent by itself can accomplish in one or two five year plans.

>>2885878
Excerpt from an essay I wrote:

The main theoretical ground of Chinese revisionism is that the world is not ready for communism and that they cannot achieve it themselves, only sitting by passively for the worldwide revolution to happen. They think with enough economic development, China will become the most powerful country in the world, and socialism will come to exist peacefully. This is a lot like Eurocommunism. To think Communism will inevitably come about like the rapture is mechanistic materialism, where the contradictory parts inside a system are not acknowledged. Communism is not inevitable. This is a rightist theoretical failure which Stalin describes as too much faith in the workers to endure capitalist conditions while continuing to have socialist consciousness.

Predicting the future is beyond us scientifically. Even if we knew how, it would take an enormous computer to simulate all the electromagnetic fields and molecules and atoms needed to predict with good accuracy the future course of human civilisation (let alone know anything with perfect certainty, because then you’d have to simulate the universe). By studying the past we can predict ourselves that Communism will be the next stage in Human history. But we can’t know it. History is made by all the people on the Earth, and their decisions make historical social forces that inform the decisions of everyone in the future. People are made by their material reality, but what makes history is people, not an abstract historical process that resolves automatically. It certainly will, but how exactly it does so is up to us!

The roaders claim that socialism in China is impossible due to capitalist encirclement. This goes against the theory of socialism in one country – in fact, in a lot of ways the arguments of revisionists are the same as left-communists. The heart of Chinese theoretical revisionism is that of Bukharin, who was both a rightist and ultra-leftist. Left-communism and rightism are linked in a lot of ways, especially so when it comes to the theoretical defence of China, where both agree that socialism cannot actually be built in the modern day. Socialism in one country is so important because people are made by their environment. If you run a capitalist state for 40 years you will become capitalist yourself. Only if you believe individuals are not informed by their material conditions can you claim that it is possible to run a state capitalist country without turning into a capitalist yourself. The CPC even encouraged their members to be capitalists!

The bourgeois counter-revolution is often likened to the NEP, but they could not be any more different. China’s analogy to the NEP was the period of New Democracy, where elements of the national bourgeois were accepted in order to develop the country to a modern standard. These policies were correct in their time period for achieving modernisation and completing capitalism, but they were always temporary, and once they were completed industry in both countries skyrocketed, with socialist economy proving more efficient. China was already a modern country in an industrial and social sense by the 1970s. For example, GDP growth between 1963 and 1978 was 7.5. Calories per day increased from just over 1800, to 2400. In the 1930s, infant mortality was 300 per 1000. In 1978 it was 30 per 1000. Life expectancy drastically increased (Chris Brama, Chinese Economic Development pp. 286-315). Industry modernised, and the Unlike the NEP and New Democracy, the “reform and opening up” was historically, socially and economically unnecessary.

When the roaders won, they ended the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and abandoned class struggle. Class struggle is the primary contradiction in socialism. The roaders overturned this after taking power in 1976. The 1981 resolution concretely states their abandonment of class struggle as the primary contradiction. The primary contradiction that they found was not the threat of imperialism (which is dubious considering the strength of China’s position even before any collaboration with the West, where only a joint invasion by both the U$ and the U$$R could defeat them), but, as Xi Xingping put it in the 19th National Congress, “the contradiction between the people's ever-growing need for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development”. That is not a Marxist understanding of the contradictions at play.

The bourgeois state of China is closest to fascism than any other label. It uses socialist rhetoric while being economically capitalist. There is a large state sector which is run for profit, with the bourgeois being brought under control of the party. The workers union is for stability, not for class struggle. The only country it can be compared to in its economic inequality is America. It is an imperialist country. Class struggle is completely rejected while socialist imagery remains, which is a famous aspect of capitalism. That being said, it is not worse than the U$A – they are both massive imperialist countries who are responsible for the deaths of millions each year through social murder. It is probably most similar to social-fascist countries like Denmark.

>>2885890
>Repressing the bourgeois, advancing towards classlessness and moneylessness, dissolving the division of labor and “the economy” writ large
How is China not doing this
>kills the bourgeoisie when step out of line
>proletarization of mental work via AI
>cashless society, functional labor tokens (nationalization + plan = money as labor token)
>peasants are dying out and what remains become proles

>>2885894
>The only country it can be compared to in its economic inequality is America. It is an imperialist country. Class struggle is completely rejected while socialist imagery remains, which is a famous aspect of capitalism. That being said, it is not worse than the U$A – they are both massive imperialist countries who are responsible for the deaths of millions each year through social murder. It is probably most similar to social-fascist countries like Denmark.
delusional take

>>2885894
never attack in a free-for-all

>>2885894
The problem with your essay is that it fails to acknowledge that Mao himself ended the “Mass Phase” of the cultural revolution by 1967, more then a decade before his death and called on the PLA to break up the Shanghai Commune. Mao himself let Deng Xiaoping and other capitalist roaders back into the parry who had been previously exiled. It was Mao that de facto allied China to US imperialism against the revisionist bloc which ended in US hyper imperialism we’re still living through.

I do and don't agree with you. I really don't feel like getting that deep into the China subject because it is rather unrelated to the rest of the world. They've chosen to isolate themselves from the world, as is their history. They don't interfere with any other country's politics and they don't allow anyone to interfere with theirs. What difference does it make whether they are revisionists or not? They're not going to ally with you anyway, your opinion has 0 possible effect on Chinese society. No Chinese people are going to read what you have to say.

Here is the real redpill though. Everything you complain about Deng started under Mao. Very ironic to be bitching about capitalist roaders when that was Maoism all along.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d194
>Chairman Mao: (Pointing to Dr. Kissinger) “Seize the hour and seize the day.” I think that, generally speaking, people like me sound a lot of big cannons. (Chou laughs.) That is, things like “the whole world should unite and defeat imperialism, revisionism, and all reactionaries, and establish socialism.”

<President Nixon: Like me. And bandits.

>Chairman Mao: But perhaps you as an individual may not be among those to be overthrown. They say that he (Dr. Kissinger) is also among those not to be overthrown personally. And if all of you are overthrown we wouldn’t have any more friends left.

>>2885901
To say it was all Mao is to act like he was a great leader above everyone else who made all the decisions alone. The active phase of the GPCR ended because PLA threatened Mao and the red guards. Mao still supported the GPCR and in the year of his death took a leftwards turn.

But Mao must be criticised for his inaction and nihilism in this period. The revolutionary leadership had transitioned from him to the "gang of four". He should have said they were in charge and Jiang Qing should have ran the country - the fact that he didn't do this is a major stain against him.

>>2885903
Kind of but kind of not. As I said earlier in my post Mao was kind of forced onto a bad line / became nihilistic, but he also still kept up class struggle and I wouldn't say China became bourgeois under him since there was still revotionaries.

>>2885903
China does intervene though, during the height of the Nepali civil war both China and India threatened to restore the monarchy by force unless Prachanda agreed to abandon the PPW and become a liberal politician

>>2885905
Part of it is any military is hierarchical and thus a breeding ground for right wing politics, but surely you acknowledge that Mao allowed rightists control of the PLA and this was part of his own self undermining, assuming the GCPR wasn’t a cynical ploy from the start.

>>2885910
Your ideology has exactly one military victory that ended up creating neoliberal apartheid in Ethiopia

>>2885909
Yeah kind of, but also Mao had his hands tied. The roaders brought up generals like Peng Dehuai and it's not like Mao could just remove him.

>>2885910
I would go on about Hoxha being a dogmato-revisionist but I do respect Albania it's just Hoxha was completely wrong and stupid in the way he criticised the GPCR and Mao.

>>2885915
Were guys like Peng usually KMT turncoats? I feel like if that was true it should’ve overridden any other question in their appointment

>>2885917
The biggest ideological win for Hoxhaism is Hoxhaist guerrillas inspiring Hugo Chavez to do left populist revisionism. The others ended in the worst neoliberal regimes in Africa.

The PCP should be criticised for upholding the theory of three worlds, which is a revisionist theory. The PCP claimed that the theory itself wasn't bad since it was written by Mao, and instead it was Deng who was twisting it to be reactionary. It is understandable in a way because it posits both the Soviet Union and America were the 1st world countries who were the main imperialists. But really, it was the PCP who were twisting a bad idea into something workable for Maoists. The Theory of Three Worlds was really a Dengist theory that Mao should never have said. It fails because it acts like only a couple of countries are the real imperialists. But that then ignores countries like the UK and France who are still major imperialist powers as folding them into the "2nd world". 3 worlds theory is bad.

>>2885787
>I hate revisionists
Save your hate for the class enemy. Most allies before maoism were revisionist at some point and can always fall back into it. The true revisionists to hate are the ones within one's party that arise to dismantle the revolution. Online revisionists and the revisionists of already revisionist parties are just people to refute with theory and practice.
>They have completely ossified mindsets and won't ever change their minds
Some can and will, others probably will not. Never stop refuting them regardless, calling out thier disasterous errors. It is result of those deadly errors that we all live within the darkness of today.

>>2885787

mf sporting a sendero luminoso flag, a movement so brilliant as to concentrate all strategic decisions on a stupid fat ass uygha. Mf was looking at chinese propaganda hailin Mao as the super mega leader and unironically thought it was true

>>2885894
>The main theoretical ground of Chinese revisionism is that the world is not ready for communism and that they cannot achieve it themselves, only sitting by passively for the worldwide revolution to happen.
You're already wrong from the first sentence. Try again.

>>2885962
I know was just frustrated last night

People in this thread are starting to get on my nerves. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (gonzalo-thought) is the most highest socialism has ever developed to, but nothing is good enough. China is never going to return to socialism, because guess what? It's literally not in their interests, they are having a economy gold-rush right now and will succumb to the same struggles every other capitalist society has had, CHINA REJECTS THE IDEA OF PEOPLES CULTURAL REVOLUTION. which is the only way for revisionism to fully get stomped. I swear to god most people in this thread are retarded and every time Ive tried to tell this to people they either ignore me and completely just fail to know what the fuck I am talking about in the first place. SO TELL ME, dear "pro-xi" people, how will china go back to socialism if the party itself doesn't even acknowledge it? just buzz word after buzz word. when 2050 comes around I can't wait to see how fucking wrong all of you guys were.

ITT:

>>2886273
China opening up literally sabotaged proletarian struggle everywhere, it matters, stop being localist

>>2886273
this is the most retarded quote ever attributed to people who simply identify in some way with socialist or communist figures, eat shit.

>>2886273
Oh yeah let’s just organize a proletarian revolution in places where the proletariat is an extinct class mr Mattick

>>2886276
That’s not localist
>>2886282
>>2886284
Cope

>>2886290
Paul Mattick never organized a single thing nor did he overthrow anything, he’s just another worthless academic

>>2886293
>Paul Mattick never organized a single thing, nor did he overthrow anything
Nor does he have to, meritocrat.
>he’s just another worthless academic
As opposed to what exactly?

>>2886298
Ash in mouth like every frankfurt school cuck

>>2886300
Gibberish out the mouth like every other romantic revisionist. Do not think for a second that your kind is unknown, activist culturalist. I know your filth. I know your purpose.

>>2886305
Academics will hang, all your schools and libraries burnt along with the rest of your parasite society

>>2885787
>wahh hate china like westoid trots do or you're revisionist
maybe your arguments suck. maybe because you're big gay and turbo cucked.

>>2886313
Reform and opening up was literally China scabbing on behalf of western porky in the middle of a two pronged assault on the USSR

>>2886312
>Academics will hang, all your schools and libraries burnt along with the rest of your parasite society
Performative and moronic. MAGA is down the hall, to the left.

>>2886320
Shut up Babylonian

>>2886321
>Babylonian
Nonsense out the mouth

>>2886323
Bag of wire

>>2886324
So said performative activist as they demand the sabotage of proletarian access to information

Mao Tsetung and Mao Tsetung Thought are Anti-Marxist-Leninist and Revisionist

https://espressostalinist.com/2011/09/05/series-on-maoist-revisionism-mao-tsetung-and-mao-tsetung-thought-are-anti-marxist-leninist-and-revisionist/

>>2886332
Do you at least cum when you mentally masturbate?

>>2886342
Are you this desperate and deranged for a gotcha in every conversation you have?

>>2886345
No one with a 401k and credit card debt is going to seize the means of production which long ago moved to China and Indonesia

>>2886349
>No one with a 401k and credit card debt is going
Plenty of people who have neither or just credit card debt
>which long ago moved to China and Indonesia
Another point against China for that. But enough about that. America is still one of the most industrious countries in the world. Second largest in fact. The means of production are still very present. Not as much as they should be mind you (and not without consequences), but it’s enough to get the ball running.

Stop being a fanatic, almost like a religious nutjob, things change and situation change too, adapt or die.

>>2886354
You’re not gonna have a revolution in any economy where the majority work in unproductive service roles, that’s not a dig at those people and jobs, the nature of that work makes it harder to organize let alone become militant in a non individual adventurist sense. Even the homeless have more to lose than their chains.

>>2886361
Death is preferable to betraying core principles

>>2886290
You're the one coping on people liking Sankara idiot, you're allowed to be inspired by communists who did good and I will continue to do so without thought or care for what some worthless academic said.

>>2886366
>You’re not gonna have a revolution in any economy where the majority work in unproductive service roles
Unemployment is on the rise, and I don’t see why not.
>that’s not a dig at those people and jobs
It’s astonishingly amusing how you sound like a democrat and a republican at the same time. You’re either the tough guy bullshitter or the fucking civility addict. Maybe even both.
>the nature of that work makes it harder to organize let alone become militant in a non individual adventurist sense
Vague bullshit statement with no backing to it and a lack of accounting for the surrounding environment these jobs exist in.
>Even the homeless have more to lose than their chains
Good thing homelessness is on the rise then.

>>2886376
Unemployment is a bullshit statistic in the first place because it doesn’t include those dropping out of the labor force entirely, ie becoming lumpen, lumpens are more reactionary than the bourgeois themselves

>>2886372
>You're the one coping on people liking Sankara idiot
No one gives a shit about soldier boy looking Sankara. No one will ever give a shit.
>you're allowed to be inspired by communists who did good
Emphasis on good. And even then, not be a disgusting romantic about it.
>worthless academic
Go back to your poetry, performative artist

>>2886372
>I will continue to do so without thought
ig so buddy

>>2886377
>becoming lumpen
Crime is also going down.

>>2886383
Crime rates are based on arrests, not actual crimes committed which is impossible to know

>>2886384
>which is impossible to know
And yet you yourself have just asserted otherwise.

>>2886387
Like I said, nobody gives a shit. Nobody will give a shit.

>>2886391
Ah, I see, im talking with a schizo.

>>2886388
No, the lumpen are reactionary by nature, not specifically because they do or don’t do crimes

>>2886393
No one gives a shit about your headline.
>>2886394
>the lumpen are reactionary by nature
I didn’t say otherwise.
>not specifically because they do or don’t do crimes
Didn’t say that either. Crime is simply a good indicator. Regardless, you have no way to indicate the rise of the lumpenproletariat.

>>2886399
Yes I do, by the Labour force participation rate

>>2886415
>Yes I do, by the Labour force participation rate
That doesn’t indicate the size of the lumpenproletariat, only the reserve army of labor which is not inherently lumpenproletarian in its character.

>>2886415
>>2886394
people don't change their class just because they gain or lose a job

>>2886394
Lumpens can be revolutionary (also I really don't understand what the conversation has devolved into in this thread)

>>2886458
Yes they do

>X is something by nature
Damn a bunch of idiots on this site
Lumpens are not revolutionary because they are not proletarians (employed or unemployed, doesn't matter) because only proletarians are revolutionary because of their specific position in production, producing capital and reproducing the conditions that also make them proletarians. They are revolutionary because of their unique position in production. Lumpens are not a revolutionary class. Lumpens can partake in armed struggle under a sufficiently strong worker movement, but they can never be revolutionary.

>>2886475
Proletarians have never done a revolution so far, only peasants

>>2886475
What's the difference between unemployed proletarians and lumpens, I honestly don't really get it. Also I think lumpens have a class interest in abolishing capitalism, even if they aren't semantically 'revolutionary' the way the working class is, they have less reason to accept capitalism than even the peasantry does. If you are lumpen your class interest is only communism there is no way out like with the peasantry and progressive petit-bourgeois.

>>2886492
The October revolution was completed when industrial workers took over Petrograd and Moscow. The civil war was won in the alliance with the peasantry, but this was a proletarian revolution.
>>2886514
>What's the difference between unemployed proletarians and lumpens
Unemployed proletarians still look for work, are able to do work, want to participate in the production process in some part willingly or unwillingly. Lumpens are out of it. Lumpens don't participate in the production process. They are on the margins of the market for all purposes. They are the brokest of the broke capitalists. This is why a lot of the petty bourgeoisie and at some historical point pauperized aristocracy turned lumpenproletariat and not proletarian. They didn't want to work. The lumpenprole has an aristocratic soul in some sense.
>If you are lumpen your class interest is only communism
Same can be said of literally every class. Lumpens are not special in this regard. But class is the wrong adjective here (that's why I crossed it out). Only proletarians have a class interest to end capitalism, because only this stops the reproduction of the proletariat (of labor power) and they can become autonomous, free, creative w/e workers. Lumpen class interest doesn't even exist, lumpen's can't constitute themselves a class through the political struggle, otherwise they would join rank with the proletariat in the course of this struggle (i.e. they would have to shed their aristocratic soul).

>>2886518
Capitalism has largely stopped the reproduction of the proletariat, just look at fertility rates

>>2885878
>Marxism isn't a dogma, but a constantly evolving science
I must be feeling the same annoyance conservatives do when libtards claims the Constitution is a living document so you can just ignore what it says instead of bothering to change it through the proper channels.

Now is a good time to create new -isms and start from 0, so fuck both revisionists and antirevisionists

>>2886683
>Now is a good time to create new -isms
Autism.

>>2886473
Rejected, ignored.

>>2886590
Immigration has no problem compensating for it, so the proletariat as a class still gets reproduced

>>2886695
Birth rates are below replacement level in India too, they will run out of workers even if they adopt “natalist” “family friendly” policies

>>2886698
>they will run out of workers
Do you not see that imperialists would genocide entire countries to keep profit rates high? Are you retarded on purpose?

READ UYGHA READ

>>2886700
Not the countries they intend to draw labor from

>>2885865
>If I'm a premier
You are going to be a grocery clerk

>>2886812
Laundry detail at the gulag.

>>2885865
Tankflag is the most embarrassing poster
Like the annoying kid that sat screaming in FPS lobbies a year ago

So recently I have been reading this:

https://medium.com/@alaricus96/cats-and-bowflies-b5a35625be0f

Its an interesting and relatively detailed look into how the Korean leadership viewed Chinese revisionism.

I haven't finished it yet, but I think it might give some insight on why the DPRK never fell into capitalist restoration, and how revisionism, at least in the economic sphere (the most important sphere), was quite limited in both theory & practice.

Other critical reading that I am slowly making my way through:

https://kommunistischepartei.de/diskussion/the-rule-of-capital-in-china/

>>2885798 are you retarded or a fed

>>2886932
Greek communists are in no place to critique parties that actually achieved power

>>2887278
The KKE having limited power within the bourgeois system is only a mark against them, for they have all this power but they still won't use it for revolution. It is an idea of a slow creep of reform until revolution is possible. It is totally a revisionist plan of taking power that has never worked and won't ever work. The KKE has made itself another arm of the bourgeois state, just one with anti-revisionist rhetoric.

>>2887278
If your line was correct you would have won the civil war

>>2887293

This is vulgar idealism. A correct ideological line does not guarantee victory in an armed conflict. There is the natter of material constraints, the strength of the enemy, organization, strategy, tactics, and hell even luck.

—

>>2887292

You are projecting a position onto the KKE that it does not hold. In fact, if you bothered to read any material that it has put out, it holds the same view you do. Moreover, it regularly, almost pedantically & ad nauseam attacks reformistic politics & the idea of stagist progress towards socialism.

https://www.idcommunism.com/2026/08/kke-contribution-at-24th-international-meeting-of-communist-and-workers-parties-in-havana.html

In fact the main attack against ot is usually is usually the inverse, that its too dogmatic and refuses reformism, which was the whole masturbatory attacks from Syriza (& still is) and other socdemites.

The reason it participates in elections is for combination of tactical reasons:

1. For agitprop & visibility amongst the working masses.
   
   
2. To capture the excess income that civil servants earn for the party, which both strengths its position materially & demonstrates that communists are willing to sacrifice a substantial portion their personal material wellbeing fir the cause.
   
   
3. Most importantly, to demonstrate that small improvements are possible but strictly limited under capitalism, and moreover that it requires mass mobilization for such (hence why it has for some 25ish years dedicated far more ideological and material support to building PAME, worker associations & the party base organizations, rather than the parliamentary group and the municipal elections)
   
   

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/greeceatlse/2012/09/02/understanding-the-greek-communist-party/

That its not immediately engaging in aed struggled is because that such a move in present conditions would be adventurist & end in defeat, even if it had a super majority of the Greek population behind it (Greece is a small tourism dependent country with a population of 10 million; Only a broader coalition with substantial numbers of resolute communists from the rest of the Balkans & Anatolia would stand a chance)

>>2887301

*That it is not immediately engaging in armed struggle at this time

>>2887301
As long as you’re in parliament your party is reformist in content

>>2887301
So: They engage in elections, and they don't support actual revolution in Greece, just a theoretical coalition across the Balkans and Anatolia which doesn't exist.

This is just the same as every other stagnant revisionist party that gets too invested in electoral rubbish and ends up saying revolution is impossible in the country. This is always where too much of an attachment to electoralism ends up. It is also pathetic that they can't imagine Greece as a sovereign socialist republic. The entirety of Ireland is only 7.5 million people but they don't need a coalition with British states in order to be an independent republic. The population of my country is 3 million but we are still managing to organise effectively and build towards a socialist republican future. Greece is in a far better situation in both land, resources and geography than us, but your leading communist party won't try to build socialism there even though it is one of the most powerful pre-revolutionary parties in the world.

I am strongly against the KKE because I have comrades in the Connolly Youth Movement who have had to split because the KKE-aligned revisionist headquarters (in Dublin ofc) denying colonialism in the occupied 6 counties and claiming Northern Ireland is a nation (this is the same as calling I$rael a nation), which erases the struggle of those comrades in the occupied part of Ireland.

>>2887314

Oh fair enough if we are enemies for other reasons. Don't however spread other false narratives & invent bullshit to exaggerate why you hate us.

The KKE has a long term strategy and actually has a real history & experience of not only armed struggle, being operating underground while banned for decades. Ergo it cannot have illusions about building socialism today or tomorrow in Greece. Its a protracted struggle that will require decades, and change in the international correlation forces.

It is therefore false & dishonest to claim that the KKE says that socialism is impossible in Greece; The real difference here is that you think ot cam be done quickly & be sustain whereas the KKE does not believe this.

If you believe you can achieve socialism in Ireland, not only by itself & but also sustainably and in the next few years, by all means, go ahead. We aren't standing in your way.

But to accuse us of electoralism (completely false) because you hate the fact that we indirectly contributed to a split in your country is dishonest & degenerate.

You can simply hate us for that without inventing additional reasons that are false. If anything promoting demonstrable falsehoods just serves to weaken you.

I will add a general point:

People are hopeful when in fact the situation pf the international communist movement is extremely precarious. We do not have major international sponsor and the fact that our Greek party seen as strong even by our in movement enemies goes to show how weak the international movement is.

The fact that the subjective factor as minorly improved since the devastation of the devastation of the 90s is a meager gain at best. If anything it has only serve to strengthen both socdemite & adventurist illusions in the present.

It will take major catastrophe like the first world war to bring us substantial results. In the meantime we we have to build up our organizational capacity, develop anti-revisionism further, warn the proletariat of the incoming danger, & generally prepare enclaves that will serve as means for maneuver when conditions inevitably deteriorate.

>>2887323
Look I am sorry I have not properly explained why I am criticising the party for this. Any party which is developed to a point that it has national level influence and power must engage in protracted people's war, or it is revisionist. The KKE is not engaging in armed struggle so I am criticising it for that reason (also because I have some problems with their theory of imperialism, which the Hoxhaist party in Turkey did a good article on which I can't find).

>>2887331

Your stupid formulas don't work no more. Who is gonna fight the PPE in Greece? The conditions are note ripe for that. Maybe when the contradictions are more strong, so that there is a general reason to engage in a civil war. Not that I have any love for the KKE, it's just what it is.

>>2887331

Its perfectly fine to be an enemy & hold a different strategy should be pursued. Just don't invent stuff or misuse labels.

Electoralism means sticking to elections as the only or primary means to achieve socialism; It doesn't mean participating elections tout court as a Communist Party. Otherwise even the Bolsheviks under Lenin would be considered electoralist by such a definition.

Revisionism is a broader term and has the potential for large equivocation; To say the KKE is revisionist in the same way that Post-Mao CPC or Post-Khruschev CPSU is/was, is to confuse matters; Its to say its adopted a stagist, reformist, capitulationist, etc. theory & practice when it really hasn't.

Just come put and say you think that the KKE could not only wage an armed struggle, but be victorious, and relatively quickly, and be able build a sustainable socialism that would be narrowly confined the borders of Greece alone.

We disagree with this assessment a deep level, but its a real disagreement on strategy. Its not about participating in elections, or gaining a few concessions via combinations of union strikes, coordinated mass protest & municipal influence. That's just tactics, not long term strategy & much less ideological committment.

—

I myself have some disagreements with the party at the theoretical level. Despite recognizing the disproportionate size of the petty bourgeoisie & labour aristocracy, they still lean towards revolution being possible in the first world independently & before the third world.

>>2887331
You are an embarrassing idiot whose approach to "communism" is through dogmatic application of abstract formulas (idealist) which have nothing to do with proven Marxist, Leninist or Maoist revolutionary praxis. Gonzaloist clown in Britain not waging an armed struggle themselves. Go kill yourself by mall cop so we can be free of your stupid fucking paragraphs. I am done showing respectful critiques towards you any longer. Go fuck yourself you spoiled hypocritical peud.

S-poster does not Analyze or Learn, they Believe. That is their main problem.

>>2887515
That's not very constructive.

at a certain point you have to realize you're arguing with a mental deficit rather than someone holding a serious political view

>>2887278
>the only true revisionism is abandoning class struggle which Chyna very much haven't
The top VIP of the goyim right here

Pic related, it's S-poster back in the 70s. He never recovered from being BTFO and is spending the rest of his life seething about it.

>>2885787
Marx said socialism would have to be implemented by workers themselves, not from above. Lenin said workers can only attain trade union consciousness. Oh well.

>>2885894
this was a super fun read, where can i read the full essay?

Remember to read all S posts in this voice. It makes it much better.

>>2886380
I give a shit, and now your entire arguement has been dissolved. I'm tired of people having such a stick up their ass, all the fucking time.

>>2888206
Thanks, I'll post it one day but still working on it and also there's other reasons I can't release all parts.
>>2888219
I don't sound like that anymore tho, I locked in with voice training

>>2888248
You have completely ignored my point here >>2886518 btw

>>2888248
dm me when its out!! my discord octobermoder

>>2888260
I think we just had different understandings of what the lumpen-proletariat were. I've honestly ignored writings on the lumpen-proletariat because they are usually very chauvinistic or unfair. More than that I just think what a lot of people say about them isn't really objective or scientific. I'm unconvinced by what Marx, Engels and Lenin had to say about them, and I'm more convinced by what Mao and later Maoists had to say about working with the lumpen-proletariat as a major allied force like the peasants can be (even though you are totally correct that only the working class can be strictly revolutionary).

What I have been using lumpen for just means anyone who is "unclassed", who doesn't have a direct relation to the means of production or work. Like I'd say students are very similar to the lumpen (at least the idea of the lumpen I was thinking of. I might have been using terms imprecisely.

Still I'm not sure about why you consider these people 'the brokest of the broke capitalists', or having an 'aristocratic soul'. It's basically a moral judgement that that is very similar to how the state attacks long-term unemployed people. Nobody would work if they didn't have to, I'm not sure that's aristocratic in any way.

Idk it all feels very moral to me. Like 'they're not revolutionary because they're all leeches and criminals'. So like, why does that matter? Doesn't that make them more likely to side with the revolution? Also, I think the lumpen-proletariat is difficult to define even as a class itself. I think it might be better to just call these people unclassed and dispel the moral attachments of the lumpen-proletariat. My opinion has not been completely solidified yet and I'm still unsure about things.

I kind of think they are uniquely revolutionary along with the working class, because it isn't really a class. So of course there are plenty of unclassed people with working class consciousness or who are just unemployed proletarians, who in every meaningful way are proletarian. But there are also unclassed people with bourgeois consciousness (criminals who think they are going to get rich). Also there are plenty of unclassed people with feudal / pre-capitalist consciousnesses as well in the colonised countries. Idk, I just don't think the lumpen-proletariat is necessarily a useful term.

>>2888312
Said that wrong, I don't think they are uniquely revolutionary along with the working class, I don't think they could ever be the driving force because only the working class has the direct need to end exploitation, but I think unclassed people are much more 'revolutionary' than even the peasants are.

Without the cultural revolution there will be no socialism. Sorry!

>>2886812
>>2886831
>>2886819
How nice of you ""communists"" to self-report that you take communism so unseriously you literally can't even imagine it, or what it would take to establish it.
>""Left"" ""com""
As if I ever doubted it.

>>2888612
Squeaker

daltonite in the chat lmao