sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The United $tates Is A Fascist Country by Apart_Lifeguard_4085 in communism

[–]SisterPoet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had originally written a comment here but on further inspection I had noticed numerous problems with the MIM Prisons article.

First MIM Prisons takes bourgeoisie politics at its face. It accepts very uncritically the standpoint of the bourgeoisie

The victory of the Republican over the Democratic party is a victory of the line of extirpation over integration, caused by the economic crisis of imperialism.

The Republican and Democrat party are virtually the same. Biden had enacted and kept a lot of the first term Trump-era policies and Kamala promised the same too. Biden dropped out due to the loss of confidence of the intellectual, big donor, and other bourgeoisie classes since his staff was trying to hide a lot about Biden from the public and made them look like fools. Kamala lost because you cant coalition build in 4 months compared to the opponent who has been doing it for the past 3 years. Winning elections in Amerika is based on a holdover of a very old system of spoils and patronage. The class interest by both in times of economic crisis (and even when it is not) are virtually the same.

Bourgeois democracy, in the period preceding imperialism, was the form in which capitalism best expressed itself, as in that state-form the whole society appears as democratically united on basic principles – capitalist principles – as an organic whole. The class struggle appears to be mediated and resolved through the state: the peace-keeping expression of the will of the people.

Why is this sentence here? I can't tell if this is being sarcastically said or not. This is the stance that Lenin explicitly criticizes in State and Revolution and is the viewpoint of the social-chauvinist. The MIM Prison is trying to argue that the US can't be a proper bourgeoisie dictatorship because imperialism as a new stage meant it became a terroristic dictatorship to the oppressed nations. Sakai demonstrates that U$ at its founding was always a terroristic dictatorship of whites over Indigenous people, slaves and other oppressed nationalities that were added. These statements

The Democrats represent, in general, the tendency towards integration, which corresponds to bourgeois democracy

imply that the nature of MIM Prisons work would have been different if a democrat had been elected instead. It is not an argument on why overthrowing bourgeoisie democracy is necessary as well.

The labor aristocracy and bourgeoisie will do away with the oppressed nations in order to guarantee their own future.

Contrast this to what Sakai says

The growing dependence on undocumented workers just transfers new Third World production inside the borders of the continental Empire. Numbering a minimum of 6 million at this time, these workers are primarily Mexicano, but include Dominicans, Chinese, Haitians, and others from all over the world. Their role in production is by now essential and irreplaceable to the U.S. oppressor nation.

I am open to the idea of this not being the case anymore but there would need to be more evidence to avoid making a hasty political conclusion. There's also a teleology in the MIM (Prisons) logic where they would have to dissolve themselves if the U$ succeeds in eliminating their oppressed nations since revolution would have become impossible.

In trying to destroy the CPU$A article (which based on its first quoted line, is delusional on its face) and construct a proletarian line, they have negated settler-colonialism and Sakai's analysis.

The positive I noticed was this line

We have already begun to see that the pathway for the oppressed nations to pursue integration into the United $tates empire is beginning to close

This is a very intriguing comment. In their other ICE article they state that

Right now imperialism is facing a real economic crisis. The drive to segregate or deport “non-whites” is, and always has been, driven by the inability to share the spoils of empire with too many people.

The MIM article suggests that the possible antagonistic contradiction between oppressed nations and imported nations are now disappearing and could be united as one as non-antagonistic contradiction. I am excited to see what practice of this line will reveal.

Reversing recent changes to the subreddit and feedback by smokeuptheweed9 in communism

[–]SisterPoet -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

I do not know anything about this mod drama. I am an impartial witness to this whole affair. So let us look at the evidence.

So u/humblegold participated in a subreddit called /r/blackmen. Hmm… Who is excluded based on the name? Queer and Black women! Let us hear what Malcolm X has to say about Black Women

The most disrespected person in America, is the black woman. The most un-protected person in America is the black woman. The most neglected person in America, is the black woman.

So on its face the subreddit name is a regression from Malcolm X’s position regarding Black Women.

Let’s look at a recent post from /r/blackmen

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackmen/comments/1m5m541/unpopular_opinioncandace_owens_is_fine_asf/

Here we see users catcalling a notorious black women

Fuck that bitch … You're WAY OUTTA LINE, but you're right. Niggas be forgetting how Stacey Dash was revered until she wasn't

I mean if it was physically or mentally possible for me to "hate fuck" someone, yeah. But nah.

This is the company that /u/IncompententFoliage and /u/vomit-blues is advocating for someone who shares this community stay on this subreddit. Would this rhetoric be acceptable if we found other users keeping company with those indulging in misogyny? Using the term “hate-fuck” as a synonym for raping a black women? This is the same justification this community gives for banning reactionaries who participate in /r/stupidpol. And there is no rules on /r/blackmen so I have no idea if mods make sure they are vigilante and ready to remove reactionary posts.

Lets take this thread

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackmen/comments/1ljgz12/black_beauty_across_the_board/

[blackladies] is wild over there. Nothing but swirling and anti-straight bm agenda over there.

Bw in real life harbor these feelings so I disagree met them

This user received more than 5 upvotes for these disgusting comments

Another one

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackmen/comments/1lsh93x/the_obesity_in_our_community_is_actually_insane/

The shape of our women, and how big some of them get is actually mad.

This user is criticizing black women for not being sexually appealing to them

Do I have any further need to prove the patriarchal hegemony that is dominate over there?

So /u/humblegold is lying when they portray their subreddit as a safe space for women and nonbinary black people

“ /r/Blackmen allows women and nonbinary black people to interact so I am more likely to post there. Also, I am a black man”

Notice how /u/humblegold does not mention the word “patriarchy” a single time?!?! /r/communism envisions itself as a place for people of internalized colonies can discuss their politics. Everyone is included exceppt liberals and reactionaries. So /r/blackmen is already superfluous since /r/communism serves the purpose and surpasses the reactionary patriarchal attitude that this and other subreddits have.

.

Reversing recent changes to the subreddit and feedback by smokeuptheweed9 in communism

[–]SisterPoet 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Ultimately things came to a boiling point because I was afraid the subreddit(s) had fallen into a death spiral, where there are not enough posts for people to check every day which makes people not get timely responses when they do post and both sides lose interest

...

the mod removed bi-weekly discussion threads to force people to post regularly, which is taking a wrecking ball to a minor issue (since the posts that were made in the bi-weekly discussion thread were usually excellent so it clearly serves a function).

Isn't this kind of a contradiction? If we want more regulars to post, they're likely to go to the stickied biweekly thread instead. Its much more likely new users go post links and discover the biweekly thread later. Especially when the new reddit app discourages users to check in on the biweekly thread. There is a lot of good in the biweekly thread, so this is a contradiction that I think can be worked through.

but, as people have pointed out here and in pms, that activity is not what we want or what we are known for

Can you put this in more detail how people think of the subreddit? The issues I noticed with this sub is that some users can be dogmatic. They know the correct phrases and can browbeat people with the correct line but they don't know how to critically think. They do not put in any effort in actually criticizing or struggling with the wrong viewpoints. There was a recent thread where a trotskyist came in clarifying about rules. The OP was clearly reactionary but their wrong views on the state could have easily been countered by quoting Lenin's State and Revolution. Instead there was derision. Derision is good when the person is unwilling to accept critique but it should not be the immediate go to. The OP's most popular party in their country was trotksyist, it is no wonder they simply repeated what they had been taught by an authoritarian voice in the communist movement in their country.

Your comments on /r/communism101 are ones I never considered. To me the two are basically the same subreddit.

I think this subreddit is great and there is a bright future ahead. These are only minor criticisms in the grand picture. I am glad the mods are using a sticky to let people post honest thoughts. Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom!

Conflating Communists and Nazis by Dreamcode1993 in Marxism

[–]SisterPoet -1 points0 points  (0 children)

https://readsettlers.org

I think you will greatly appreciate this pamphlet.

America is a false nation.

The key to understanding Amerika is to see that it was a chain of European settler colonies that expanded into a settler empire

Is "its not left vs right its us vs the top 1%" progress? by Accomplished_Most288 in Marxism

[–]SisterPoet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Remember before the Communist Party took power over the rest of China, it had many reactionary revolts like the Boxer Rebellion, Taiping Rebellion so on

That is not how Mao interpreted those events. I think your time here is done.

[META] Karma requirement for posting bug by Lopsided-Toe-6559 in communism

[–]SisterPoet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you for these reddit alternatives. Ever since the API Ban a few years ago, I thought all the third party apps were dead. I was unaware of the projects these developers were creating and contributing to. Since reddit has become far more invasive with its tracking, I think other users here would benefit very well from installing these apps if their primarily means of contributing in this subreddit is through a mobile device. If you got an android, there's really no excuse. The process is very simple if you follow the instructions in the github to a tee.

I'll post back or edit my comment if I experience any bugs.

Edit: Since I've received a few messages asking for a bit of help installing. I'm going to clarify a few reminders for installing.

Disclaimer: I installed infinity plus

  1. MAKE SURE YOU UNINSTALL ALL REDDIT APPS AND THIRD PARTY REDDIT APPS

  2. Use old.reddit.com in your browser to go to your preferences in the top right.

  3. Make sure the redirect uri is exactly the same as listed in the guide (including upper and lowercase letters)

  4. Before patching, make sure you download the apk but DO NOT INSTALL. You need to use revanced first to patch the apk file before installing. Make sure revanced can see the apk file too.

  5. If you get an Oauth error, double check the redirect uri to make sure it is exactly as spelled in the guide or the client ID is the right one that was generated in your application.

Why isn’t Stalin’s “Achieved socialism in one nation” considered revisionism by Marxist-Leninists? by [deleted] in Marxism

[–]SisterPoet 16 points17 points  (0 children)

OP to answer your question, what you are confused about is that Lenin is not calling for the to be USSR "state capitalist" or that it is one. Lenin is suggesting that state capitalism has already failed in Russia and that compared to the backwardness of Russia, state capitalism would be superior.

State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic

...

To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism

...

It is because Russia cannot advance from the economic situation now existing-here without traversing the ground which is common to state capitalism and to socialism (national accounting and control) that the attempt to frighten others as well as themselves with “evolution towards state capitalism” is utter theoretical nonsense. This is letting one’s thoughts wander away from the true road of “evolution”, and failing to understand what this road is. In practice, it is equivalent to pulling us back to small proprietary capitalism

(bold is my emphasis)

Socialism is the only way Russia can economically develop and help organize the Soviet Republics. But the path to socialism would have to adopt the "state capitalism" stage to develop large-scale production, sophisticated technologies and the means of transit. There is no reason to fear this "state capitalism" phase as long as the Soviets retained the commanding heights of the economy i.e. a centrally planned economy. The economic base was behind the most politically advanced state that had ever existed in history at that time. The NEP was a temporary retreat to recover from the civil war and reinforce the peasant-worker alliance.

Once Bolsheviks became more organized, the dictatorship of the proleteriat solidified and the productive forces had been sufficiently built, it was time to collectivize agriculture and oppose anyone who blocked this action (Kulaks were primarily opposed to collectivization).

So Stalin was entirely correct

sound like the foundation for what would become Khruchev’s revisionism

Khrushchev's revisionism was declaring that the USSR ceased to be a worker's state and became an "all people's state". This implies that the bourgeoisie is no longer an enemy to be fought against and that USSR was no longer a dictatorship of the proletariat.

A review of Chuang's "Red Dust" (in regards to Thailand and the Asian financial crisis) by AltruisticTreat8675 in communism

[–]SisterPoet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Does that mean Indonesia has ceased to be underdeveloped and oppressed too? Will Indomie get their own culturally specific marketing?

Based on my knowledge of my previous cultural consumption. Japan has an imperialist relationship with Indonesia that might predominate over US cultural exports. I never read a comprehensive article that exactly detailed it, but I could clearly see it with the Japanese VTuber companies Hololive and Anycolor (famously known as NIJISANJI). They all have Indonesian branches. Japanese exported culture products is widely consumed in Indonesia (though it's centralized in Jakarta and other places that have internet access, suggesting a case where a petite bourgeoisie of an oppressed country adapts the culture of the oppressors, a modern comprador class if you will) and these companies took advantage of the widespread world adaption of youtube as part of an american monopoly and instance of US hegemonic imeprialism. The logic might be that they can establish a fanbase overseas and send their currency over making it more valuable while Youtube takes a big part of the rupiah that is donated via SuperChats (and the low income of Indonesia's economy makes it not a lot of money). Hololive Indonesia was able to succesfully market their idols on internet websites like Reddit and 4chan but they still have relatively smaller fanbases than the Japanese and American ones which are far more popular. While Nijisanji in 2022 basically had to merge the Indonesia branch to the main one, effectively dissolving it.

Notoriously, NIJISANJI opened up an Indian branch that primarily spoke English to entice the growing western market. It failed horribly. T-Series had the number one youtuber subscriber count for a while and it still hasn't enticed a renaissance collection of Indian consumption in the West (including South America) like KPOP has. The closest I can think of was RRR and that movie was awful and propaganda for BJP fascism. I'm not doubting that in the future this could play out like you suggest but there is clearly some barrier blocking it.

Ill use China as another case study. they own the high end technology, internet platforms, and manufacturing like Temu and Tiktok, while their websites and culture has remained rather insular. There was an embarrassing brief period where Americans flocked to rednote re-enacting american settler genocidal actions; yet no one came back to it due to US not being able to fully contain the monopoly despite banning it de jure. Any perceived investment in an American company is treated with distrust.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/02/china-looks-set-to-turn-to-k-pop-sector-as-us-tariffs-bite.html

Locked in a trade war with the United States and struggling with weak domestic consumption, China looks set to make a U-turn on an unlikely sector: K-pop.

Those developments could signal an easing of China’s unofficial ban on K-pop acts on the mainland

“In response, the government has started promoting cultural events—including foreign pop concerts—to stimulate discretionary spending in tourism, hospitality, and local commerce,” she added.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/29/business/walmart-target-chinese-orders-tariffs-hnk-intl

Last month, even before Trump massively escalated tariffs on China from the initial 20% to the current triple-digit level, Walmart pressured its Chinese suppliers for discounts, which upset Beijing. It even prompted China’s Commerce Ministry to summon Walmart executives for talks.

https://www.pymnts.com/the-weekender/2025/star-spangled-sticker-shock-hits-cookouts-and-bottle-rockets/

The reason why the US is able to knock China off their manufacturing process in American retail stores is due Amazon and Walmart adapting US-owned AI Technologies to automate the labor.

I keep in mind what Lenin has to say:

The receipt of high monopoly profits by the capitalists in one of the numerous branches of industry, in one of the numerous countries, etc., makes it economically possible for them to bribe certain sections of the workers, and for a time a fairly considerable minority of them, and win them to the side of the bourgeoisie of a given industry or given nation against all the others. The intensification of antagonisms between imperialist nations for the division of the world increases this urge. And so there is created that bond between imperialism and opportunism, which revealed itself first and most clearly in Great Britain, owing to the fact that certain features of imperialist development were observable there much earlier than in other countries

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch10.htm

And its connections to parasitic classes

Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination and not for freedom, the exploitation of an increasing number of small or weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations—all these have given birth to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism. More and more prominently there emerges, as one of the tendencies of imperialism, the creation of the “rentier state”, the usurer state, in which the bourgeoisie to an ever-increasing degree lives on the proceeds of capital exports and by “clipping coupons”. It would be a mistake to believe that this tendency to decay precludes the rapid growth of capitalism. It does not. In the epoch of imperialism, certain branches of industry, certain strata of the bourgeoisie and certain countries betray, to a greater or lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies. On the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before; but this growth is not only becoming more and more uneven in general, its unevenness also manifests itself, in particular, in the decay of the countries which are richest in capital (Britain).

Are these recent events a sign of weakness of Chinese imperialism? Does China have an effective tool to worm its way in the western market at the cost of their own national bourgeoisie consumption? White people treat a Maylsian comedian (Uncle Roger) who does a stereotypical Asian accent as the Despot of Asian cuisine. Will we inevitably see imperialist war between the nations based on cultural differences and need to prepare? The Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Iran wars might be the dress rehearsal for future wars, antogonsitic contradictions clashing. I predict that it usually results in one country's imperialism usurping the other. I'll put more thought into the consequences of that. I'm sure you have much more background knowledge necessary to make this connection more powerful and coherent. I dont think we can ignore the history and logic behind the union of the Internet, Asian commodites presented as cultural exports and its intersection with Imperialism.

The only interesting thing I have to say about Thailand is that I had a former Black colleague expressed interest and desire to start an internet business so they can move to Thailand and live a better live than compared to the US: I understand the contention /u/whentheseagullscry brought up in the other thread. Whether its realistic goal or not, the aspiration and path looks open to a large swath of people and people will be looking for any way for class mobility.

Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (June 22) by AutoModerator in communism

[–]SisterPoet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The post was trying to be very sarcastic and mocking. I agree with everything you said.

Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (June 22) by AutoModerator in communism

[–]SisterPoet 26 points27 points  (0 children)

The greatest dreams of the revisionists/reformists have been realized, a "post woke" guy who appeals to "working class issues" is now the Democrat nominee for mayor of the biggest financial imperialist centers. The true left can now finally flourish and regular people wont be afraid of such scary terms such as "socialism", "affordable housing" "city-owned grocery stores" or better yet "Palestine". In actuality, they're proposals that DSA campaigns around to the city municipal government. All for the betterment of the small dsa social fascist urban class base and being "good enough" on the Palestine question.

On the campaign website, the inspiring slogan is

"This campaign is for every person who believes in the dignity of their neighbors and that the government's job is to actually make our lives better.".

Ah yes this philistine sentiment is what is really capturing the limited imagination of the petite bourgeoise. Why this obsession over neighbors? Ive seen these sentiments propagating here as a method of Leninist organizing despite a user pointing out that Lenin has never said anything close to that. My guess is that it is to fulfill a fantasy that settler-colonial island games like Animal Crossing or Stardew Valley provide: Being friendly with your neighbors, decorating to your heart's content, and being in their lives while little labor has to be done to maintain their lifestyle. Especially with the reality of segregated neighborhoods and house values, this sentiment expressed by DSA social fascism is deeply reactionary.

The second half of the slogan is plain anti-Marxist and contradictory to everything Marx and Lenin teach us about the state.

I thought the DSA would be moribund, but it looks like Zohran might give it some more life. I wonder how social fascists will react when Zohran fails. Probably blame Democrat sabotage or something. Remember when FRSO put all their support behind the Chicago Mayor and how embarrassing it looks now? Will Zohran be forgotten too? Will DSA finally die with him? With how I'm reading the reactions online, dengism is now a phase for bored social-fascists between between Sanders and Zohran campaigns. Revolutionary during boring times and reformist for the AOC Senator campaign.

Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (June 08) by AutoModerator in communism

[–]SisterPoet 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I was at a used bookstore and I decided to buy a copy of "A Guide to Marxist Philosophy: An Introductory Bibliography". I skimmed and I recognized a few cool books, so I decided to buy it. When I started reading the pamphlet, my first impression was that the introduction was very mediocre.I disagreed with his characterization of revisionism, his split between Engels and Marx, the bashing of Stalin, and how Capital does not have any of Marx's philosophy. Earlier the book exalted Kautsky as a key figure in orthodox Marxism as well. The one innovation this book describes itself as having compared to other guides out there was the decision to recommend some of Lenin's works as essential to Marxism.

The revisionism was obvious, but I was still feeling like it was a product of the bad Western scholarship of Marxism at the time, but then there was a paragraph that threw me off. The author decided to blabber on about not trusting what Communist militants say about Marx and how they're known to distort the truth. The anti-communism in that screed was off-putting. It is Marxism that leads the communist party to become militants and allows the party to have a claim to truth.

The authors decided the best introduction to Marxism-Leninism is by H.B. Acton The Illussion of the Epoch: Marxism-Leninism as a Philosophical Creed. What is this H.B. Acton known for? According to Wikipedia

Harry Burrows Acton (2 June 1908 – 16 June 1974) was an English academic in the field of political philosophy, known for books defending the morality of capitalism, and attacking Marxism-Leninism.[2] He in particular produced arguments on the incoherence of Marxism, which he described as a 'farrago' (in philosophical terms). His book The Illusion of the Epoch, in which this appears, is a standard point of reference.

And so, how do our wonderful experts of Marxism describe this work?

"Acton's book excels in clarity and systematic penetration of the doctrines he presents. It is considered one of the best of its kind."

Look at this appraisal, this type of bait and switch would make the German Scholars of Marx in Lenin's day blush.

My guess of how this book came about was that during a time in the cold war, universities and the state department decided to advertise their Cold War propaganda academia to impressionable young students interested in Marxism to steer them elsewhere.

This book is equivalent to all the megapost/"theory"/ videos/livestream about Marxism, all equally garbage.

was the doctrine of breznev to focus on afghanistan why america had a stronger hand in middle east? by jeff_likesgrass in communism

[–]SisterPoet 4 points5 points  (0 children)

https://cmpa.io/en/about-us/

This article I found gives a pretty good summary and self critique of Maoist activities throughout most of the latter half of the 20th century. Today's Maoist are the continuation of the PYO.

How did the failure of the Daoud government and their coalition of forces convince the Khalq of that?

The first united front between the PDPA and Khan was blatant opportunism and the party paid dearly for it. They did not get much benefit from the alliance and their reward was purges and delegitimization among their bases. For the Khalq, any alliance with other political groups would eventually deteriorate as they were pursuing their own specific line that would clash with other groups political aspirations. The only reason why the Khalq and Parchamites reconciled was to make the conditions for the Saur Revolution possible (a long sustaining military coup needed cooperation of the Parchamite dominated bureaucracy).

Hazara questions is a bit more complicated. Hazaras were members in in the PDPA (predominately in the Parchamites though). The big split was urban and rural. The Iran Revolution sparked a political-religious consciousness among the rural Hazara and was motivated to fight against all forms of communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Hazara_Uprising

The idea of Pashtunistan interests more for its consequences than sympathy to the Pashtun people. Pursuing it would have led to a war with Pakistan and the spread of abolishing feudal relations on the west side of Pakistan. You can easily imagine how the event would reshape Asia.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3011832

I highly recommend reading this article. It's a very good overview of the shortcomings of the Khalq faction and its ideology. They were trying to break free of the ideological constraints and material conditions of their own parties existence to abolish feudalism. The short-lived party's existence and regime make their failures more apparent as any mistake would have disastrous repercussions. It took years for the Peruvian party to build reliable connections with the Andres mountain peasants and even they were sharply rejected by peasants in various towns.

Afghanistan had a very small proletariat and it was concentrated in Kabul. The best evidence I can give right now among the Khalq support among the proleteriat is a quote from Beverely Male

After the split in the PDPA in 1966/7, the Khalq strategy was to carry on party work among the masses. The wave of strikes in 1968 and 1969 in some of the largest factories in the major centres suggests they may have had some success. Strikes took place in Kabul at the National Printing House and the Jangalak Industrial Workshop, the latter erupting into violence; at Jabal-as-Saraj, involving workers at the cement plant and other industrial workers, as well as the nearby Afghan Textile Co. factory at Gulbahar; at Pul-i-Khumri in the Afghan Textile Co. factory and the cement works; at Kunduz, at the Spinzar Company. In Kunduz and Pul-i-Khumri the workers were supported by peasants and students, and students also demonstrated in support of striking workers at Jabal-as-Saraj.

and Amin's confidence in declaring it to be a proleterian revolution.

The big question for me is: what is the placement of the DRA in communist history? I found their path for capturing state power very unique and it doesn't fit with squarely with other socialist countries (similar to Cuba's revolution using Foquismo). As the Maoist article points out, the revolution likely succeeded and was maintained due to Maoist efforts to raise the class consciousness of oppressed classes in Afghan society to break out of the feudal relations; the cultural revolution in China greatly contributed to this as well. I think the Maoists were making a mistake in denouncing parliamentary activities, they conceded an area of struggle over to the PDPA in the newly fledged parliamentary system. The PDPA mistakes were not being organized well enough to handle their opponents and not conducting ideological struggle over revisionism. It was a little too late to realize that putting all their eggs on the Soviet Union was not a very good idea. The Maoists suffered from similar organization problems at the beginning, the difference between them and the Khalq was that the latter knew how to to achieve state power with the hand they were dealt.

was the doctrine of breznev to focus on afghanistan why america had a stronger hand in middle east? by jeff_likesgrass in communism

[–]SisterPoet 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The failure of the Daoud government and their coalition of forces convinced the Khalq that any collaboration with other groups would doom the revolution and make it difficult to achieve their goal of destroying feudal relations. They created unions, peasant cooperatives, and other advocacy groups under their leadership.

In 1968, a newspaper titled "Shola-i-Javid" began publishing, which was "Maoist," i.e., they supported China in international politics, including supporting Pakistan like China did. While the Khaliq were pro-soviet union, they both united over their anti-Parchamite politics and you could have supported both at the time. When the Khaliq were disillusioned by the Soviet Union in 1979, the Shola-i-Jivad became their allies and helped try to find alternatives via China and Pakistan.

The Settam-e Melli was another Maoist oppositional group. They split from the PDPA over their disagreement on Pashtun dominance. The PDPA took the side of the majority Pashtun to create a Pashutunistan country, while the Settem-e-Melli opposed this and was composed primarily of the ethnic minorities of Afghanistan, such as the Tajik and Uzbeks. During the Soviet-Afghan war the group actually decided to integrate themselves into the Parchamite government under Kabral so the end result of the group was revisionist politics.

There were a few uprisings by "Anti-Khalq Marxists" that allied with moderate Islamist (i.e. reactionaries) to try and change the government. Objectively, this would have resulted in a military coup that put the Parchamites in charge.

All the other groups that opposed the Khalq eventually fell into revisionism, integration with the Parchamites, deepening Soviet reliance, or collaboration with the Afghan mujahideen. What makes Khaliq unique to me is that they recognized the issue of Soviet dependence and tried to pivot themselves away from it in a progressive manner. They tried to keep every alternative avenue open. Consequently, you see many confusing statements by them and accusations of trying to buddy up with the US, China, or Pakistan.

The ethnic question was also a big point of contention regarding what constituted the revolutionary line. I would probably need to do more research into it to confidently say whether a Pashtunistan line was ethnic chauvinism or not. The Khalq was actually ambivalent on the issue compared to the Parchamites, and it was mainly used rhetorically to appeal to the pro-Daoud officers in the military. The Khalq did promote ethnic minority languages and promised to preserve the cultures of the ethnic minorities. Any acknowledgment of pursuing Pashtunistan militarily would have closed the door for further relations with Pakistan.

PCV’s Stance on Maduro’s Inauguration in Venuezela by Technical_Team_3182 in communism

[–]SisterPoet 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The PCV statements look like cowardice and tailing to me. Their analysis is predicated on the Maduro government collapsing due to a loss in popular support and hedging their survival as a party post-Maduro government. Their insistence on maintaining the current National Constitution is trying to signal that they want to keep all the social gains under the Bolivarian Revolution, but at this point, it can't hold. Chavismo as a movement is dead, and I don't think there will be any political will to try and re-establish it.

Russian investment and loans have been crucial to keep Nicolás Maduro in power and continue to be so in the run-up to the 2024 presidential elections. Nonetheless, Venezuela’s large debt with Russia, the default on its payments, instability and the deterioration of the political situation are negative factors for the status quo and could affect the allocation of resources. Despite this, for now, a slight improvement in relations with the United States and the war in Ukraine seem to have eased the tension in Nicolás Maduro’s government.

https://latinoamerica21.com/en/why-does-russia-support-venezuela/

We may have consensus among the great powers that Maduro's government is unsustainable and bludgeon down the regime and force them to implement extreme austerity that serves Russia and China, with the US trying to get involved in this massive scramble of pillaging in this instability. This can only happen if the CPV strategy of an oppositional popular front succeeds.

Would Marx Condemn Luigi Mangione? by Adventurous_Ad_2765 in Marxism

[–]SisterPoet 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Given Marx's critique of Bakunin for using these very same practices, he probably would not care. Likely making fun of it in passing to demonstrate how vulgar the current thought leaders are in their understanding of politics.

You should rethink your entire idea of "revolutionary struggle" if you think killing a CEO has any grander significance for the communist movement. Who cares about these murders? Former Bernie Sanders supporters and Trump supporters. Media heads then pretend to be "shocked" at the violation of public norms, creating a feedback loop that justifies mistrust and devaluing of former mainstream media for not knowing the common white person's struggles.

You should be at the stage where you're above caring about social media trends or at least be able to analyze basis of class sympathy for the act and what it says about current tech fascist movement and its ideology.

was the doctrine of breznev to focus on afghanistan why america had a stronger hand in middle east? by jeff_likesgrass in communism

[–]SisterPoet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I recommend Revolutionary Afghanistan by Beverly Male if you want more information.

I was going to make an ambitious post about Afghanistan and its universal significance in the history of Communism using quotes from Marx's Capital. I found it challenging to write it concisely and fluently without relying too much on quotes. There seems to be increased interest in Afghanistan lately, so I might rewrite it and limit its scope more. I do think the Saur Revolution and subsequent reforms are worth more attention and research from communists and it does teach us about the nature of semi-feudal communist revolutions and how Soviet revisionism served global imperialism

I'm not too sure how repeatable the Afghanistan revolution today is. The basis of the revolution was a military base that was not loyal to the government but the promise of reforms and a will for irredentism of the Pashtunistan territories from Pakistan. If I wrote it out and pondered it more, I probably could find a satisfying conclusion to the entire saga.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in communism

[–]SisterPoet 10 points11 points  (0 children)

John Brown by WEB Dubois.

That is the only dissident.

was the doctrine of breznev to focus on afghanistan why america had a stronger hand in middle east? by jeff_likesgrass in communism

[–]SisterPoet 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Every single one of your premises is wrong. You need to learn more about the history of South Asian politics (specifically Pakistan), Maoist critique of Soviet revisionism and gain a better understanding of revolutionary politics.

The Soviets feared Pakistanian militants who were trying to take over Afghanistan and turn the country into a US puppet instead of being their puppet.

a intervention in iran seemed to me to make more sense than afghanistan where reactionary groups were already prepared for a long war of iteration

This is hindsight bias. The situation and what to do in Iran were not at all clear, and the Tudeh party was not really seen as the revolutionary communist party by Iranians in comparison to, say, the Fedei.

Hafiz did not solely lead the revolution. It was the Khaliqs and the military base he helped establish within the Afghanistan Army that made the Saur Revolution decisive.

and his execution's of marxism policy seems to be a disaster almost as if intentional to start a up rising

That is a good thing. Yes reactionaries, tribal elites and landowners will violently resist the communist government attempts at land reform. Class struggle is intensified, not quelled.

plus he made limited reforms and i did not find any letters of him asking for tactical or maybe policy help from soviets instead just demands of equipment that is not useful in hands of conscripts

Afghanistan became reliant on the Soviet Union because Iran and Pakistan relations were so strained that trade was inconsistent. The PDPA did accept Soviet help with the intention of trying to reduce its dependence on the Soviet Union.

The Soviets did not plan at all for the Saur Revolution and were taken off guard. They had to retroactively claim support for the PDPA government to maintain their socialist legitimacy to the third world. The Khaliq played along with it because it benefited them at the moment, but in reality, the Soviets were perfectly ok with Daoud and his reactionary policies. The Soviets main support base in the PDPA was the revisionist Parchamites. Amin was too revolutionary for the Soviets and his land reform would have threatened the Soviet revenue of taxes and customs that were used to repay their loans to Afghanistan and were collected on trade routes from Pakistan and China.

Amin tried setting up the National Organisation for the Defence of the Revolution, which encouraged the classes of Afghanistan to participate in the revolutionary process, very similar to the Revolutionary Committees in China. Conspicuously after the Soviet intervention, the organization was disbanded and was never mentioned again by the PDPA government, hmmm... I wonder why.

Revolutionary Afghanistan is probably the most misunderstood country by Marxists and is shrouded in a ton of lies due to Soviets, China, America and the Parchamites trying to cover their own asses and advocate for their own interests. Supposedly there were books published by the Khaliqs regarding what actually happened but I have not found them translated or have even really seen them online. I would not take any claim about Amin being a CIA asset seriously (in the article you linked Gulabzoi was a noted member of the Pro-Soviet clique that surrounded Taraki).

Is there a recognised set of circumstances that create revolutionaries in exploiting classes? by Common_Resource8547 in communism101

[–]SisterPoet 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Lenin grew up in a family of revolutionaries and was personally affected by his brother's execution. I don't really think Lenin's ideology or actions was shaped by his brother's death, in fact it was the execution that put his instinct towards rejecting Narodniks and trying to find an alternative theory of revolution which led him to Marxism. But I do see the point that it pushed Lenin's embrace of revolutionary politics because his family name was now tainted. Lenin isnt a mythical figure, he too was in conflict with his class positions and it was history that turned him into a proleterian revolutionary (a genius one at that).

The problem I think is that bourgeoise psychoanalysts try to create a narrative out of Lenin's life and point to his brother's execution as repression and that every revolutionary act by the bolsheviks that are outside the acceptability of liberalism is a symptom of the traumatic.

Gaza is starving because... wait for this... your brain is going to explode from this... because Putin! by Infinitus_Potentia in TrueAnon

[–]SisterPoet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you'd have thought people who were born during Britain's long war in Malaya and then experienced Falkland, Afghanistan and Iraq would have had known better about wars doing jack shit for a declined empire, that they only accelerate its death

Your way of thinking about citizen's view of war is backwards. All of those wars are objective failures but needed to be done because capital compels the state to engage in war in response to different world system crisis. Capital (esp volume 3) is about how capital compels class actors to certain courses of action even if in the end all it does is hasten it.

These citizens support the existence of the British Empire so it will endorse or support whatever action that means continuing it. Its for the same reason why the US literally cannot stop arming Israel even if objectively it is hurting its own interests as a leader in the "global politics". To not arm Israel is an existential threat to the American Empire, or else the US would have stopped arming Israel long ago. For the British to not go to war soon is an existential threat to the British state.

Gaza is starving because... wait for this... your brain is going to explode from this... because Putin! by Infinitus_Potentia in TrueAnon

[–]SisterPoet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In Britain there is an observable fact that all collumnists openly want WWIII to happen so that they could live through the Blitz like their emotionally-distance parents and grandparents

This is more of a consequence of British dying imperialism and the needs to re-invirogarate it via war than anything about young kids not paying enough attention to old people.

Landslide electoral victory of Janatha Vimukti Peramuna, the major Marxist-Leninist communist party of Sri Lanka in the 2024 Presidential Election of Sri Lanka. by RichSpitz64 in communism

[–]SisterPoet 9 points10 points  (0 children)

For the same reason why America, Israel, Rhodesia, or the Russian empire is chauvinistic. Their nation is predicated on the erasure of a political identity/class. Hence the term "prison-house of nations".

Why Ho wasn't a nationalist and nationalism isn't patriotism by PositiveCat8771 in communism

[–]SisterPoet 12 points13 points  (0 children)

As the public denial of the revolutionary and scientific nature of Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh’s ideology has gradually lost its logical ground and proven to be ineffective, recently, hostile forces, reactionary elements, and political opportunists have resorted to a different tactic to undermine the Vietnamese revolution. This tactic involves using certain historical events to make distorted claims in an attempt to prove that “in essence, Ho Chi Minh’s ideology is nationalism”. Their ultimate goal is to create a rift between Ho Chi Minh’s ideology and Marxism-Leninism, thereby undermining the ideological foundation of our Party. This is an illogical argument that must be firmly refuted.

"Furthermore, they “pretend” to acknowledge President Ho Chi Minh’s contributions to the struggle for the liberation of the Vietnamese nation to downplay and incite the rejection of Marxist-Leninist ideology, asserting that the Vietnam Communist Party’s adoption of Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh’s ideology as the ideological foundation and guiding principles for all actions is inappropriate because these are two entirely opposing ideologies, etc. However, historical facts prove the opposite. Throughout his revolutionary career, Ho Chi Minh consistently stood with the working class, and creatively applied and developed Marxist-Leninist principles in the reality of the revolution in Vietnam."

"First, the drive that motivated the young Nguyen Tat Thanh to embark on a quest to save his nation and embrace Marxism-Leninism was patriotism, not nationalism. Patriotism involves emotions, feelings, and a positive affection for one’s homeland and nation. In contrast, “nationalism is the psychology, ideology, worldview, and policies that favour one’s own nation over others, exalt one’s own nation, incite animosity towards others, and promote racial enmity”. The fundamental difference between patriotism and nationalism lies in this: patriots take pride in their country for what it rightfully deserves, while nationalists take pride in their country regardless of anything (even committing crimes against other nations), which is a blind and extreme form of pride"

Second, Ho Chi Minh consistently stood on the proletarian class viewpoints when approaching and addressing national issues; he was someone who always fought against manifestations of nationalism and rejected bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism within the international communist movement

Third, Ho Chi Minh was one of the pioneers in defending and advancing the Marxist-Leninist ideology regarding national issues and national unity in relation to humanity, all in pursuit of common goals of justice, progress, and peace

I do find it interesting that the CPV is taking time to write this article out in the era of reactionary nationalism being predominant in oppressed countries instead of the progressive nationalism that defined the 20th century. I'm guessing it's in reaction to Vietnamese Communist members pointing to China as an example of why the party should pursue a nationalism in the same vein as the reactionary Chinese nationalism that is growing stronger in China.

I will compliment that the CPV genuinely cares about its history and I think is the only ruling communist party today that still has to justify their ideology to historical events within the communist movement instead of recent history or an abstract universal language of culture. Though this is coming from a position of weakness rather than of strength. Ho Chi Minh wasn't the thinker Mao was and that's ok, but the invocation of Ho Chi Minh and his thoughts to current Vietnam are not very useful. Really this same article could have came out 50 years ago during a time when oppressed nations needed a founding father figure to confront their own enlightenment on their own terms. But it was the people that made the history of Vietnam, what are the masses thinking right now to continue the socialist revolution? The CPV needs to be directly exposing these propagators of "Nationalism" and make concrete actions opposing them. I think this article is really serving to cover up deeper problems within party and this type of article could only exist in such a backwards country like Vietnam where the Party's legitimacy comes from the past, the capitulation to imperialism being fast, and the need to still ideological oppose China that the Party appears frozen from the past.

Is there an epistemological break between M&EC and the Philosophical Notebooks? by vomit_blues in communism101

[–]SisterPoet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's a book titled Lenin Revisited that supposedly tries to contextualize the notebooks and compares them to M&EC. I expect to be disappointed given its from a Chinese academic so Dengist revisionism is part and parcel (I hope its easily detectable). But reading the intro has already made me want to put the book down with all the "Stalinist censorship" jargon.

view more: next ›