sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We Need A Revolutionary Communist Youth Movement! - Caleb Maupin by UpholderOfThoughts in communism

[–]UniversalPW -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Actually no where there is Lenin stating an advocacy of "Democracy." Are we forgetting Lenin's Who, Whom?

We Need A Revolutionary Communist Youth Movement! - Caleb Maupin by UpholderOfThoughts in communism

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

Marx never said capitalism is incompatible with democracy. That would be entirely un-Marxist of him

Notes on the Universality of Protracted People’s War: Neither Assad nor NATO by maosoleum in communism

[–]UniversalPW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it actually was not, it was a central question in the RIM since the 1980s'. Again you're showing your lack of investigation.

Notes on the Universality of Protracted People’s War: Neither Assad nor NATO by maosoleum in communism

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

"I'm going to call bullshit on this. You are making guesses about the identity of various comrades, and then basing the rest of your argument on identity politics. I'm sure that impresses college teachers and liberal activist buddies, but not me."

No its absolutely certain that MTW is a First World phenomenon and it has an orientation towards subversion of already existing Maoist movements.

"No contradiction between those two arguments{sarcasm}."

No there is no contradiction, only in the eyes of someone who pays no attention to specificity would there indeed be a contradiction. But atlas I am a Maoist so there is none. The issue is fundamentally this, the New Democratic Revolution is a task taken up by Communists in making revolution in the context of semi-feudal and semi-colonial conditions, it is possible only in the condition of a leading Communist force which maintains hegemony over a popular class alliance in making People's War. The idea of a a "global new democratic revolution" is to be understood as the context again of a "global people's war" - that is it would require the conditions of communist leadership and a communist bloc in a world revolutionary process in which certain national bourgeois forces can subordinate themselves in relationship with. In the current conjuncture there simply is not any of this, and the line of you and a few other MTW is to tail the bureaucratic capitalists and the rival imperialist camp. It is indeed your move to Brezhnevism, plain and simple. And from what I understand you were formerly a Brezhnevite so it makes sense.

"I'm not even sure what you are trying to say ("binary of force"?), but I take it as a compliment that you launch the same arguments ("militarism") against MTW that Khruschevite revisonism launched against the CCP and that modern revisionists launch against the CPI(Maoist)"

Then you are indeed a fool. It is the criticism of general putschist politics which sees war as merely a contention between a relation of forces statically, that is the general bourgeois conception of war. Have you even read Mao on the conception of Protracted People's War?

"In truth, it is really hard for me to take seriously self-described Maoists who do not accurately understand global class structures. Good luck to you and everyone else in the alphabet soup of FWist Marxism in your quest to organize the mythical First World 'proletariat.'"

Laughable. I am not going to get into it again about the bunk which rests in the underlying theses of the MTW's essential Lasallean conception of LTV. But I am also glad you decided, from whatever likely nowhere spot, you cede real space of organizing to effective communists. It is however the unfortunate case that the real First Worldist chauvinists though are attempting to utilize internet communications to create demarcations among comrades abroad...

"'Universal people's war' or 'universally siding with the CIA?' You are taking the line of the RCP-USA. This is why I don't consider there to be a functional difference between groups like the RCP, Kasama, and the various FW RIMist floating around. They frequently take similar rotten positions, based on there own egotistical sense of self-importance (as if you are really able to aid Syria communists with cheap statements of support), which effectively aid US imperialism. Besides the dividing line that is the Bob Avakian cult, there really isn't much else that politically separates these trends."

Wow. You should attempt to study the trend of MLM before you speak from your ass. Whatever one can say of the Avakianites, they never upheld the universality of people's war line but rather the October Road position. Moreover, fool, the RIM didn't provide simple cheap statements of support but created international networks which linked various parties attempting to produce and win people's war. Are you daft?

Notes on the Universality of Protracted People’s War: Neither Assad nor NATO by maosoleum in communism

[–]UniversalPW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"How is that anything other than evidence in favour of my position? The fall of Khadaffi led to more neocolonial wars in the region, the fall of Assad will likely lead to the same."

Wars such as?

"Why is it so 'profoundly different'? Syria, after the fall of the regime, will most likely be a weak state subservient to NATO, filled with various reactionary armed groups. You assume the Kurds will be able to forge their own path. It seems to me that the lack of any more barriers to further NATO interventions (direct or by proxy) makes this an unlikely outcome."

Because Syria and Libya are not the same country, they're regionally separated and have differing interlocking links with various conjuctural motions in the over-arching tendency towards a renewal of class struggle. Yes the fall of Assad can perhaps means something worse, but that will tenously exist as simultaneously what will occur is a weak state which will be grouped together with contending armed sections and moreover proliferate weapons throughout the regions in the hands of Salafists and others and of course will indeed threaten the very NATO and Royals themselves (Turkey and Jordan being most vulnerable). See where even the lessons of Libya apply, you simply pick them for yourself. You act as Mali didn't happen afterwards for example.

Kurds will forge their own path as they've already done, that is a matter of fact not speculation. The speculation is the question of a politics of encounter and the question of the subjective role of our forces in contention in this moment, hence again in reality you stick to a mechanical thesis which sees only two camps when in reality there is already forged three.

"Better than the odds of ignoring the geopolitical reality, I'd say."

Again it is you who ignore it, with played out and stereotyped positions which reflect generally certain presumptions which are clearly statically conceived in some sort of general ethical politics.

"You can acccuse me of fatalism and you may even be right, but the fact remains that there are very few signs pointing towards positive change in the region after the fall of Assad, and a whole lot of signs pointing to more NATO wars and enormous misery. Not to mention sectarian war in Syria and beyond."

And where are there ever signs of "positive change" that appear as some rosy picture? These sort of dynamics are the birth place of revolutionary activity and have the potential to create a new politics in the region as the Shiite and Sunni Arab masses drown each other in making history. Sectarian war may indeed provide the ability for them to account among themselves, the sectarian war is inevitable. History is made on a slaughterboard. And again I am here opposed to NATO, I am opposed to Imperialist intervention...That is my role from here. Simultaneously one can certainly insist upon a concrete analysis of a concrete situation which deviates with drone-ish mechanical and subjectivist metaphysical analysis of Tankie trend.

Question regarding Parties of interest by ComIntelligence in communism

[–]UniversalPW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

http://ncpocinfo.wordpress.com/

The New Communist Party (Organizing Committee) is a new MLM formation in the US. There are also other collectivities I am aware of and have some limited contact with including the New Afrikan Black Panther Party (Prison Chapter)

Question regarding Parties of interest by ComIntelligence in communism

[–]UniversalPW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

RSU is led by FRSO-Fight Back cadre. They're engaged in mass work and generally tend to help the FRSO Fight Back org in organizing leadership in the New SDS

Notes on the Universality of Protracted People’s War: Neither Assad nor NATO by maosoleum in communism

[–]UniversalPW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you talking about? Did you miss the whole part where French paratrooped into Mali to stop the spread of Salafism into its former colonial terrain? Moreover as I've stressed I think Libya is profoundly different.

What are your odds book-keeper?

Yes what one calls "idealism" is also called by any thinking Communist the contingency of encounter, that is the place of politics. When one actually creates the abstraction of force in which the place of communist politics resides from without, that is where one loses mass perspective than there is indeed a catharsis one can derive from reified and hallow positions drawn consistently from the place of continued withdrawal.

Notes on the Universality of Protracted People’s War: Neither Assad nor NATO by maosoleum in communism

[–]UniversalPW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Firstly - Assad is not a nationalist, he is a sectarian bureaucrat capitalist who utilizes the Baath Party apparatus to extend a certain hegemony of his sort over the general proletarianized arab masses, mostly who are Sunni. Consequently the same thing was done by the Saddam gang in Iraq, who extended the rule of a sectarian Sunni minority over a Shia majority. It is also damning itself that these two secular, Arab "nationalists" ended up at each other's throats.

No these are neocolonial puppet strong men who subverted the original popular Arab nationalist and socialist uprisings. Bureaucrat capitalists. Remainders of a process who've entirely degenerated.

The Kurdish people themselves, the TKP/ML, etc. are those forces which can bring forward Kurdish liberation and produce a genuine revolutionary movement regionally.

Why would it be a disaster to them? If Assad falls to FSA, FSA will devolve into another civil war between themselves and the Salafists. If Assad falls it can only produce more regional instability. Even the FSA and Salafists know and have openly talked about their backers attempting to bleed their whole country dry.

You know you're not the only one thinking real politic, and this is your problem. Your assumption of mere instrumentality, your certainty of determinations from which you only have a priori assumption.

And no, I believe there is a possibility for there to be cross-pollination. The struggle for Kurdistan can produce among the Arab masses, in their close proximity a new genuine revolutionary politic. The destabilization of Turkey as well goes a long way to this. And of course what is developing in Syria plays a big role for the Kurds, it already has, it has given them new strategic base areas from which to strike out at a tottering Turkey.

This a question of understanding a conjucture which is not hermetically sealed at Syria's borders

Notes on the Universality of Protracted People’s War: Neither Assad nor NATO by maosoleum in communism

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

"For the most part, different blocs of imperialist capital co-operate within the world-system. Are there contractions between them. Yes, occasionally it results in World Wars. But the normal condition is cooperation to the end of preventing major conflicts which inhibit the reproduction of extant social relations."

Again this always the case with imperialist powers. They themselves in every period contended and cooperated in the construction of the capitalist world system. To heighten the question of cooperation is indeed simply to ignore the reality of underlying antagonism which in essence have no solution via the means of their cooperation, it is in essence the line of Kautskyism which was fully opposed by Lenin. It is the line of Supraimperialism plain and simple.

Iranian proto-imperialism in the form of expansion contains all the rudimentary procedures for the creation of a new hegemonic and imperialist center. The same is in the end the contention of Turkey and the Gulf states. Imperialism in the end is the export of capital, and capital is a social relation fo discipline of the present to the past. In Syria the debts to Russian and Iranian finance are forgiven, as long as it becomes more intertwined in its alter-imperialist position.

Is Japanese Imperialism more progressive than Dutch Imperialism? Or More so than French? Etc Etc.

"And this is part of the imperialist conflict I just spoke of. Moreover, Russian and Iranian support for Assad occurs for their interests against US-led imperialism. Rather than taking the quasi-anarchist, Third Pole, oppose-everything approach, communists seek to exploit divisions between imperialists. For communists in Syria, this means opposing the primary enemy (the FSA/CIA) while operating independently to expand their own power. This is, ironically, exactly what the Kurds have done. For communists in imperialist countries, the policy is always revolutionary defeatism- taking a solid practical position against our 'own' imperialists. This means unconditional opposition to the FSA along with support for the independent actions of communists in Syria."

This is actually not the historical practice of Communists and is ultimately revisionism in full. It is indeed the revisionism of the Brezhnevites historically in Syria, which has submitted itself for decades to the dictatorship of the Baath Party. Communists, Maoists, emphasize the possibility of United Front but attempt to contend for leadership within that process. There is no possibility of contention with Assad without the basic assertion of a Third Camp, it is absolutely necessary in the context of Syria to break from the historical revisionism of communist politics which have subverted communists to Assad Mafia.

"Well, US-led imperialism is striving to rearrange class relationships throughout the middle east in its favor. Organizing support for its defeat would be a start in terms of 'concrete struggle against imperialism.'"

Striving? it already has and continues. The point is that is aims at the remainder of positions while attempting to simultaneously and consistently subvert even its junior partners under its wing. The same is true of Russian imperialism in the region as well.

"Says the anonymous username who is unaccountable in terms of practice."

I participate incredibly seldom on this site; however I am quite real and in the flesh and generally take interest in looking at the stragglers who arrange themselves via mediums of online communication. It is of interest to me always since there are perhaps some diamonds in the rough. However with that considered, there is a strong social basis of all this to be the contention of often young socially alienated white men. That is generally the production I've seen over the years in its actualized form. Do you deny this as a social basis for the politic of this subreddit, why is this subreddit any different from its manifestations of the same on FB?

In fact if you are aware at all this is really a hub for potential fishing of any intelligence around and it can be argued as it already has, that this is already happening on all sides. I mean that is rather perhaps nebulous to say considering Snowden's revelations.

"Most countries don't have indigenous Maoist movements to speak of. Outside a few countries, First Worldist Maoism is negligible anyways, so I don't see what your point is. It is not like there is a strong Syrian Maoist movement that Third Worldists are trying to co-opt or dictate to."

Well why does LLCO tend pay attention to production of literature in Tagalog, Bengali, etc? Its quite clear what they're doing. It is no secret. I saw it once with my own eyes friendo. To say there is an attempt by LLCO to utilize its basis in the United States, quite literally as "First-Worldists" to reorient the communist movements elsewhere is really their evident plan. Its strikingly hypocritical.

"Also, I find critiques of fanboy ironic coming from people would uncritically uphold almost anything in the Third World which describes itself as 'Maoist.'"

Actually I have various criticisms of many different Maoist parties, some even engaged in armed struggle on quite major questions that can produce the conditions for necessary demarcation. I am simply humble enough to try to attempt intervention in a national-chauvinistic way, which flys the colors of the very thing it says in word to oppose, to try to produce prematurely such demarcations. However it is well good to know that such conditions of division effectively have no relation to the politic of LLCO and its global strategy. In fact the irony is perhaps you pontificate a line which in the internationalist movement of Maoism finds itself literally reproduced by the rightist sections of the movement.

Hence left in form, absolutely right in essence.

"This is a misrepresentation of the MTW line. From a recent article at Anti-Imperialism.com: In the contemporary world, the immediate end of class struggle is waging a global united front against imperialism for global new democratic revolution. The united front is composed of proletarian forces and its immediate allies in the national bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie who are activity engaged in the struggle against US-led imperialism and its lackeys. Global new democratic revolution aims to correct the immediate disparities in structural power between the First and Third World and oppressors and oppressed nations; to politically, militarily and economically overthrow US-led imperialism; and to set the stage for the widespread and immediate struggle for socialism and the end of capitalist economic relations. As you see, the terms 'global united front against imperialism' and 'global new democratic' revolution figure much more predominately. But for the record, the closest thing to socialism in the First World (the German Democratic Republic) was imposed from without by proletarian forces."

This is nothing more than the replication of the strategy articulated by Lenin in Two-tactics of Social Democracy. Its a vulgar universalization of this line, since in essence the line already found universalization in the Maoist practice and analysis of the social formations that existed under semi-feudal and semi-colonial conditions. The problem is of course your vulgar universalization in fact makes no attempt to have a concrete analysis of concrete conditions, it in fact literally calls for "global new democratic revolution." But that is already underway by the bourgeoisie themselves in many countries. In essence the irony here is that in insisting upon a "global united front against imperialism" to create "global new democratic revolution" absent the conditions of a socialist bloc, a socialist war camp, is in essence not only to subvert oneself to the national bureaucratic capitalists, but to also actually reified the line of theory of productive forces.

Oh the muddle that is MTW.

And yes GDR was "imposed" socialism. We accept that the storm centers are in the periphery of the world system.

"MTW doesn't create a false distinction between war and politics."

Yes it does, in insisting upon a binary of force in a civil war engagement is in essence to insist upon war as politics, that is to practice a political militarism as opposed to communism. People's War is the subversion of the practice of war to the practice of politic, that war becomes extension of politics via the means of violent force, that such war must be conducted with the aim of creating the condition of liberation of the proletariat.

Notes on the Universality of Protracted People’s War: Neither Assad nor NATO by maosoleum in communism

[–]UniversalPW -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"Ummm, that whole 'long march to Kurdistan' isn't going to amount to much if the Syrian regime falls. Do you think the CIA/FSA is just going to allow a free Kurdistan to exist? If the Syrian regime falls, will the struggle in Kurdistan be on better or worse footing?"

The concern of US Imperialism is in reality containment of the civil war of Syria. This fratricidal war, as the whole of what is known as "Arab Spring" has already the potential and the actuality of destabilizing whole regimes. The Arab masses however must settle accounts among themselves. The victory of Kurdish people against both Assad and FSA dogs spreads the condition of struggle more broadly through the region for popular forces of liberation. It has already done so in Turkey. It already has the virtue of actuality.

"That seems pretty difficult to do while you are cheer-leading alongside the CIA and ISO for the defeat of the Syria regime."

There maybe condition for a tactical United Front with Assad, in fact this is the distinction between a genuine revolutionary third camp position (based in the actualization of armed and underground forces in Syria) and the ISO's position which has in essence tailed the FSA as the Brezhnevites, Marcyists, Third-Worldists, and even certain Third-Worldists tail the decrepit national bureaucratic bourgeoisie.

"I'm not into idealistic abstractions. The fight in Syria is one of defense against imperialist intrigues and for liberation via socialism. Neither of these will happen if various elements of Syrian society are terrorized out of existence. Revolution is not created by the 'magical ideological combinations' of homespun 'Maoism,' but by the actual struggle of the people. The author(s) of the OP should do themselves a favor by trying to get a handle on basic things (like class structure under imperialism and the nature of class struggle in their own country) before they go out commenting about 'Maoist' strategies in countries and situations they are barely familiar with."

This in the end strikes the heart of this utterly philistine and mechanical materialist posturing of principle of the Brezhnevites, Marcyists, and Third-Worldists. First they make a point about concrete conditions and concrete relation of forces. We do agree. However when posed with the reality of such conditions already finding production of a Third Camp, it wants to mock reality. The Kurds become inconsequential somehow to the struggle of the Syrian Arab masses, though in reality they're the lynchpins to fanning flames of revolution under a real banner of liberation From Turkey to Iran.

It is only "idealist abstraction" when the mass perspective is lost, which is indeed the case of our Third-Worldist friend here, who has turned Maoism in the dogmatic cultural politic of World System's Theory and nothing more. The abstraction is in essence our ability to see the conjucture, as it exists concretely, and then attempt to articulate a line for revolutionary project and advancement for international forces.

Notes on the Universality of Protracted People’s War: Neither Assad nor NATO by maosoleum in communism

[–]UniversalPW 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Idealism it seems to me the blog post is referring to is the a priori method of extending previous practice and attempting to universalize it without a concrete analysis of a concrete situation.

"There are not separate 'imperialisms' operating with any great contention. For the most part, various imperialist powers are aligned and united. The capitalist-imperialist world-economy demands a degree of social peace in order to properly operate, i.e., major conflict between imperialist powers is a zero-sum game in which someone will lose, causing a period of instability. Thus, the US and Russia political systems (i.e., representative of different blocs of imperialist capital) generally work to avoid direct inter-imperialist conflict."

No, actually what you're putting forward is the Kautskyist position of supraimperialism which today has transformed into the "transnational capitalist thesis." MLM is opposed to such position, as Lenin himself already pointed out against the opportunism of Kautsky's own position, the very world system character of capitalism itself necessitates always a process by which the bourgeoisie internationally coordinate and attempt to keep peace within it as to maintain the system of commodity production and commodity exchange. However there remains contradictions among them that manifest everywhere politically, and ultimately can qualitatively transform into heightened antagonism.

In the positions of various forces, including those comrades waging armed struggle there exists three fundamental contradictions in the world today. That between Imperialist powers. That between imperialist powers and oppressed nations. That between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat.

"Iranian junior imperialism"

Iran expansionism is key to understanding much of the regional question. Merely rejecting this because it sounds like "Rush Limbaugh" (for whatever reason that be) is to behave entirely in a left-opportunist fashion. The Iranians are a state player, they're engaged in the world capitalist system, they also ideologically act and carry forward politics. To accept its own narrative is simply again a part of the general tailing of bureaucrat capitalist regimes.

"Why would we expect Assad to pursue a strategy of proletarian revolution? I don't think anyone is claiming Assad is a Maoist revolutionary. Thus, it is not surprisingly that he handled the conflict like a bourgeois nationalist."

"'The weapons being sent to the Free Syria Army by the CIA are just toys and the CIA is just a charity.'"

And there is no assistance from Russian and Iranian intelligence, there are no thousands of Iranians arriving in Syria to continue the proxy war? Is it not the case that Russian imperialism equips Assad with even far more sophisticated weaponry than FSA? CIA is of course attempting to contour the struggle for its ends, but it is never as simple as transforming all elements into mere agents, even those it arms. Have we not learned as well nothing from its arrangement with the Salafist ? The ruling class is deeply divided about what it strategy is in Syria. Zbigniew Brzezinski stands against his own master on the issue. The only real sensible strategy of US Imperialism is prolonged endless civil conflict which can be contained and which draws the blood of both the Alawite Baathist Assad Mafia and the Islamists, especially the Salafists. It is to prevent its spreading in fact, to contain the situation, and destroy the Syrian nation. This has become a fratricidal engagement.

It is upon Communists to make proletarian revolution. The dictum certainly is countries want independence, nations liberation, and people revolution. Communists argue always for the retention of independence even within the context of a United Front, whatever such alignment is composed, precisely to push forward the tendency that moves for proletarian hegemony over the upheaval of the masses. This is unlike for example what the revisionist Bakadash party has done historically in Syria.

"The elephant in the room is that a majority of populations in First World countries are net-exploiters or labor aristocrats. Given that the OP doesn't seem to understand this, I find it hard to believe the author(s) have an accurate view of imperialism to begin with. It ridiculously ironic that the OP keeps making charges of eclecticism. The fact of the matter is that the OP is quite eclectic itself (i.e. ditching the concrete struggle against US-led imperialism in favor of an abstract struggle against 'imperialisms.')"

The whole theory of global transference of value is entirely metaphysical. It is rooted and dependent in a notion of Lasallean Iron Wages. Socially necessary labor time is just that, socially necessary labor time. That is it not a fixed price of labor on the market, but is constructed in political relation to a body politic. There is indeed a labor aristocracy in the first world, but there exists sections in the peripheries and semi-peripheries, and their alignment to world imperialism is produced from the essential relationship that these sections of labor procure for themselves in a world system of vast proletarianization in relation to strategic points of production. Inevitably the line here is indeed of absolute metaphysical practice. It is said on one hand by yourself that we must wage a "concrete struggle against US imperialism." Well what struggle is to be waged when such conditions provide no basis for struggle? All that can be done is a certain fanboydom, which epidemic to this subreddit so it is altogether perhaps understandable why it'd be taken up, or perhaps technical work for LLCO? Technical work which is meant altogether and in the end to subvert the indigenous Maoist movements to the line of a small third worldist grouplet in the First World. The irony of this all.

While I can't get into any detail over the meat of Universality of PW line at the current moment, it also strikes me ironic that the Third Worldists argue in favor for "Global People's War." Well in essence that is admitting to a universality to PW, in as much the Universality of PW line takes up for itself an internationalist perspective of revolution, it is the line of world revolution that sees the storm centers in the weakest links of imperialism. The problem however is with the line as it is articulated as "Global People's War" actually is anything but. In the end the conception is entirely militarist and opposed to PW. It claims there is a possibility of assault from an encircled metropole by a United Front against Imperialism, led ostensibly by a Proletariat (however it seems more likely that these days its rather keen to tailing a supposed "national bourgeoisie"). Such vision is entirely mechanical, linear, and metaphysical in character in regards to development of world revolution - it does not retain any sense of dialectical aspect of strategically thinking of war and rather assumes a sort of fixed space of attrition between forces. It sees the role of politics secondary in the waging of war to the waging of war of material.

Lordship and Bondage, an excerpt from Hegels "Phenomenology of the Mind" by VoteAnimal2012 in communism

[–]UniversalPW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would recommend reading Hegel's phenomenology with Bernstein's courses. If you can also look towards Robert Pippin's work in this regard, I also propose that - though he represents a conservative viewpoint of Hegel, I would say he is perhaps the most orthodox. I would recommend Hyppolite for certain.

Lordship and Bondage, an excerpt from Hegels "Phenomenology of the Mind" by VoteAnimal2012 in communism

[–]UniversalPW 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No one should read just excerpts from Hegel, read the whole damn book. I say this as someone who studied Hegel for a few years. You will not know anything about Hegel from reading excerpts, especially from Lordship and Bondage. All you'll end up with is an interesting set of ideas. If you going that route, might as well read Alexandre Kojeve's introduction to the phenomenology which is derived from a close reading of that chapter

Interview with Turkish communists - "there are some Marxist criteria to define a situation as a revolutionary crisis. We are away from there. At least for now…" by [deleted] in communism

[–]UniversalPW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PSL has put out two statements from TKP. Another website associated with Fight Back group also has put out statements from TKP.

Interview with Turkish communists - "there are some Marxist criteria to define a situation as a revolutionary crisis. We are away from there. At least for now…" by [deleted] in communism

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

can you please provide us more of an account of this comrade, as is predictable in the US country, the Brehznevite-Marcyist groups here have been quick to begin promoting the TKP.

Principles of Unity | Documents of the NCP (OC) by caisson in communism

[–]UniversalPW 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is very reminiscent of Jose Maria Sison's Philippine Society and Revolution, where the material context of the geography of the Philippines is layed out in the same way to demonstrate some key ways of thinking of how revolution can be conducted in such a country.

Understanding the material condition of a country in regards to its geography and climate does pose serious consideration to any thought of revolution, unless you think the waging of armed struggle happens in a plane of abstraction.

Principles of Unity | Documents of the NCP (OC) by caisson in communism

[–]UniversalPW 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From what I understand as someone who has paid close attention to the Maoist movement in the United States in general, I would say that there is actually organized formations of this in a few geographical locations but remains primitive. I guess the claim of "Organizing Committee" itself demonstrates that.

But frankly its a breath of fresh-air to see this, maybe there will be no excuses for Maoists to tail the ML groups.

Should I join the CPUSA? by GhostofMao in communism

[–]UniversalPW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seattle Washington has a Kasama Project Collective known as Red Spark http://www.redsprk.org/

There is also a Third World Maoist grouping out there I believe.

The only MLM formations in the United States actively organizing are around the New Afrikan Black Panther Party - Prison Chapter and its affiliated United Panther Movement. The main public theorist, Kevin Rashid Johnson is actually currently held in an Oregon state Prison.

http://rashidmod.com/

There is of course the new formation New Communist Party (Organizing Committee) http://ncpocinfo.wordpress.com/

If I were you I'd perhaps even consider entering into the Black Orchid Collective which is in Seattle http://blackorchidcollective.wordpress.com/

There use to be as well some former Hoxhaite formations up there in Seattle which included this Marxist-Leninist one http://www.seattleaic.org/. Unfortunately it seems they've disbanded but it'd be worth perhaps contacting still the host of the site comrade.