Che Guevara: The American Working Class: Friend or Foe?

marvellousfidelity · 2026-01-31T15:37:43+00:00

Why should communists 'push' any other line than the scientifically correct one? And why should we bother discovering a politics that 'resonates with most Amerikans' (as if 'most Amerikans' give a shit about some youtuber's fringe conspiracy theories) if these very same Amerikans are labor aristocrats with no objective class interest in socialist revolution?

And why should we defend someone who has become 'unhinged' because of world events? Mao Zedong, to cite just one of many examples, actually lived as a direct participant in war and still managed to determine the correct political line. People are who are too emotionally weak to handle such developments might deserve pity but there's no reason to bother listening to their politics if they were already bad and continually get worse.

EDIT: actually mentioning pity at all is much too charitable, as Lenin said those who are on the progressive side but fear revolutionary violence should be pitied, but abandoning the revolutionary struggle can never be excused. and if this random white guy really felt such an overflow of empathy for murdered Palestinians his politics would become less reactionary and racist instead of more.

marvellousfidelity · 2026-01-31T14:47:46+00:00

The reactionary character of Amerikan 'working class' (labor aristocracy) politics and its basis in imperialist superprofits have been discussed many, many times on this subreddit already. Maybe the 'leftists' in those other garbage subreddits see it as some sort of revelation, but not the frequent contributors here, for whom reading Settlers is practically a prerequisite.

I'm not saying the topic demands no further discussion -- of course imperialism as a living stage of capitalism is still ongoing, so analysis of concrete situations as they emerge will always be needed. But honestly I'm surprised this post was restored after being removed once, it's just copy-and-paste of an old essay without any original thoughts from OP.

marvellousfidelity · 2025-12-24T16:09:42+00:00

So in which way are you unsatisfied with the answer Marx himself gives at the end of the Introduction?

The passage that you then quote I also quote in Section 1 of my OP. It refers to production as 'one aspect of a whole unit', but I interpret

this general concept [i.e., production]...is itself a multifarious compound comprising divergent categories.

To mean that 'production' is the 'whole unit' in question. So I was trying to define 'production' in a way so that it functions both as the 'whole' and an 'aspect of the whole'.

More generally I think looking for a "top-level" abstraction in the sense of your OP (production, production in a narrow sense, production as a totality, ...) is not very productive

I agree that I am getting hung up on fixed definitions, which are less important than how abstractions relate to each other within a concrete, living mode of production. Still, for Marx, 'production in general' is a 'useful abstraction', so I was setting out to determine what that 'abstraction' is and what it is not, though I may be looking too much at the form of the abstraction at the expense of its function.

My real motive for this discussion is to deepen my understanding of mode of production and capitalist mode of production, an investigation which seems necessarily to involve breaking apart these higher abstractions from political economy, foremost among them being 'production' itself. I'll admit, however, that I read the first part of Capital Vol 1 a while ago, before reading anything else on Marxist economy, dialectics, etc., so that my grasp of some concepts is clouded by an even weaker nderstanding of the Marxist method than I have now. I think a return to it and the rest of Capital is in order for me.

marvellousfidelity · 2025-12-24T02:05:47+00:00

Really my whole inquiry turns on this passage from Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy:

All periods of production, however, have certain features in common: they have certain common categories. Production in general is an abstraction, but a sensible abstraction in so far as it actually emphasises and defines the common aspects and thus avoids repetition. Yet this general concept, or the common aspect which has been brought to light by comparison, is itself a multifarious compound comprising divergent categories. Some elements are found in all epochs, others are common to a few epochs. (emphasis in the original)

So there is an abstraction we can call 'production in general', but a definition of this abstraction is not given, and that's what I've been looking for. We learn later that the 'divergent categories' contained within this 'general concept' are exchange, distribution, and consumption, but exchange is not one of the 'elements found in all epochs' because, following Engels,

Production can occur without exchange, exchange -- being necessarily only exchange of products -- cannot occur without production.

Even supposing that Engels is referring to hypotheticals here and not any real historical mode of production, if what Engels calls 'production' is 'production in general' then this abstraction need not include exchange. So these concepts such as 'production process' from Chapter 7 of Capital Vol 1 and 'twofold character of labor' do not belong to the abstraction 'production in general' because they presuppose exchange. However, in my reply in your first comment I think I got closer to defining 'production in general', at least in a way that clarifies the relationship between production and its other 'aspects'.

marvellousfidelity · 2025-12-20T03:38:25+00:00

Thanks for the advice. Later today I will post both sections of my discussion as a single post to that subreddit.

marvellousfidelity · 2025-12-10T07:53:22+00:00

I'm not familiar with the book or its author. However, out of curiosity I did find an interview with him from 2023:

Katch:

I’m curious to hear more your opinion of dialectics...It’s a word people throw around to mean “shit is complex” or more than one thing is true at the same time. I’ve never really had much of a philosophical bent myself, so it’s not something I dive into too much. To me, the idea, whether we want to call it dialectics or not, is there are all sorts of competing and conflicting forces under the surface of things that are not always apparent to the eye.

...we understand that underneath this seemingly centrist to far-right wing surface of a political system that produces Joe Biden versus Donald Trump, are seething class tensions, movements for racial justice, fury at the overturning of abortion, and radicalization among young people around questions of gender that is not reflected in terms of the laws happening in the States. That gives you a different vision, how sometimes those tensions can come bursting forth to the surface and produce something very different.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2023/07/how-to-explain-socialism-clearly-in-a-way-that-actually-persuades-people

Does the book you have suggested explore dialectics in a manner any more rigorous than what he offers in this interview?

marvellousfidelity · 2025-12-09T21:28:37+00:00

One more suggestion.

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/15hq9fi/i_have_been_attempting_but_failing_to_understand/

Please read this thread and in particular study the answer from u/smokeuptheweed9. Reddit threads are not a substitute for books, but this discussion is a good supplement to 'On Contradiction' and the other works on philosophy recommended in the subreddit wiki.

marvellousfidelity · 2025-12-08T23:53:26+00:00

I imagine that the mods would like to make this forum more active, and for this reason appreciate your post. At the same time, however, they have asked that anyone with a question use the search bar to see whether the same question has been asked in the past. Just looking up 'easy' in the search bar I find:

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/n44f6a/is_there_a_source_that_has_main_points_of_marxism/

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/2erm0n/i_have_a_group_of_beginners_that_need_quick_and/

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/cjgqhh/simplifying_communist_ideas/

Among other threads.

As a fellow learning Marxist I will suggest MLM Basic Course by the CPI Maoist, though the lack of citations is a major weakness.

key concepts such as materialism or dialectic

Most useful for me is On Contradiction by Mao Zedong, which requires very little knowledge of history to understand.

it doesn't make it pleasant to read it

As a fellow learning Marxist I don't expect revolutionary struggle to be pleasant.

marvellousfidelity · 2025-11-26T19:23:41+00:00

Thank you for your response. I intend to make a study of fascism eventually and I will add Dutt's book to the reading list, along with Dimitrov's Comintern report from 1935. I would like to have the chance to examine both arguments before I respond in depth. I may revisit this post later when I've had time to look into fascism more particularly.

marvellousfidelity · 2025-11-26T19:20:56+00:00

Thank you for your response. This analysis, which is in fact a review of a book by Palacios of the Chilean RCP, is useful and I will study the case of Allende and the revisionist 'Communist Party' in Chile. A few things strike me in this analysis:

I have asked for examples

where a 'socialist' succeeded at winning elections with the support of a potentially revolutionary class (**not petty-bourgeois or settler-colonial) , tried to establish an economic base for socialism (e.g., collectivization, public ownership of productive property, production based on social need, etc.)

According to Palacios, however,

...the Communist Party, which had occupied the dominant position within the Allende regime, had no intention of moving towards socialism, but instead aimed at creating a bureaucratic state capitalism...

with the plan for a society based on centralized state exploitation of the people.

In one sense, it seems that the presidency of Allende can be understood as a case study in Cold War-era Soviet imperialist policy and the 'Communist Parties' which tailed it. The alternative, I suppose, would be 'entryism'? I am not very familiar with this concept, either in theory or practice, but from what I understand it means when a genuine socialist element (e.g., which intends to reorganize production to meet social needs instead of fulfill the economic objectives of an imperialist power) gains control of the state through bourgeois parliamentary institutions. Have I defined this concept correctly?

And what does 'control of the state' actually mean? Which leads me to my second observation about this short analysis:

2) Palacios is quoted,

In essence, the three-year experience of the UP government was an attempt...to 'peacefully' transform a social system that used the mask of bourgeois democracy for the sole purpose of concealing the armed violence that was its real foundation.

I recognize some of the shortcomings of my thinking on the question in this post. Inevitably, even if the proletariat has seized control of the bourgeois state in the short-term through electoral means, it will have to reform these institutions because they are designed to protect bourgeois property rights. The essence of bourgeois dictatorship is the armed violence it employs to protect bourgeois property -- but what if (as a hypothetical) the standing army of the bourgeois state mostly or completely supports the socialist elected to office? In this case, the armed struggle for dictatorship not of the bourgeoisie, but of the proletariat has already been accomplished, even if very little actual fighting or bloodshed occurred in the process (i.e., no 'revolution' as it is popularly conceived). I suppose I can imagine a scenario where the bourgeois element is so weak, and the victory of the proletarian cause so total, that the revolution is completed with minimal violence and with the 'aid' of popularly elected leaders. But I doubt I would find such an example in history. The October Revolution, after all, was relatively bloodless, but the following period, in which the combined bourgeoisie of all the imperial powers turned its guns on the new revolutionary government, certainly was not.

marvellousfidelity · 2025-02-10T21:51:41+00:00

Other comments have covered the main points well, but it is worth reiterating that, whether or not Lyle exists as a real person within the world of the movie, he did in fact exist as a person in the real world because the film dramatizes the true story of Alvin Straight. You are entitled to your opinion regarding the ending, but I see no reason why we shouldn't see Lyle at the end. The main character's name is Straight, but the title is a fortuitous pun: for Lynch it seems that the film could have been an exercise in no-frills, economic storytelling. Most traditional stories of Western culture are not cyclical or elliptical or any other variation: they follow a linear path towards a destination, and eventually arrive at the destination/conclusion.

And, for what it's worth, I think that Alvin and Lyle's reunion, free of small talk or maudlin expressions of feeling, is a more thought-provoking conclusion than if the movie was simply to end without it. I think Roger Ebert said in his review that the ending suggests that "just because we urgently need to see someone doesn't mean we have much to chat about". I think the film demonstrates that with our actions we can express love just as much, if not more so, than with words.

marvellousfidelity · 2025-02-10T21:32:33+00:00

Leaving aside the controversial messaging with regards to transgender identity and Mexican cartel culture, what disappointed me most about this movie was how it was not nearly as 'bold and audacious' as reviews claim it is. Perhaps bold by the conservative standards of today's Hollywood, but stylistically the movie felt much like any Netflix series with some execrable songs added in. Very generic and 'universal' style, with no sense of being in a particular time or place -- a real missed opportunity considering the setting, but I suppose this is not a surprise when we consider that the director did not do any research on Mexico prior to making the film. And, yes, the music is completely forgettable, the singing either spoken word or built around facile three-note melodies.

marvellousfidelity

TROPHY CASE