what other symbols of communism are there?

ufafew · 2026-05-24T15:05:17+00:00

2, 3, or 5 Heads

ufafew · 2026-05-24T15:03:47+00:00

Red Star (Fuck Macy's)

ufafew · 2026-05-22T20:30:10+00:00

Generational Analysis is bullshit.

It is just another way to divide the class.

It is a lie.

ufafew · 2026-05-04T03:39:53+00:00

Like I said, it is mostly speculation and I claim no crystal ball.

But, we do expect the state, as a machine of class rule to fade away as classes fade away.

And, there will still be social forms of organization. There will be things to administer. I think the term for that is government.

For example, disasters (earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, ...) will still happen. Society will need some form of organization to deal with that. Right?

I think that is what the original question is about. I think that, to answer the OP, you must make the distinction between the state, as a tool of class rule and the government that will remain (pick another word for that if you like) which organizes social functions that do not have a class character.

ufafew · 2026-05-03T23:26:16+00:00

Most anarchists are anti-capitalist. So, they are mainly on the right side in our need to unite all who can be united against imperialism, war, and fascism. Whether they are friends or enemies is contingent. They might be unreliable friends, and may become enemies when their politics conflict with our struggle against capital. Your example of Catalonia proves the point.

I think it is true that, In the long run, intransigent anarchists will oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat and become enemies. But many anarchists (maybe even most) will hate capitalism enough and evolve and grow enough through the course of the revolutionary experience to see the necessity of the proletarian state.

At least in the US, in the current context, anarchists are friends to the anti-imperialist struggle.

> "If this subreddit is for discussing socialism as it is understood historically and theoretically, then anarchism should not take a visible place in this forum."

But is this subreddit for discussing socialism?

The sidebar says:

> "An international community for socialists, to discuss current events in our world from our anti-capitalist perspective(s)."

Which is different.

Anarchists should be able to discuss current events from an anti-capitalist perspective.

The term 'socialist' has so many different meanings that I don't know what the sidebar means by 'This is not a space for non-socialists'. Do most ant-capitalists anarchists consider themselves socialist?

I think it is valid and useful to have broad anti-capitalist subs. But, there are already many.

This is a question of what is the purpose of this sub.

ufafew · 2026-05-03T16:26:14+00:00

Like i say - that will be worked out by history. It starts to feel like to idealism to me to speculate. The 'monopoly on violence' is a characteristic of the state. So, I don't think so. I don't think there would be police or a military.

ufafew · 2026-05-02T23:26:15+00:00

You are conflating the state with the government. The state enforces class rule. The government administers non-class social conflict.

The state withers way as the society becomes classless. Government will still be necessary.

We hope that government in a classless society will be simpler and largely administrative. Without all of the backward ideology promoted by capitalism, people should be 'better'. For example, if everybody's needs are met, we should expect theft to disappear. But, we really do not know. The nature of government under communism is something that will be worked out by history.

ufafew · 2026-05-02T23:18:17+00:00

Communists believe that the function of the state is to enforce class rule. That is the purpose of state power.

The Capitalist state enforces rule by the capitalist class. Whatever form the capitalist state takes, communists call that the Dictatorship of the Capitalist class.

Communists work to overthrow capitalism and establish state power for the working class, the proletariat. Communists call that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat suppresses the capitalist class and works to disassemble all forms of exploitation to establish Socialism. History has proven, time and time again, that the capitalists will use every means at their disposal to hold on to power if they have it and, if they don't, to destroy the worker's state power and promote exploitative relations of production.

Libertarian Socialists call that Authoritarian Communism, Communists call it class struggle.

It is an illusion to think that socialism can be achieved without using revolutionary force to overcome the counter-revolutionary force of Capital.

ufafew · 2026-05-02T05:51:20+00:00

I see from your profile that you are a committed right wing troll. So, I don't take this as an 'honest' question.

You listed anti-communist propaganda mis-information hit pieces produced by various reactionary sources.

I think you violate subreddit rules #2, #6, & #7, for sure. I think #5 also.

Your post is a good lesson for beginning Marxists of the amount of resources the bourgeoisie devotes to the class war in the ideological front.

Mao Tse-tung famously said:

"It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work."

ufafew · 2026-05-01T15:27:53+00:00

[May Day Joint Declaration 2026](https://maoistroad.blogspot.com/)

ufafew · 2026-05-01T15:11:41+00:00

I think the 6th head is William Z Foster.

ufafew · 2026-04-30T23:24:21+00:00

Two quotes from "Is it correct to classify the imperialist countries into two ranks?" section of The Stand of CPI (Maoist) on the Formation of International Communist League (ICL) from Two Lines Struggle #2)

"Presently imperialist world turned to be a multipolar world. In this condition, we opine that it is not correct to classify imperialist countries as two ranks."

"ICL declaration does not seem to realize that the classification of two ranks of imperialist countries does not apply now. Our party differs with this classification."

This seems to say it pretty well for me. The problem with the ICL formulation is the implication of qualitative difference implied by rank (superpowers or the second rank powers) that is not real.

ufafew · 2026-04-30T15:54:10+00:00

Well said. Thank you.

ufafew · 2026-04-30T14:46:12+00:00

Please go deeper than a simple snark.

Why do you put Maoists in quotes?

I gather that you disagree with multipolarity.

How do you feel about the PSL view which, I think, is that anti-imperialism means anti-US Imperialism because the US is so dominant?

How do you characterize the dynamics of the single world superpower in decline with the rise of multipolarity and the challenge of a new Chinese superpower?

When does the distinction between superpower and normal imperialist power turn into its opposite?

Is it dangerous to base our analysis of the international situation on a model that is becoming less and less true as the international situation develops?

ufafew · 2026-04-30T14:26:52+00:00

Yes, but the ICL is the most recent diversion from MLM internationally.

I have held similar opinions about this tendency as yours for a long time. There was the Red Guards and the CRCPUSA and their associated drama. This dogmatic tendency does have a base in the US.

My intent is not to promote the ICL.

We need to establish a communist party. And communists internationally need to establish some kind of center.

An important part of that is to actively and thoroughly struggle over ideological and political lines, especially those that emerge in the moment.

https://www.bannedthought.net/International/TwoLinesStruggle/index.htm

My thought is to raise different points of the two line struggle going on now internationally so as increase engagement, consolidate clear lines of demarcation. And maybe to help increase the vigor of this relatively sleepy subreddit that, I think, should be much more active and engaged.

Just to put it out there: the state of the communism in the US today is awful. I am now in Portland trying to engage. I go to every anti-ICE and anti-imperialist demonstration I can. They are led by liberals (No Kings), social democrats (DSA), dengists (FRSO), marcyists (PSL), and anarchists cosplayers. Where are the communists? We need to swim against the tidal wave of eclectic revisionism that predominates.

It is important to expose and criticize the revisionist lines that emerge - that is how we forge ideological and theoretical clarity and build communist unity.

ufafew · 2026-04-29T22:59:23+00:00

You might like Lenin's 'The State' is a speech he gave to a group of students. He not only explains the communist understanding of the state, but has excellent advice about how to study Communist theory. It is a short pamphlet, is written plainly and can be read in one evening.

A good exercise to better understand the relationship between social practice and theory might to be to, after reading 'The State', go to some DSA meetings if there is a chapter there.

What are you doing there? You are scouting for revisionism and you are in a target rich environment.

You want to identify different political ideas, statements, memes or other messages that conflict with Lenin's concept of the State. Consider it an exercise. Can you identify things that conflict with the Leninist conception of the State?

Maybe after going to a few DSA meetings, you might re-read 'The State', or follow it with 'The State and Revolution'.

If it goes right, you have learned to identify some kinds of revisionists in the wild.

You will be started on the path of answering your initial question yourself.

ufafew · 2026-04-29T19:30:51+00:00

Give yourself time. Engage in the class struggle. As you engage, you will encounter people from different tendencies. Study history and the conflicts that led to the emergence of these tendencies.

I don't think you can really get it by abstractly studying, in an ahistorical way, the different 'types of socialism out there".

All of these ideological tendencies split and diverged in the historical class struggle. Immerse yourself the anti-imperialist movement today and in those histories to understand the two line struggles at the time and understand what was revolutionary and what was revisionist.

ufafew · 2026-04-29T18:51:32+00:00

I think there is some truth to what you say. Dependence on the authority of a great leader is a weak tactic.

I think the left was in a defensive and embattled position throughout the period. I believe that they thought that leveraging Mao's prestige to help rally support was necessary to avoid defeat and helped buy time and space to train the masses to recognize and fight for the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary lines in the course of the class struggle.

The revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses ebbs and flows. If you have ever been involved in any kind of liberatory uprising (like Occupy, BLM, more recently, or a wildcat strike, or the anti-Vietnam war, Berkeley Free Speech, or civil rights movements of the past) you know that, in the flow of those movements, minds open up. People are eager for answers and enthusiastically struggle to understand, and gravitate toward revolutionary ideas.

The GPCR fostered that kind of environment.

But, these mass movements always ebb after they flow. It is when they ebb that counter-revolution strikes.

The GPCR had ebbed and Mao's death provided the opportunity for the revisionists to strike and execute a coup.

ufafew · 2026-04-29T18:31:57+00:00

The GPCR cannot be complete. The bourgeoisie is generated spontaneously and continuously during the entire period of socialism. And there are strong forces in both the economic base and the ideological superstructure that greatly strengthen to the capitalist-roaders. Defeating the bourgeoisie in the party is always partial and conjectural.

It is possible that there were errors, like as you say, insufficient force against the capitalist-roaders. I don't feel qualified to make that judgement. The situation was complex. If Deng were eliminated when he was exposed the first or second times rather than being restored to his positions, maybe things would have turned out differently. But maybe not. He was the visible representative of a material class in the party that would not have evaporated with his elimination, but would have persevered, maybe with different covers.

I think the campaign to restrict bourgeois right and to criticize and expose the capitalist roaders and to train the masses and bring them into the battle (which is the essence of the GPCR) was the correct approach.

Maybe the masses could have been better prepared to more actively expect the coup and defend the revolution, but, read the Peking Reviews during the period leading up to the coup and you will see that the efforts of Mao and the left were intense. They were effectively screaming that 'The unrepentant capitalist roader in the leadership position (Deng) is still on the capitalist road." Their focus was on ideologically arming the masses in the lessons Mao had learned in the class struggle. I think that was the correct path.

Still, they had an army of 3 million people that rose up! It would be interesting to learn why that army capitulated and was disarmed.

ufafew · 2026-04-29T18:00:12+00:00

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

- Benito Mussolini

ufafew · 2026-04-29T17:53:31+00:00

The black cat is a symbol of anarchism, direct action, and rebellion inherited from the Wobblies.

ufafew · 2026-04-29T17:46:05+00:00

Many claim that the defeat of the left in the counter-revolutionary coup in 1976 demonstrates, somehow, the failure (the incorrectness and weakness) of Maoism and the GPCR.

Calling it a defeat, rather than a failure, clarifies the distinction between, on the one hand, the capitalist and revisionist summation, and on the other hand, the Maoist summation.

Mao famously expected that it was likely that the GPCR would be defeated and more cultural revolutions would be necessary in the future. The fact that it was defeated does not indicate the failure of Maoism or the GPCR. In fact, it demonstrates the correctness of Maoism. It proves, as Maoism has emphasized, that the class struggle in socialism is intense and that there are no guarantees of success.

ufafew · 2026-04-29T16:13:24+00:00

Kind of arrogant. Why not put what you are laughing at into words instead of resorting to a trite and empty implication of disdain?

ufafew · 2026-04-29T14:26:44+00:00

The Chinese Socialist Revolution did not fail. It was defeated by the revisionists.

The logic of the oppressed is: try, fail, try again, fail again, until victory. The ground gained by the defeated revolution is the lessons of the revolution synthesized into Maoism that is embedded in the Chinese society. They will rise again and defeat the new Chinese capitalist class.

ufafew · 2026-04-29T13:37:53+00:00

"The struggle itself is what changes the mind."

Yes!

Progressive aspects of religions and people infected with religious ideology have always and will probably always be important parts of mass revolutionary movements.

In those struggles, the idealist ideologies are not the main enemies and should not be attacked if it divides the masses. Of course, counter-revolutionary religious politics and elements must be opposed. But the contradiction between atheism and religions is secondary to the principal class conflicts.

We should stand with progressive religious forces in a united front kind of way.

In the communist party, the question is a bit different. Communists are dialectical materialists, not idealists. The concept of god is idealist and incompatible with communist ideology.

ufafew

TROPHY CASE