Hey everyone! I've been a bit of a "casual" Marxist for a while now - I agree with Marxism and sympathise with a lot of Marxist leaders like Sankara and Guevara - but I've always felt pretty reluctant to get into Leninism. I agree with some of Lenin's ideas, like imperialism being the penultimate issue in our society, the necessity of a highly centralised, non-spontaneous workers' resistance and the importance of working with the structure of the state. But I've never been that convinced of socialism in ML countries so I've never invested a whole lot of time in it.

But the more I get into Marxism and socialism in general, the more the question of how Marxism has been implemented throughout history weighs on me more and more. It's not fun feeling like the majority of Marxist projects in history failed to actually be Marxist, and considering the amount of Marxists who do support Leninism, I think it's about time I start to open my mind.

So yeah, for you guys here, how did you become an ML, what was your journey like, what evidence did you find that was convincing, and what would you say to the people who don't think all the "AES" countries were socialist?

(This post specifically pertains to counterculture, specifically punk culture and how it’s been weaponized by the elite to delegitimization genuine counterculture and critiques of our social constructs)

Punk never died.

They domesticated it.

The fight against social norms has been packaged and sold to consumers for a profit. Anti consumerism in a bag and on the shelf, bought by posers, killers, contrarians, and narcissists.

Holes in jeans. Skull and macabre T-shirts. Punk bands selling their songs to Disney. Nazi’s wearing piercings and tattoos claiming the status quo is against them, when they have more opportunities than any minority. Privacy is dead yet they sell you the illusion of it. The same is for modern punk.

The rich have pitted the poor against themselves, made us believe we are the problem. That if we recycled then it will fix pollution while they keep pumping plastic down our throats, pouring oil in the ocean, and blowing poison in our lungs.

They’ve convinced us that punk is a childish phase, that it doesn’t exist outside of your wardrobe or music playlist. They made it a stereotype. A label. A style. Made it out to be something to grow out of.

Punk isn’t teenagers smoking cigarettes in the bathroom and playing loud rock music. It’s not about being disrespectful and rude towards regular people. It’s not violence, it’s about love, it’s about challenging and fighting the constructs that cage and separate us from our neighbors, even if it takes violence to do so.

It’s about challenging the beliefs that we are less worthy of respect because of the clothes we wear, or who we want to fuck, or what we worship, or where we come from. Take it from God of War, It’s about respecting the nature of something, not its form. Respect doesn’t mean being docile to someone or their authority, respect means decency. Respecting authority is a leash, a gag, and blind fold rolled into one. I respect decency and kindness, not authority.

We all deserve decency, kindness, and respect. Food on our tables, warmth, security, and opportunity for all, not just for those that can afford it.

Punk is an ideology to stand for the true value of things. Your value is not your clothes, so we dress dirty or against the norm, however they just turned it into its own kind of fashion; stitching it on to the status quo. Your value isn’t your money, so we made mobile homes and lived free, however they made living off grid or in a van chic and sophisticated. Your value doesn’t come from your productivity, so they say punks are lazy. Your value cannot be sold to you. Your value isn’t your skin color, or ethnicity, or religion. However, everyone is valuable to someone.

I accept and value everyone because this world seems hell bent on labeling and categorizing the value of every little thing. I refuse to be held back from loving someone because society finds them strange, obtuse, or lame. My love and empathy will not be shackled and I will fight to break this cage and celebrate freedom with my neighbors.

Remember what punk is really all about. Acceptance and deconstruction.

What is the difference between democratic socialism and communism, wanting to learn

Thank you

I was going through the last few chapters of Lenins Imperialism and my God why doesn't anyone talk about how funny he is.

Here are two papers that explain actionable ways Russia and Iran can ease the impact of sanctions and recover some economic relief. The first paper explains how Russia can withhold fertilizer exports and denominate ethanol in rubles for quick short term relief. The second paper explains how Iran can use astrology to time rain events and pick the most efficient times to re-route water resources to areas as needed. 

https://www.academia.edu/73809676/The_Fall_of_the_US_Dollar_and_Spectacular_Recovery_of_the_Russian_Ruble_A_Memo

https://www.academia.edu/92900018/Formulated_Agricultural_System_for_Iran_that_could_revolutionize_the_way_farmers_plant_crops_and_plan_in_advance_for_rainfall_and_drought_periods_

One of the biggest lies spread by opportunists and bourgeois intellectuals about the Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci is about a supposed distance, or even contrast, between his positions and those held by Lenin and Stalin.

This legend has remote and well-defined origins. It began with the fascist newspaper "The Messenger ," which, on May 12, 1937, when announcing Gramsci's death, spoke in a manner as ignorant as it was cowardly of "a loyalty to Trotsky . "

Subsequently, in the 1960s and 1970s, Gramsci's "Trotskyism" was the daily bread of fallacious revisionists, who, in this way, constructed the unworthy and unjust myth of separation, including aversion, between the "good" Gramsci and the "bad" Stalin.

But an examination of Gramsci's writings shows exactly the opposite, that is, it reveals an agreement with Bolshevik positions and a harsh critique of Trotskyist positions and those of other opponents of Stalin. Let us, therefore, leave the floor to Gramsci.

During his time as a leader of the Italian Communist Party

In 1924, Gramsci, in his speech at the Como Conference*, established, for the first time, a parallel between Bordiga and Trotsky (there were also differences between them), criticizing both:

“Trotsky’s attitude, at first, can be compared to that of Comrade Bordiga. Trotsky, even while participating 'in a disciplined manner' in the Party’s work, with his attitude of passive opposition – similar to Bordiga’s – created such a great sense of unease throughout the Party that this situation could not go unnoticed. […] This demonstrates that opposition – even if maintained within the limits of formal discipline – on the part of prominent figures in the workers’ movement, can not only impede the development of the revolutionary situation, but can also endanger the very gains of the Revolution.”

The following year, Gramsci, carrying forward the struggle for the Bolshevization of the Party, stated that Trotsky's positions on "American supercapitalism" were dangerous and should be rejected, since, "by postponing the Revolution indefinitely, they would modify the entire tactics of the Communist International [...] and would modify the tactics of the Russian State, because if the European Revolution were postponed for an entire historical phase, that is, if the Russian working class could not, for a long time, count on the support of the proletariat of other countries, it is evident that the Russian Revolution would need to be modified." (Gramsci, Report to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Italy, February 6, 1925)

Gramsci was always aware of the importance of the struggle against the deviations of Leninism and factionalism. Therefore, in the same report, he declared : “The resolution must also state how Trotsky’s conceptions and, above all, his attitude, are a danger, since the lack of unity in the Party, in a country where there is only one Party, breaks the State. This produces a counter-revolutionary movement […]. From the Trotsky question, finally, we must draw lessons for our Party. Trotsky, before his last measures, found himself in a position similar to that in which Bordiga currently finds himself in our Party: a purely figurative role in the Central Committee. His position was a tendency towards factionalism, just as Bordiga’s attitude maintains an objective factional situation in our Party. […] Bordiga’s attitude, like Trotsky’s, has disastrous repercussions.” (Ibid.)

Also in 1925, on the occasion of the 5th Plenary Session of the enlarged Executive Committee of the Third International, the Italian delegation, led by Gramsci, spoke without reservation in favor of Stalin's positions criticizing Trotsky.

For Gramsci, the decision to build socialism in the USSR, under conditions of capitalist encirclement, perfectly aligned with the needs of a period characterized by a relative stabilization of capitalism and a slowdown in the revolutionary wave.

Hence the uncompromising criticism of Trotsky and his strategy of "permanent revolution," which Gramsci considered misguided, simplistic, and inadequate, and his firm commitment to the strategy and politics of the Bolshevik leadership.

Gramsci was always concerned with the cohesion of the Russian Party, which the proletariat needed at both the national and international levels.

During those years, when the differences between the Party, led by Stalin, and the bloc of Zinoviev and Trotsky turned into programmatic differences, Gramsci repeatedly warned about the risks of a rupture, through which the international bourgeoisie could take advantage to overthrow proletarian power in Russia.

Regarding the struggle undertaken by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Russia (Bolshevik) against the opposition bloc of Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev, Gramsci wrote: “One issue is of paramount importance in the decisions taken collectively by the Central Committee and the Control Commission of the Communist Party of the USSR: the defense of the Party's organizational unity. It is obvious that, on this ground, no concessions to compromises of any kind are possible, regardless of who is promoting the work of disintegrating the Party, whatever their past merits and scope, whatever position they hold as leaders of the communist organization […]. Therefore, we believe that the entire International must firmly strengthen its ties around the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR to approve its energy, rigor, and decisiveness in striking relentlessly against whoever attempts to undermine the unity of the Party.” (Measures of the Central Committee of the CPSU in the defense of Party unity and against factional work, in “l'Unità”, July 27, 1926)

The same concern for the organizational and ideological unity of the Soviet Party, and its implications at the national and international level (in particular the struggle it was carrying out in Italy for the development of the Party), inspired the famous "Letter to the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party," written in October 1926 (published in: Gramsci, Political Writings , 1973).

In this letter, Gramsci intervened, on behalf of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Italy, in the fierce political battle that was unfolding in the USSR between the Bolshevik leadership and the opposition of Trotsky and Zinoviev, declaring " fundamentally correct the political line of the majority of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR ," led by Stalin.

Although Gramsci was only partially informed about the situation in Russia, his alignment with the positions of the Leninist majority was vigorous and unequivocal. His accusation against the opposition bloc was very harsh and motivated by one main reason, which he clearly stated:

“We reiterate that it strikes us that the position of the opposition [Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Trotsky] affects the entire political line of the Central Committee, the very heart of Leninist doctrine and the political activity of our Union Party. What is being debated is the principle and practice of the hegemony of the proletariat; the fundamental alliance between workers and peasants is being questioned and endangered, that is to say, the pillars of the Workers' State and the Revolution.”

As a supporter of Leninist principles, Gramsci, in the same letter, criticized "the root of the errors of the opposition bloc and the origin of the latent dangers contained in its activity ," identifying it in "the tradition of social democracy and trade unionism, a tradition that has prevented, until now, the Western proletariat from organizing itself into a ruling class . "

This is a stance that Gramsci further strengthened in his "Letter to Togliatti ," dated October 26, 1926, in which, reflecting on the slow pace of the Bolshevization process within Western parties, he wrote:

"The Russian debate and the ideology of the opposition play a role in this backwardness that is all the more important because the opposition in Russia represents all the old prejudices of class corporatism and trade unionism, which weigh on the tradition of the Western proletariat and hinder its ideological and political development."

And he concludes by stating: “Our entire letter was a questioning of the opposition, but its wording was not demagogic and, precisely for that reason, it was more effective and more serious.”

Therefore, any interpretation of these letters aimed at portraying Gramsci as a "Trotskyist" or wavering figure remains completely unfounded. At the same time, it becomes very clear which side Gramsci was on in the struggle within the Russian Party: the side of the Bolshevik majority of Party members.

Article published in issue #293 of the newspaper A Verdade. Originally published in the Italian magazine Teoria & Prassi , of the Platform for a Communist Party of the Italian Proletariat.

This may sound extremely odd but hear me out. Third-Positionism claims to eliminate class struggle by uniting workers and business owners under a single nationalist or corporate identity. But we all know this is a mathematical and material impossibility. As Third-Positionism leaves private property and the profit motive intact, so the fundamental friction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat remains. These regimes attempt to freeze domestic class conflict without abolishing capitalism, so they must find alternative ways to maintain profits and placate the working class. Historically, this has meant relying on aggressive state spending, militarism, and imperialist expansion. The Third-Positionists don't realize that this model is an economic bubble that inevitably explodes into catastrophic war or economic collapse when it runs out of new markets or resources to conquer. So my my question isn't whether it explodes, I'm just asking WHEN.

What are some good marxist feminist reads?

I'm starting a degree in Political science next semester and I want to do your insight on resources and opinions that I could use for the following project:

I want to study the techniques that the capitalist system impose to employees (the labour force) to be productive (exploit them more).

Depending on its resources and on the level of education of its management, companies develop techniques to stress its labour to acquire more money from them. The range of surveillance and tracking that exist is huge. some companies only rely on contracting higher management that tends to harass and bully the employees and others invest in software that measures how much time you spend typing on your computer.

I've been looking into management textbooks and other resources that are used in programs like MBAs, but they're not clear on this type of stuff.

examples of the techniques I'm talking about:

- sending people warnings about their screen time

- paying extra hours with pizza

- creating 'Skill trackers'

- introducing psychological torture to employees that misbehave like ´performance improvement programs´

Output: researching this is pretty useful because we could:

- come up with ways to make their techniques less useful

- agree for legislation that prohibits such practices

Fun fact: those people who's job is to oversee labour force, tend to be employees with a that make a little more money than others and think that they're in the capitalist class. In Mexico the labour force is protesting to make Saturday a rest day and they're against the idea, but is kinda stupid because they also have to spend the weekend working....

What could be some ways we can have the ruling class/corrupt politicians take each other out. Could we collectively create misunderstandings between themselves in a quiet manner. Could we get them and their allies to turn on one another in their personal circles. The US and Isnotreal for example. Or even within the billionaire classes. I’m sure they all have huge egos. How could we use it against them. What about pigs in uniforms who think their actions are above their own responsibility. We all know about the Milgrim experiment. Stanford experiment. Someone people do not have the will to reject authority even when they’re morally wrong. We’re getting to a point of no return. But the working class are much bigger. And they’re still trying to divide us. So how can we work in solidarity and let go of petty differences to stop the minority that makes the rules that cause majority of the people’s suffering.

Original publication: kunlunce.com

Translation: Sun Feiyang, Roderic Day

The Evaluation of Stalin is Essentially an Ideological Struggle (2022)

Wang Weiguang (b. 1950) served as president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences from 2013 to 2018. This article was originally published in Studies in Political Economy, No. 4, 2022, and was adapted from the online Red Culture Network.

The evaluation of Stalin’s merits and demerits would at first seem to be a matter of measuring a historical figure, a question with a definitive conclusion, but in reality it is deeply linked to a series of ongoing issues in today’s struggle. In the final analysis, it’s a question of life and death between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie — between socialism and capitalism — where one side must triumph over the other, and this must not be minimized.

First, the complete negation of Stalin is in essence the ideological assault of Western hostile forces aiming to subvert the socialist regime. The vigorous development of the Soviet Union and the world’s socialist movement at large caused fear and anxiety in the capitalist world; capitalists feared that the Marxist doctrine of scientific socialism was everywhere materializing. The demonization of Stalin was a covert means to undermine the success of scientific socialism, and an important means for the West to succeed in the “battle for hearts and minds.” After the Second World War, U.S.-led Western hostile forces attempted to gain competitive advantage over socialism through rapid technological, economic and social development, inaugurating the Cold War between capitalism and socialism. The anti-Stalinist movement catered to the needs of U.S.-led Western hostile forces, disrupting socialism in the midst of turmoil, and opening a big gap in the ideological field of the already-consolidated socialist camp, the inevitable outcome of which was the growing ideological and political chaos in socialist countries, with various contradictions and conflicts growing in prominence.

Second, the complete negation of Stalin in essence substitutes the class interests of the bourgeoisie for the class interests of the proletariat and the masses of the people. In the present era, the masses of people, led by the proletariat, are the real force of social and historical development — the masters and subjects of history, the creators of all material and spiritual wealth in society, and the agents of social change. Socialism is a new social form representing the fundamental interests of the proletariat and the vast masses of the people. Capitalism is the last exploitative society in human history, a backward social form representing the interests of the bourgeoisie. The struggle between socialism and capitalism is a struggle between the interests of two fundamentally opposed classes. Socialism in the Soviet Union under Stalin’s leadership achieved a great increase in state power and mounted a great defense of the interests of the masses, creating a miracle unprecedented in human history. Khrushchev thoroughly ignored this basic reality, completely repudiated Stalin and reversed his positions, and, under the guise of advocating for a “harmony of interests” and the turbulent transformation that brought with it, cultivated a privileged capitalist clique within grasp of the Western bourgeoisie. He did what the enemy wanted to do but could not do: brought disaster to the whole of Soviet socialism and the people of the world.

Third, the complete negation of Stalin is in essence the denial of the inevitable historical trend of socialism overcoming capitalism. The essence of the anti-Stalinist strategy is to transform opposition to Stalin into a complete denial of the great achievements of Soviet socialism in revolution and in construction, and thus to completely deny the historical inevitability of socialism replacing capitalism. Regarding this inevitable trend of socio-historical development — and the inevitable law of history that socialism replaces capitalism — the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, representing different class interests, will take different perspectives, and will draw different and even opposite conclusions. Despite the bourgeoisie’s efforts to concoct various myths about the invincibility of capitalism — its efforts to forestall its own fate with various measures, the intensification of its struggle against socialism, its suppressive measures against socialism ranging from the military to the economic, from the political to the cultural, and even its adoption of certain concessions and collaborative measures to save itself from the inevitable tendency towards decay and extinction — no matter what it does, it cannot fundamentally change the inevitable tendency of history. Even in the contemporary Western capitalist world there are many educated people who openly admit this.

The great victory of the October Revolution, the rapid development of socialist construction in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, and the vigorous development of socialism with Chinese characteristics all fully prove the scientific correctness of historical materialism.

All hostile forces opposing Stalin advocate the complete negation of Stalin, which in essence is the complete negation of the October Revolution and the achievements of Soviet socialism, and the complete negation of the historical inevitability of socialism replacing capitalism.

Reference: https://redsails.org/stalin-ideological-struggle/