[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / clang / doomer / komica / marx / sw / vichan ]

/marx/ - Marxism

It makes you smart
Winner of the 62rd Attention-Hungry Games
/eris/ - Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything.

November 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


File: c62e7f34225e649⋯.jpg (350.24 KB, 573x773, 573:773, Untitled.jpg)

 No.10096

Old thread: https://8ch.net/marx/res/8560.html

As the title says. I figure a general "ask me questions" thread is good. Can be questions about socialism, US history, the Marxist position on religion, or whatever else.

 No.10098

File: b153fa2eb415bfd⋯.jpg (415 KB, 2000x1250, 8:5, 5Si2Mxj.jpg)

/leftypol/ has been bursting with anti-china posting lately, which coincidentally aligns with heightened US-China tensions and economic warfare.

However, they linked one article that caught my attention:

http://web.archive.org/web/20181008143044/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/world/asia/china-maoists-xi-protests.html

What do you think about this #MeToo nonsense trying to sneak itself into Chinese society? seems like western fifth column to me.


 No.10100

>>10098

The article does shed some light on the CCP. For a supposedly communist country you have some of the world's biggest millionaires and billionaires. Poor working conditions and hundreds of millions of poor peasants.

I talk about it here >>10099. The CCP is basically an Imperial Dynasty and it will eventually collapse on its own weight. The angry young communists that the article talks about should remind any you of the many peasant rebellion throughout Chinese history whenever the Ruling Class abuses their power in obscene ways.


 No.10101

>>10098

There's this annoying tendency to exalt any "grassroots," ostensibly pro-worker individuals or groups in socialist countries. This led to stupidities like many "leftists" in the 80s supporting the CIA-backed Solidarity.

I don't think it's a good idea for self-described communists in China to import #MeToo and other movements linked to American bourgeois politics.


 No.10102

>>10101

Lmao. You leftist are mentally ill. Chinese kids that are brought up on socialism and communism, the true believers, see that the CCP is completely corrupt tries to give a voice to the poor and abused workers and you call it stupid lmao.

>I don't think it's a good idea for self-described communists in China to import #MeToo and other movements linked to American bourgeois politics.

Let me fix that for you.

>I think Chinese people should lay down and let the mutated and corrupt CCP do whatever the fuck they like to them because let's not rock the boat.


 No.10103

>>10102

No, I think that corruption and other grievances should not be taken advantage of by imperialists and domestic forces that would be glad to undertake a counter-revolution in the country.

It's entirely possible to oppose sexual harassment without invoking a movement championed by the liberal wing of the American bourgeoisie.

Again, Solidarity is an example. You had workers protesting over workplace conditions, with many calling for attractive slogans like "workers' control." Solidarity was backed by the CIA, the Vatican, the AFL-CIO, and other anti-communist entities abroad. Within a few years Walesa was visiting Britain and praising Thatcher for her repression of the miners' strike. Then that same Walesa ended up leader of Poland and presided over capitalist restoration, to the detriment of Polish workers. Solidarity withered away as a political force, as its counter-revolutionary backers at home and abroad had no more use for it.

I'm not saying every one of these students secretly wants to overthrow socialism or whatever, but I am saying that it is important that they not be manipulated into supporting reactionary forces, and that they continue to support the CPC while disagreeing with it on certain subjects.

It is also important that foreign leftists don't get suckered into an alluring image of heroic students valiantly struggling against an evil CPC, which is as misleading as Poland's workers valiantly struggling against "Stalinist" tyranny or (to use a more recent example) the "Libyan people" rising up and building a true democracy amid the ousting of Gaddafi.

Post last edited at

 No.10111

File: 6760a446d74c0e5⋯.jpg (49.02 KB, 353x450, 353:450, Mao Anying.jpg)

File: 8553a4aaa511d3e⋯.jpeg (36.99 KB, 466x297, 466:297, Mao Stalin.jpeg)

File: a0bd2b3168641bd⋯.jpg (143.33 KB, 499x349, 499:349, cursed image.jpg)

File: b587b547c7990b2⋯.png (124.79 KB, 248x254, 124:127, Chinese Stalinism.png)

File: 3f5ec7ed0d8adbc⋯.png (51.36 KB, 258x218, 129:109, Counter revoliution.png)

What went wrong with Mao Zedong? From opinion that is popular on /leftypol/ I understand that he was great revolutionary and great military leader, but bad statesman. Still, I am wondering, one of his Children died fighting against imperialists in Korean War. Yet he opened with the west, who terrorized China for centuries, so easily. I also find his reasoning weird. Chin-Soviet relationships failed, I understand that, but it is still weird to ally with the west against Soviets so easily, when you dislike Soviets because they officially reproached the west while still supporting revolutions in Cuba,Vietnam, and others. Why did Mao reproach USA so anti-Sovietly? Also, why didn't China reproach Soviet Union after Khrushchev lost power?


 No.10114

>>10111

>why didn't China reproach Soviet Union after Khrushchev lost power?

Mao considered Brezhnev as another Khrushchevite revisionist due to his closeness to the former general secretary.

i'm pretty sure once Mao died China began to mend ties with the USSR though.


 No.10117

>>10111

Mao had nationalist inclinations, e.g. he complained how the "Russians" had supposedly snatched Mongolia and other areas away from China. He became convinced that the USSR was the main enemy.of China. By the end of the 1960s there were border clashes and fears of full-scale war breaking out between the two states.

>>10114

Yeah, the Chinese wanted Brezhnev to repudiate the 20th Party Congress as a precondition for normalizing ties, which he refused to do. For this reason the Chinese and Albanians attacked him as "Khrushchevism without Khrushchev."

The climax of China's anti-Sovietism was in the 1973-79 period, represented by absurdities like welcoming the overthrow of Allende, declaring NATO a "defensive" alliance against Soviet "social-imperialism," and Deng calling on the US to join China in a united "anti-hegemonic" front (aka against the USSR.)

But with the removal of Hua Guofeng and ascendancy of Deng, relations started slightly improving from 1982 onward, e.g. the CPC stopped attacking the USSR as capitalist.

However, the Chinese attached three preconditions for any significant improvement in relations: Soviet troops out of Mongolia, Soviet troops out of Afghanistan, and Vietnamese troops out of Kampuchea. As a result it wasn't until 1989 that serious efforts were underway to mend ties, and by that point it was obviously too late.


 No.10119

Thoughts on Anarchists? Specifically anarcho-communists?


 No.10120

opinions on the following leaders?

>wilhelm pieck

>walter ulbricht

>erich honecker

>egon krenz

>janos kadar

>gustav husak

>todor zhikov

>gheorghe gheorghiu-dej


 No.10121

File: f8d93cb665ba5f6⋯.png (422.47 KB, 1600x1054, 800:527, Lenin facepalm.png)

>>10117

I am speechless. This sounds like something George Lucas wrote. Sino-Soviet alliance could have done so much good to the world.


 No.10124

>>10119

Well obviously I'm a Marxist, not an Anarchist, so I think they're wrongheaded.

>>10120

There isn't much I can say about Pieck considering he was mostly known as a veteran Communist and his government role in the GDR was largely ceremonial.

Ulbricht started carrying out market reforms from 1963 onward, and also adopted a more assertive foreign policy vis-à-vis the USSR. The latter (plus his old age) led to his replacement with Honecker who strengthened state control and was more closely aligned with Soviet leaders. Both men were not bad as leaders, though not great.

Krenz sorta reminds me of Ramiz Alia (Hoxha's successor): both men found themselves in untenable positions during 1989. There was no way the GDR and Albania were going to continue existing as socialist countries after counter-revolutions were triumphing elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

Kádár seemed like an okay leader. His policies helped prevent a recurrence of the 1956 counter-revolutionary revolt.

Husák I don't know much about, seems he was mediocre as a leader.

Zhivkov also seemed like a mediocrity, and after 1989 he revealed himself to be an opportunist, e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/28/world/evolution-in-europe-bulgarian-communist-stalwart-says-he-d-do-it-all-differently.html

Dej set the stage for his successor Ceaușescu by appealing to nationalism in the early 60s, e.g. denouncing the "unjust seizure" of Bessarabia by the USSR in 1940. Besides that though, he didn't seem bad.

>>10121

Yeah, to quote one work: "Ford left for his first trip to China [December 1975], where he met Mao Zedong and other top Chinese leaders and was lectured on U.S. lack of resolve vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. On his return Ford told the Republican congressional leadership, 'There is a very strong anti-Soviet attitude. It is almost unbelievable. The Chinese . . . urged us to prevent Soviet expansion anywhere, but especially in the Middle East, the Pacific and in Africa.'"


 No.10126

What are your thoughts on the Tuvan People's Republic.


 No.10127

>>10096

What can you tell me about taxes in the socialist countries? I've heard they were historically low. Is this true (for all/most of them), and if so, can you explain how the state managed to fund itself without significant taxes?


 No.10128

>>10126

I've read a fair bit about it. What do you want to know?

It was basically a miniature version of the Mongolian People's Republic, except with a large Russian population and no real history of independent statehood, so joining the USSR didn't pose any problem.

>>10127

Yeah personal taxes were generally a lot lower than in capitalist countries.

On the other hand, these states tended to have a turnover tax, which was a major source of revenue for the government. This tax also helped regulate consumption.


 No.10129

>>10128

Thanks for the answer on the taxes.

Completely unrelated: Do you know anything about the supposedly socialist or communist-led eras of the African countries Benin, Somalia, Angola, Guinea, Congo-Brazzaville, Ethiopia (the derg) and Mozambique? From my knowledge it seems like many of those were co-opted by opportunists that just wanted the aid of the USSR while enriching themselves, although Samora Machel of Mozambique seems like he was a pretty good leader.


 No.10130

>>10129

Yes I do, in fact I have hundreds of books on Africa. What questions do you have about them?

There did indeed seem to be a bunch of leaders who were opportunists (Siad Barre, Mathieu Kérékou, Blaise Compaoré and Denis Sassou-Nguesso come to mind), but there were plenty of others who weren't: Amílcar Cabral, Mengistu (who in a 2001 interview denounced Gorbachev for betraying the international communist movement), Machel like you said, Kwame Nkrumah, etc.


 No.10131

>>10130

Do you think Mengistu was a good leader? It seems he's frequently being accused of basically the same things Stalin is commonly associated with by anti-communists: genocide, repression, etc. Are any of these claims legitimate or were they largely spread by his political rivals?

Was the Ethiopian Famine mainly caused by drought or did Mengistu's policy decisions actually play a role?

Would you say these countries actually achieved a socialist mode of production, to the same extent the USSR or the Eastern European socialist countries did?


 No.10133

>>10131

It's rather difficult to rate Mengistu since he spent so much of his time fighting giant rebellions in Eritrea and the Tigray region (plus the war with Somalia from 1977-78), but the economic policies he pursued (which had similarities with those in other pro-Soviet countries like Angola and Mozambique) produced disappointing results.

The genocide charge is silly. The government certainly was repressive, although again this was in the context of rebellions, an invasion, and also terrorist activities in the mid-late 70s by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party (a student-based group influenced by Maoism which assassinated trade unionists and other supporters of what it called the "fascist" Derg.)

It's been a while since I read up on the famine, but to my knowledge there were three things at work: first there was drought, second there was Mengistu's desire to carry out reforms in agriculture, third there was the perceived need to relocate villages away from the Tigrayan and Eritrean guerrillas.

It was the latter two that either created famine conditions or at least made them a lot worse.

>Would you say these countries actually achieved a socialist mode of production, to the same extent the USSR or the Eastern European socialist countries did?

No, nor did they claim to. The USSR referred to these countries as pursuing a "non-capitalist path of development" and of having a "socialist orientation." Their tasks were to lay the political and economic foundations for socialism.


 No.10135

why did the peoples republic of kampuchea revert back to the monarchy? was it opportunism? heng samrin seemed like a cool guy.


 No.10136

>>10135

It was part of ending the war.

The People's Republic of Kampuchea was renamed to the State of Cambodia in 1989 to help convince Sihanouk to abandon his alliance with the Khmer Rouge and support the government. But to the "international community" (the United Nations, US, UK, China, Thailand, etc.) and Sihanouk the State remained an "illegal government" installed in an act of Vietnamese "aggression."

In 1991 Sihanouk returned home and was made interim President pending multi-party elections. In 1992 the UN took control of Cambodia and organized elections a year later in which the pro-Sihanouk party won. The kingdom was restored a few months afterward.

By this process Cambodia obtained an internationally recognized government and the Khmer Rouge found itself totally isolated.

Hun Sen, the leader of Kampuchea from 1985 onward, said in 1989 that "Ideology doesn't matter right now. What the people want is peace and development." Michael Vickery, an authority on Cambodia, wrote of his visits to the country in the 1980s: "Many new PRK cadres at all levels were sent to Vietnam after 1979 for courses of varying lengths, and they all report that part of their instruction was 'Maklenin', but I never met anyone who had a clear idea of what Marxism-Leninism is, or who cared."

Post last edited at

 No.10137

>>10136

>Many new PRK cadres at all levels were sent to Vietnam after 1979 for courses of varying lengths, and they all report that part of their instruction was 'Maklenin'

i'm not quite sure what this means


 No.10138

Do you think Grover Furr helps the cause with his strategy to basically crush the plane with no survivers in talks in universities by saying stuff like "I have yet to find one crime that Stalin committed"? Like this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRPTZF5zSLQ

I think if you are not already on the far-left this this might cause average person to completey close their mind on the subject.


 No.10139

>>10137

PRK = People's Republic of Kampuchea

"Maklenin" = presumably an informal way of saying "Marxism-Leninism" in Cambodian

In other words various members of the Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party were sent to Vietnamese party schools in order to teach these members about Marxism-Leninism.

>>10138

Yeah Furr occasionally makes sweeping statements and when you look into them aren't all that impressive.

He's not bad at poking holes in anti-communist arguments, but not so good at making his own (e.g. that the Moscow Trials were legit.)

Post last edited at

 No.10142

>>10117

>But with the removal of Hua Guofeng and ascendancy of Deng, relations started slightly improving from 1982 onward, e.g. the CPC stopped attacking the USSR as capitalist.

Fuck dude wonder why

Deng calling Eyebrows a Capitalist a Revisionist is literally like a pot calling the kettle black


 No.10143

>>10139

would you say that the PRK was ever socialist? what kind of achievements did they make besides fixing all the fuck-ups of pol pot?


 No.10145

>>10143

The PRK acknowledged it wasn't a socialist country. Heng Samrin and other leaders argued that the main task was to rebuild Kampuchea economically, culturally and politically (after the devastation of the Pol Pot regime) before it could talk of building socialism.

"Fixing all the fuck-ups of Pol Pot" really does seem to be their main achievement, especially as they had to contend with that same Pol Pot trying to get back into power via attacking government-held territory, and also had to deal with a lack of international legitimacy (e.g. Pol Pot's "government in exile" was recognized at the United Nations, not the actual government of Kampuchea.)

For a ML account of how the country was doing in the mid-80s, out pages 82-114 of the following work: https://archive.org/details/KampucheaTheRevolutionRescued

Another informative account of the origins of the PRK up to the mid-80s: http://michaelvickery.org/vickery1986kampuchea.pdf

>>10142

While it would obviously be absurd for the CPC to accuse the CPSU of having "restored capitalism" while it itself carried out far more elaborate reforms than the Soviets ever did, it was also recognized by a growing number of Chinese commentators that describing the USSR as capitalist simply didn't make sense.

There's a book about this you might find interesting: http://b-ok.xyz/book/3403438/9bb21c ("The Chinese Debate about Soviet Socialism, 1978–1985")


 No.10146

What is your opinion of Hal Draper? Didn't he develop the anti-Leninist views which are still common amongst SocDems and also Leftcoms?


 No.10147

>>10146

I don't think his specific conception of socialism is popular among social-democrats or left-communists, but yeah his views are opposed to Leninism.

Having said that, he did do extensive research into the life and writings of Marx which, although tainted occasionally by his biases, can be useful in clarifying positions Marx held or aspects of his political activities.


 No.10149

Have you ever been invited on any leftist podcasts? You're way more knowledgeable than 95% of left twitter celebrities that usually get invited to talk about socialist history/theory. Would you be interested in that sort of thing?


 No.10150

>>10149

I never have, which makes sense considering I'm not a Twitter celebrity (or any kind of Internet celebrity for that matter.)

I have a decent microphone though, so going on a podcast isn't impossible.


 No.10151

>>10150

I might send a message to Breht O'Shea of Revolutionary Left Radio and recommend you if he's looking for new guests. His podcast is a bit uh.. LARPy I would say, and very much a product of "internet leftism", but he's a good host and also very open minded and non-sectarian.


 No.10154

>>10150

>>10151

Oh, Revolutionary Left Radio is good. I don't think it's LARPy at all. But you'd have to come up with a specific topic about what you wanna talk about. Maybe about Soviet history in general?


 No.10155

>>10150

Speaking of which, have you started your YouTube channel yet? Also, curious, what is your twitter?


 No.10156

>>10155

I don't have a Twitter account.

And no, no YouTube videos yet. I'm busy with my 1919 forum game and with writing an article on Jim Jones and Jonestown for the MLToday website.


 No.10157

>>10150

You should absolutely start a podcast. Or engage in Youtube debates, you could wreck the most fervent anti-marxist with your wealth of historical and theoretical knowledge.


 No.10158

>>10150

also, you really do have some small-scale "internet celebrity" status as the guy from Revleft and BO of /marx/


 No.10178

Hey Isamil, you got any books about Oscar Romero?


 No.10179

>>10111

Mao's later errors are the result of the increasingly complex class struggle being waged within China against the domestic conservatives in the CCP. These politicians and bureaucrats, who were ironically the most culpable for the excesses of the GLF, lived cloistered lives away from the masses of the working class and peasantry. The GPCR was an attempt to protect against a domestic "thermidorian reaction" during which this stratum of bureaucrats could move to cement their power in the country. Because the domestic revisionists were close to the Soviet CP, the struggle against them assumed an external dimension as well. The GPCR was in itself a very complex era with many different stages and periods, marked by a rapidly changing calculation of class forces.

This was obviously incredibly misguided and sacrificed the basic principles of proletarian internationalism. We can argue about who fired the first shot and who was most culpable (I think it was the Soviets who acted improperly at first and the Chinese who threw more gas on the fire) but in the end it was a great tragedy for the worldwide socialist movement. If there's anything for the movement to learn today it is:

1. uphold the principle of proletarian internationalism by supporting the efforts of workers' states struggling to build socialism.

2. encourage the unity of workers' states against imperialism.

3. maintaining comradely relations with other CPs, including respecting their independence and developing a tradition of comradely debate and criticism/self-criticism.

4. encourage the masses to take a more active and independent role in developing international relationships.


 No.10180

>>10179

I should clarify I don't think the GPCR was misguided but I think that mistakes in its implementation were made, such as not giving full support to the Shanghai commune movement, killing Lin Biao and not discouraging Red Guard excesses.


 No.10181

>>10178

I do not.

Looking online all I could find was a collection of his speeches: http://b-ok.cc/book/833156/9ec506

As a barely related aside, one book I might obtain in December is "Black Socialist Preacher," containing the biography and writings of George Washington Woodbey, the most prominent Black supporter of Marxism in the 1900s-10s.


 No.10187

You mind reading through this freshly released White House PDF and TLDRing some of the blatant falsehoods?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-Opportunity-Costs-of-Socialism.pdf


 No.10188

>>10187

The report seems to be aimed at "progressive" Democrats (like Warren) and "democratic socialists" (like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez) rather than socialism as Marxists understand it.

With that being the case, one can already find rebuttals in liberal circles: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/23/18013872/white-house-socialism-report-cea-mao-lenin-bernie-sanders

If there's specific points you'd like addressed though, feel free to ask.


 No.10189

>>10188

The report uses the decrease in Agricultural efficiency among other things to prove America (See: Capitalist) supremacy over socialist Cuba

Does that hold up to further scrutinity?

>Bonus Points

Is the memes about the Cuba having a higher standard of living in most metrics compared to America true?


 No.10190

>>10189

>Does that hold up to further scrutinity?

While I'm sure there are domestic reasons for Cuba's agricultural problems, the report in that case would be handwaving away the effect of the embargo on importing fertilizer and other means to raise productivity.

>Is the memes about the Cuba having a higher standard of living in most metrics compared to America true?

Depends. Cubans definitely have more things guaranteed to them than Americans, and in some ways they receive better coverage (e.g. certain types of child and health care), although there's plenty of shortages of pills and whatnot.


 No.10191

What are your thoughts on Georges Sorel? Despite his revionism, is he worth reading in your opinion?


 No.10192

>>10191

I've never read him.

For what it's worth, here's the Great Soviet Encyclopedia's take on him:

>Sorel’s eclectic philosophical views were influenced by A. Labriola, E. Renan, F. Nietzsche, and H. Bergson. V. I. Lenin criticized Sorel’s world view, calling Sorel a “notorious muddler” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 18, p. 310). Sorel at first considered himself a representative of “the new school” of Marxism. However, he later attacked all forms of rational knowledge and the foundations of all sociopolitical programs, including Marxism, counterposing to these systems his anarchosyndicalist theory of the social myth (Reflections on Violence, 1906; Russian translation, 1907). Myth, according to Sorel, is an intuitive whole and an indivisible system of symbolic imagery; it is an essential element in any social group’s perception of the world. Myth is the expression of the will to power of the group or class that leads a social movement.

>Sorel rejected such bourgeois institutions as democracy, ethics, and the educational system; he believed that a socialist revolution would save European civilization, which was undergoing a severe crisis. However, revolution, in Sorel’s view, was a spontaneous, irrational impulse of a people motivated by social myths. For Sorel, the myth of revolution is based on the idea of the ethical value of violence, which is the motive force of history. The bearers of socialist ideas are not political parties but trade unions (syndicates).

>Sorel’s political views are inconsistent and contradictory. He criticized the parliamentary reformist socialism of J. Jaurès, but he was also close to various left-wing and right-wing radical groups, in particular, the nationalist Action Française.

>Sorel welcomed the October Revolution of 1917, calling it the dawn of a new era. However, some of his reactionary ideas had a great influence on the rise of Italian Fascism and German National Socialism. Modern ideologists of left-wing and right-wing extremist groups in France, Italy, and Latin America have shown a renewed interest in Sorel’s theories.


 No.10193

what were the causes for the 1989 revolutions? why were they so successful? do you think most of the people revolting were genuinely displeased with socialism?


 No.10195

Thoughts on Sartre?


 No.10196

>>10193

People were displeased, but that doesn't necessarily mean they wanted to abolish socialism as a system. Seems like the dissatisfaction among the populace got co-opted by opportunists.


 No.10198

>>10193

As the user above me said, "people were displeased, but that doesn't necessarily mean they wanted to abolish socialism as a system."

Michael Parenti's "Blackshirts and Reds" gives numerous examples demonstrating this: http://b-ok.cc/book/981420/378c5d

As for why they were so successful, probably the major reason was Gorbachev declaring the "Sinatra Doctrine," i.e. that the USSR would not militarily intervene to defend socialism from counter-revolution as it did in Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and was preparing to do in Poland in 1981 (until martial law was declared there.)


 No.10199

>>10195

I have none. Haven't read any of his philosophical works. His writings on political subjects (e.g. colonialism, anti-Semitism) are generally okay from what I remember.


 No.10200

>>10198

>and was preparing to do in Poland in 1981 (until martial law was declared there.)

what happened? i've never heard of this until now.


 No.10201

>>10200

To quote from a 1992 news article:

>WARSAW, Poland -- Soviet troops were ready to invade Poland on Dec. 14, 1981 if Poland's communist authorities had failed to impose martial law, Russian Gen. Vikotr Dubinin said in an article published Friday.

>'We were to enter Poland Dec. 14,' Dubinin told the independent Gazeta Wyborcza, which carried a front-page extract from an interview to be printed in full Saturday.

>Dubinin is commander of some 45,000 former Soviet troops still stationed in Poland.

>He was a division commander in the former Soviet republic of Belarus, which borders Poland, when troops were deployed in December 1981.

>'I did not know all the plans of the (Soviet) government, communist leadership nor the general staff, but I knew we made preparations to move into Poland,' he said. The preparations lasted for six weeks.

>Dubinin said the Soviet troops were told the invasion was needed to stabilize the situation in Poland following the formation of the independent Solidarity labor union in 1980, which grew in power and challenged the communist system.

>'We were ready to render assistance to any country to defend the most progressive political structure in which we believed.' he said.

>Dubinin praised Gen. Wojceich Jaruzelski, the former Polish prime minister andCommunist Party leader, for imposing martial law Dec. 13, 1981 to suppress Solidarity.

>'He did the right job,' he said. 'If he had not done it, our divisions would have rolled into Poland.'


 No.10202

>>10201

following the formation of the independent Solidarity labor union in 1980, which grew in power and challenged the communist system.

what was the deal with this?


 No.10203

>>10202

meant to greentext that first part


 No.10204

>>10202

Basically the Polish government during the 1970s followed what turned out to be an unsound strategy of borrowing heavily from the West to obtain consumer goods and finance industrial development. Instead, the West was soon beset with economic problems that rebounded on the East, leaving Poland very heavily in debt to Western banks.

At the same time, Poland had an inefficient agricultural sector where most of the land was tilled by private farmers with tiny plots of land. The government had to subsidize both the farmers and subsidize the prices of the farmers' produce in urban areas (i.e. keep the prices of food for workers low.)

By 1980 both sets of problems came together to cause unrest among sections of the working-class, which led to the establishment of Solidarity. The CIA and the Vatican covertly backed the new union: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,159069,00.html

Lech Walesa, Solidarity's leader, was exalted to the skies by Reagan and Thatcher (themselves strikebreakers) because they saw in it an objectively counter-revolutionary movement. And in fact, when Solidarity did finally come to power after 1989, Walesa presided over the restoration of capitalism.

The best overview of the rise of Solidarity is Al Szymanski's "Class Struggles in Socialist Poland": https://archive.org/details/ClassStruggleInSocialistPoland

Post last edited at

 No.10209

Why dont you do something like what people do in the Crisis in Kremlin threads on /leftypol/?

Play a turn based strat like Crisis in Kremlin (1991 ver / Modern) or Ostalgie? etc

take screenshots as you go and let people in the thread vote on what to do and all that?


 No.10210

>>10209

Partly because I'm busy running my very own text-based game on eRegime, set in the world of 1919.

I also doubt it'd be all that much fun.


 No.10211

File: 9d8a24086723a5d⋯.png (49.06 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, ClipboardImage.png)

How is china dealing with the huge amount of strikes and worker unrests in their country? How can the CCP call themselves socialists if the conditions there are so bad and in wich relation does the CCP stand towards the strikes?


 No.10212

>>10211

As I wrote in the last thread,

>I think it is natural for workers to resent capitalists and to work to expose corruption and terrible living conditions. If workers on occasion need to force the hand of local CPC officials, that should be permitted.

>The important thing is that a situation like Poland in 1980 doesn't develop where there was a huge disconnect between official trade unions and workers and the gap was filled with Solidarity, a CIA-backed, Vatican-endorsed union seeking the overthrow of socialism.

As for the CPC's attitude, see the section "Collective Bargaining by Riot" in the following article: https://return2source.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/the-trade-unions-actually-existing-socialism-a-point-of-comparison-for-the-american-worker/

>How can the CCP call themselves socialists if the conditions there are so bad

Because socialism is a mode of production, not about how "good" or "bad" conditions are. It's like saying the CPSU couldn't call itself socialist because of the often poor living standards of workers in the 1930s.


 No.10213

>>10212

thank you, Ismail! I learn so much because of you, you are like a walking encyclopedia of marxism. It is funny, that one user on the internet can help me so much with my understanding of marxism and helping me to become a better marxist


 No.10214

>>10212

But a socialist mode of production has not been achieved in China its economy is still generally a Capitalist Market economy complete with a Bourgeoisie class that exhibits significant influence over society

It could be compared to Lenins State-Capitalism of the 20s at most but not socialism


 No.10215

>>10212

Also

>Because socialism is a mode of production, not about how "good" or "bad" conditions are.

The Chinese goverment has been moving the goalposts and redefining what chinese socialism means for years now


 No.10220

Are you aware of any good books (preferably but not necessarily marxist) on the French Revolution and its aftermath, the Jacobins, Napoleon?


 No.10221

>>10220

I do not. When it comes to bourgeois revolutions my main interests are the American War of Independence and the American Civil War and Reconstruction.

The following Soviet work does discuss bourgeois revolutions though, including the French (as well as the rise of Napoleon): https://archive.org/details/ModernHistory16401870


 No.10222

Why not anarchism?


 No.10223

>>10222

In the first place, most anarchists heavily borrow from Marxism when it comes to economics. There's no anarchist equivalent to Capital nor really any anarchist economists.

In the second place, their understanding of philosophy and history tends to be idealist (as noted for example by Plekhanov in his "Anarchism and Socialism.")

In the third place, when it comes to anarchism in practice, there isn't much to recommend it. Leaving aside syndicalist groups like the IWW and CNT, you're left with "propaganda of the deed" terrorism, illegalists, and individuals propounding their wonderful conceptions of society to the world.

Even Makhno, the closest you get to a non-syndicalist anarchist success story, ended up creating controversy within anarchism's ranks by adhering to Platformism (i.e. that anarchists need to unite in a common organization, with a common theoretical framework that recognizes the primacy of class struggle, and with a collective sense of responsibility to the organization) which detractors immediately attacked as an attempt to turn anarchism into Marxism.


 No.10224

Are you following the Brazilian elections somewhat? How far do you think Bolsonaro, when elected, could go in dismantling parliamentary democracy and destroying workers' rights?


 No.10225

>>10224

I'm not closely following it, but I know of his reputation as a fascistic figure, a cross between Trump and Duterte.

As for how far he could "go in dismantling parliamentary democracy and destroying workers' rights," I don't know.


 No.10234

File: 91edd0e94628471⋯.jpg (28.33 KB, 480x460, 24:23, Ho Chi Minh watching footb….jpg)

Any specific thoughts on Ho Chi Minh? Have you read anything he's written?


 No.10235

>>10234

I don't have much to say. He was a Marxist-Leninist, founder of the Vietnamese communist movement, and headed his country's independence struggle. He also wanted the USSR and China to patch up their relations.

I haven't read much that he wrote. There are English-language collections of his writings, but they're not online.


 No.10238

can you give me a rundown on the 1973 oil crisis? how much did it affect socialist countries?


 No.10239

>>10235

Ho Chi Minh sounds like a great person.


 No.10240

>>10238

It isn't a subject I've studied in depth, but basically the Arab countries did it in response to US arming of Israel in the October War. The USSR at first didn't mind, since it itself exported oil, but other Warsaw Pact countries (most notably Poland which heavily based its economic strategy around importing from the West) were harmed by the damage the Arab boycott was causing to Western countries.


 No.10242

So we've been seeing all this shit in South Africa like NeoNazi Paramilitaries getting interviews with E-Celeb's and Tribal Warlords (who would also lose out if the land reform went ahead which the Right wont mention) talking about succeeding and we've also seen all these weird NeoCon think tanks like the Heritage foundation and the Liberty centre and the Economic Freedom foundation calling for sanctioning South Africa and sheit

Do you think this could all be part of a concentrated effort to justify removing the ANC / EFF / CPSA / COSATU / SAFTU from goverment / influence?


 No.10243

>>10242

>Tribal Warlords (who would also lose out if the land reform went ahead which the Right wont mention)

In the 1970s-early 90s the Apartheid regime made use of "African" agents against the liberation forces as well, e.g. the army gave weapons to Chief Buthelezi's Inkatha party to intimidate and kill ANC supporters, Buthelezi himself was extolled by right-wingers across the globe as a "reasonable" Black leader, and you had the ridiculous spectacle of Neo-Nazis trying to prop up the Bophuthatswana bantustan in 1994.

>Do you think this could all be part of a concentrated effort to justify removing the ANC / EFF / CPSA / COSATU / SAFTU from goverment / influence?

Could be. The ANC's foreign policy is generally independent (e.g. it maintains cordial ties with Iran), and the ANC feeling compelled to carry out land reform to stay in power has no doubt made many reactionaries in South Africa and abroad afraid that the party is becoming increasingly "radicalized."


 No.10244

>>10240

Why didn't the West respond by breaking/diminishing ties to Israel after it became aware of the negative impact on its economy? Was it too late anyway?


 No.10245

>>10243

>NeoNazis defending Bantustan governments in 94

Quick rundown?


 No.10246

>>10244

Part of the reason is that by the early 1970s the Israel vs. Palestine conflict became viewed as part of the Cold War, with the PLO, Egypt and Syria being supported by the USSR. Zionists and other anti-communists in the US therefore argued that reducing ties with Israel would embolden the forces of "world communism" in the Middle East.

>>10245

The Apartheid regime plotted to create tiny, pseudo-independent countries utterly dependent on South Africa for their survival. Blacks with "tribal" ties to these "homelands" (bantustans) were deported to them and stripped of South African citizenship, allowing them to be used as a cheap source of migrant labor for mines and other establishments in South Africa proper. The logic used by the ideologists of Apartheid was that by moving Black people to these bantustans there would be no more need for Apartheid, because South Africa wouldn't have any more Black people in it.

Bophuthatswana was one of the most important bantustans, led by Lucas Mangope who (like other bantustan leaders) was subsidized by the Apartheid regime. The ANC wanted all bantustans to be dissolved in the lead up to the 1994 elections. Mangope refused and brought in Afrikaner Neo-Nazis to maintain the bantustans's "independence" amid a strike by civil servants demanding Mangope step down.

The Neo-Nazis went around intimidating and assaulting people (including Western journalists), but it became clear they had no ability to take control of the situation, and in an infamous incident a few Neo-Nazis ended up begging for their lives and were shot on live TV by soldiers of the Bophuthatswana army who were disgusted by their antics.

With protests continuing and South Africa's army ready to intervene, Mangope realized he was screwed and left office.

Post last edited at

 No.10247

>>10246

>NeoNazis begging for their lives and getting shot on live TV by defecting Bantustan soldiers

Link?


 No.10248

>>10247

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPvuAVO2-NI&t=4m50s (the "AWB" mentioned = Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, South African equivalent to Neo-Nazis)

Here's an article about it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/de-klerk-ousts-rebel-gunmen-white-extremists-expelled-by-south-african-troops-in-bophuthatswana-1428474.html

>A Bophuthatswana policemen shot and killed two wounded extremists, one of them crying 'Please God help me', the other saying 'We were sent by the boss'.

>Those were the last words they uttered. Seconds later the black policeman stepped up to them, calmly pointed his gun and shot each three times in the head. Then he kicked one the bodies in the ribs.

>Five minutes earlier the men, supporters of Eugene Terre-Blanche's Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB), had been driving through a residential area of Mmabatho with a third man in a blue Mercedes Benz, shooting at passers-by. Other extremists in vehicles, all of them leaving the city after being forced out by the Bophuthatswana Defence Force, were joining them in the fun.

Post last edited at

 No.10249

>>10248

What do you think about Joe Slovo?


 No.10250

>>10249

On one hand, he was a major figure in the defeat of Apartheid, and for that reason one should evaluate him in a basically positive way.

On the other hand, as with many other leaders of "official," pro-Soviet communist parties, Slovo was placed in an awkward situation circa 1990 as he had to simultaneously defend Gorbachev on one hand while refusing to liquidate the SACP or turn it into a social-democratic party on the other. This led to dumb positions like praising the overthrow of socialism in Eastern Europe as a "revolutionary" event against "Stalinism."

Slovo can also be criticized for identifying the SACP too closely with the ANC, which resulted in the former providing cover for the latter's misdeeds and retreats during the 1990s and onward.


 No.10251

What's your opinion on the FLN and the situation in Algeria? (The secular mostly Militarist FLN with a Social-Democratic economic policy vs the mainly Euro/US backed Fundamentalists?)


 No.10252

>>10251

I haven't read much about the FLN's domestic policies, and what I know about its foreign policies is limited to the 1960s-80s when it provided aid to national liberation movements and was on generally good terms with the USSR and Cuba.

Obviously when it's a question of imperialist-backed reactionaries against a social-democratic ruling party it's a bit difficult to support the former. On the other hand, it seems like the Algerian people need a communist party to lead them against a government which has gradually eroded its popular base over the decades.


 No.10253

what were some of the worst socialist countries? i've seen people point to Romania but i don't see what was so bad about Ceaușescu besides him building some huge palace. also a lot of people seem to dislike Poland because they had legal fascist parties and stuff.


 No.10254

>>10253

The worst "socialist country" (in the sense it was under a leadership that described itself as communist) was undoubtedly Democratic Kampuchea.

But yeah as for actual socialist countries, what causes people to say Romania under Ceaușescu was "the worst" are two things: Ceaușescu himself (who had a nationalist, opportunistic foreign policy) and the austerity measures he imposed in the 1980s to pay back Western loans, which made life very difficult for ordinary Romanians while Ceaușescu's personality cult grew, to the extent he was grooming his son to succeed him.

There were other peculiar policies associated with Ceaușescu as well, e.g. the case of orphans. Also, to quote from an author who visited Romania shortly before Ceaușescu's overthrow: "The gynaecologist [whom the author met] lived in an ordinary flat. . . With some ceremony, he placed a full bottle of Scotch (payment for an operation) on the table and we began to drink it. I hoped that he might grow indiscreet about his work, but he was conspicuously silent on the subject - especially considering I was a fellow doctor - except to say that he did his best for his patients in the circumstances. More than this he would not say. If it were true that gynaecologists examined women monthly at the behest of the state to ensure they were using no artificial means to prevent conception, so that there should be twenty-five million Romanians by Ceausescu's 75th birthday and thirty million by the year 2000, it was not something they would readily wish to confess to a foreigner at a first meeting." (Anthony Daniels, Utopias Elsewhere, 1991, p. 117.)

>also a lot of people seem to dislike Poland because they had legal fascist parties and stuff.

Poland in the 1980s was generally a dreary place too. Its economy was still suffering from poor economic decisions made in the 70s (as I mentioned here: >>10204 )

There were no fascist parties (legal or otherwise) in socialist Poland. What you're thinking of is the PAX Association, whose founder had been a fascist. The influence of PAX (which was never particularly great) steadily deteriorated after the 1950s.


 No.10255

File: c712637d276ec97⋯.jpg (115.74 KB, 600x386, 300:193, 1.jpg)

>>10254

Interestingly even in 80's Socialist Poland had high caloric intake, high home ownership, good healthcare and education and because of good quality of life high birthrate.


 No.10256

to what extent did "Goulash Communism" change the Hungarian economy? did they take out any loans like Yugoslavia and Poland ended up doing?

also did something similar happen in Bulgaria? i know they let companies like Coca Cola sell their products but i'm not sure if it was on a "letting calitalists in" level or "Soviets trading vodka for Pepsi" level.


 No.10257

>>10256

>to what extent did "Goulash Communism" change the Hungarian economy?

By the 1980s it was sorta like the direction Cuba is headed today, where there were various small businesses opening up. Before then though it was basically a more market-based version of economies in the rest of the Warsaw Pact, albeit less so than Yugoslavia.

>did they take out any loans like Yugoslavia and Poland ended up doing?

Yes. In fact the beginning of the end of the Berlin Wall was in early 1989 when Hungary started taking down barbed wire fences on its border with Austria and allowed East Germans to cross it in return for West Germany giving Hungary a large loan. This immediately led to a large number of "tourists" from the GDR plus the Hungarian embassy in East Berlin being inundated with people asking to emigrate.

On the other hand, the GDR also had a huge debt to the West, to the extent the head of the State Planning Commission reported to government leaders in May 1989 that the GDR would be insolvent within two years at the rate debt was increasing.

Bulgaria's economy as far as I know didn't really have that many market mechanisms (compared to Hungary and Yugoslavia that is.) It was more akin to the GDR. Also, while on the subject, it likewise had a giant debt to both the West and USSR (to the extent that after 1986 the Soviets stopped giving it loans till it paid existing ones back.)

>or "Soviets trading vodka for Pepsi" level.

According to a 1990 interview with Todor Zhivkov:

>Despite his reputation here as an old-style, hard-line Communist leader in the mold of Leonid I. Brezhnev who thwarted reform, Mr. Zhivkov said that in the 1980's he surrounded himself with pro-Western advisers and was energetically trying to turn the country toward the West.

>As evidence, he showed what he said was a transcript of a 1987 meeting he had with Mr. Gorbachev. In the transcript, Mr. Gorbachev upbraids Mr. Zhivkov for picking advisers who "think of making Bulgaria a mini-West Germany or mini-Japan."

>"Such orientations concern us," the Soviet leader reportedly said. "You should distance yourself from these people because all answers and solutions to the tasks we are facing should be sought in socialism and in its dynamic development, not elsewhere."

>Mr. Zhivkov said Bulgaria had no choice but to cast its fate with the Soviet Union and its system after World War II, and that this is the prime reason for the country's present woes.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/28/world/evolution-in-europe-bulgarian-communist-stalwart-says-he-d-do-it-all-differently.html

>>10255

Michael Parenti has noted (in "Blackshirts and Reds") that for all the pervasiveness of anti-communist sentiment in Poland in 1989-90, most Poles still wanted to retain large parts of the existing socialist system when polled.


 No.10258

File: 109625f8c59ac55⋯.jpg (931.15 KB, 2200x1427, 2200:1427, REU-RWANDA-GENOCIDE-3.jpg)

Do you know anything about the Rwandan genocide and the different parties who took part of it? Do you know of any good class-based analysis of the event?


 No.10259

>>10258

I read about it years ago, so my memory is a bit foggy. From what I remember, Rwanda's government was backed by France, whereas the Rwandan Patriotic Front (Tutsi guerrillas led by Paul Kagame) looked toward the US and Britain and was backed by Uganda (Museveni being one of America's main allies in the region.)

The President of Rwanda felt obliged to sign the Arusha Peace Accords after international pressure and the military successes of the RPF. The mainstream narrative is that other Hutu officials in the government opposed the Accords, assassinated the President, and prepared a genocide to prevent the Tutsi from ever becoming a viable political force in Rwanda again.

There are a small minority of writers who argue that this narrative is distorted and that the RPF shares much of the blame. The most notable exponent of this view is Edward S. Herman in the relevant chapter of "The Politics of Genocide": http://b-ok.cc/book/2032914/0ba1a0

I can't think of any specifically Marxist analyses of the genocide. Most critiques (e.g. "A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide" by Linda Melvern) focus on the reluctance of the US government to intervene and the complicity of the French.


 No.10260

Whats your take on the fastest growing online cult in USA?

http://thegoldwater.com/news/41141-Q-The-Plan-To-Save-The-World


 No.10261

>>10260

Holy fuck.

This is the most plain retarded shit ever.

I refuse to beleive the USA should be nuked... but this...

This is horrendous.


 No.10262

>>10260

It's pretty bad. Not much else I can say about a movement whose adherents in many cases think Trump's antics are divinely inspired and that he is a profoundly moral person.


 No.10263

>>10257

Yeas! Parenti made a correct joke that capitalism has managed to do in five years what socialism failed to do in 40. Make socialism look good! This is why so many countries during their second elections voted ex-communists back in power to fix things. In somewhat worked in certain countries. Unfortunately failed in Russia and Ukraine.


 No.10264

>>10257

Regarding Warsaw Pact states. Revisionism. Not even once!


 No.10267

Let's talk about Mao's China and new democracy. Could summarize few answers and give some reading on:

1) What was economy like? Were there small business early or only after new democracy or only after Deng? How was life?

2) How big was role of the state in modernization and industrialization of once feudal-nation?

3) Were there literacy campaigns an other campaigns to improve well being of common people?

4) Did liberalization started under Mao or only under Deng? Did China received western investment under Mao?

5) Did economic growth and rise of GDP started under Mao or only under Deng? Please have any material that debunks that growth happened only thanks to market reforms of Deng.

6) How big was Soviet aid to China? How big was it's role in early development of Peoples Republic of China?

Bonus)

Thoughts on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?


 No.10268

>>10267

I haven't read much about China's economy in the first few years after 1949. To my knowledge by the end of the 50s the state sector pretty much dominated everything, although unlike the USSR the Chinese government paid former capitalists compensation for nationalizing their businesses.

Yes, there were literacy campaigns and various other means to raise the quality of life. It would be bizarre if there wasn't.

>Did liberalization started under Mao or only under Deng? Did China received western investment under Mao?

Liberalization started with Deng. As for Western foreign investment, to my knowledge it wasn't significant during the 1950s-70s (in part because many capitalist countries refused to recognize the PRC as the "real" China until the US normalized relations with the PRC, and in part because the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution were both accompanied with campaigns calling for economic self-reliance.)

>Did economic growth and rise of GDP started under Mao or only under Deng?

Of course there was economic growth under Mao, particularly as a result of industrialization in the 1950s.

>Please have any material that debunks that growth happened only thanks to market reforms of Deng.

Chris Bramall's books are good on this subject, e.g.

* http://b-ok.cc/book/964378/8ef5cd

* http://b-ok.cc/book/878321/f4e33d

* http://b-ok.cc/book/992659/db6265

* http://b-ok.cc/book/976437/aabf02

>How big was Soviet aid to China? How big was it's role in early development of Peoples Republic of China?

It was big, which is why the Soviets withdrew aid circa 1960 in an unsuccessful attempt to force the Chinese to suspend their polemics against the CPSU. I can get specific figures for said aid if you'd like.

A little while ago I scanned an English-language history of the Chinese economy from 1949-1984 published in China in 1986, which should help answer some of your questions: https://archive.org/details/ChinasSocialistEcon

>Thoughts on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?

I consider Mao a Marxist-Leninist and I think he contributed to ML theory, but I wouldn't call myself a Maoist. He had views I'd consider clearly mistaken (e.g. his conception of the Cultural Revolution and his belief that a "new bourgeoisie" emerges within ruling communist parties.)


 No.10271

>>10268

>He had views I'd consider clearly mistaken (e.g. his conception of the Cultural Revolution and his belief that a "new bourgeoisie" emerges within ruling communist parties.)

What's your opinion of Maoist resistence movements that are still somewhat relevent, such as the Naxalites in China or the NPA in the Philippines? Do you think they are correct or do you prefer the vanilla approach of the ML parties in these countries (like the CPI (M), etc.)?

Do you think most contemporary Maoist crticisms in the West are intellectually honest? In my country, Germany, the MLPD, our Maoist party (which is surprisingly quite big and rich to be honest) holds the claim that socialism does not exist in Cuba and the DPRK, and that the GDR was oppressive state capitalism after Ulbricht was removed. They also uncritically support the YPG in Rojava.


 No.10272

>>10271

I mean the Naxalites in India, of course.


 No.10275

File: 899f12ca4ef53bf⋯.png (85.23 KB, 1004x563, 1004:563, China.png)

>>10268

The reason why I asked about growth under Mao and economic aid of the Soviet Union is because mainstream view is that Mao's economic policy was terrible and the only reason for rise of China is foreign investment. Unfortunately according to google China's GDP started to grow only in 1990's. Please give specifics of Soviet aid and please help debunk that China's economy grew thanks to the western investments?

Also, a very hot take

http://uk.businessinsider.com/study-suggests-china-growth-if-mao-era-policies-were-brought-back-2015-8


 No.10280

Do you know any good articles or shorter texts critiquing liberal democracy/"bourgeois democracy" (as well as the liberal view of freedom of speech, etc) from a Marxist perspective?


 No.10281

Will we get a QAnon in Italy?

Hammer Computer is better than Quantum computer?

Will exist a QAnon in Russia? (I don’t know, I hope in Putin as Qru)

Will we get a processor in carbon tube enter 2020?

Italy put 5 millions € for blockchain, is wonderful if Daps will be the main Cryptocurrency of Italy! Is near the meeting between Potus and Conte. 5 million’s to Daps team no? 🙂

Is Ivanka good for be the next US president? (Will continue in 2024 the politics of her father?)


 No.10283

This is just a silly question for fun, but if you could pick three historical socialist leaders that you think were the best and most capable, who would you pick? Hard mode: no Lenin


 No.10284

>>10271

The Naxalites and NPA both express genuine grievances among peasants, but if I lived in those countries I would be involved in the "vanilla approach" of forming civilian parties and whatnot.

>holds the claim that socialism does not exist in Cuba and the DPRK, and that the GDR was oppressive state capitalism after Ulbricht was removed. They also uncritically support the YPG in Rojava.

Yeah all of that is silly. It's also ironic, because Ulbricht in the mid-1960s began enacting market reforms which slowed down under Honecker. The latter also increased the state's role in the economy.

>>10275

>Please give specifics of Soviet aid

"Thus without the Soviet supplies, it is doubtful whether China could have achieved the industrial production levels it reached in 1957. According to Soviet statistics, by 1957, the USSR had exported $1,483,639,288 worth of machinery and equipment to China, of which $785,797,000 worth was in the form of complete plants. The willingness of the USSR to supply China with complete factories together with the technicians who knew how to set them up was unquestionably the major factor in the success of China's first five-year plan (1953-57). By 1957, approximately 57 per cent of Communist China's steel production and 50 per cent of her coal production cane from enterprises constructed or rebuilt with Soviet help." (Robert Owen Freedman, Economic Warfare in the Communist Bloc, 1970, p. 121.)

>>10280

I can't think of any that come to mind. There is an English-language Hungarian work that I've wanted to have online that talks about and critiques bourgeois democracy, but... it isn't online yet.

>>10283

In terms of "the best and most capable," all I can think of that stand out are Castro and Deng. I'd pick Lenin but, of course, that isn't possible.

There were other leaders were appeared basically competent (Andropov and Sankara for instance), and leaders who combined sound decisions with very bad ones (Stalin, Mao.)


 No.10286

>>10284

>The Naxalites and NPA both express genuine grievances among peasants, but if I lived in those countries I would be involved in the "vanilla approach" of forming civilian parties and whatnot.

So would I, but do you think what they are doing is fundamentally a good approach? Or do you think it's a waste of time and they would actually be better off engaging in electoral politics?

Speaking of insurgent movements, how do you feel about the communist guerilla movements in Colombia (the ELN and formerly the FARC) and the Philippines?

Not that poster you replied to btw.


 No.10287

>>10280

Not a short text and maybe not what you have in mind overall, but check out "Liberalism: a Counter-History" by Domenico Losurdo. There's also Mao's classic meme text "Combat Liberalism".


 No.10289

How does Marx or Marxists theorists prove that the "force" moving history is class struggle, I mean, in a well reasoned way? Despite Marx's efforts to make a materialistic viewpoint, the fact that there exist some idea or force as "class struggle" is somewhat metaphysical, because for some magical reason classes would have to organize and try to gain power to secure a better position (the magic hand of capitalism seems also metaphysical), however we don't see that in all cultures, for example China was pretty much a monarchy where there was no middle class or even one class moving upward in society until the western invasions and influence shaped the country to fit the colonial empires, so Class Struggle might as well be cultural rather than universal.

Also, considering how things have been going in history, the Will to Power that Nietzsche wrote about, can explain history just as well as Class Struggle.

I ask this because it's the main point of Marx's theory, and if the foundation doesn't seem strong enough, I suppose the theory itself isn't as well-founded (not to take away from his criticisms of XIX C. Europe though). Is there anything universal at all?


 No.10290

>>10286

Guerrilla warfare can be legitimate depending on circumstances. As to whether it's legit in the year 2018 in the Philippines, Colombia and the regions the Naxalites operate in, I don't know enough to say.

One author, representing the view of the pro-Soviet PKP: "The armed struggle thus launched by [the NPA] did not spring from mass organizations of the people or follow logically from their struggles. It was artificially imposed on a situation that was not revolutionary. It was not a case of turning to armed struggle because the channels of legal peaceful struggle had been barred or denied. Legal organizations, in fact, and their activity were unimpeded at the time [1969]. The PKP had made considerable headway in helping to build a broadening national democratic movement. Sison's strategy and tactics sought to impose, from outside, concepts based on China's conditions and on Chinese experience. Mao's military doctrine of 'surround the cities from the countryside' was mechanically and rigidly pursued." (William J. Pomeroy, The Philippines: Colonialism, Collaboration, and Resistance! 1992, pp. 291-292.)


 No.10291

>>10289

You ought to find Engels' "The Role of Force in History" of some use on the subject: https://marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1887/role-force/index.htm

I don't see how Nietzsche's theories are superior to Marx's based on historical experience.

>for example China was pretty much a monarchy where there was no middle class or even one class moving upward in society until the western invasions and influence shaped the country to fit the colonial empires

I recently scanned a Soviet history of China from the 17th century up to 1918 that you might find of use: https://archive.org/details/ModernHistoryChina

When a capitalist class and "middle class" reformers emerged in China, they sought to overthrow feudalism, recognizing it as an impediment to Chinese political and economic development.

Post last edited at

 No.10292

>>10291

any chapter in particular? considering it's mostly talking about about German history in the XIX C.


 No.10293

>>10292

He was applying Marxist theory to 19th century German history to demonstrate what role force played.

It's probably better to start with Part II, Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of Anti-Dühring where he talks about the concept in general, rather than dealing with a specific historical subject: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/


 No.10295

>>10284

Much obliged! Some few questions purely for possible debates in the future.

1)How to explain that China's GDP mainly started to grow in the 1990's?

2)Any more mainstream sources on Soviet aid to China?(something that normies will accept)

3)Any more mainstream sources on that Chinese economy started to grow under Mao, and not only thanks to market reform and foreign investment?

4)Any (bonus for mainstream) ways to explain/debunk failures of Great leap forward and Cultural Revolution

5) Any (bonus for mainstream) ways to explain/debunk famine of 1959 to 1961?

Bonus if you have any source on agricultural policy post recovery and especially if it shows that China still has collectivized agriculture.

bonus

How to explain failures of North Korea?


 No.10300

>>10295

1. Because factors making for rapid economic growth in terms of GDP were set into motion in the 1980s.

2. Freedman's book is perfectly normal, it was published by Praeger and the author is a mainstream bourgeois academic. Having said that, there are other sources, e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=VdB_CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&dq=soviet+aid+china&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiChtXrqb3eAhVRT98KHSdtBNs4FBDoAQg7MAM#v=onepage&q=soviet%20aid%20china&f=false

3. Bramall's books are the only ones that come to mind at the moment, although there's doubtlessly others.

4. You'd be better off asking Maoists.

5. Again, ask Maoists.

>if you have any source on agricultural policy post recovery and especially if it shows that China still has collectivized agriculture.

I will quote what I wrote in the last thread:

=

The NY Times in 1991 (https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/18/world/china-s-divided-economy.html) noted, "Farmers do not own the land but since the early 1980's they have been given the right to use individual plots. They must sell a certain part of their produce to the state, but then can sell the rest on a relatively free market."

And the NY Times in 2014 (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/13/world/asia/once-a-symbol-of-power-farming-now-an-economic-drag-in-china.html):

>Farm output remains high. But rural living standards have stagnated compared with the cities, and few in the countryside see their future there. The most recent figures show a threefold gap between urban and rural incomes . . The nation’s Communist leaders have declared that fixing the countryside is crucial to maintaining social stability. . . farms in China are too small to generate large profits, about 1.6 acres on average, compared with 400 acres in the United States. Yet it is difficult to consolidate these farms into larger, more efficient operations because Chinese farmers do not own their plots — they lease them from the government.

>Privatizing farmland would allow market forces to create bigger farms. But that would be a political minefield for the Communist Party. It would also risk exacerbating inequality, by concentrating land ownership in the hands of a few while leaving many rural families without farms to fall back on if they hit hard times in the cities. . .

>In late September, President Xi Jinping endorsed an experiment underway in Yangling and other parts of China to untangle this knot. The measure, called liuzhuan, stops short of privatization but gives farmers land-use rights that they can transfer to others in exchange for a rental fee.

>The goal is to simulate a private land market and allow China’s family-run, labor-intensive farms to change hands and be amalgamated into large-scale, industrialized businesses. In theory, liuzhuan allows this to happen without cutting ties between rural families and the land, because they collect rental fees as a safety net.


 No.10301

>>10295

>How to explain failures of North Korea?

To quote Christine Ahn, "Famine and the Future of Food Security in North Korea":

>With the collapse [of the USSR], North Korea lost its major supplier of oil: in 1990, North Korea imported 18.3 million barrels of oil from Russia, China, and Iran, but by 1996 it was able to import only 40 percent of that level. Between 1992 and 1996, North Korea’s energy consumption declined annually by 11 percent, mainly due to the end of oil imports from the former Soviet Union. The country’s farmers had grown to depend on imported petroleum not only to run their tractors but also to supply other essential agricultural inputs like fertilizers. . . North Korean agriculture’s dependence on imported oil was enough to catapult it into crisis, but the sudden disruption in trade also made it impossible for North Korean farmers to replace or buy parts for farm equipment such as tractors, pumps, and threshers. . . .

>In the mid 1990s, North Korea was struck by disaster after ecological disaster, starting with epic floods in 1995 and 1996. Don Oberdorfer, then a Washington Post correspondent, wrote, “On the sticky summer day of June 26, 1995, the skies over North Korea darkened. Rains began to pound the earth, rains that were heavy, steady, and unrelenting and that soon turned into a deluge of biblical proportions.” Some areas got as much as eighteen inches of rain in one day. The rains from July and August caused a catastrophic flood that official statistics showed was the worst of the century. . . The rains were followed by the worst drought in the century, which climate experts say correlated with the 1997 to 1998 El Niño—itself the worst in over 300 years. In 2000, drought struck Asia again, and North Korea, with only one harvest season, was hit hard. In 2001, yet another severe drought parched the earth, depleted reservoirs, and damaged irrigation systems.

Post last edited at

 No.10306

>>10284

>I can't think of any that come to mind. There is an English-language Hungarian work that I've wanted to have online that talks about and critiques bourgeois democracy, but... it isn't online yet.

Alright I'll ask you about your thoughts directly then. How should communists relate to liberal democratic principles/norms? For example, within liberal democracy there is an expectation that even though you disagree with your political opponents, that you respect their right to speak, to organize into a political party, participate in elections, etc. Do such principles have any value in themselves, or can they be disregarded whenever it's convenient, in the eyes of communists? On /leftypol/ for example one user posted:

>"If you have the power to suppress a political enemy, you do it, not for love of tolerance but because he is your enemy"

and

>"No need to suppress everything, most information is garbage. You just target whatever starts to pose a threat. Notice that liberals use what's app to coordinate protests? You shut down wnat's app. You get your troll army to harass them on twitter. And so on. [...] Of course all of this presumes one is in power, otherwise there is no point to even discuss it. Out of power, you should vote for as much freedom as possible so you don't become a target quite yet."

Personally I think the right to freedom of speech (as far as that is a coherent concept), the right to organize, to dissent and protest against the government are good principles in and of themselves (even if the government happens to be a socialist government) that should be maintained and respected as much as possible (obvious exceptions exist, during a civil war situation for example). What's the ML view on this?


 No.10307

Why do you insist on calling the P.R.C socialist?

Its a "NEP style State-Capitalism led by a Communist Party" at BEST


 No.10310

>>10306

Because I think socialism continues to be the dominant mode of production in China.


 No.10311

>>10306

Missed this post somehow.

The ML view is that freedom of speech, the press, etc. arose with the development of the bourgeoisie and its struggle against feudalism. The workers also make use these freedoms in the struggle to (quoting Marx and Engels) "raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."

Under capitalism such freedoms are limited, e.g. the "free press" is largely in the hands of private owners, mostly corporations. After the working-class takes hold of state power, the press becomes a means for workers to strengthen their rule through criticism and self-criticism.

Groups and papers that seek the overthrow of the workers' state are disbanded, not only because they represent overthrown classes seeking to return to power, but because they inevitably enlist the support of other capitalist states towards this end and become sources of disinformation and panic (e.g. spreading claims that the Bolsheviks were "nationalizing women" during the Civil War.)

To quote the 1977 Soviet Constitution,

>Article 49. Every citizen of the USSR has the right to submit proposals to state bodies and public organisations for improving their activity, and to criticise shortcomings in their work.

>Officials are obliged, within established time-limits, to examine citizens' proposals and requests, to reply to them, and to take appropriate action. Persecution for criticism is prohibited. Persons guilty of such persecution shall be called to account.

>Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

>Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

>Article 51. In accordance with the aims of building communism, citizens of the USSR have the right to associate in public organisations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests.

>Public organisations are guaranteed conditions for successfully performing the functions defined in their rules.

However, the Constitution also notes, "Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state, or infringe the rights of other citizens."


 No.10312

>>10295

A bit unrelated, but here is a great article about the death toll under Mao.


 No.10313


 No.10314

1. What is, in your opinion, the main reason that only two political parties emerged in the US? I always found it odd that such a huge country would only have two political parties.

2. Is there a faction within the Republicans that combines American patriotism and Republican values with a pro-welfare platform, pro-unions, etc.? Like Katter's Australian Party? Most conservative parties in Europe have such a wing.


 No.10315

>>10314

>What is, in your opinion, the main reason that only two political parties emerged in the US? I always found it odd that such a huge country would only have two political parties.

The two parties are "big tents," they are capable of changing their politics quite a bit within a decade or two while retaining their class character. Thus the Republican Party started off uniting all opponents of slavery (to the extent America's very first Marxists worked within it and Joseph Weydemeyer, the leading American Marxist, was elected county auditor of St. Louis on a Republican ticket in 1865.)

W.E.B. Du Bois went so far as to argue that in Southern states during Reconstruction, where Republicans were dependent on ex-slaves and poor whites for political power, the GOP had become a kind of labor party.

Another example of Republican diversity was how South Dakota's first Senator (Richard F. Pettigrew) denounced imperialism and monopoly at the turn of the century, and at the end of his life welcomed the October Revolution. Republican Senator La Follette ran a third-party campaign in 1924 that was supported by the Socialist Party (including Eugene Debs) and other parts of the labor movement.

The way the political system is set up also encourages the growth of this "big tent" two-party system. Two years ago I scanned a Soviet work on the history of the system, which you'll probably find of interest: https://archive.org/details/TheUSTwoPartySystem

> Is there a faction within the Republicans that combines American patriotism and Republican values with a pro-welfare platform, pro-unions, etc.?

No. A bunch of far-right types who aren't formally in the GOP do take positions like "public health care works in Scandinavia because everyone is white, whereas it wouldn't work here because brown people." That's about as far as you're getting.

Trump occasionally dangles promises of large investments in infrastructure, and US trade policies are presented as being advantageous to workers (to the extent I've seen self-styled "nationalist" Trump supporters attack Marxists for traditionally criticizing protectionism), but that's as far as one goes.

The last time there was a serious attempt at a "pro-welfare, pro-unions" Republican wing was in the 1940s under Wendell Willkie. FDR actually had the idea of working with him to form a new liberal party opposed to both Dixiecrats and conservative Republicans, but then Willkie died.

In the 1950s-70s there were socially liberal Republicans, but economically they were very much right-wing (a case in point being Barry Goldwater, who was aghast at the rise of Evangelical influence in the party.)

Even Presidential candidates who had "moderate" views on social issues (George H.W. Bush, Trump) ended up appointing Evangelical-approved VPs (Quayle, Pence) and themselves moving to the right on social issues to prove they're "real" conservatives.

Post last edited at

 No.10316

File: b42af6d11f90543⋯.png (57.03 KB, 938x556, 469:278, purges.png)

File: 02608276b101f76⋯.jpg (22.52 KB, 132x591, 44:197, stats.jpg)

>>10096

I figure you would probably know a bit about this, but from the somewhat shallow investigating I've done, this seems to be the most detailed and accurate piece of info that details all(?) executions in the USSR between 1921 and 1952 (it's not here but from the same source it says 198 people were executed in 1953, incidentally 1948 and 1949 are completely missing too.) What I wanted to know is if you've seen this source before and if you think it's accurate/reliable. Of I remember correctly, it's from Getty and I did read somewhere on leftypol that some of the measures here are made up/exaggerated. What's your take on this? If it isn't accurate, do you have any other more reliable source detailing the total number of executions in the USSR? I'm specificalñy interested during Stalin's government. Maybe I should've posted this in the USSR thread but I figured it'd get answered quicker here. Also what does "counterrevolutionary activities" and "antisoviet agitation" mean?


 No.10317

>>10316

"Counterrevolutionary activities" presumably means those executed were accused of sabotage, real or attempted assassinations, espionage, etc.

"Antisoviet agitation" probably means trying to convince people the government ought to be overthrown, or that the aforementioned counterrevolutionary acts ought to be committed.

But yeah as far as I know between 600,000 and 1 million people being executed in the Great Purges is the generally accepted estimate nowadays, based on archival sources.

I don't research death count totals, mostly because after a while it seems a bit academic to argue whether, say, 4-5 million died in the Ukrainian famine (as Wheatcroft has argued) or 3 million (as Nove has argued.)

The only thing you can be sure of is that absurdly high numbers (like Rummel claiming 50 million died under Stalin, and Solzhenitsyn claiming 60 million) are false, and 20-30 million (as claimed by Conquest) is almost certainly exaggerated.


 No.10320

1) In what ways was Mao's China left wing?

2) Do you know any material on literacy campaigns? Healthcare reform?Agriculture collectivization?

3) You said that Mao became pro west because he had nationalist inclinations, what lead to that? Could Khrushchev had avoided the split?

4) Mao is credited with New Democracy which promotes mixed economy-capitalist market mixed with socialism. So why did market reforms start with Deng only?

5) What caused Sino-Indian war and Sino-Vietnamese war? Was it justifiable?

6) What was Dengs foreign policy? What was his policy towards capitalist west, Warsaw pact and Non-Aligned?

7) In what ways was Deng's China left wing?

8) There are allegations that Deng was nationalist careerist, thoughts?


 No.10321

>>10320

1. Abolished feudalism, socialized means of production, carried out campaigns against superstition, misogyny, etc., provided assistance to the Korean people and others struggling against imperialism, and so on.

2. In regard to health care, one that comes to mind is this: http://b-ok.cc/book/935001/23ed33

3. Mao already had grievances with the USSR when Stalin was alive, but Khrushchev clearly made things worse in the late 50s and early 60s by trying to blackmail China via withdrawing Soviet aid and personnel. As for what led to Mao's nationalist deviations, I'd imagine one similarity is the feeling that he carried out the revolution in China on his own and amid frustrations with the USSR and the Comintern.

4. New Democracy referred to a situation where socialism had not yet been built. Deng argued for a significant increase in the role of the market within an existing socialist system.

5. I don't know enough about the Sino-Indian War to comment, but the Sino-Vietnamese War clearly wasn't. China was infuriated that Vietnam deposed Pol Pot and decided to invade Vienam in retaliation.

6. He sought foreign investment from the West as well as stable relations with it to keep said investment functioning, he sought to normalize relations with the USSR (although he imposed various arbitrary preconditions on it), he reached out to Warsaw Pact states, and he also expanded ties with members of the Non-Aligned Movement like Yugoslavia and the DPRK.

7. Continues to develop socialism, continues to help foreign countries develop their productive forces.

8. Deng became a Marxist while a student in France doing proletarian jobs. He spent close to 30 years in the Chinese communist movement before the CPC even took power, which seems rather uncharacteristic for a careerist. Besides that, you'd have to give examples of his purported careerism.


 No.10323

>The socialists say to the workers:

<Do not combine, because what will you gain by it anyway? A rise in wages? The economists will prove to you quite clearly that the few ha'pence you may gain by it for a few moments if you succeed will be followed by a permanent fall. Skilled calculators will prove to you that it would take you years merely to recover, through the increase in your wages, the expenses incurred for the organization and upkeep of the combinations.

>And we, as socialists, tell you that, apart from the money question, you will continue nonetheless to be workers, and the masters will still continue to be the masters, just as before. So no combination! No politics! For is not entering into combination engaging in politics?

>The economists want the workers to remain in society as it is constituted and as it has been signed and sealed by them in their manuals.

>The socialists want the workers to leave the old society alone, the better to be able to enter the new society which they have prepared for them with so much foresight.

>In spite of both of them, in spite of manuals and utopias, combination has not yet ceased for an instant to go forward and grow with the development and growth of modern industry. It has now reached such a stage, that the degree to which combination has developed in any country clearly marks the rank it occupies in the hierarchy of the world market. England, whose industry has attained the highest degree of development, has the biggest and best organized combinations.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02e.htm

So Marx thinks we should form exclusively revolutionary associations and organisations and work to overthrow capitalism directly, rather than combine into trade unions to strengthen class unity and create associations that can perhaps be radicalised, or used to achieve revolutionary aims? Or is Marx doubtful about the revolutionary character of a trade union and believes a union can't do anything significant?


 No.10326

>>10323

Marx's reference to "socialists," as Engels points out in a footnote added to later editions, referred to "the Socialists of that time: the Fourierists in France, the Owenites in England."

In other words, Marx was mocking the prevailing attitude of the utopian socialists who were calling on workers to abstain from politics and trade-unionism. That's why Marx wrote that "combination has not yet ceased for an instant to go forward and grow with the development and growth of modern industry" despite what the utopians subjectively desired.

It's worth remembering that the utopian socialists didn't comprehend the concept of class consciousness or the proletariat as the gravedigger of capitalism. They could see that workers were mistreated, but not much more than that. Hence their belief that unions were a waste of time. If you didn't like life under capitalism, all you had to do was follow the blueprints set forth by Owen or Fourier (or some other utopian) and thus (as Marx put it) "leave the old society alone [i.e. don't overthrow it and seize political power], the better to be able to enter the new society which they have prepared for them with so much foresight."

Marx noted in a May 20, 1865 letter to Engels that trade unions "are of the utmost importance not only as a means of organising the working class for struggle against the bourgeoisie. This importance appears, for instance, in the fact that even workers of the United States, despite their franchise and their republic, cannot do without them."

Marx held that trade unions were an important indication of working-class consciousness and that communists should work within them.

Post last edited at

 No.10331

>>10321

1) What grievances with Soviets did Mao have? Who was in the wrong?

2) So New Democracy is a theory developed by Mao that suggest how to reach primary stages of socialism. Mao thought that China already has reached socialism, so he did anti rightist campaign decade latter cultural revolution, correct?

3) According to wiki Deng was targeted during cultural revolution for his pro market views, is that correct, or propaganda to portray Deng as right wing martyr and great reformer? Why did he made market reforms after Mao passed? Isn't it gains Mao wishes and disrespectful? How to find a balance and portray Deng as leftist?

4)>he sought to normalize relations with the USSR (although he imposed various arbitrary preconditions on it),

How did he try to normalize relationships and what were his long term goals? Why did it fail? Who was in the wrong?

5) How exactly did market reforms take place? Any good sources on the subject matter?


 No.10334

>>10331

1. There was the Comintern's relationship to the CPC in the 1920s and 30s which Mao thought hindered the latter. Mao was also annoyed by certain Stalin-era Soviet policies, some of which continued under his successors (the general attitude of Soviet officials in China viewing it as a "little brother" of the USSR) and some of which were discontinued after Stalin's death (like mixed companies and the leasing of Port Arthur and Dalian.)

2. Yes.

3. Liu Shaoqi and Deng were both accused of "following the capitalist road" by wanting to enact reforms similar to those in the Soviet Union, hence why Liu was attacked as "China's Khrushchev." Ironically the Cultural Revolution had the effect of convincing folks like Deng that what was needed was not the relatively mild reforms of the USSR, but far vaster changes in the conception of socialism. Deng and the CPC openly criticized Mao for the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution; they argue that he should be praised for his many merits while his errors are also acknowledged.

4. Under Deng, the CPC stopped claiming from about 1982 onward that the USSR was "state-capitalist" and "social-imperialist," but still accused it of "hegemonism" and demanded the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan and Mongolia and the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea. I think the USSR was more reasonable than Deng in desiring improved relations without such harmful preconditions. I assume his long-term goal was to check "Soviet influence" in Asia in order for the US to continue supporting China geopolitically and for foreign investments to continue.

5. You could check out Ezra Vogel's biography of Deng, which is a standard work on his life and his ideas for reform: http://b-ok.cc/book/2711115/df0917


 No.10336

Would you say Vietnam and Laos's economies are more or Less Market oriented then the P.R.C's ?

Also would you call the P.R.C's Market Reforms more or less Comprehensive then the NEP-Era USSR?


 No.10337

>>10336

To my knowledge Vietnam has the state play a larger role in the economy compared to China. I don't know about Laos, but I'd imagine it's similar to Vietnam.

The NEP was less comprehensive than China's market reforms. For example, the bourgeoisie refused to work with the Soviet government to implement state-capitalism, so it was expropriated. This meant that during the NEP period the closet thing to a capitalist class were NEPmen, who were mostly traders and speculators. There wasn't a Soviet equivalent to Jack Ma.


 No.10338

File: f16bc446bcd5085⋯.jpg (29.47 KB, 600x400, 3:2, jack ma.jpg)

>>10337

What do you think about Jack Ma?

What do you think about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_by_net_worth

What do you think about capital flight from China of About $3.8 Trillion?


 No.10342

Do you guys have any statistics on student or education life in socialist states like Cuba or the DPRK? I don't want the curriculum but rather how life it is for students in dormitories and whatnot.


 No.10344

>>10338

China has capitalists. This is part of its strategy for developing the productive forces. Obviously capital flight is a bad thing.

I don't have any personal views of Jack Ma or other Chinese capitalists.

>>10342

I do not.


 No.10345

File: 024ef715392b1a1⋯.jpg (110.64 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, DdySgeNUwAADPaw.jpg)

File: 533083ef8b87852⋯.jpg (85.99 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, DdySgdGV0AAWQT6.jpg)

File: d8ccc1fb5b03b22⋯.jpg (130.81 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, DdySgh2VQAA5v9W.jpg)

File: 761a181f7618a22⋯.jpg (124.91 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, DdySgg6UQAAY-R1.jpg)

>>10342

I have some pictures from an Vietnamese exchange student taken from the average dorm at Kim Il Sung university. You can tell it's not a photo op because the offical North Korean photos look far more shiny and polished.


 No.10350

What's your opinion on the few remaining Communist Parties of Relevance in Europe? (The KKE-AKEL In Greece and Cyprus the CPB and KPRF in Belarus and Russia the PTB in Belgium etc?)


 No.10351

I just finished Lenin's "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" and his shorter text "Critical Remarks on the National Question". However I still have some questions.

1) General question (for people who also read this book): I'm not sure I really understood the central point - if there is one - Lenin is trying to make. Would therefore like to recapitulate the main points I understood from the text:

>the right to self-determination should always be thought in political and not in cultural terms (i.e. the right to political secession);

>this right should generally be granted to all nations, because this is essential in a state that calls itself democratic and lessens the possibility of conflicts between different nationalities;

>the fact that nations under capitalism are never "really independent" economically is irrelevant to the political question about their self-determination;

>national independence movements should be supported as long as they don't simply benefit the national bourgeoisie of that nation;

>support for national movements should always go together with support for proletarian organisations to prevent the prevailing of national particularism. These two facets are not at all opposed, but complement each other;

>it is idiotic to categorically oppose all national movements based on either a vague appeal to "internationalism" (= a Marxist mistake) or "the falling apart of the nation" (= a liberal/rightist mistake).

Are these the most important points or did I miss something vital? Did I misrepresent any of Lenin's positions?

2) In what cases would Lenin think a national movement should be supported and in what cases wouldn't he? For example, let's take the concrete case of Rojava. If it would turn out through a democratic referendum that the majority of Kurds want Rojava to exist as an independent state, should this (according to the "Leninist" view) be supported despite the role it can play as an outpost for American imperialism? Should "a" Kurdish state be supported, just not Rojava in the form we currently see? Or should this be disregarded alltogether because some other principle, such as the "integrity" of Syria as an anti-imperialist force, is being valued higher, and should the main goal be higher autonomy for the region, not independence?

3) Do you think the USSR failed or succeeded in actually implementing Lenin's recommendation to grant nations the right to self-determination?

>>10350

I am from Belgium and have been actively engaged with the PVDA/PTB for a few months. Feel free to ask any specific questions you might have.


 No.10352

>>10351

not Ismail but he did scan this handy compendium of Lenin's writings a while back: https://archive.org/details/LeninNationalLiberationSocialEmancipation


 No.10354

Thoughts on Trofim Lysenko?


 No.10355

>>10352

Thanks comrade


 No.10356

>>10351

>I am in PTB

1. Is it really a Marxist organisation as I have seen claimed?

2. What was the Parties performance in the recent local elections in Belgium?

3. Do you think the organisation has a future


 No.10357

File: 12507abc160504c⋯.jpg (458.01 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, pvda laborwave.jpg)

>>10356

>1. Is it really a Marxist organisation as I have seen claimed?

Yes. In recent years the party has sometimes been accused of “revisionism” etc. by hyper-tankies (such as the Russian RKRP), mainly because we tactically refrain from openly praising Stalin and try to be as non-sectarian as possible in our communication. This is due to decisions made in party congresses after our founder and first party leader Ludo Martens (author of the edgy albeit historically accurate book “Another View of Stalin”) stepped down. The goal was to make the party less sectarian and more appealing to the working class. At its core, it is still clearly Marxist. It has the stated goal of abolishing capitalism and moving on towards a socialist society. It consistently defends the interests of the working class against financial elites. The congress documents cite from the works of Marx. There exist reading groups on texts by Marx, Engels and (more internally and occasionally) Lenin. The party still defends Cuba and also critically supports states like Venezuela against imperialism. Virtually all members I know are convinced Marxists who are usually quite sympathetic towards the 20th century socialist states, although this is kept very low-key in external communication. Etc.

I would say the party has successfully managed to avoid both of the paths that many communist parties took after the fall of the USSR: abolishing Marxism or going full-on autistic LARP. It also has built up a good connection to the working class (joining strikes, taking surveys in poor neighborhoods, etc.) which I’d say is equally important as reading Marxist theory.

>2. What was the Parties performance in the recent local elections in Belgium?

Actually better than ever before. The efforts towards non-sectarianism have proved successful. For the first time the party broke through in most major cities, and managed to jump from about 50 to 157 elected representatives (43 in Flanders, 36 in Brussels and 78 in Wallonia, traditionally the more left-wing region of the country). It was announced just 1 or 2 days ago that the PVDA, which has never governed before, will now be part of the governing coalition in the municipality Zelzate.

>3. Do you think the organisation has a future

If the current trends continue, definitely. You also see a rapid rise in the attempts of rightists to discredit the party (with all kinds of appeals to le ebil gommunism, “why do we tolerate the far left but not the far right”, “The PVDA was at an international communist seminar where there was also a North Korean delegate so this means they are TOTALITARIAN” [yes, that actually happened], etc.). I’d say this is a sign of porky being increasingly scared, comparable to the rising anti-Corbyn propaganda in the UK or anti-Mélenchon agitations in France.


 No.10358

>>10357

Few more questions about Belgium in General

<1.

I know it is sort of a thing in Belgian Politics that Wallonia is considered Left-Wing While Flanders is Considered Right wing

Is this true?

<2.

Are the Meme's about Flander's succeeding true?

<3.

Assuming Wallonia actually is more Left-Wing if Flanders did succede what would the PTB's chances of coming into a governing Role over Wallonia be?


 No.10359

>>10350

They should generally be supported.

>>10351

Yeah that's a fair summary of Lenin's views.

>In what cases would Lenin think a national movement should be supported and in what cases wouldn't he?

Lenin noted that "it is to the interests of this struggle [for socialism] that we must subordinate the demands for national self-determination. It is this that makes all the difference between our approach to the national question and the bourgeois democratic approach."

Lenin also wrote, "The right of nations to self-determination means only the right to independence in a political sense, the right to free, political secession from the oppressing nation. Concretely, this political, democratic demand implies complete freedom to carry on agitation in favour of secession, and freedom to settle the question of secession by means of a referendum of the nation that desires to secede. Consequently, this demand is by no means identical with the demand for secession, for partition, for the formation of small states. It is merely the logical expression of the struggle against national oppression in every form. The more closely the democratic system of state approximates to complete freedom of secession, the rarer and weaker will the striving for secession be in practice."

In the concrete conditions of Iraq and Syria, the slogan of an independent Kurdistan is used by imperialism to weaken countries at odds with NATO and its allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. For that reason communists should presumably advocate for self-determination to take the form of autonomy or federation, and to vote against any such referendum.

However, if such a referendum were to pass anyway, and a separate Kurdish state set up based on the desires of the Kurdish population on land that is clearly Kurdish, I'd assume communists would denounce any efforts to turn Kurdistan into an imperialist base against neighboring countries and would continue to advocate autonomy under a socialist Iraq or Syria or federation under some wider entity as the best solution to the "Kurdish question" (at least given the present political realities of the region.)

>>10354

From what I've read, my stance is negative. When other scientists opposed him, he appealed to the CPSU(B) leadership to intervene on his behalf by claiming that said scientists were merely jealous of his work or otherwise wanted to suppress it.

He also manipulated his findings for the benefit of whatever Soviet leaders wanted to hear. It's partly why, even after Stalin died, Khrushchev continued to make use of Lysenko to defend the Virgin Lands campaign. It wasn't till Khrushchev's ouster that Lysenko's influence truly came to an end.

Lysenko wasn't the agricultural equivalent of a creationist; he was capable of making interesting observations and valid points. The problem is that he simply wasn't a very good scientist, and when he sought to monopolize discussion on subjects dear to him, Soviet science suffered as a result. He owed his dominance to official patronage, not to the effectiveness of his theories.

Post last edited at

 No.10360

>>10357

>It was announced just 1 or 2 days ago that the PVDA, which has never governed before, will now be part of the governing coalition in the municipality Zelzate.

Do you think that this is a good idea? I guess it doesn't really matter on a municipal level, but please refrain from doing this on a national level.


 No.10361

>>10359

Thanks for the answers

>>10358

1. To some extent that's true, but the difference is exaggerated by rightists who use it as support for the splitting of the country. It's a fact that the left-wing parties, including the PVDA, are stronger in Wallonia than in Flanders, also Wallonia doesn't have a very large nationalist party comparable to the N-VA or a significant equivalent to Vlaams Belang. (Might also be because "Flemish identity" is often seen as distinct from "Dutch identity" to a higher degree than "Walloon identity" differs from "French identity". For example in Wallonia they watch lots of French TV while in Flanders we hardly have any awareness of Dutch TV.) However, again, this should not be exaggerated. If you compare the politics of the main Flemish cities to Wallonia the socdems and greens are pretty well-represented in both cases, and the right-wing liberal MR (party of our prime minister) is a strong force in Wallonia. It's mostly the smaller Flemish municipalities where the votes go for a large part to the rightist parties N-VA (nationalist liberals), VLD (liberals) and CD&V (christian-democrats).

2. What do you mean by succeeding? Unemployment and poverty are indeed higher in Wallonia than in Flanders, but they're fairly high in both regions and the country as a whole suffers from massive debt and several privatizations. I wouldn't call any Belgian region an example of tremendous success.

3. It's more probable than in Flanders (they managed to get from 10 up to 24% of the vote in the local elections in some Walloon municipalities). However for a part it depends on the PTB's own decisions. They would only ever want to govern in what they call a "consistent left" coalition, i.e. not together with anyone to the right of the socdem/green parties, and even then only on the condition that these parties accept their proposals on some important issues. Their principle is generally that they don't want to govern unless there's a chance of making a substantial difference.

>>10360

Don't worry, I don't think they would generally want to be part of the government at all. See point 3 above.


 No.10365

>>10361

In want SECEDE

It autocorrected

My mistake


 No.10366

>>10365

*I Meant SECEDE


 No.10367

Thoughts on Paul Cockshott?


 No.10368

>>10367

I remember him posting on RevLeft around seven years ago. He argued against ultra-leftists calling the USSR and whatnot "state-capitalist" and generally came across as pretty good.

I read his book years before that. I don't remember it being bad.


 No.10369

How do you reconcile the restrictive measures undertaken by ML states in regards to freedom of speech and the press with the fact that Marx was a valiant supporter of both? I don't really think it was necessary most of the time outside of critical situations. For example, instead of jamming Western radio stations, the USSR could have released their own counter-arguments in Pravda or their own radio, that would have been more elegant instead of just prohibiting them, which hurts one's credibility. Cuba has experienced with an increase of civil liberties and they have a population that is very much in favor of socialism and their government, no capitalist mass movement arose. I think a problem is that most MLs associate civil liberties with economic liberties, as it was happening during the fall of the Eastern Bloc. Clearly this isn't the case, as the civil liberties in Vietnam and China havn't changed that much despite economic liberalization.

I think for most people, the dismissive attitude of MLs for civil liberties is just not acceptable. Most liberals don't think in terms like "base" and "superstructure", instead, economic freedom and freedom of speech etc. stand on the same level independendtly from one another. So of MLs in the West say stuff like "yeah, I don't think capitalist roaders should have any rights" when they talk about a potential ML state in the West, most people would not accept such a stance this easily. And I don't think it's necessary.

Of course, if you look at Third World revolutions, the situation is quite different. You'd not expect Nepali communists who were fighting a literal civil war for years to allow a fucking monarchist who wants to reinstate an absolute monarchy or some form of fascism to have every right to pursue that agenda. But in the First World, conditions are different. I don't think MLs in the West need to resort to these measures, but they do, because they are still influenced by Soviet orthodoxy (which are a result of Russia's historical conditions, of course).

For example, we shouldn't go the path of Antifa and gloat at bourgeois restrictions of freedom of speech like the banning of Alex Jones. You can still denounce Alex Jones but laughing at what is clearly a restriction of freedom of expression (unless you are a liberal an believe "it's a private company, man") and you sawing off the tree branch on which you sit yourself. MLs in the West should go back to the roots and valiantly defend freedom of the press and freedom of speech. It's not like we are afraid of debates, aren't we?


 No.10370

Despite him (Obviously) not being a Marxist do you think that some of the ideas proposed by Max Stirner (Revolution is not only in the Working class as a wholes interest but is also in the Individual's logical Self-Interest etc) can be adapted into a Marxist movement in any way?

Even from just a Propaganda Level?


 No.10371

>>10370

Marxism is at root a "collectivist" ideology. Marx and Engels critiqued Stirner at length, as did Plekhanov and other Marxists. The Manifesto's declaration that "proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains" points to the fact that socialism will improve the lot of the vast majority of humanity (the proletariat also bringing much of the peasantry and at least a segment of the urban petty-bourgeoisie to its side.)

So I can't really see anything specifically from Stirner being adapted into Marxism.

>>10369

>with the fact that Marx was a valiant supporter of both?

Marx and Engels supported freedom of speech and the press in the sense of encouraging a free discussion of scientific and other ideas, and of struggling against the censorship imposed by feudalism and regimes like that of Bismarck.

Furthermore, after the October Revolution (to quote Andrew Rothstein in his history of the USSR) "the newspapers of a number of capitalist groups, as well as of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, went on being published until August, 1918, with scarcely any interference. The wildest inventions (such as that about an alleged 'nationalization of women' in certain Volga towns), the most violent denunciations of the Soviet Government and the Bolshevik Party, the most open championship of the enemies of Soviet power, filled the columns of these newspapers. To turn over their pages nowadays - those of the bourgeois papers like Utro Rossii and Zarya Rossii, or of S.R. and Menshevik papers in their infinite variety, like Dielo Naroda and Novaya Zhizn - is to see proof of a tolerance which was as fruitless as that of the Paris Commune."

As Lenin pointed out in 1921, "All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake 'public opinion' for the benefit of the bourgeoisie. . . Freedom of the press in the R.S.F.S.R., which is surrounded by the bourgeois enemies of the whole world, means freedom of political organisation for the bourgeoisie and its most loyal servants, the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. This is an irrefutable fact. The bourgeoisie (all over the world) is still very much stronger than we are. To place in its hands yet another weapon like freedom of political organisation (= freedom of the press, for the press is the core and foundation of political organisation) means facilitating the enemy’s task, means helping the class enemy."

Slogans like "freedom of the press" are in fact bound up with class struggle, whether liberals want to acknowledge it or not. Hence why the 1918 Soviet Constitution states, "For the purpose of securing freedom of expression to the toiling masses, the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic abolishes all dependence of the Press upon capital, and turns over to the working people and the poorest peasantry all technical and material means for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books, etc., and guarantees their free circulation throughout the country."

Nor is there a contradiction between suppressing the press of hostile overthrown classes and promoting the press of the working-class and its allies. Soviet newspapers, for example, had plenty of criticisms of everyday life.

The whole history of the international communist movement, its books, pamphlets journals and newspapers, are filled to the brim with rebuttals of anti-communist arguments. Even the Manifesto ridicules arguments like "upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us." If the USSR jammed stations like Radio Free Europe, it wasn't because it was "afraid to debate."

>But in the First World, conditions are different. I don't think MLs in the West need to resort to these measures, but they do, because they are still influenced by Soviet orthodoxy

It's asinine to expect socialism to come to North America or Europe without violence on the part of reaction.

The problem with "the banning of Alex Jones" isn't that he was banned, it was that a private corporation did it on the basis of combating "extremism." This opens the door for future attacks on "extremists" of the left. If there were laws in this country explicitly prohibiting fascist and other reactionary propaganda, which companies would be obliged to abide by, that would be a different situation.

Post last edited at

 No.10372

>>10371

>Marxism is at root a "collectivist" ideology.

Don't you think the "collectivism vs. individualism" dichotomy is a misleading one? I only ever see it invoked by dumb libertarians.


 No.10373

>>10369

Good post.

>I think a problem is that most MLs associate civil liberties with economic liberties, as it was happening during the fall of the Eastern Bloc. Clearly this isn't the case, as the civil liberties in Vietnam and China havn't changed that much despite economic liberalization.

Yes. There's a tendency by ML's to completely reject anything that some liberals might also support. Liberals speak of the individual, therefore the individual doesn't exist, individual rights don't exist and all individuals should be subordinated to the "collective" or the good of society or whatever. Liberals believe in the freedom of speech therefore we should support censorship of everyone but ourselves. Not saying all ML's are like this but it is a real problem, especially in the online ML sphere.


 No.10374

>>10372

Marx criticized the notion of "the individual" as distinct from, yet simultaneously part of, society, and the role of the bourgeois state in perpetuating this distinction. He regarded communism as removing the separation between "public" (i.e. political) and "private" affairs.

This is obviously different from liberalism which posits that man seeks to obtain natural rights for his own happiness, and creates republics in order to help guarantee those rights by maintaining the security of individuals and their property.

Post last edited at

 No.10375

>>10365

Oh I see. No, that's a meme and probably won't ever happen. The trend in Belgium, as in most of Europe, is further integration into the EU, and most people in both Flanders and Wallonia don't want secession. Even the right-wing parties have gradually shifted their rhetoric more and more to "muh immigrants/mudslimes" instead of focusing on "muh 2 nations in 1 country" because it's a better selling point. It seems like nowadays the strongest voices actively and regularly advocating for Flemish independence are fascist/reactionary youth organisations such as Schild & Vrienden, KVHV and NSV (who are all closely related to eachother and basically the Flemish equivalent to the alt-right).


 No.10376

Why did Bulgaria Attempt to join the USSR as an SSR on three separate occasions under Zhikov?

Some Bulgarians have told me it was mainly because of two reasons

1. Being an Opportunist Zhikov mainly cared about maintaining his own power and saw Bulgaria being a Soviet Republic as a good method to do this

2. Bulgaria's economy was almost entirely dependent on the USSR giving Bulgaria Raw Materials for its Industry and buying the goods they produced at a Mark up

Are either of these true?


 No.10378

>>10376

Even before the USSR existed, there was strong Pan-Slavic sentiment between Russians and Bulgarians, and socialist Bulgaria was always viewed as the most loyal of the Warsaw Pact states. To quote one author, "Bulgaria is the only Communist-ruled country in the world where the Soviet Ambassador still sits on the platform at all important public occasions and accompanies the Premier on his tours of the provinces. It is the only country where on festive occasions the streets and public buildings are hung with giant portraits of the members of the Soviet Politburo side by side with those of their Bulgarian opposite numbers. It is the only country where the ruling party, for many years the most profuse in its protestations of loyalty to the 'wise leadership of Comrade Khrushchev,' hurriedly approved his dismissal without expressing any emotion whatsoever and assured his successors of the Bulgarian party's unfailing devotion." (Paul Lendvai, Eagles in Cobwebs: Nationalism and Communism in the Balkans, 1969, p. 206.)

As far as I know, Zhivkov was never in any danger of being removed from power after the defeat of Chervenkov and other "hardliners" in 1962.

I assume Zhivkov's offers to join the USSR were simply meant to give yet another demonstration of loyalty to the Soviet leadership rather than any sincere wish. To quote from a 1990 New York Times interview:

>"We were surrendered to Stalin's camp," [Zhivkov] said. "Bulgaria would certainly be far ahead of where it is now if it had been Western-oriented."

>Such comments contrasted sharply with virtually all the public pronouncements he made while in power. He was reminded of a typical passage made 20 years ago in which he said that the Soviet Union and Bulgaria "act as a single body, breathing with the same lungs, and nourished by the same bloodstream."

>"That was just an image, just rhetoric," Mr. Zhivkov said, waving his hand. "Those were different times."

Coincidentally, I actually have a book I intend to scan next month titled "Todor Zhivkov: Statesman and Builder of New Bulgaria" which is a collection of his speeches and some autobiographical accounts.


 No.10379

>>10378

Bulgaria still has large socialist party in their parliament. Unfortunately problem is that leading members are not very well-reading.


 No.10380

>>10379

iirc the Bulgarian Socialist Party have dropped Marxism from their platform and currently use a Social-Democratic definition of Socialism

>>10378

Why do you think that while most ex-warsaw states have become completely anti-Socialist to the point that even Social-Democrats are not tolerated Bulgaria Romania and Albania maintain such a strong Presence of people (Claiming) Socialist feelings?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(Romania)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Albania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Socialist_Party


 No.10381

>>10380

Well, I think "most" in that case really only refers to Poland and Hungary. Eastern Germany for example has Die Linke, which has numerous avowed Marxists within it. The Czech Republic even has avowed communists doing relatively good electorally.

I can't speak for Bulgaria or Romania, but in the case of Albania the Socialist Party gets some of its legitimacy from identifying to some extent with the Communist-led anti-fascist resistance during WWII, whereas the Democratic Party identifies with the Balli Kombëtar and Legaliteti who posed as "resistance movements" but increasingly collaborated with the occupiers against the Communists.

There's apparently also some regionalism at work, or at least there was in the 90s, with the Socialist Party being stronger among Tosks (i.e. southern Albania) and the Democrats being stronger among Ghegs (i.e. northern Albania.)

I don't think people who vote for the Socialist Party really think "I'm voting for a party that will establish socialism" though. To my knowledge the party considers itself merely interested in reforming capitalism to better serve "all Albanians."


 No.10384

Why did Italy end up a bourgeois republic after WW2 despite the huge role communists played in the resistance? Why didn't it go more the way of Yugoslavia?


 No.10385

>>10384

When the Nazis invaded Yugoslavia, the latter's political system collapsed. The anti-fascist resistance led by the CPY established its own state power in liberated areas, which laid the foundations for the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia.

In July 1943 Italy's fascist government arrested Mussolini, restored powers to the king, and basically sought to "de-fascistize" itself and return to the pre-1922 bourgeois parliamentary system since Italy was obviously losing the war.

The Soviets had encouraged Tito to partake in a coalition government with remnants of the pre-war Yugoslav regime, but Tito was opposed to the idea. By contrast, "on March 14 [1944] the USSR officially recognized the Badoglio [i.e. bourgeois] government, and on March 27, Togliatti finally arrived in Naples [after years of exile in Moscow]. Without hesitation he allied the PCI with the bourgeois parties by offering his support to Badoglio." (De Grand, The Italian Left in the Twentieth Century, 1989, p. 89.)

Togliati argued that proletarian revolution was not a realistic prospect at that point; the immediate task was to unite as much of Italian society as possible towards overcoming the fascist legacy and democratizing the existing state structures. In time, Italians would see that capitalism sucks and socialism is k00l and they would vote the PCI into power.

Post last edited at

 No.10386

>>10385

>Togliati argued that proletarian revolution was not a realistic prospect at that point; the immediate task was to unite as much of Italian society as possible towards overcoming the fascist legacy and democratizing the existing state structures. In time, Italians would see that capitalism sucks and socialism is k00l and they would vote the PCI into power.

That sounds like Kautskyism to me. Why did the USSR encourage this?


 No.10387

>>10386

It has its roots in the popular front line adopted by the Seventh Congress of the Comintern to confront the danger of fascism. It was also in the context of the wartime alliance between the US, UK and USSR, which the Soviets and Togliatti feared would be endangered if attempts at revolution were made in Italy.

The Comintern's line was adopted everywhere (as the "Third Period" line had been beforehand) and laid the basis for similar concepts like democratic fronts and anti-monopoly coalitions, e.g. William Z. Foster wrote in 1939, "The Communist Party [USA] supports the policy of all the people's forces uniting behind single progressive election candidates, whether these be on the Democratic, Republican, Labor, Communist or other party ticket, against the candidates of reaction. In cases where there are no such progressive candidates in the field from other parties, the Communist Party puts up its own ticket." He approvingly quotes Dimitrov's words that "The people's front . . . creates the most favorable conditions for the working class to accomplish its historic role, to head the struggle of their people against the small clique of financial magnates, big capitalists and landlords, to be in the vanguard in the uncompleted democratic revolution and in all movements for progress and culture. The class struggle between exploited and exploiters thus receives an immeasurably wider base and a mighty scope."

Marx, Engels and Lenin all wrote about the possibility of a peaceful transfer of power from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, and also about the importance of the struggle for democracy as part of the struggle for socialism, so there was precedent for the Comintern's line.

Post last edited at

 No.10392

One common argument against socialism is that Soviets build their industry by reverse engineering western technologies raging from photo-cameras to cars and military technology. People also often accuse that Chinese industry is and science is mainly fueled by reverse engineering. Is there any way to debunk this ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FED_(camera)

https://www.rferl.org/a/the-classic-western-cars-copied-by-the-soviets/28468695.html


 No.10393

>>10392

Wouldn't know if that is true, but in these two reddit threads you can find a vast number of innovations and inventions by the Soviets:

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/6udiqp/innovations_in_the_ussr/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/5k5y51/what_innovations_or_inventions_have_communist/


 No.10395

>>10392

I haven't looked into the subject of reverse-engineering to answer it with any authority besides yes, it was common. But as noted by the guy who commented after you, there are plenty of Soviet and Chinese innovations and inventions.


 No.10398

Do you have any opinions on communist youtubers like TheFinnishBolshevik, Xexizy, Hakim, Tovarishch Endymion, etc.? Good? Cringe? Effective at promoting socialism or not?


 No.10399

>>10398

I have no opinion, since I've never watched them.

When it comes to politics I definitely prefer to read rather than watch.


 No.10401

Marx criticised Proudhon (MEWA, Suppl. Vol. 1, p. 286) for trying to supersed alienation by simply moving ownership from the capitalists to the community. The result would then be "the community as the universal capitalist"

The text which brought this up state that Marx saw the overcoming of alienation in a holistic way and that viewing it purely through economics is idealist. Marx thus viewed the supersession of alienation as a longer and more complex process than simply appropriating capital and call it a day

This is all from 'Marx's Theory of Alienation' by István Mészáros, p.130.

Do /marx know what he had in mind for how to overcome alienation long term?


 No.10402

>>10096

Are there any countries in the world (apart from isolated native tribes) that could still really be called "pre-capitalist"?


 No.10404

>>10401

For context, Marx was criticizing simplistic "communal" solutions to the private ownership of property, which were incapable of doing away with either private ownership or other "alienating" factors like the division of labor. Hence his opposition to Proudhon's mutualism. In the same part ("Private Property and Communism") he also blasts what he calls "crude communism" that seeks to bring everyone down to the same level via totally equal wages, etc.

I haven't read much on the subject of alienation or humanism in general. I did scan this Soviet work a while back: archive.org/details/HumanismMariaPetrosyan

There's a 150-page collection of writings on Marxism and alienation I've wanted to acquire and scan for a while, but... well, I haven't yet.


 No.10405

>>10402

In the sense that capitalism hasn't yet come to [insert country], I don't think so.

Even in countries where feudal remnants exist, and where bourgeois-democratic tasks still have relevance, I can't think of any where there's a revolutionary-minded bourgeoisie aspiring to overthrow feudalism. In other words, the proletariat will likely be the one that carries out the aforementioned tasks (hence demonstrating Lenin's words that socialist revolution will not be "separated from the bourgeois-democratic revolution by a Chinese Wall.")

Post last edited at

 No.10407

Is Chinese Legalism = Materialism with Medieval Characteristics?

Also do you think all this shit about Burma / Myanmar like revoking the Liberal Accolades from the president and all this other shit is part of a Regime change op because of Myanmar's pro-China stance? (China sells Myanmar most of their guns and is a trading partner)


 No.10408

File: 2b6b1faa22ba939⋯.png (213.5 KB, 245x332, 245:332, ClipboardImage.png)

Could you recommend any books about religion in socialist countries, more specifically, but not limited to the Soviet Union? From my limited knowledge I've always thought that the Soviet Union was a little harsh on religion at times (e.g. Stalin allegedly closing something like 95% of religious places of worship in the 1930s* or Khrushchev's church-closing campaign in the 1960s). I understand how the church was an extremely reactionary force under the Tsar but I still get the feeling that some of these actions were counterproductive in fighting religion and a bit heavy-handed. Closing churches down doesn't create atheists, obviously -- it can intensify religious feeling. Anyway, the little information I know is from bourgeois sources so if you know of any good works I'd really appreciate it.

*my source for this is from "The Soviet Union: Politics, Economics and Society" by Ronald J. Hill, which does in fact acknowledge that acts of worship are not generally interfered with and things such as article 52 of the 1977 constitution:

>Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

>In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html


 No.10409

>>10407

>Is Chinese Legalism = Materialism with Medieval Characteristics?

I wouldn't know.

As for Myanmar, it has leaned on China since the 90s. Perhaps there's disappointment that the new government isn't as pro-West as was hoped, but I think another factor is simply the blatant hypocrisy of denouncing earlier Myanma leaders of human rights grounds whereupon a supposed human rights icon comes to power and proves to even worse, at least on some issues.

So groups like Amnesty International can either stick their fingers in their ears, or concede that their moral crusader turned out to be a disappointment. Pursuing the former course would only discredit such groups.

>>10408

Szymanski's "Human Rights in the Soviet Union" specifically discusses Islam and Judaism in the USSR and throughout the text has other references to religion here and there: https://archive.org/details/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion

On Christianity specifically, with background info though with a focus on the 1980s, see: https://archive.org/details/ChristianityTodayInTheUSSR

Coincidentally, I'm getting two works on Marxism and Christianity in the mail to scan.

Yes, there was heavy-handedness. The CPSU not infrequently commented that its members would often go too far, paint all priests as reactionary, close down churches without the consent of nearby residents, etc.

On the other hand, there was the case of the Christian Democratic Union in the GDR. From an interview of its leader (Gerald Götting) by an American journalist:

>As you perhaps know, the GDR is the only socialist state with a provision to defer conscientious objectors from military service. This is a direct result of our efforts. Our pastors and bishops became concerned when conscription was reinstituted several years ago. We decided to approach the government through the vehicle of our party to secure a provision covering conscientious objectors. I personally raised the matter with my colleagues in the Council of State. Mr. Ulbricht and the leadership of the SED, as well as the other parties, admitted they had a good case, and so the statute was rewritten. The change was the result of compromise and conciliation within the governmental structure, not from parliamentary opposition in the liberal-bourgeois sense. . . .

>When the question of [switching to] the five-day [work] week arose, there was a question of religious holidays. Some in the government wanted to abolish all of them; the bishops wanted to retain them all. I helped engineer a compromise whereby we will continue to observe Pentecost, Good Friday, Holy Eve, Christmas and the day after. Easter comes on Sunday regardless. We gave up Easter Monday, Busstag, Ascension and Reformation Day. Neither the bishops nor the SED is completely happy, but I think it will be a viable solution. After all, we could not oppose a five-day week.

(Source: Smith, Jean Edward. Germany Beyond the Wall. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1969. p. 18.)

That same journalist talks to Christian clergymen in the country. By the mid-60s overt repression had ended, but the state still inconvenienced religious authorities in other ways, like by limiting the amount of materials for printing and distributing stuff.


 No.10412

>>10096

What's your stance on the more moderate Latin American "Pink Tide" leaders such as Lula, Morales and Correa? Do you think they should be appreciated for being relatively the most left-wing leaders these countries have had in recent history? Or do you think someone like Lula is mainly to be criticized for not fully rejecting neoliberal policies and making concessions to the IMF, and do you think his (and Dilma's) lack of a consistently leftist line is a cause of the far-right now coming to power in Brazil?


 No.10413

>>10412

The problem with "Pink Tide" leaders is that similar to social-democrats in European countries: for whatever positive policies they enact, their unwillingness to organize the working-class independently of the bourgeois state and political system in order to combat reactionary intrigues has the effect of disarming the proletariat.

That's why it's important for communists to maintain their organizational independence from them, while at the same time being careful to avoid a sectarian position that sees them as indistinguishable from the far-right.


 No.10414

Have you ever been to >>>/liberty/

If so, thoughts?


 No.10419

How do you recommend one should go about properly getting into Marxism? Do you have a reading list you recommend or something? I've read quite a few Marxist classics. The Manifesto, Wage Labour and Capital and Critique of the Gotha Program by Marx, State and Revolution, Left-Wing Communism, Imperialism and What Is To Be Done? by Lenin, and a few shorter texts/excerpts from writings of Roxa Luxemburg, Stalin, Mao. Also a bunch of youtube videos, podcasts, etc. on Marxism. Yet I still don't feel as if I have a really solid grasp of many of the concepts within Marxism, especially the more philosophical concepts.

Like, I still probably couldn't answer the question of what the fuck "dialectics" or the "dialectical method" are and how Marx' dialectics are different from Hegel's in any detail (without resorting to really vague explanations like "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" or just a bunch of nonsense about change and motion and interrelations). I find it hard to really get a good grasp of all the concepts of Marxism since the explanations of them are scattered between a bunch of different texts, where they're mixed in with historical examples and refutations of other philosophers I'm not familiar with.

A related question: to read Capital, should you just try to read it on your own or do you recommend some companion book or lecture series? Are David harvey's lectures any good?


 No.10420

>>10414

I haven't. I assume it's for libertarians.

So I clicked, and sure enough

>We've seen SJWs, we've seen the far right, and we've seen the far left and we've said no, stop this madness - the moralizing authoritarians who seek to control society and shape it to their whims and test out their vague theories would enslave us just to feel that society was better. At /liberty/ we believe we would be best served by sticking to the path we've been on for so long, that of personal liberty.

From quickly browsing, I don't like what I see. Someone asking how to save the "white race," another person putting "Palestinian" in scare quotes (i.e. the Zionist claim that Palestinians don't exist), yet another thread asking "Any other libertarians here, who are concerned with race?" and a thread asking "How do we surpass the Chinese?"


 No.10421

>>10419

>especially the more philosophical concepts

Check these links out:

* https://archive.org/details/MaterialismDialecticalMethod (specifically meant as an intro to dialectics)

* https://archive.org/details/CornforthTheoryOfKnowledge

* https://archive.org/details/tfomlp

>to read Capital, should you just try to read it on your own or do you recommend some companion book or lecture series? Are David harvey's lectures any good?

I've never seen Harvey's lectures on Capital criticized. I doubt there's any downside to watching them.

This might also be helpful: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/1868-syn/index.htm


 No.10425

>>10096

I have a few questions about climate change and what stances to take towards it. Idk if this is a topic you engage with frequently, but would like to hear your opinions.

1) How do you argue against people who say "individuals" also bear responsibility for the climate crisis and it's wrong to blame companies? Of course you can point out the fact that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions, but they'll claim that most of the same products will still need to be produced under socialism and that this won't be done with much less emissions or wastes than under capitalism. So how to counter this using concrete examples?

2) In a fully collectivized economy, would it still be necessary for individuals to make certain "sacrifices" (like not taking the plane or only living in apartments) before the climate can be effectively rescued? And if so, do you think this can be democratically accomplished since there might be resistance to some of those sacrifices?

3) Is it true that Cuba is doing very well ecologically and is there a way to demonstrate this has to do with the planned economy? Any data on this?

4) Are you a proponent of an economy that runs 100% on renewable energy? Or do you think it's mainly nuclear fusion (or nuclear energy without fusion) that is the energy source of the future?


 No.10428

>>10425

>How do you argue against people who say "individuals" also bear responsibility for the climate crisis and it's wrong to blame companies?

It makes no sense to absolve companies. They're the ones who cut corners to obtain a greater profit, and who hire advertising firms and PR to present themselves in the best possible light. Many products are bought by individuals because the company in question sells it more cheaply than competitors, and there's no guarantee those competitors will be any more "friendly" to the environment. The same incentives exist for all companies to contribute to pollution, slash wages (which results in people seeking the cheapest products), etc.

The tobacco industry spent decades using its riches in part to conduct "studies" showing that smoking and increased risk of cancer weren't linked. Who is to blame: the consumer, or the company?

>In a fully collectivized economy, would it still be necessary for individuals to make certain "sacrifices" (like not taking the plane or only living in apartments) before the climate can be effectively rescued? And if so, do you think this can be democratically accomplished since there might be resistance to some of those sacrifices?

Chapter 10 (Autos and Atoms) in Michael Parenti's "Contrary Notions" talks about how the auto industry undermined public transportation to promote individual car ownership: http://b-ok.cc/book/3362636/56ca35

I think if the superiority of a collectively-managed transportation system were shown, most people would gladly give up reliance on cars (with all their expenses.)

Moving from suburban housing to apartments would obviously be a far longer process. But again, advantages can be put into place and shown to others, e.g. closer proximity to workplace and/or recreation areas (parks, libraries...), fewer costs, etc.

As for Cuba, I can't think of any book or article that comes to mind.

I'd imagine nuclear energy would still be necessary for a long time to come.


 No.10432

What are the core points of critcism Leninists have leveled against Kautsky? I'm reading his works and I don't find them that bad tbh.


 No.10434

I was reading about the Tuvan Peoples Republic which existed as basically an orbiter state of the USSR from the 20s to 1944 and it mentioned a rather strange coup that occurred

Basically in 1929 the president of the Tuvan Republic began to implement reactionary reforms such as implanting a state religion (Tibetan Buddhism) began to reverse collectivisation and began to support further Anti-Soviet forces in Socialist Mongolia

some of the sources I've been reading have talked about how in response to this Stalin sent FIVE young men from one of the Soviets Asian Communist training schools to Tuva and that they stormed the Politburo building and successfully removed the old President from power and executed him

That sounds quite unbelievable

Do you have any information on Tuvan Peoples Republic at all?


 No.10439

>>10432

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia article on Kautsky answers your question: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/karl+kautsky

Basically, his pre-1914 works are generally not bad, but he always had a problem with opportunism and conciliating revisionism (e.g. he argued that American Socialists ought to get involved in "yellow peril" propaganda against immigrant Asian laborers so as to get more votes at election time.) When WWI broke out, his politics rapidly degenerated.

>>10434

>Do you have any information on Tuvan Peoples Republic at all?

I do, and it's true: a few students having the backing of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were enough to overturn the existing political and economic situation in Tuva.

To quote from one article, "Tuva—A State Reawakens" by Toomas Alatalu:

>It seems that it was the policy towards the church that occasioned an extremist turn to the left, executed not by the party itself but by its youth organisation. After the highly radical 4th Komsomol Congress in December 1928-January 1929 the party also had to capitulate, at the cost of the expulsion of 48% of its members. It was this purge that marked the beginning of the rise of Salchak Toka (1901-73) who became the ideology secretary of the Central Committee in 1929 and remained the local party leader for 40 years.

After a slide toward ultra-leftism, the pendulum swung to the right again from 1932-38 under the direction of the head of the Tuvan government, Churmit-Dazy. The country was proclaimed "a new type of bourgeois-democratic republic" (as opposed to the hitherto argument that Tuva, like Mongolia, was adopting the path of non-capitalist development.)

The author continues:

>O. Polat, who was appointed Minister of the Interior in Tuva in November 1936, confessed 55 years later that he had immediately been instructed by Toka to start collecting compromising materials about the activities of Churmit-Dazy, Khemchik-ool and others. The trials of 'enemies of the people' which started immediately afterwards involved a large part of the Tuvan leadership.

After that, Tuva returned to being a miniature version of Mongolia.

Post last edited at

 No.10440

What's an easy answer to the common "capitalist takes the risk" argument?


 No.10442

File: 78bfefa877a43f7⋯.jpg (475.91 KB, 693x1016, 693:1016, source of quote.jpg)

>>10440

An American Marxist named Adolph Douai gave his answer in 1877:

>The most absurd of all objections that commonly are heard in favor of Capitalistic Production is, that the capitalists who undertake industrial production are running great risks, and losing, during bad times, a great deal; and that, as a compensation, they should be allowed to indemnify themselves by corresponding profits in good times. We answer that they would not care to be simply indemnified for losses, if there were no excessive profits allowed. Their risks are altogether voluntary, and no sensible man thinks that they should be forced to such hazardous enterprises. The laborers, on the other hand, run far greater risks, and are by the force of circumstances driven to run them, but who indemnifies them? There is the miner who every day risks his life, limbs, or health in the pit, the mason and house carpenter on high scaffolds, and there are hundreds of branches of work, in which the average duration of life of the operatives amounts to less than thirty years, while that of the employing class is sixty years—who offers any indemnification to such risks as these?

I'd add that a capitalist can lose millions of dollars on a bad investment and still have millions more in the bank, whereas a worker who is thrown out of work due to a recession or depression, or simply because his or her employer wants to make more money, clearly has a much greater risk of becoming destitute.


 No.10443

File: 314dda2d58dff79⋯.pdf (514.33 KB, Toomas Alatalu - Tuva. A S….pdf)

Any thoughts on George Novack?

>>10439

>>10434

>"Tuva—A State Reawakens" by Toomas Alatalu

Used my uni account to download this off Jstor in case you're interested


 No.10445

>>10443

Novack was a Trotskyist, but from one of the "better" Trot groups (US SWP, which exalts Cuba while rather amusingly denouncing every other socialist country as "degenerated workers' states.")

As a historian he seemed okay. I own his book "America's Revolutionary Heritage," which can be freely read online: http://b-ok.cc/book/2925740/1bbc51


 No.10447

>>10445

Okay, thanks. I was mainly wondering if his more theoretical works on the Marxist conception of history are any good, have you read those?

>which exalts Cuba while rather amusingly denouncing every other socialist country as "degenerated workers' states"

I read a book by Mary-Alice Waters and Martin Koppel who are also Trotskyists and noticed them doing this exact same thing. Very weird, I wonder what goes on in these people's heads. They also jump at every chance to say something bad about "Stalinism" (even when talking about stuff that happened in the USSR decades after Stalin's death), it's as if they see it as a more dangerous enemy than capitalism.


 No.10448

>have you read those?

No, but I've heard they're sound.

>and noticed them doing this exact same thing

Yeah Waters and Koppel belong to the US SWP too. The party's extolling of Cuba and criticism of Trotsky's Permanent Revolution theory is what makes them most distinct from other Trots. It's why other Trot parties claim the SWP is "Castroist" rather than Trotskyist (which I think is wrong, since reading their materials makes it abundantly clear they have a very high opinion of Trotsky and still subscribe to most of his views, as you've noticed.)

>"Stalinism" (even when talking about stuff that happened in the USSR decades after Stalin's death)

To Trots, "Stalinism" is a phenomenon. Stalin just happened to be the representative of the "bureaucracy" which continued after his death.

This is what allows Trots to call practically every communist leader in the world a "Stalinist" from Khrushchev to Mao to Tito to Gorbachev to whomever. If you hold that it's possible to build socialism in one country, and oppose Trotskyism, you are a "Stalinist" because such positions are used by "bureaucracies" to promote nationalism and lord over workers' states to prevent true communists from taking power.

The main disagreement between Trots is whether socialist countries are "degenerated/deformed workers' states" or "state-capitalist." Trotsky and groups like the US SWP, Sparts and SEP (the guys behind WSWS) hold to the former, groups like the British SWP and ISO hold to the latter.


 No.10452

>>10445

>US SWP, which exalts Cuba while rather amusingly denouncing every other socialist country as "degenerated workers' states."

What's their reason for this? What makes Cuba not just another "Stalinist" "degenerated workers state" in their minds?


 No.10453

Do you have that quote about how the members of the War Committee formed during ww2 basically continued to rule as a shadow government and sidestepped the politburo until Stalins death?


 No.10455

Can you recommend me something on Yugoslavia/Titoism


 No.10457

>>10452

If I recall right, the US SWP refers to the Soviets under Lenin, Cuba, and a few allied governments (1980s Nicaragua, Grenada under Maurice Bishop, etc.) as "workers' and peasants' governments" in transition to socialism.

I don't actually know how they differentiate Cuba from the "deformed workers' states." As I said, that position is pretty much peculiar to the US SWP and it isn't something I've bothered to find out.

>>10453

Excerpts from "Stalin's Cabinet: The Politburo and Decision Making in the Post-War Years" by Yoram Gorlizki:

"It was some months after the war, and the formal dissolution of the State Defence Committee (GKO) on 4 September 1945, when the Politburo began to resume peacetime operations. Formally the Politburo continued in much the same vein as it had left off before the war, with a virtually identical membership and a similarly modest workload. At its meeting of 29 December 1945 the Politburo resolved to meet every other Tuesday for a short time, from 8 pm to 9 pm. . . . Meetings of the Politburo, however, tailed off following the session of 3 October 1946; over the rest of Stalin's reign there were only two further formal, enlarged sessions of the Politburo, on 13 December 1947 and 17 June 1949. The official Politburo in fact came to be overshadowed by the regular conferences of a narrow 'ruling group' which met routinely in Stalin's office. The composition of this circle. . . differed markedly from that of the formal Politburo. Excluded from [it] were those Politburo members who had either fallen foul of Stalin or who were cut off from the ruling circle for reasons of location or ill-health. For some time Stalin's suspicions had fallen on Voroshilov, Andreev, and, to a lesser extent, Kaganovich, all of whom were, despite their formal membership of the Politburo, not privy to the proceedings of the ruling group in the aftermath of the war. . . most resolutions issued in the name of the Politburo in the Stalin years were determined by this group. . . .

A succession of leaders, including Malenkov, Beria, Voznesensky and Bulganin, gained admission to the group many months before their formal accession as full members of the Politburo. Stalin hence unilaterally elevated colleagues without having to go through the tedious formality of having them 'elected' as full members of the Politburo by the Central Committee. Stalin could also expel members from his group with unseemly ease."

>>10455

Chapters 6 and 7 of Szymanski's "Class Struggle in Socialist Poland" discuss the features and problems of Yugoslavia's system of workers' self-management: https://archive.org/details/ClassStruggleInSocialistPoland

(many rank-and-file members of Poland's Solidarity trade union wanted to adopt the Yugoslav system as a sort of panacea for problems with the Polish economy, hence Szymanski's critique.)

If there's anything else you want to know 'bout Yugoslavia and Tito (I have a few books on them), feel free to ask.


 No.10460

I assume you hold that the USSR was socialist - what is your view exactly? Why is the argument that the USSR wasn't socialist wrong?

Do you hold that the USSR abandoned socialism at some point? If so, when? How? Why?

Open questions for anyone.


 No.10461

Do you know anything about the Malayan Communist Party and their guerrilla war in the 50s? Or do you have any books on the topic?


 No.10465

>>10460

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia defines socialism as, "(1) The first stage of the communist formation. The economic basis of socialism is social ownership of the means of production; its political basis is the power of the toiling masses under the leadership of the working class, headed by the Marxist-Leninist party. Socialism is a social structure that precludes the exploitation of man by man and develops in conformity with a plan, with the objectives of improving the well-being of the people and comprehensively developing every member of society."

I'd say that characterized the USSR from the 1930s onward.

>Why is the argument that the USSR wasn't socialist wrong?

There were no exploiting classes, production was for use rather than for profit (i.e. the law of value did not determine production), labor-power wasn't a commodity, etc.

>>10461

Pages 32-36 of the following work contains a brief analysis of the shortcomings of the Malayan guerrillas: https://archive.org/details/GuerrillaWarfareAndMarxism (the author worked with them)

Other than that, I got nothing.


 No.10467

If Mao didn't implement new democracy, why do two stars in China's flag represent loyal capitalists and small business owners? Did Mao implement any elements in China at all?

How did Sino-Soviet split happened?

How close were Mao's relationships with the west after the split?

If Deng only wanted to make market reforms under socialist economy why was Deng beaten during cultural revolution?

Were Deng's reforms against Mao's domestic policy and hard campaigns against right wing elements?

Did Deng's China support any revolutionary and socialist movements in the world?

How close were Deng's relationships with the west during the opening and before Tienanmen Square?

What were relationship with the west and Soviets after Tienanmen Square?


 No.10473

>>10467

>why do two stars in China's flag represent loyal capitalists and small business owners?

Because those elements existed and still exist in China.

>How did Sino-Soviet split happened?

As I've said, Mao had grievances with the Soviets since 1927, when Chiang Kai-shek's coup and massacre of Communists was attributed to the Comintern blundering. He also resented the "big brother" role the USSR saw itself having over China after 1949.

The immediate causes of the split, however, were the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU (which Mao opposed), and Khrushchev's refusal to help China acquire nuclear weapons. Mao came to believe that the Soviet leaders would sell out China in exchange for some sort of accommodation with US imperialism.

>How close were Mao's relationships with the west after the split?

Since economic relations with the USSR were pretty much severed after 1960 or so, China's economic ties with countries like Japan and Canada increased. But it wasn't until the early 70s, when Kissinger and Nixon visited China, that Sino-American ties began to improve.

>If Deng only wanted to make market reforms under socialist economy why was Deng beaten during cultural revolution?

Because any call for market reforms was considered synonymous with being a "capitalist roader" and traitor to socialism.

>Were Deng's reforms against Mao's domestic policy and hard campaigns against right wing elements?

Obviously they were a reversal of the Cultural Revolution. Deng also had to struggle against elements to the right of him, like Zhao Ziyang.

>Did Deng's China support any revolutionary and socialist movements in the world?

The DPRK and Ethiopia are two prominent examples of countries that had Chinese support (the Ethiopians especially from the late 90s onward.)

>How close were Deng's relationships with the west during the opening and before Tienanmen Square?

The West obviously liked Deng a lot because his economic program involved seeking Western investment and he worked with the US to assist the Mujahideen, arm Pol Pot against the Vietnamese, and gather intelligence on Soviet Central Asia.

Relations soured somewhat after Tienanmen, but not for long since it was obvious that China's stability was not significantly impacted and the country's importance as a center of investment was unimpeded.

>What were relationship with the west and Soviets after Tienanmen Square?

The West saw the USSR was in turmoil during 1990-91, and were unwilling to agree to Gorbachev's pleas to spend billions bailing out the Soviet economy.

Relations weren't good nor bad; on one hand the Soviets proclaimed their "neutrality" toward the Gulf War (which the US appreciated) and START I was signed, but on the other hand Gorby drew condemnation for military intervention against Baltic separatism and was accused of stalling further economic reform.


 No.10474

Do you think it is accurate to refer to utopian socialists who believe in things like egalitarianism, holding property in common, etc, as not socialists because they don't strictly align with Marx's definition of socialism? I'm in an argument on /leftypol/ where they're essentially claiming Edward Bellamy's Nationalists were not socialists for not aligning with the Marxist definition of socialism (and by extension other utopians such as the Icarians and Robert Owen). It seems wrong to say these people aren't socialists, at least in the general sense. They are definitely not scientific socialists, but to throw them all under the bus for being products of their time and various stripes of utopians or proto-socialists seems wrong to me.

Thread:

>>>/leftypol/2724824


 No.10475

>>10474

Engels wrote in an 1888 preface to the Communist Manifesto:

>when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated" classes for support. . . Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite.

In the Manifesto Marx and Engels even wrote of a trend they called "feudal socialism."

Further, to quote from Philip S. Foner's "History of the Labor Movement in the United States" Vol. II, pp. 44-45:

>The proof of the Avelings' observation that great masses of the American people were ready for the message of the [Marxists] is seen in the restless searching of Americans in this period to find something better than the existing unsatisfactory economic system. . . reflected in the appearance of some 40 utopian Socialist novels which pictured the glorious future awaiting all Americans if only they would replace the existing system with one based upon principles of common sense.

>The most influential of these utopian novels was the literary sensation of the 1880's—Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward. Public demand for the novel was so great that the printer could not keep up with it. Over a million copies were sold in a few years, and at one point it was selling at the rate of 1,000 per day.

>Bellamy's main plank, the nationalization of industry, stimulated the growth of a short-lived socialistic movement, the Nationalist clubs, which began in Boston in 1888, and spread overnight across the country. Linked together loosely through correspondence and exchange of lectures, and recruiting their membership mainly from the urban middle class, the Nationalist groups sought to remedy the fundamental evils of capitalism by nationalizing the functions of production and distribution. When this was accomplished, a "true democratic and popular society will become possible as never before; for the first time in history, the world will behold a true republic, full-minded, full-ordered, complete—a republic, social, industrial, political."

>This new society was to be instituted through a gradual reform process; the ends were to be sought by "rational, peaceful means." The movement proposed to take over industry after industry as the public became prepared for it. Its first demands were for the nationalization of the telegraph, telephone, express service, railroads, and coal mines, the municipilization of local franchises, the equalization of educational opportunities, and civil service reform.

>Although the Nationalist movement had little in common with scientific socialism and Bellamy himself went to great pains to point out that he was no Marxist, it did contribute to the growth of socialist thought in this country. Despite its shortcomings, Looking Backward continued for many years to constitute for many Americans their first introduction to socialism.

Daniel De Leon and Eugene Debs were among those who passed through Bellamy's utopia before discovering scientific socialism.

So yes, it is correct to call Bellamy's movement "socialist" so long as it is made clear what sort of socialism it represented.

Post last edited at

 No.10488

How do you think we can avoid the problems of the Soviet economy when we build socialism in the future?


 No.10490

>>10473

>Because those elements existed and still exist in China.

But didn't Mao purged businessmen during mass killings of landlords, anti right wing campaigns and cultural revolution. Seems weird that Mao who was so militant against capitalist class, and yet dedicated cultural elements to them, or did he let certain loyal businessmen remain?

Regarding the split, I meant how exactly did it happened? When did Mao told Khrushchev that friendship is over and what and how did it all happened? What were the emotions?

>were the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU

What happened that Mao opposed?

How exactly were emotions and what actions took place when Mao reproached the west and how large the reproachment was?(as far as I know, China still dislikes that America has military bases near Chinas borders, is vary of western support to Tibet, and Honk Kong and other separatist movements,and is still somewhat protective of North Korea)

And sorry, I see now that I wrote my last two questions weirdly. What I was asking what relations were between Chinese and west during Deng's reforms before the Tienanmen and what were the relationships with the west and the Soviets after Tienanmen , but since the west seem to ignore it, I guess now, it had little effect on relations.

How did Chinese reacted to fall of socialism in former Soviet Union?

P.S. Didn't China support Eritrea against Ethiopia?


 No.10494

Where are you from, Ismail?


 No.10504

>>10488

By simply looking at what worked and what didn't.

>>10490

>or did he let certain loyal businessmen remain?

Yes.

>Regarding the split, I meant how exactly did it happened?

The CPSU accused Mao of deviating from Marxism-Leninism, while Mao accused the CPSU of being revisionists who had restored capitalism in the USSR.

>what actions took place when Mao reproached the west and how large the reproachment was?

The US agreed to switch its recognition of the "real China" from Taiwan to the PRC. China began defending pro-US regimes like Zaire, Iran under the Shah, and Chile under Pinochet as "anti-hegemonic" forces resisting "Soviet social-imperialism."

The rapprochement obviously didn't mean the US and China were best friends, and relations soured once the USSR ceased to exist.

>How did Chinese reacted to fall of socialism in former Soviet Union?

They criticized Gorbachev and used his leadership as a negative example, arguing that the CPSU had failed to reform its economy properly, had failed to defend socialism against counter-revolutionary elements, and had failed to appreciate that the US was pursuing a strategy of "peaceful evolution" to undermine the USSR from within.

>P.S. Didn't China support Eritrea against Ethiopia?

The EPLF's leaders (e.g. Isaias Afwerki) went to China in the 1960s and received training there, but I don't think China was still arming them in the 80s.

China's relations with Mengistu were bad due to his strong pro-Soviet stance and because he opposed Siad Barre (who had cordial relations with China even when Somalia was otherwise pro-Soviet), but Mengistu visited China in 1988 and met with Deng, and from that point relations thawed. Obviously didn't last long because Mengistu was overthrown three years later, but yeah.


 No.10505

>>10494

The United States. I was born here.

"Ismail" isn't my actual name, it's just that for about a decade I was really into Albania and named my username after the founding father of the country, Ismail Qemali.


 No.10509

>>10505

>"Ismail" isn't my actual name

This blew my mind.


 No.10510

Why was the Berlin Wall built?

What are the DDR's main accomplishments? What are its main failures?

Can the fact that the DDR was always less rich than the BRD/West Berlin be sufficiently explained by them having been thoroughly destroyed in WW2 + there being no Marshall Plan + them having to pay massive repairs to the USSR?

How to counter (supposing they are false) the ideas that the DDR wanted to "imprison" its citizens inside the country, that the Stasi was almost as bad as the Gestapo, etc.?

Was the West really perceived as a "freer" place than the East by East Germans?


 No.10511

>>10510

>Why was the Berlin Wall built?

Three reasons:

1. The most obvious is that lots of people used its absence to simply relocate to West Berlin, something made easier by the West German government and various reactionary organizations providing material incentives to leave the GDR. This had a serious effect on the East German economy.

2. "Both East and West German marks are pegged at the same exchange rate. But in West Berlin East marks could be bought for a fraction of their official price. East German workers employed in West Berlin received their salary in West German currency. They would exchange their West marks into East marks at the favourable West Berlin exchange rate, bring their inflated salaries back to East Berlin, buy East German goods at government-controlled low prices. They would then bring these cheaply-bought goods into West Berlin where they sold them against West marks, again, exchanging the proceeds of their sales into East marks at the depressed West Berlin exchange rate. A simple worker could become a millionaire within a few months and many of them did - at the expense of the East German economy." (Peter Lust, Two Germanies, 1966, p. 108)

3. The status of Berlin was in dispute. The Berlin Wall indicated that the Soviets were unlikely to press East German claims to West Berlin, hence JFK privately saying to aides that "a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war."

>What are the DDR's main accomplishments? What are its main failures?

The same as most other European socialist countries: people lived stable lives with full employment, controlled prices, comprehensive health and education, etc., yet the economic system wasn't able to last and there were the usual complaints about elections being predetermined, police surveillance being annoying, etc.

>Can the fact that the DDR was always less rich than the BRD/West Berlin be sufficiently explained by

Those are obviously factors, although of course not the only ones.

>How to counter (supposing they are false) the ideas that the DDR wanted to "imprison" its citizens inside the country

"However, even after the wall was built there was regular, albeit limited, legal emigration from east to west. In 1984, for example, East Germany allowed 40,000 people to leave. In 1985, East German newspapers claimed that more than 20,000 former citizens who had settled in the West wanted to return home after becoming disillusioned with the capitalist system. The West German government said that 14,300 East Germans had gone back over the previous 10 years." (https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/22/the-berlin-wall-another-cold-war-myth/)

>that the Stasi was almost as bad as the Gestapo, etc.?

The following book has good information on it: https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/austin-murphy-the-triumph-of-evil.pdf (see pages 98-99, 115-123)

>Was the West really perceived as a "freer" place than the East by East Germans?

It depends. Many younger people were interested in West Berlin and West Germany not so much by concerns about politics or economics, but because of its pop culture. They wanted to see David Bowie and other foreign musicians perform, go to better-quality discos, stuff like that.

There were obviously those who felt they were "oppressed" in the GDR, or otherwise thought the West was a land of incredible wealth that was just theirs for the taking, but in general a lot of people assumed up till the Wall fell that the East German state was going to stick around for a long while and it was better to accommodate to its realities and try to make existing life better.

As Parenti and other authors have noted, in the GDR as in other socialist countries most ordinary people thought it was a good idea to retain the socialist economic system in some form while bringing in bourgeois democracy and other supposedly wonderful concepts from the capitalist states.


 No.10512

Are there any books that are critical of post-Stalin socialist leaders like Mao and Khrushchev without being anti-communist propaganda? I just wanna find out what they did right and wrong without bias


 No.10513

File: b0becb142217356⋯.jpg (157.21 KB, 900x972, 25:27, 1471082705261.jpg)

>>10510

1/2

>Why was the Berlin Wall built?

Here is an official statement of the GDR for the international community regarding the wall:

https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/wall.htm

As Cockshott has pointed out as well, working in the West but living practically for free in East Berlin, and receiving free training and education there, is nothing short but theft. West Berlin deliberately implemented high wages to drain labourers from the East.

>What are the DDR's main accomplishments? What are its main failures?

It had the highest living quality of all socialist states. It was relatively lax on cultural restrictions and civil liberties, Berlin, Dresden, Erfurt and Rostock all had a night life, with bars and clubs, you could visit rock concerts. The UN regarded the GDR as a "normal", "western" country. One of its failures were to dismantle the project of socialist cybernetics founded by Ulbricht in the NÖSPL policy, and trying to "race" the West in terms of living standards by shifting the economic focus on cheap exports (IKEA, etc.) and consumerism which was achieved through Western loans, which led to a few government officials enriching themselves. Honecker also was in power for too long.

>Can the fact that the DDR was always less rich than the BRD/West Berlin be sufficiently explained by them having been thoroughly destroyed in WW2 + there being no Marshall Plan + them having to pay massive repairs to the USSR?

West Germany was richer from the very beginning in 1949 - but what most people don't realize is that East Germany had a higher economic growth then West Germany:

http://www.memo.uni-bremen.de/docs/m3309.pdf

Many people find that hard to believe, but the guy who computed these numbers later worked for the West German government in the planning institute, and his numbers are featured in school books here in Germany. It's legit. What you said is also correct, but I would also add that East Germany got stripped of its industry (Silesia) and agriculture (Prussia) in the redistribution of regions after WWII. The GDR was forced to "reindustrialize", while the FRG had access to a) the Ruhrgebiet where most of the German industry was located and b) relatively fast became an imperialist power in Africa and so on. The notorious "free trade agreements" with the investor protection clauses were invented by the FRG in regards to investments in Africa, with the reason that African jurisdiction "can't be trusted", but of course, the true reason was that African countries couldn't be allowed to implement policies which would hurt foreign investors. The GDR, of course, wasn't an imperialist power, and didn't have access to the export market of literally the entire West and Japan and South Korea, which became the backbone of West Germany industry during the "economic miracle". Considering this, the higher growth rates in GDP for East Germany are even more impressive.


 No.10514

File: c979a5514c11c9d⋯.jpg (45.06 KB, 800x606, 400:303, 356heee.jpg)

File: e97a03beb7bb5d4⋯.jpg (59.78 KB, 640x400, 8:5, Eisenhuettenstadt-Die-erst….jpg)

File: 1b61351311dd955⋯.jpg (86.97 KB, 898x449, 2:1, imago-01-jpg.jpg)

>>10510

>>10512

2/2

>How to counter (supposing they are false) the ideas that the DDR wanted to "imprison" its citizens inside the country, that the Stasi was almost as bad as the Gestapo, etc.?

Three things:

1. Most applications for emigration (not travel, literal emigration) were granted, over 60%. It was perfectly fine to emigrate to the West, unless you are suspected to reveal state secrets to the West, become a propaganda asset or are generally known as a dissident.

2. Stasi is a bit of a meme. It is true that proportionally, the Stasi made up a large amount of the East German security force, but that was because the regular policeforce in the GDR was significantly lower than the West German force. This was because there was almost no crime in socialist German. In the GDR, there were only seven crimes per 1000 citizens, in the FRG 73 crimes per 1000 citizens. And even within the - admittedly - high number of Stasi operatives only 400 were charged with the infamous buggings and phone tappings you see in Life of Others as the normality. My great uncle said his only contact with the Stasi was when he came home from a party at midnight, and a Stasi officer (supposedly, because he didn't wear uniform) asked him passive-aggressively: "A bit late for wandering arround at night, comrade?" but didn't do anything else. And my great uncle was in the liberal party who argued for privatization (yes, the GDR had conservative and liberal parties).

3. To compare the Stasi with the Gestapo is a slap in face for all victims of Nazi terror, and a Holocaust surviver would set you straight if you would ever claim this. In Germany, only the far-right claims this and they are considered a joke. Too bad we have organizations who recieve subsidies from the government, like "Victims of Stalinism", which are doing nothing but to smear the GDR, and they regularly make headlines for being antisemtic and far-right (or embezzle money).

>Was the West really perceived as a "freer" place than the East by East Germans?

In 1989, probably. Many bought into the idea the idea that civil freedoms were more progressed in the West, but nobody believed that economic freedoms (from a worker's perspective) were better. The majority of the demonstrants in 1989 wanted to retain socialism, retain the GDR, but wanted more transparent elections and increased civil liberties. Needless to say, the movement got co-opted by the West.


 No.10515

What can you tell me about the Finnish revolution in 1918 and the following civil war? Are there any good books detailing the history of the Finnish revolution?


 No.10516

>>10510

>>10513

>>10514

One more point, that I have forgotten, and I don't know if you are interested in that, but the GDR was very progressive in regards to LGBTQ+ rights. Homosexuality was legalized before the FRG did it, in fact, they never fully legalized it before 1994. The GDR also legalized gender change for trans people, and when Germany reunified, LGBTQ+ people faced increasing discrimination and repression again. The GDR all did this without liberal LGBT parades and stuff.


 No.10517

>>10515

For a book-length work on the subject, see: http://b-ok.cc/book/2480964/01577b

Pages 96-113 of D.N. Pritt's "Must the War Spread?" contain a good summary of Finland in the years 1905-1918 and how the reactionaries triumphed against the revolution only through imperialist intervention: https://archive.org/details/MustTheWarSpread

And of course there's the official Soviet assessment: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Finnish+Revolution+of+1918

Post last edited at

 No.10518

File: ecf31381f9d3483⋯.png (934.75 KB, 1080x778, 540:389, Lol.png)

>>10513

A German comrade, how nice!

Do you have any mainstream sources about emigration from East Germany and into East Germany? Something similar to what Isma posted here:

>>10511

n 1984, for example, East Germany allowed 40,000 people to leave. In 1985, East German newspapers claimed that more than 20,000 former citizens who had settled in the West wanted to return home after becoming disillusioned with the capitalist system. The West German government said that 14,300 East Germans had gone back over the previous 10 years.

Thanks for the answers!


 No.10528

>>10513

>>10514

>>10516

Thanks for all this info, comrade! I didn't know the DDR was that progressive on LGBT rights. Have always heard they were very progressive in regards to gender equality too.

I can't open the link to the PDF saying East Germany grew faster than the West, got any backup? Wiki claims West Germany grew faster (although not a whole lot).

I presume you live in the former DDR? How do most people there feel about the DDR, socialism and leaders like Honecker? Would it be very controversial to openly praise it?


 No.10529

What can you say about this Maoist party of philiüines analysis of chinas foreign policy regarding duterte and foreign policy?

How much truth lies in it? Is China imperialist?

https://www.philippinerevolution.info/2018/11/20/resist-china-efforts-to-impose-imperialist-power-on-the-philippines/


 No.10530

>>10513

>>10528

nvm I actually can open the pdf.


 No.10531

>>10529

As I wrote in another thread,

>I have no specific rebuttals since I don't know enough about the situation to comment. For China's foreign policy in general and the nature of its investments though, see the links provided here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16iw83noTdWvDiECaITX83rGhP_lros8QdBTrNnCoe6c/edit

It is, however, silly to use China's efforts to build ties with Duterte as "proof" it is imperialist. It requires ignoring China's foreign policy in the 1970s when it sought friendly ties with Pinochet (to the extent of refusing to denounce the coup against Allende), Mobutu, the Shah, Yahya Khan (to the extent of supporting Pakistan's attempt to hold onto Bangladesh), etc., praising NATO as an objectively defensive alliance against "Soviet social-imperialism," and so on.


 No.10550

>>10513

>>10514

Where did you go?


 No.10552

>>10512

Ismail pls answer this


 No.10553

>>10511

Like an idiot I got in debate with a /pol/tard on his, and posted this as a source. He however attacked it for having 'no footnote or source'. Please, german guy, share some more sources on emigration?

>"However, even after the wall was built there was regular, albeit limited, legal emigration from east to west. In 1984, for example, East Germany allowed 40,000 people to leave. In 1985, East German newspapers claimed that more than 20,000 former citizens who had settled in the West wanted to return home after becoming disillusioned with the capitalist system. The West German government said that 14,300 East Germans had gone back over the previous 10 years." (https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/22/the-berlin-wall-another-cold-war-myth/)


 No.10554

>>10552

The standard bourgeois account of Khrushchev is the gigantic 800-page tome by Taubman: http://b-ok.cc/book/1819399/c6de9d

I've heard Philip Short's biography "Mao: The Man Who Made China" is a decent read (again, from a bourgeois author.)

As far as I know there is no Marxist biography of Khrushchev in English or any language, while Marxist bios of Mao are invariably Maoist and largely hagiographic (e.g. Han Suyin's "The Morning Deluge" and "Wind in the Tower" which are still worth reading anyway; the latter is online: http://b-ok.cc/book/820273/433a90 )

>>10553

You could check for sources in this book I linked earlier: https://mltheory.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/austin-murphy-the-triumph-of-evil.pdf (it discusses the Berlin Wall in addition to other things like the Stasi)

Post last edited at

 No.10570

What can you tell me about the Grenadian revolution, the New Jewel Movement, the People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada and Maurice Bishop?


 No.10571

>>10570

Not a whole lot. From what I've read they seemed k00l. There's a chapter on their rise and the US invasion here: http://b-ok.cc/book/887149/c061ac

Michael Parenti also talks about the invasion in "Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media."


 No.10581

File: 6e9ef2c8ac6d4b0⋯.jpg (47.19 KB, 360x235, 72:47, ShahofIran.jpg)

I recently started reading a book about the fraught transition of power from British world supremacy to American world dominance. In the book, the author accuses the Soviet Union of expansionist aims against Iran at the end of WWII. He argues they carried out an illegal occupation of the north of the country and then says they supported Azerbaijani and Kurdish rebels in Iran, Iraq, and even Turkey.

What is the truth of all this? And was there a legitimate motive?


 No.10582

Despite the JCP's (Japanese Commie party) absolute dogshit / Revisionist party platform do you think they should still be supported because of their policies such as Demilitarisation / Ending of Hostilites with DPRK and China?

At least until a Viable Marxist successor party to the JCP arises?


 No.10583

>>10582

Yes, in the absence of other parties or groups worth supporting.

>>10581

>He argues they carried out an illegal occupation of the north of the country

Soviet troops were sent into northern Iran during WWII due to the Nazis seeking to make use of Iranian territory against the USSR. This was done in accord with the 1921 treaty between Soviet Russia and Persia which stipulated, "If a third party should attempt to carry out a policy of usurpation by means of armed intervention in Persia, or if such Power should desire to use Persian territory as a base of operations against Russia, or if a Foreign Power should threaten the frontiers of Federal Russia or those of its Allies, and if the Persian Government should not be able to put a stop to such menace after having been once called upon to do so by Russia, Russia shall have the right to advance her troops into the Persian interior for the purpose of carrying out the military operations necessary for its defence. Russia undertakes, however, to withdraw her troops from Persian territory as soon as the danger has been removed."

To quote an anti-communist author, "The Azeri community had been generally neglected by the central [Iranian] government, and the Kurds had been subjected to a ruthless policy of detribalization. . . . The Anglo-Russian invasion [of Iran] and the Shah's abdication were followed by new social, economic, and political circumstances which contributed directly to the eventual rise of the two [Azeri and Kurdish] republics." (Rouhollah K. Ramazani, "The Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan and the Kurdish People's Republic: Their Rise and Fall" in Thomas T. Hammond, The Anatomy of Communist Takeovers, 1975, pp. 456-457.)

The Soviets did support the republics' formation, both of which were under non-Communist leaderships and both of which sought autonomy rather than independence. The aforementioned author notes that "the Azeri and Kurdish insurrections were neither purely the creation of the Soviet Union, nor doomed simply because of the withdrawal of Soviet forces." (p. 473)

The author adds that the collapse of both republics was due to their internal weaknesses plus the small size of their armed forces compared to the Iranian army.

If anything, Azeri and Kurdish politicians were disappointed that the Soviets didn't help them more than they did. Stalin even had to write a letter to Pishevari (leader of the Azeri republic in Iran) explaining why more extensive support was not given, which I posted on RevLeft a few years back: https://www.revleft.space/vb/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=60990

I haven't heard about the Soviets helping foment a Kurdish rebellion in Turkey, but in the case of Iraq: "In 1943, Mustafa Barzani rose up in Barzan and the revolt soon spread. The Iraqi army was overrun and was forced to abandon vast areas of Arbil and Badinan. In 1945 Britain's RAF managed to force the Kurdish rebels to retreat into Iranian Kurdistan, where an autonomous democratic republic was set up in 1946 in Mahabad. A year later this small Kurdish republic collapsed. In June 1947, Barzani and his best troops forced their way through the lines of their numerically superior enemies, crossed the mountains of Northern Kurdistan and sought refuge in the Soviet Union. . . They were to stay there for eleven years." (Ismet Sheriff Vanly, "Kurdistan in Iraq" in Gerard Chaliand, A People Without A Country, 1993, p. 149)

The Soviets did not support Barzani's revolt, the latter simply made use of the existence of a Soviet-supported republic in Iranian Kurdistan. He did receive military training once inside the USSR, but by that point his rebellion had ended and his requests for Soviet backing to start a new revolt were turned down.

Post last edited at

 No.10584

>>10554

Thanks. In the same debate the person posted this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Eastern_Bloc_defectors

And more on how eastern bloc countries kept their citizens prisoner here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc_emigration_and_defection

as a response I posted this image >>10518

and this link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Western_Bloc_defectors

he responded

Eastern bloc defectors: mostly civilians, writers, artists, film directors, engineers, journalists, musicians, ballet dancers, sportsmen, in other words normal people looking for a better life

Western bloc defectors: united states army (meaning likely mentally scarred people defecting to the enemy)

Why can't communists offer a decent life to the middle class?

Why do communist think it's okay to kill an artist because they want to leave where they can express their art freely? The West had no restrictions on civilians leaving for the Eastern Bloc but looks like no western civilians wanted to lose their wealth and freedom. Why do communists think it's okay to keep people prisoner? I don't give a fuck if Bulgaria and Romania admitted that without the well-educated they would have just become Africa, I owe nothing to you, I want better and I'm not going to live like shit for you.

Having said that he makes a good point, Most of defectors to the east were soldiers, with few ingenious people like atomic spies, and most defectors to the west were artists etc. One could make a point that most had problem with soviet occupation rather than socialism, still could you help somehow debunk this for future debates?


 No.10585

>>10584

>Why can't communists offer a decent life to the middle class?

well for one we want to abolish class, so the fact that this person thinks that we want to just improve things for the middle class instead of getting rid of it proves that they know nothing about socialism (as if everything else that they said didn't already demonstrate this).

and lets for a minute that by "middle class" he refers to the general population, in which case communism HAS offered decent life. in the Soviet Union for example, citizens recieved many benefits that have yet to be provided in the United States such as guaranteed housing, employment (there was basically no homelessness in the Eastern Bloc until capitalist reforms in the late-80s among other terrible things like AIDs) healthcare, and other basic human rights. it's also worth mentioning that even the CIA admitted that Soviet diets were basically on par with the American one and, in some cases, "may be more nutritious" since the Soviets were eating actual food and not mass produced processed garbage and sugar.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf

>Why do communist think it's okay to kill an artist because they want to leave where they can express their art freely?

except artists weren't killed? artists were allowed to make whatever they wanted as long as it wasn't outright anti-socialist propaganda. literally the worst that could happen is that the government wouldn't fund you to make art if they didn't think would be useful (mostly socialist realism). big deal, they still got paid and certainly weren't being executed for wrong think (especially not during the post-Stalin era).

>Why do communists think it's okay to keep people prisoner?

i don't know, why does the United States which has one of the largest prison populations ever think it's okay? i find it funny how anti-communists will turn a blind eye when people get imprisoned in their own countries because whenever it happens under socialism (even if it's for the same reason people go to prison in the west i.e. committing a crime) it's inherently the systems fault and means that socialism doesn't work.


 No.10586

>>10585

thank you comrade, you make good points.

I am bad at debates, so I forgot to mention good things like high population growth in E.E. how gulag population was lover than american prison, how US bombed various pro Soviet revolutions in Asia,Africa and Latin America and many other things.


 No.10587

>>10570

I don't want to hijack Ismail's thread here, but I recommend reading Tony Thorndike's book "Grenada: Politics, Economics and Society" -- which is part of the "Marxist Regimes" series of books. The book gives a good overview of Greanada under Gairy up to the power-struggle which eventually lead to the murder of Bishop by the Revolutionary Military Council and the subsequent US-invasion. Depending on how much you'd like to know maybe I could make a thread to answer questions, especially since the book is online.

The New Jewel Movement and the PRG did a lot of good things, though they made many mistakes as well. They had great success with upgrading educational standards at the primary school level through the National In-Service Teacher Education Programme (NISTEP) and placed education at the forefront for social advance, rebuilding schools, inculcating understanding of the revolution and imperialism through institutions such as the Centre for Popular Education (CPE), which was also important for the promotion of the rapid expansion of adult literacy. Under the PRG maternity leave was introduced for the first time in 1980 and the Woman's Desk of the Ministry of Education and Social Services was instrumental in removing forms of discrimination, promoting greater job opportunities and establishing pre-school and day-care centers. Also constructed with help from Cuba was the international airport at Port Salines. Bad things I would say would be how they acted in foreign policy (i.e. sabre-rattling against America and other Caribbean countries despite their weak position, the persistent refusal to conduct elections, strict control of the press and radio, messy internal-organzation of the government, etc.


 No.10588

>>10587

>since the book is online.

NOT online, as far as I know


 No.10589

>>10584

>Eastern bloc defectors: mostly civilians, writers, artists, film directors, engineers, journalists, musicians, ballet dancers, sportsmen, in other words normal people looking for a better life

I wouldn't call most of those occupations "normal people." In fact writers, musicians, directors, scientists, etc. tended to be quite privileged in terms of income and where they lived.

However, by Western standards, they certainly did live modestly, and many resented this. "Although shielded from the insecurities of the market and generally provided with good working conditions, most Soviet intellectuals earned pay that was little better than that of manual workers. This had not been the case several decades earlier. For example, in the early post-World War II period, Soviet scientists had been paid relatively well compared to manual workers, but their relative pay declined over the next decades. Western visitors fre- quently heard complaints from Moscow intellectuals like the following: 'My dacha outside Moscow is right next to one belonging to a truck driver, and mine is no better than his.'" (Kotz and Weir, Russia's Path From Gorbachev to Putin, 2007, pp. 66-67)

Another motive for dissatisfaction and defecting: "Intellectuals resented the strict adherence to official dogma that was a prerequisite to functioning within the system. The heavy-handedness of the Communist system of oversight of intellectuals clashed with the self-definition of an intellectual as one who independently develops and expresses ideas, knowledge, values, and images. Writers wrote, journalists reported, economists analyzed, scientists theorized, and artists created with full knowledge that someone would judge each product for its ideological correctness. Transgressions would eventually lead to loss of one’s job, along with expulsion from the system of privileges, and transgressors would face persecution if the deviation were viewed as sufficiently threatening. The intelligentsia could not help but resent being coerced into a straitjacket defined by party officials who had little knowledge of their specialty." (p. 64)

Both of these problems (not giving members of the intelligentsia enough special consideration for their services, too much ideological heavy-handedness over their work) can easily be solved, so I don't see them as inherent problems with socialism.

>Western bloc defectors: united states army (meaning likely mentally scarred people defecting to the enemy)

There was the case of Dean Reed, an American singer and actor who was a superstar in South America during the 1960s, became a leftist after seeing poverty, campaigned for Allende, and ended up moving to the GDR where he became a superstar both there and in the USSR. There were also plenty of ordinary Westerners who moved to the USSR during the Great Depression because they knew the Soviets not only had no unemployment, but had an acute labor shortage.

>Why can't communists offer a decent life to the middle class?

Besides the excessive wage leveling mentioned above, it has to be remembered that the USSR and pretty much every other socialist country arose on the foundations of semi-feudal economies scarred by war.

But in terms of the stability of one's job, without the fear of recessions or depressions, the "middle class" in socialist countries clearly did have a far more decent life than in capitalist countries.

>I owe nothing to you, I want better and I'm not going to live like shit for you.

The state paid for the education and training of many of the famed "dissidents." Solzhenitsyn's cancer was even treated in prison. As I said, these kind of "dissidents" lived relatively privileged lifestyles under socialism. Then they decided to ally with imperialism against their own countries (e.g. Solzhenitsyn told Americans, "Interfere [in the Soviet Union] more and more. Interfere as much as you can. We beg you to come and interfere.")


 No.10622

>>10504

So how close Mao's relationships with US and NATO?

What was Mao's long term goal towards Soviet Union and US?

What if there was a war between nato and Warsaw Pact, would Mao aid nato? If so, what was Mao's plan after Soviet defeat to promote world socialism?

What did late Mao think about North Korea?

Did late Mao had any redeeming qualities?

Was Deng's China ready to against Soviets together with Americans?

What did Deng think about North Korea?

Did Soviets and Chinese ever traded post-split?


 No.10630

What can you tell me about the struggle of the Greek communists against fascism, ELAS, the liberation of Greece in 1944 and the Provisional Democratic Government. And why didn’t Stalin help the Greek communists win in the civil war?


 No.10631

>>10630

Any book recommendations on this topic (the anti-fascist struggle, as well as the civil war after that) would be very appreciated.


 No.10632

>>10622

>So how close Mao's relationships with US and NATO?

Until the 1970s, China and the US had a largely antagonistic relationship, with the US continuing to recognize Taiwan as the "real China" and many US politicians regarding Mao rather than Khrushchev or Brezhnev as the bigger threat.

>What if there was a war between nato and Warsaw Pact, would Mao aid nato? If so, what was Mao's plan after Soviet defeat to promote world socialism?

Mao, unlike the Soviets, thought that nuclear in the event of nuclear war China had such a massive population that it would survive in some form, and that nuclear war was both winnable and gave the possibility that socialism would triumph over capitalism.

The Soviets by contrast viewed nuclear war as devastating for socialism.

>What did late Mao think about North Korea?

During the Cultural Revolution Kim Il Sung was denounced by Chinese students as a "fat revisionist" and relations were strained, but China continued to aid the DPRK.

>Did late Mao had any redeeming qualities?

Besides still being a communist (albeit with clearly wrong views), I can't think of much as far as specific policies go.

>Was Deng's China ready to against Soviets together with Americans?

Depends. Circa 1979 it is quite possible; Deng went so far as to call for an "anti-hegemonic alliance" between the US and China. But by the mid-80s, as Sino-Soviet relations began improving, no.

>What did Deng think about North Korea?

Saw it as a Chinese ally of sorts.

>Did Soviets and Chinese ever traded post-split?

Yes, but at a far lower level than before.

>>10630

I can't recommend particular books, but Stalin refused to help the KKE for two reasons:

1. He felt that they couldn't win in the event of British and/or American intervention:

2. He was concerned about preventing a further deterioration of relations with the UK and US.


 No.10633

>>10632

WOW!

Was Mao a posadist? So his plan was to fight against Soviets with nato, and then if necessary against nato?

>During the Cultural Revolution Kim Il Sung was denounced by Chinese students as a "fat revisionist"

Source please?

>Sino-Soviet relations began improving, no

Anything specific or any good sources on the reproach?

>Saw it as a Chinese ally of sorts.

Did China still gave North Korea aid? Did they trade?


 No.10634

Can you tell me anything about Georgy Dimitrov, leader of Comintern 1934-1943? I understand he played a large part in anti-fascist theory and struggle. Greek communists even made a song about him (look up Black Crows).

Btw the USSR questions thread has reached the post cap.


 No.10635

>>10633

>So his plan was to fight against Soviets with nato, and then if necessary against nato?

Well his statements about nuclear war were made in the 1950s and early 60s, when Sino-American relations were really bad and Mao's main concern was the USSR "selling out" China in exchange for improved relations with the US.

>Source please?

From "North Korea in Transition: From Dictatorship to Dynasty" by Tai Sung An, page 28:

>The Beijing regime has publicly praised Kim Il-song by calling him a great leader. However, according to Enver Hoxha of Albania, who had maintained close relations with China from 1961 to 1977, the Chinese Communist leaders privately told him and other Albanians: "He has no value at all; he has been a corporal in the Chinese [Communist guerrilla] army [in Manchuria in the 1930s]."

>A Chinese attack against Kim Il-song was made publicly and directly during the hectic days of the Cultural Revolution. In early 1967, wall posters of the Red Guards in Beijing called him a "fat revisionist." In a speech during the same disruptive phase of the Cultural Revolution, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai's reference to the North Koreans as belonging to China's enemies in the "revisionist" camp obviously did not exclude the DPRK chieftain from this category.

But as the author notes, officially, Sino-DPRK relations were never broken, and these relations improved after Mao's death.

>Anything specific or any good sources on the reproach?

* http://b-ok.cc/book/3403438/9bb21c

* http://www.unz.com/print/ProblemsCommunism-1989sep-00049/

>Did China still gave North Korea aid? Did they trade?

Yes and yes. The DPRK's relations with the USSR and China occasionally had low points (the North Koreans were almost openly denouncing the Soviets as "revisionists" in the early 60s until the USSR threatened to cut off arms exports), but neither country wanted to completely lose influence in Pyongyang to the other.

Post last edited at

 No.10636

>>10632

Would you say it was a mistake not helping the Greeks? Or necessary geopolitical manouvering?


 No.10637

>>10635

What about Mao when he reproached US? What was his overall foreign policy and plan to building (world) socialism?


 No.10638

>>10634

I have books about him. What do you want to know? He was indeed an important figure in both the Comintern and Bulgaria.

>>10636

I don't know enough to say. Stalin was similarly pessimistic about the ability of the CPC to triumph over Chiang Kai-shek, but later privately admitted that he had been wrong on China.


 No.10639

>>10637

As I've said, in the 1970s Mao's foreign policy moved to the right; his main concern became supporting US allies in the third world to serve as a buffer against "Soviet social-imperialism."

But other than that, Mao's views on Marxism didn't change: he still thought that guerrilla struggles would be necessary in most countries.


 No.10641

>>10639

Sounds very contradictory. It appears that he didn't had any long term plans other than being at odds against the Soviets.


 No.10642

>Survived Hindu Burmese English Chinese Indian and Muslim trader Imperialism for 60000 years

>Completely Agriculturally self sufficient

>Does not participate in the global industrial complex which causes ecological catastrophe and Alienation in the workforce

>All land held commonly by the tribe

>goes toe to toe with Indian military choppers with scrap metal tipped arrows

>Kills any poachers who try to take the islands natural fauna

Should the sentinelese and their primitive communism be defended from outside world imperialism


 No.10643

>>10638

Just general information. What did Dimitrov do exactly, as head of Comintern? What were his contributions to anti-fascist theory and struggle? Why is he seemingly remembered as an anti-fascist hero? Was he a good communist?

Also, since we’re on the topic of Comintern, what can you tell me about Comintern? What was the purpose of Comintern? Why was it abolished?


 No.10653

Do you think it's a fair stance to applaud North Syria for the collectivisation of Agriculture and other forms of Buisness establishing a more egalitarian structure / ending actual patriarchal shit and giving sanctuary for Turkish Marxists being hunted by AKP but at the same time critisize them for their alliance with other NATO members such as the US and France?

That's mostly the stance I take anyway


 No.10656

>>10642

They ought to have the ability to live in their communal system, yes. If in the future they opt to establish contact with a nearby socialist government, the latter could help fulfill whatever requests the Sentinelese have.

You might be interested in this Soviet work I scanned a while back, on how the Soviets integrated the "Peoples of the North" into the wider society: https://archive.org/details/ThePeoplesOfTheNorthAndTheirRoadToSocialism (although the comparison with the Sentinelese isn't exact since said peoples had contact with outsiders, it's just they had a primitive level of economic development, lacked alphabets, etc.)

>>10643

As head of the Comintern, Dimitrov helped advise foreign communist parties and organized assistance for them.

Dimitrov was famous because he was one of those the Nazis wanted to blame for the Reichstag fire. He stood up to them in court. He also propounded on the necessity of establishing popular fronts against fascism. He is considered an example of a good communist, yes.

>What was the purpose of Comintern?

The Comintern had two main purposes:

1. Unite the international communist movement in preparation for what was expected to be an imminent world revolution.

2. Help establish communist parties around the globe and assist them in the struggle against social-democratic and other deviations.

>Why was it abolished?

The main reason is that the Comintern was highly centralized. Its decisions were binding on all members. This made sense in the early years when the communist parties were weak and had to deal with numerous deviations impeding their growth, but it became an impediment later on when large, disciplined parties were waiting for instructions from the Comintern to do basic things.

Other reasons were the concern that anti-communists were using the existence of the Comintern to slander and outlaw communist parties for being "controlled from abroad," and also its dissolution was a means of promoting better relations between the USSR and the US and UK during WWII.


 No.10657

>>10653

As long as no apologia is being made for any collaboration with imperialism to the detriment of Syria, that is the main thing.


 No.10664

how were relations between the DPRK and the USSR/Eastern Bloc? did they view them as revisionists, but still chose to retain good relations instead of going full retard like Mao?


 No.10665

>>10664

Kim Il Sung did view the Soviet leadership after Stalin as "revisionist," and in the early 60s it seemed as if he was going to openly side with China until the USSR threatened to cut off arms exports. After that, the DPRK tried to be on the good side of both the USSR and China while simultaneously developing Juche as an alternative to both and emphasizing as much as possible the "home-grown" development of the revolutionary movement in Korea, to the point of distorting history.

Like if you read histories of Korea published in the DPRK from the 1960s up to this day, they claim Kim Il Sung founded the first "real" communist group in Korea at the age of 14 and warned his associates against depending too much on the Comintern. In the 1930s Kim Il Sung fought as part of an ethnically Korean partisan unit of the Communist Party of China, but in DPRK histories it's portrayed as a totally separate Korean guerrilla army led by Kim. The liberation of northern Korea from Japanese occupation at the end of WWII is portrayed in DPRK histories as spearheaded by Kim, with the Soviets in the relatively minor role of assisting Kim's forces (when in reality it was the Red Army that liberated Korea with Kim's forces in an assisting role.)

Post last edited at

 No.10666

>>10665

where there any socialist countries that DIDN'T think the Soviets were revisionist? jesus christ it seems like everyone hated them.


 No.10667

>>10666

The GDR, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania (Dej and Ceaușescu had nationalist friction with the Soviets but didn't accuse them of revisionism), and Cuba (although it did complain that the USSR wasn't doing enough to help revolutionary movements abroad.)

Post last edited at

 No.10671

>>10667

what about countries like Vietnam? also did African socialists like Sankara have a positive view of the USSR?


 No.10672

>>10671

Vietnam was similar to the DPRK in that it condemned "modern revisionism" without explicitly naming the Soviets, but outsiders clearly knew who the actual target was. During the 1970s Sino-Vietnamese relations sharply deteriorated, which meant that Soviet-Vietnamese relations markedly improved, although to my knowledge the Vietnamese still held private reservations about the CPSU's politics.

>also did African socialists like Sankara have a positive view of the USSR?

Well "African socialists" is a large category.

First you had avowed Marxist-Leninists. The most pro-Soviet in this category was Mengistu, who even after 1991 continued to reminiscence on his admiration for the USSR.

Angola under the MPLA was closer to Cuba than the USSR, and made a point of arguing it was a non-aligned country that prohibited military bases on its soil.

Mozambique went even further in stressing a non-aligned foreign policy, to the extent that Reagan and Thatcher were unwilling to support the rebels backed by Apartheid South Africa.

Congo-Brazzaville and Benin were other states led by avowed Marxist-Leninist parties, but their relationship was never particularly strong. To quote from one author:

>In October 1980, for example, during the Congo's centenary celebrations, representatives of France and the United States had been presented first and second to Sassou-Nguesso as a reflection of the amount of money these countries had provided to subsidize the celebration. The Soviet ambassador expected to be third, but was relegated to 16th after the Congo's "African Brethren." The Soviet delegation attempted to express its displeasure by walking out, but the Congolese locked the reception hall doors.

As for the actual "African socialists" (those who described themselves as such rather than Marxist-Leninist), none were especially close to the USSR and occasionally clashed with it (e.g. Sékou Touré claimed in the early 60s that the Soviets were promoting subversion against his government.) But the most pro-Soviet among them was Kwame Nkrumah, whose views were very close to Marxism-Leninism in any case.


 No.10678

Thoughts on center-left?


 No.10680

>>10678

That depends entirely on what persons or groups you define as center-left.


 No.10684

>>10672

>Mengistu

How was his leadership? Swedish wikipedia accuses him of a bunch of atrocities but you never know what kinds of biases a wiki article might have.


 No.10685

>>10680

Not that anon, but what do you think about the Latin American "pink tide" presidents like Morales, Lula, Correa and -on the more radical side- Chávez? Do you think leaders like Lula failed by not being radical enough (for example not fully breaking with the IMF policies and privatizations), or do you see him as a progressive figure who should be praised for his advancements in Brazilian society?

>>10672

> Sékou Touré

Was he a Marxist or opportunist dictator masquerading as Marxist to get Soviet support?


 No.10686

>>10684

That mostly refers to the Red Terror, which was a response to armed conservative rebellions as well as a campaign of terrorism waged by a group called the EPRP, which attacked the Derg as "fascist."

As far as his leadership goes, there's apparently some nostalgia for him in Ethiopia today since he was seen as an ardent supporter of the territorial integrity of the country and opponent of tribalism. On the other hand, the country's economy made little progress (besides land reform) due to the unending rebellion in Eritrea.


 No.10688

>>10685

I've responded to the "Pink Tide" stuff here: >>10413

>Was he a Marxist or opportunist dictator masquerading as Marxist to get Soviet support?

He was one of the proponents of "African socialism," he never claimed to be a Marxist and also argued that Marxism is contrary to Islam.

He was supported by the USSR (which considered Guinea an example of a country undergoing "non-capitalist development") because of his avowedly left-wing policies though. He also gave aid to liberation movements on the continent.


 No.10729

The Filipino president was just forced to declare martial law over much of the Philippines because of the expanding communist revolt in the country's south

Do you believe this to be a good sign?


 No.10734

>>10729

Apparently Duterte hasn't formally declared martial law, but whether it's a "good sign" depends if the guerrillas are able to withstand increased repression, i.e. if material conditions really are favorable for the growth or at least continuation of armed struggle.

If conditions are not favorable (and to my knowledge the non-Maoist communists in the country have long since argued they aren't), then increased repression can harm the guerrillas and can also be used as a pretext to target civilian activities carried out by communists and progressive groups.

I haven't studied the Philippines, so I can't judge whether the guerrilla movement there is justified or not.


 No.10750

>>10096

Any good books (Marxist or bourgeois) on South Africa, specifically the apartheid era?


 No.10751

>>10750

As far as Marxist works go, there's "Apartheid, Imperialism, and African Freedom" by William J. Pomeroy.

The only all-around history of the country I've read is "New History of South Africa" by Giliomee and Mbenga, which is a bourgeois account and fine for an introduction, although good luck finding it at a decent price (it's nearly $200 on Amazon.)

There's no shortage of books on South Africa, but the ones I'm aware of are on specialized subjects, like trade unions and the bantustans.


 No.10752

What was the North Korean reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union?


 No.10753

Also, I remember you posting a book on North Korea's efforts to spread juche as part of its foreign policy but I've unfortunately lost the link. Can you possibly link it again?


 No.10755

Through the development of capitalism, we have seen how in areas where the authorities/superstructure had a strong grip on society and limited the lower class (merchants) capitalism could not develop, whilst in Northwestern Europe where the authorities weren't nearly as developed and fought among themselves due to the earlier "backwardness" of the barbarian societies, merchants had an easier time revolutionizing and taking control over the monarchy. Isn't this a case that supports third-worldism, or at least makes revolutionary efforts in first world countries where the state is more or less invincible seem fruitless? or am i just misinterpreting history...


 No.10757

Sorry for a vague and broad question that might lead nowhere:

It seems that everyone has an innate fear of mob mentality, and even socialists, both the pre-marx and the marxists, fall into it, alleging the necessity of a great leader to inspire the masses and a strong Communist Party controlling everything until the workers are advanced enough to control the means of production by themselves.

The reasons for this fear are perfectly logical, the masses can be easily gravitate towards a leader (why,tho, is there any studies on it?) and are prone to massively destructive behavior, like mob lynching and burning their very homes.

But, that said, have the masses ever got time, at any point in history, to think about their behavior and organize by themselves? Because as much as things like the French revolution are put in the masse's shoulders, most of the events happened by straight orders from Robespierre. The only times the masses acted by themselves has the taking over of the bastille.

Have the masses ever gotten to be themselves for more than one or two days?


 No.10758

>>10457

What books do you have on Yugoslavia and Tito?


 No.10760

>>10752

If I recall right it saw the collapse as evidence that revisionism had won out over socialism. And the DPRK no doubt wasn't happy about the demise of the USSR considering its effects on the North Korean economy: >>10301

>>10753

http://b-ok.cc/book/2383302/f05f0d

>>10755

>Isn't this a case that supports third-worldism, or at least makes revolutionary efforts in first world countries where the state is more or less invincible seem fruitless?

I don't see how. The bourgeoisie is not the same as the proletariat. Their struggles are different, and it seems a bit silly to argue that struggle against a "more or less invincible" state is fruitless when one looks at history (the rapid electoral advances of the SPD in the 1880s-1890s despite persecution, the heavy repression by Tsarist authorities of the revolutionary movement in Russia, etc.)

>>10757

I don't think it's a question of having a leader so much as of having organization. There have been innumerable wildcat strikes and other militant labor actions undertaken by workers organized for that purpose.

The problem is that not every worker has the same degree of political consciousness. I recently read an article on anti-Semitism in Russia during 1917 and it points out how there were various instances of workers and soldiers identifying with the Bolsheviks while also denouncing Jews. Kerensky, a gentile, saw the following slogan on a wall as he was fleeing from Petrograd: "Down with the Jew Kerensky, Long Live Trotsky!"

From another source, on the Civil War, "There was some killing and more robbing of Jews by undisciplined units of the Ukrainian Red Army. But the Soviet authorities prescribed the death penalty for pogroms and strictly forbade the circulation of anti-Semitic literature; and the Jews were safer from murder and outrage under the Red regime than under any other." (W.H. Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution: 1917-1921 Vol. II, p. 228.)

So there clearly needs to be organization, because if you just leave everything to spontaneity you're not going to end up a glorious workers' paradise.

>the masses can be easily gravitate towards a leader (why,tho, is there any studies on it?)

Because mankind has been used to leaders for thousands of years. France and Russia had been absolute monarchies before their respective revolutions. The 1905 Revolution was started after workers innocently carrying portraits of the Tsar went to ask him to improve their working conditions, and instead Tsarist authorities opened fire on them.

>>10758

As far as books that are online, besides the Szymanski one I constantly mention (e.g. here >>10457 ) there's an early biography of Tito one can read: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.504804

And a book-length work on the Yugoslav economy from beginning to end: http://b-ok.cc/book/1193069/dc9d06


 No.10762

You got any sources or marxist lit/papers on climate change?


 No.10763

>>10762

I do not.


 No.10764

>>10763

Any idea where to start lookin?


 No.10765

>>10764

No.

I wish I could help, but it's simply not a subject I've read about.


 No.10766

File: b92840a10ddfe38⋯.png (129.73 KB, 500x526, 250:263, yugoslaviaourgoslaviatitow….png)

>>10760

>This political analysis of unemployment in a socialist country argues that the Yugoslavian conflict stems not so much from ancient ethnic hatreds, as from the political and social divisons created by a failed socialist programme to prevent capitalist joblessness.

I mean, I'll read the book, but I don't agree with that assessment. First of all, no one is claiming that the Yugoslav wars started because of 'ancient ethnic hatred', well, maybe fascists who wanted Yugoslavia to fall apart do.

I mean, I'll read the book, with reservations. I'm from an ex-Yu country, and maybe I have a more favourable/biased view. If you have heard about any other books (even if they are in Croatian or Serbian) let me know.

Also, there has been a coordinated effort to paint a bad picture of Yugoslavia. It's some 1984 shit. The new generation is being told how Yugoslavia was a failed experiment, an attempt at Great Serbia, a totalitarian hellhole where nationality was forbidden to be expressed, that it had ridiculously high unemployment. And yet, there was less poverty than there is now. This is why I haven't bothered to read much history on Yugoslavia, except from what I read from leftist outlets when they talk about some aspect of Yugoslavia.

Yugoslav economy was growing all the way until 1989 when it dipped by a few percent.

Let me repeat this because it is important:

>Also, there has been a coordinated effort to paint a bad picture of Yugoslavia.

Why do leftists online LARP about Mao, Stalin, even fucking Pol Pot they started on /leftypol/ and yet Tito/Yugoslavia doesn't get the credit that they deserve. Because it wasn't Tito alone, it was the Yugoslav workers who literally built themselves a modern State out of nothing. Almost every current hospital, university, school, and element of infrastructure in ex-Yu countries was built during Yugoslavian times.

Yugoslavia didn't 'collapse', it was a concentrated effort by Western powers to destroy a functioning socialist country. Isn't it a coincidence that right after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, Yugoslavia deteriorates intona civil war, started by supposed rebels who didn't even know that RPGs need to be armed to work. The 'rebels' that started it all were nothing more than peasants armed by Milošević. Tuđman and Milošević decided to carve out a piece of Bosnia each, but Bosnians were able to stop the Croatian advance, and fuck them up cause Croatian army stretched too far. This forced Croatians and Bosnians to go for piece.

In the beginning of the war, the international community didn't allow Croatia to buy weapons, because they were considered rebels, support was given to Yugoslavia (Serbia). Only later (hmm hmm :thinking:) did Croatia receive support from the US (no less) and NATO. And all of a sudden Croatians were freedom fighters. Funny how around that time the peace between Bosnia and Croatia was made, and also Croatia's objective became 'independence' with the old borders, it's almost as if they had a visit from the US. Oh wait, they did.

Furthermore, every single socialist experiment on this planet since WWII has been messed with and destroyed by the US and allies: Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Korea, etc. But Yugoslavia is the only socialist country in the world who collapsed on its own, due to flaws in its system, no less. The only conclusion is that such an experiment should never be tried again!

Fuck, I love Yugoslavia so much.


 No.10768

>>10766

It's true that the West had it out for Yugoslavia. There are two books by Parenti and David N. Gibbs on the subject:

* http://b-ok.cc/book/2515178/c06bfb

* http://b-ok.cc/book/833719/f80663

On the other hand, Yugoslavia's economy did have problems, some that were common to all European socialist countries and others (like unemployment) that were the result of its more market-based methods.

As a note, there's another bourgeois work online discussing Yugoslavia's economy which I forgot to mention: http://b-ok.cc/book/3599352/ca764c

>Isn't it a coincidence that right after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, Yugoslavia deteriorates intona civil war

There were Western analysts pointing out during the 80s that debates between the Yugoslav republics were becoming more acrimonious as they couldn't agree on how to pay back foreign debts or how to best allocate resources. You had academics and other members of the intelligentsia expressing growing discontent over the country's political and economic system (e.g. the SANU Memorandum.)

The West certainly did have a hand in Yugoslavia's breakup, but ignoring domestic reasons makes no sense. Yugoslavia's dissolution accelerated after the fall of the Berlin Wall for the same reason it accelerated political unrest in Albania: anti-communists could simply point and say "all these nearby countries are abandoning socialism, why shouldn't we?"

And as with the USSR, ideology was a major factor keeping Socialist Yugoslavia together. When that ideology was perceived by many as discredited by events in the rest of Europe during 1989, so much the worse for Yugoslav unity.


 No.10769

>>10768

>debt

Bourgeois economists love bringing up Yugoslavia's debt as if debt was something unique to it. The total debt of the United States today is over 115% of its GDP. Every country has debt. The difference in Yugoslavia is that this debt was used on building infrastructure, housing, schools and hospital and some of it was made available to the people in the form of low-interest loans ("Everything on credit" as they say).

However, what bourgeois economists fail to understand is that these debts weren't incurred with Yugoslavia ending in 1990 in mind. As I said, Yugoslavia's economy was growing and the goal was to pay off debts in a manner different than what Caucescu did.

>There were Western analysts pointing out during the 80s that debates between the Yugoslav republics were becoming more acrimonious as they couldn't agree on how to pay back foreign debts or how to best allocate resources.

I would like to read about that. But I've been avoiding reading history books on Yugoslavia cause the ex-Yu countries in which they are written have political conditions such that unbiased views on Yugoslavia are hardly ever published.

>that were the result of its more market-based methods.

Yes, there's a lot of criticisms of Yugoslavia's market socialism. Yugoslavia needed to be industrialised and modernised. And Yugoslavia's market economy did just that, industry boomed. While at the same time people had assemblies both in political life and in the work place where they could exercise democracy. In schools Marxism was taught, and all children became 'Pioneers' and were taught about brotherhood and unity. When people had to do military service they did it in mixed training camps with all Yugoslav nationalities. So while the economic situation wasn't full communism, the conditions for it were being developed.

>And as with the USSR, ideology was a major factor keeping Socialist Yugoslavia together. When that ideology was perceived by many as discredited by events in the rest of Europe during 1989, so much the worse for Yugoslav unity.

Tito said "Protect brotherhood and unity like the pupil of your eye." as if he knew what would be Yugoslavia's Achilles' heel. In a foreign 70s interview with Tito, the man asked if Tito fears for Yugoslavia after he is gone. He said no, because Yugoslavia can mobilise over 7 million trained troops. This shows that he did fear an external, imperialist threat to Yugoslavia. I'm sure he got the true story of American intervention from heads of state in the Non-Aligned Movement.

My point (or what I'd like to believe) is that the internal problems Yugoslavia faced would have been overcome had it been left alone by Western powers. I have a good speech on this issue, to the first assembly of Bosnian ZAVNOH. I will translate it and post it in a minute.


 No.10770

>>10769

It isn't that Yugoslavia having debt is unique, it's that it had a huge debt to the West, as did the GDR and some other socialist countries, and had problems paying off said debt, which could have big consequences if allowed to continue. Tito himself expressed concern about how large the debt was getting.

There's also a big difference between the origins of the US debt and the Yugoslav debt (which was based on things like buying consumer goods from the West, subsidizing unprofitable enterprises, etc.)

>So while the economic situation wasn't full communism

Yeah I'm not arguing Yugoslavia wasn't socialist, just saying that its economic system did have flaws, some of which were unique to it, which did lead to a degree of discontent among significant sections of the population.

>I would like to read about that.

"Yugoslavia: A Fractured Federalism" edited by Dennison Russinow. Its contents were written in 1986. It isn't online, although I own a copy.

Post last edited at

 No.10772

File: c29094049dfd384⋯.jpg (27.28 KB, 357x250, 357:250, comtito.jpg)

>>10770

>>10769

Here's the speech:

>"Cunning Austrian officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to carry out their colonial aim of enslaving Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Austrian barons, relied on Bosnian nobility and Catholic order. National aspirations and national demands Austria played through slogans of the Bosnian nation, through empty programs of cultural and religious autonomy, through Bosnian parliaments, where Bosnian nobility ruled. Everything led to the aim of spiritually dividing the Bosnia-Herzegovinian Serbs, Croatians and Muslims, to give power to the minority at the expense of the majority, to flatter some, so that others could be skinned alive [literally: their blood emptied from their bodies]. [...] The regimes of 1918. to continue their politics of violence, robbery and plunder, had to go the way of, and they had been going that way for whole 20 years, playing the part of fulfilling national aspirations and thirst for freedom, agitating ones against the others, establishing the rule of gunstock and [no idea what 'knut' is] over all peoples of Yugoslavia. We all remember it well. Fresh in our minds are the memories of plunder of Bosnian-Herzegovinian wealth by groups with Great Serbia or Great Croatia aspirations. We know that a handful of united Serbian oppressors and bloodsuckers [literally: people who skin (verb)] supported by the reactionary nobility (literally: the plural form of bey) made decisions about the fate of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and none of the people -- not the Serbians, or Croatians, or Muslims, except a handful of those traitors (literally: sold souls. When someone trades their ideals or convictions for money, we call them a 'sold soul'), wondered about [any of it]. [...] And so while some were rallying Serbs, others, on that same reactionary axis were rallying Muslims, agitating from one side and the other, trying to turn one against the other. The result of such a politics was that that neither Marko, or Mujo or Ivo [stereotypical names for a Serbian, a Muslim and a Croatian man, respectively], because of their arguments among one another, which often led to bloodshed, could not see that it was those same political villains, who tear them apart and agitate them one against the other, sit for years in the same governments and fill their pockets with millions. That's why Serbians, Croatians and Muslims couldn't see their own, unified, true way and were unable to carry out their national politics, to continue being the blind weapon and tool of various political profit-seekers."

- Speech by comrade Osman Karabegović, First assembly of ZAVNOBiH, 25.-26. XI 1943.

I incorrectly said "ZAVNOH", because that was the Croatian one, the actual one is ZAVNOBiH, of course. :)

ZAVNOH = Zemaljsko Antifašističko Vijeće Narodnog Oslobođenja Hrvatske

ZAVNOBiH = Zemaljsko Antifašističko Vijeće Narodnog Oslobođenja Bosne i Hercegovine

(Territorial/land Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation of Croatia / Bosnia and Herzegovina)

You could literally change the date of that speech from 1943. to any year after 1995.


 No.10773

File: a71a874c222ab5f⋯.jpg (87.53 KB, 637x470, 637:470, yugofactories.jpg)

>>10770

>it's that it had a huge debt to the West, as did the GDR and some other socialist countries, and had problems paying off said debt, which could have big consequences if allowed to continue. Tito himself expressed concern about how large the debt was getting.

From the fact that now exist many States with debt, in fact, there isn't a single State without debt I don't think, this tells us that presence of debt is not in itself a sufficient condition for the breakup of a country. In fact, it is not even a necessary condition as we have seen with Libya.

>the Yugoslav debt (which was based on things like buying consumer goods from the West, subsidizing unprofitable enterprises, etc.)

Yes, because Yugoslavia was a Western country. What was the alternative? Soviet Union? Romania? People from Yugoslavia freely traveled to those countries and came back home with horror stories. In 1991. Yugoslavia's GDP placed it 24th in the world. While it did import stuff to the west I don't think that played a significant part, except in the lives of people. Most people got their Western products from Italy. Yugoslavia produced a lot of stuff, pic related, sorry for the shit quality, only one I could find.

>Looking at the breakup of Yugoslavia in retrospect, framing what is Washington geo-strategy everywhere takes solid form. The Clinton administration’s actions at that time have been parlayed and propagandized with the same Orwellian “doublethink” the public is mystified with today. Reading Washington think tank propaganda like that of the Brookings Institute reveals this. In “Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended” from 1998, author Ivo H. Daalder begins:

>“While many have written eloquently and passionately to explain Washington’s—and the West’s—failure to stop the ethnic cleansing, the concentration camps, and the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians, few have examined why, in the summer of 1995, the United States finally did take on a leadership role to end the war in Bosnia.”

>The truth is a much simpler reality. No one needed a think tank to discover why President Bill Clinton hesitated to intercede in Bosnia. Clinton was in fact, continuing the policies of his predecessor, George Bush the senior, to destabilize the Yugoslavian socialist success. We know now that US covertly trained insurgents played a vital role in fragmenting the region via an organization known as the Atlantic Brigade, which fought in the Kosovo war at the side of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), numbering some 400 armed fighters (Also see Christian Science Monitor 1999). There’s not space within this report to reveal the subterfuge and death dealing that came about because of US proxy wars in the former Yugoslavia. I will direct the reader to an expert.

https://journal-neo.org/2016/02/22/a-yugoslavian-fantasy-24th-versus-149th-place/

Former Macedonian president Kiro Gligorov related the meeting between the presidents of different socialist states in Yugoslavia when the EU offered them entry and a big loan package:

>Milošević said: 'I think we need to create a strong and modern federation with the center in Belgrade'. Then Tuđman said: 'I feel that I have a historical mission to restore the Croatian kingdom. We had a State, and now we must restore it. I'm not interested in anything else.' Then Alija Izetbegović says: 'Please, don't be like that, lets take this deal as a starting point for dialogue, there will be all kinds of suggestions. If we don't make an agreement we will be up to our knees in blood in Bosnia'.

https://www.blic.rs/vesti/politika/zasto-je-bivsa-sfrj-odbila-ponudu-za-brzi-ulazak-u-eu-i-5-milijardi-pomoci-a-sta-su/m339lq6 (not English)

I don't know if that is true or not, but it sounds true.

Yugoslavia was a successful socialist state with one of the highest standards of living (if not the highest) of any socialist country ever (on this point I don't care how many Soviet sources about the great Soviet Union you post, my mind won't change). The West had the motive and the means to do it. To claim otherwise is to be like that police detective who sees a man shot in the back several times and then decides the man died of a heart attack.


 No.10775

I've noticed you quote Parenti quite a lot. How would you respond to this criticism of him?

"Bookchin was criticizing Parenti neurotically using one example of soviet social progress as deflection for all criticism of the USSR. If it's a matter of people being fed, a sophist could point out how USAID is the largest aid organization in the world, and we would recognize this is an asinine defense of the United States. Not to mention how Parenti himself could be accused of callousness and malice by all the people he hurt when he was running apologism for the Bosnian Genocide. Bookchin's observation is really commendable. Parenti is a hack and his book on Julius Caesar is a literally worthless pop-polemic with no familiarity of the subject that is laughed at by every Roman historian."


 No.10777

>>10773

Furthermore, I'd argue that Yugoslavia's debt wasn't a problem because it had a strong military and was able to resist imperialist demands (like countries in Africa can't, for example). This is another reason to destroy Yugoslavia, they were giving it money but gaining no control. Compare it to the situation today, where Slovenia and Croatia has to allow EU to write their laws because they get loans from the EU. There was no way the US, UK or any NATO member could control Yugoslavia's internal politics like they do now with former Yugoslav states.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia was to take its place as the most powerful socialist nation on the planet, why would the United States allow a strong socialist state to exist when it has spent the last 50 years destroying any form of socialism it could find.

Again on debt. In 1991. Yugoslavia's debt was 15 billion dollars (up from 5 million in 1975, but still not 100% of GDP). Now, in 2018, the total debt of former Yugoslav countries is 145 billion dollars. From 1975 to 1991 - a 10 million increase, from 1991 to 2018 - 130 billion increase.


 No.10778

>>10773

>this tells us that presence of debt is not in itself a sufficient condition for the breakup of a country.

Obviously it wasn't the sole reason Yugoslavia doesn't exist anymore, but disagreements between the republics on how to handle the federation's economic problems (such as debt) clearly contributed to the breakup, as well as undermined popular support for socialism (e.g. during the mid-80s there were some austerity measures imposed on workers.)

>Yes, because Yugoslavia was a Western country. What was the alternative?

The issue isn't that Yugoslavia imported consumer goods from the West, it's that its economic system was such that it accumulated debts which it wasn't able to pay back. Again, the GDR, Poland, Hungary, etc. had similar problems.

>>10775

It's an asinine response.

>a sophist could point out how USAID is the largest aid organization in the world

The subject isn't aid, it's about the ability of socialist countries to care for the basic needs of their citizens. It's like equating charity from rich people with a minimum wage.

USAID is one of the many "foreign aid" veneers of American imperialism, it by no means gives out disinterested aid to the world's needy. In addition it's also involved in other, clearly not aid-related endeavors, e.g. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/04/05/cuba-a05.html

Parenti's point is that "left" anti-communists like Bookchin build up their ideal conceptions of society and then take the USSR and other socialist countries to task for failing to measure up to their own standards, ignoring the facts about these countries (that their socialist systems represented great gains for the people, that they were struggling against imperialism, etc.)

>by all the people he hurt when he was running apologism for the Bosnian Genocide.

Another ridiculous comparison. Bookchin wasn't disputing the fact that the Soviet system improved the living standards of its people and gave assurances that no capitalist country was capable of providing, he simply mocked this fact as if the gains of the Soviet peoples were unimportant.

The question of Srebrenica is an entirely different subject. Parenti and numerous other authors don't deny people were massacred, they argue it was a war crime rather than genocidal in intent. See: https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/16/denying-the-srebrenica-genocide-because-its-not-true-an-interview-with-diana-johnstone/

I can't comment on his work on Julius Caesar since I haven't read it and Roman history isn't a subject that interests me. It is also a subject obviously different from his numerous works on US foreign and domestic politics, so if he's a bit silly on the subject of ancient Rome I don't see how that necessarily discredits him writing about, say, the Gulf War or gay marriage.

Post last edited at

 No.10779

>>10777

>I'd argue that Yugoslavia's debt wasn't a problem because it had a strong military and was able to resist imperialist demands (like countries in Africa can't, for example).

I don't see how that's relevant. The West wasn't threatening to invade Yugoslavia if it failed to repay its debt, they threatened to suspend credits and restrict exports, which would have led to further economic problems in Yugoslavia amid a sharp deterioration in living standards.

Post last edited at

 No.10783

>>10779

>The West wasn't threatening to invade Yugoslavia if it failed to repay its debt,

Well, they don't have to threaten it. Invasion of countries that don't "play nice" is nothing new. Why would military service be mandatory in Yugoslavia? Because Yugoslavia had imperialist notions and wanted to conquer the countries around it? No, it was for self-defense. Sadly, invasion isn't the only way to topple a government, as we have seen in Iran, Libya, etc.

>they threatened to suspend credits and restrict exports which would have led to further economic problems in Yugoslavia

Still wouldn't have led to a breakup. Countries go through economic crises all the time. You seem to be attributing Yugoslavia's collapse to its economic conditions when similar or worse economic conditions didn't result in a breakup of other countries.

>amid a sharp deterioration in living standards.

This is false. It is true only if you equate the decreasing ability of people to purchase imported products a 'deterioration in living standards'. There was inflation, but people's apartments weren't disappearing, or their cars, or the food and products made in Yugoslavia.

Think about it scientifically, Ismail. You can find examples of dozens of existing states right now who are experiencing way worse economic conditions than Yugoslavia in 1990, with the leadership of the state probably divided on how to pay their debt. This tells us that economic conditions in Yugoslavia were not the cause of the breakup, and we must look for the cause somewhere else.

If you want an internal reason, in response to reforms in the Soviet Union and elsewhere in '88 Yugoslavian government started capitalist reforms and privatising. State property was given left and right to friends and families (in Croatia almost everything that went from State ownership to private ownership is now owned by about 200 families). This created a rich, bourgeoisie class who had to protect its interests. Best way to do it is through nationalism. But privatisation is not a feature of Yugoslav socialism, those were post-Tito reforms. I think it is unfair to use the reforms of 88-90 to discredit the Yugoslav socialist system and all its achievements (and there were many) 45-80. Things got worse after Tito's death, not for the lack of educated Socialists in government, but because the uneducated non-Socialists wielded so much power in national assemblies.

I'm sorry if I lost my composure, but the propaganda machines have not stopped churning out endless books and articles on how Yugoslavia was shit, and how it collapsed because it was shit. And I see the same arguments (debt, political instability, unstable socialist system) given here.

I wish you could read Croatian so you could read this: https://narod.hr/gospodarstvo/titova-jugoslavija-sto-istina-mitu-da-bilo-bolje-danas It's a Croatian fascist newspaper/portal that agrees with you on the reasons for the breakup of Yugoslavia, they call Yugoslavia a country-camp as in it's a country and a concentration camp. It serves the political elite of Croatia to deem Yugoslavia as a failure, because then Croatia, an actual failure, doesn't seem like such a failure. And I hate to see this board play into that.

Unemployment in Croatia and the overall economic situation is much worse. Statistically, it seems better because the top wealth-owners in the country got richer, while the people are getting poorer. They've slashed pensions so many times. People work practically for free cause companies can't afford paychecks. People take "internships" that pay next to nothing after finishing 5 years of university because there aren't jobs. My cousin works three jobs so that she could pay off the car she bought so that she could have three jobs because one isn't enough any more. Why isn't Croatia collapsing? Oh that's right, cause it's a liberal capitalist State that also serves as a tourist destination for the European middle-class.


 No.10784

what was the origin of the split between the USSR and Tito-Yugoslavia?


 No.10785

File: f8cc7daaad57a79⋯.png (118.48 KB, 618x637, 618:637, CIAYugo1977.png)

File: deb53c37e541266⋯.png (601.72 KB, 1122x1078, 51:49, CIAYugo1970.png)

File: 7af7439656652cf⋯.pdf (4.13 MB, CIA-RDP85T00875R0020000900….pdf)

File: 1b720bbf954befe⋯.pdf (3.68 MB, esau-46.pdf)

File: bbf02a8a008b8c9⋯.jpg (56.49 KB, 960x530, 96:53, titocastro.jpg)

Pic related are CIA reports (1970 and 1977) that discuss the breakup of Yugoslavia, its weaknesses and possible reasons for collapse. But yes, it was totally the debt and Yugoslavia not being Marxist enough. :^)

If the US identified Soviet influence within Yugoslavia, don't you think they would have their own agents? Making sure Yugoslavia doesn't join the SU, but becomes 'Westernised'. We can look over documents all we want, but we will never know the assurances that came in private.

>>10784

Tito didn't want Yugoslavs to go through what people in the Soviet Union were going through.


 No.10786

>>10785

>>>10784

>Tito didn't want Yugoslavs to go through what people in the Soviet Union were going through.

I apologise, that was totally unfair. I just got worked up over this. It always gets me worked up.

I could have been born in a socialist country, been in the pioneers, engage in many extra-curricular activities in school, go to national meets and competitions between all the peoples of Yugoslavia, and just had an overall better life. But I grew up in "independent" Croatia, where nationalism and fascism were the norm, where we sang anti-Serbian songs in primary school music class, school where I was fucking picked on cause I was an atheist, school without extra-curricular activities cause there was no money. TENS of BILLIONS of dollars of debt in 1996 onwards. Where the fuck did that money go? In my city in Croatia they built 29 new Catholic churches and monasteries and only 1 primary school.

If it weren't for Yugoslavia, people in ex-Yu countries wouldn't have shit.


 No.10787

>But yes, it was totally the debt and Yugoslavia not being Marxist enough. :^)

I never claimed that Tito wasn't "Marxist enough." Don't put words in my mouth.

>>10783

>Why would military service be mandatory in Yugoslavia?

In the first place, Tito (like Hoxha who had a similar program of military service) wanted to keep up the "partisan spirit" of the anti-fascist wartime resistance, which military training would help with. In the second place, he was afraid the USSR might attack Yugoslavia, since he misread the Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia. Romania had a similar program of military training after the intervention.

I'm sure fears of NATO intervention in Yugoslavia weren't entirely absent either, but as far as I know Tito feared the Soviets more than he feared the US.

>Still wouldn't have led to a breakup.

I have a source directly contradicting you:

"A year before the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, on Nov. 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. This bill was a signed death warrant. One provision in particular was so lethal that a CIA report predicting a bloody civil war referred to this law.

A section of Law 101-513 suddenly and without previous warning cut off all aid, credits, and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within six months. Conducting trade without credits is virtually impossible in the modern world—especially for an indebted country lacking hard currency. The law also demanded separate elections in each of the six republics that make up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. The legislation further required U.S. per­sonnel in all international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to enforce this cut­ off policy for all credits and loans.

There was one final provision. Only forces that the U.S. State Department defined as 'democratic' would receive funding. This meant an influx of funds to small, right-wing, nationalist parties in a financially strangled region suddenly thrown into crisis by the overall funding cut-off. The impact was, as expected, devastating." (Sara Flounders, "Bosnia tragedy: The unknown role of the Pentagon" in NATO in the Balkans: Voices of Opposition, 1998, pp. 48-49)

So I repeat, Yugoslavia's large debt (specifically its inability to pay that debt) and the threat of losing credits from abroad (which became a reality with that US government decision) clearly had a hand in its demise.

>You seem to be attributing Yugoslavia's collapse to its economic conditions when similar or worse economic conditions didn't result in a breakup of other countries.

Those other countries aren't federations with increasingly acrimonious relations between their constituent parts over how to solve economic and political issues.

>If you want an internal reason, in response to reforms in the Soviet Union and elsewhere in '88 Yugoslavian government started capitalist reforms and privatising.

Yes, and one of the reasons Yugoslavia did that was because of the aforementioned debt and general problems facing the economy.

>they call Yugoslavia a country-camp as in it's a country and a concentration camp.

Then they obviously don't agree with me.

>Unemployment in Croatia and the overall economic situation is much worse.

I don't deny that the end of socialism in the former Yugoslavia has made life worse in many ways.

>>10784

The Yugoslavs felt that the Soviets were trying to dictate to them how to build socialism, and were taking advantage of Yugoslavia's vulnerable position in the years after WWII to produce lopsided trade deals and whatnot, e.g. the Soviet negotiator at one point said to his Yugoslav counterparts, "What do you need heavy industry for? In the Urals we have everything you need."

When the Yugoslavs criticized the Soviets, Stalin retaliated by having Tito denounced as a "fascist" and agent of capitalist restoration, and called on communists in Yugoslavia to overthrow him. It wasn't until 1955 that Soviet-Yugoslav relations were normalized.

Post last edited at

 No.10794

Thoughts on China Uncensored?

https://youtu.be/eTyqoMUkbGk


 No.10796

Open borders. Yay or nay?


 No.10798

>>10785

would you say Yugoslavia was socialist or nah?


 No.10799

Why were Marx and Engels opposed to the creation of colonies and model experiments in cooperation / socialism? I understand the many flaws of utopian socialism, its appeals to sentimentalism over an actual analysis of capitalism, how many of its supporters evolve their ideas from their own minds as opposed to economic conditions (such as the "castles in the sky" described by Marx in the Manifesto). Of course, it would be a mistake to think that all socialist colonies were utopian socialist colonies, at least in the traditional understanding of the term. Two prominent examples which come to mind are Llano del Rio and the Kaweah Cooperative Commonwealth (though the latter was influenced by Bellamy to some extent). I think experiments in community building / worker cooperatives should be a second front of action for socialists alongside the of course all important political front. Socialism needs concrete examples of successful cooperative life, both for creating an economic as well as political base and for propagandistic purposes (if they were created under the aegis of a party, for example).

My view: community building / cooperation and political action


 No.10801

>>10796

If by "open borders" one means making it easier to become a citizen, and prohibiting the practice of treating undocumented immigrants as a source of non-unionized labor that can be intimidated with the threat of deportation, then yes.

>>10799

Utopian socialists didn't merely want to build ideal communities, they actively opposed attempts to involve workers in political or economic (e.g. trade union) struggles. They saw their communities as panaceas for the entire working-class movement.

>I think experiments in community building / worker cooperatives should be a second front of action for socialists

There's a difference between cooperative businesses and utopian experiments like New Harmony. Marx did indeed acknowledge that cooperatives "have shown that production on a large scale, and in accord with the behests of modern science, may be carried on without the existence of a class of masters employing a class of hands." But he added, "however useful in practice, co-operative labor, if kept within the narrow circle of the casual efforts of private workmen, will never be able to arrest the growth in geometrical progression of monopoly, to free the masses, nor even to perceptibly lighten the burden of their miseries. . . To save the industrious masses, co-operative labor ought to be developed to national dimensions, and, consequently, to be fostered by national means."

So the cooperative movement can be one of the weapons in the arsenal of the working-class. But again, this is different from utopian communities which seek to operate in isolation from capitalist society and draw people away from everyday struggles against exploitation.

That's why I don't think it should be an official policy of communist parties to encourage utopian settlements, especially considering the incredible amount of resources they require to maintain them, which would easily strain the finances and time commitment of party members.

Communists can have cordial contacts with utopians (e.g. the Communist Club of New York corresponded with the Icarians) and wish their members well, but our goal (the working-class seizing political power and establishing socialism) clearly differentiates us from efforts to establish experiments which try to skip the socialist stage of development.

Post last edited at

 No.10804

>>10096

I've seen you consider North Korea socialist. How is it possible to know this even with reasonable certainty provided how little reliable information is coming out of the country?


 No.10805

>>10786

Damn anon. I feel the pain. Saved this post


 No.10806

>>10804

The DPRK has existed for 70 years, with innumerable books and articles in the world's many languages discussing its economy and society.

There are no shortage of tourists, journalists, government officials, aid workers, etc. who have visited or lived in the country during the past thirty years. The DPRK isn't located on the Moon, there might be guessing games related to Kim Jong Un's inner circle or the exact status of its nuclear program, but "this is a country with a planned economy closely modeled off of the USSR and Mao-era China, albeit with a lot of black market activity since the 90s and cautious attempts at moving to a more market-based system" is not a guess.


 No.10807

>>10799

Engels quotes Owens on this, [basically they were my slaves.]


 No.10811

File: 20d3901eb16df8f⋯.jpg (26.17 KB, 325x420, 65:84, Red Guard.jpg)

File: 519aa1c117d8554⋯.jpg (150.84 KB, 1200x873, 400:291, Vietcong.jpg)

File: 22e8b49b17fbb90⋯.jpg (354.18 KB, 937x528, 937:528, North Korea.jpg)

How did people of Far East learn about Marx, Lenin, communism and socialism?


 No.10812

>>10811

>How did people of Far East learn about Marx, Lenin, communism and socialism?

If you mean how did Marxism come to Asia, it began to spread after the October Revolution, which by its opposition to colonialism made many intellectuals decide to read up on what this Lenin guy was all about. There were Koreans working in Russia who became supporters of the Bolsheviks and sought to establish an underground communist movement against Japanese rule in their homeland. Many Chinese students (as well as Ho Chi Minh) lived in France where they were exposed to the propaganda of the Communist Party there and French translations of writings by Marx, Engels, and the Bolsheviks.

A Japanese Social-Democratic Party was established as early as 1901 by Sen Katayama (who was acquainted with socialism in the United States) and others, but even in Japan the spread of Marxism really only began in earnest after 1917.

When it comes to the more "western" parts of Asia, like India and Iran, the Bolsheviks had contacts in those countries even before 1917, but yet again it was only after October that things took off.

Post last edited at

 No.10817

>>10096

Today I bought an edition of "Sociology of Marx" by Henri Lefebvre in a second hand bookshop, I'm wondering if it's worth reading? Have you ever read something by Lefebvre?


 No.10819

>>10817

I have not. This is how the Great Soviet Encyclopedia describes him:

>Lefebvre is the author of a number of works on the history of philosophy (on Descartes, Pascal, Diderot, Nietzsche) and aesthetics (Introduction to Aesthetics, 1948, Russian translation, 1954; Contribution to Aesthetics, 1953). A member of the French Communist Party since 1928, he wrote propagandistic works on dialectical materialism (Dialectical Materialism, 1939; Understanding the Ideas of K. Marx, 1947). Lefebvre later departed from Marxism, defending ideas incompatible with the basic principles of dialectical materialism. In 1958 he was expelled from the French Communist Party for revisionism disguised in pseudo-Marxist terminology and for divergences from the general Communist Party line.

>In his main work published after his expulsion from the Communist Party (The Sum and the Remainder, 1959), Lefebvre develops anti-Marxist and anticommunist positions. He rejects the struggle of two camps in philosophy. He views materialist and idealist solutions to the fundamental question of philosophy as merely two equally unprovable and irrefutable “postulates.” Lefebvre also denies the philosophical significance of the materialist dialectic. In his Metaphilosophy (1965), he opposes Marxism-Leninism and rejects scientific philosophy as a teaching about the universal laws of development of nature, society, and thought; he replaces scientific philosophy with his subjectivistic “anthropologism.”


 No.10820

>>10819

>He rejects the struggle of two camps in philosophy. He views materialist and idealist solutions to the fundamental question of philosophy as merely two equally unprovable and irrefutable “postulates.” Lefebvre also denies the philosophical significance of the materialist dialectic.

I don't think this should be the big of a deal it is in ML circles. Lots and lots of important philosophers were non-materialists and you could be a metaphysical idealist and still uphold a materialist theory of history (the two are not necessarily in contradiction).


 No.10823

What are your/general ML criticisms of "left communists"? (the modern bordigist types you can find on some corners of the internet, not the people Lenin critiques in "LWC: an infantile disorder"). I think they're overly strict in their definition of socialism (there can't be money, there can't be division of labor, etc.) in a way that is ironically utopian, and they're hopelessly dogmatic. They basically read Marx like it's the bible, for example many of them don't accept the distinction between socialism and communism made by Leninists because Marx and Engels used the words interchangeably.


 No.10824

>>10823

Yeah that's the ML criticism of Bordigists. Ultra-leftists, hopelessly sectarian, dumb politics. I replied to a Bordiga apologist here: https://8ch.net/marx/res/8135.html

They don't even exist in real life, like I'm pretty sure even in present-day Italy they aren't really a thing. They're basically the leftcom equivalent of DeLeonists who, ever since De Leon's death, have done little more than jerk off to his memory and wear their irrelevance as a badge of honor.

Post last edited at

 No.10827

central planning, yay or nay?


 No.10829

>>10827

Yay. Obviously the way the Soviets went about it had problems (no doubt partly due to technological limitations as Paul Cockshott argues), but I think every Marxist would agree that the following words of Engels will eventually be realized: "Above all, [the new social order] will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society. . . Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods."

But in that same text, Engels answered the question "Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?" with "No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity."


 No.10831

What was Marx's take on administration? What did he support?

I don't mean in a socialist (associated producers) or communist (classless) society, but in a capitalist one.

Did his views change throughout his life on the demands which were put forward in the Demands of the Communist Party in Germany of 1848 and the Communist Manifesto? Where can I read more on his administrative ideas?


 No.10832

>>10831

As he wrote in the Manifesto, "The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class. . . . In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy. . . But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin. . . In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries."

The demands he put forward in the Manifesto, which he felt generally applicable for "most advanced countries" at the time, were of course based on conditions in 1848. As Engels wrote in a 1872 preface to the Manifesto, "no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today."

Marx and Engels considered a democratic republic the best terrain on which to struggle for socialism, since it allowed for the legal existence of parties and trade unions and even the possibility of a peaceful road to working-class rule (albeit with the ever-present threat that capitalists would use violence to block this road.) A book-length work on this subject is "Marx and Engels: Their Contribution to the Democratic Breakthrough" by August Nimtz.


 No.10833

What was Marx's views on nation states and/or national liberation? I know he was in favor of Irish liberation. But iirc he worded it in a way that is only circumstantial to the liberation of the English working class, and not as something that is favorable to them or the world in itself, or as something that is just in itself.


 No.10835

>>10833

>But iirc he worded it in a way that is only circumstantial to the liberation of the English working class, and not as something that is favorable to them or the world in itself

That isn't accurate. As he wrote in an April 9, 1870 letter: "if the English army and police were withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would immediately have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the overthrow of the English aristocracy in Ireland would entail, and would lead immediately to, its overthrow in England. This would bring about the prerequisites for the proletarian revolution in England. . . . All industrial and commercial centres in England now have a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who forces down the standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker, he feels himself to be a member of the ruling nation and, therefore, makes himself a tool of his aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He harbours religious, social and national prejudices against him. His attitude towards him is roughly that of the poor whites to the niggers in the former slave states of the American Union. The Irishman. . . sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of English rule in Ireland."

Engels in a February 7, 1882 letter to Kautsky:

"Now it is historically impossible for a great people to discuss this or that internal question in any way seriously so long as national independence is lacking. . .

Generally speaking an international movement of the proletariat is possible only as between independent nations. . . international co-operation is possible only among equals, and even a primus inter pares at most for immediate action. . . Every Polish peasant and workman who rouses himself out of his stupor to participate in the common interest is confronted first of all with the fact of national subjugation; that is the first obstacle he encounters everywhere. Its removal is the prime requirement for any free and healthy development. Polish socialists who fail to put the liberation of the country at the forefront of their programme remind me of those German socialists who were reluctant to demand the immediate repeal of the Anti-Socialist Law and freedom of association, assembly and the press. To be able to fight, you must first have a terrain, light, air and elbow-room. Otherwise you never get further than chit-chat.

Whether, in this connection, a restoration of Poland is possible before the next revolution is of no significance. It is in no way our business to restrain the efforts of the Poles to attain living conditions essential to their further development, or to persuade them that, from the international standpoint, national independence is a very secondary matter when it is in fact the basis of all international co-operation. . . .

Hence I am of the opinion that two nations in Europe are not only entitled but duty-bound to be national before they are international—Ireland and Poland. For the best way they can be international is by being well and truly national. That's what the Poles have understood in every crisis and proved on every revolutionary battleground. Deprive them of the prospect of restoring Poland, or persuade them that before long a new Poland will automatically fall into their laps, and their interest in the European revolution will be at an end."


 No.10836

I’m often impressed with how much you seem to know. How often do you read? What is your note-taking method? When answering questions do you usually reference a relevant work or can you recall much from memory?


 No.10837

>>10836

>How often do you read?

I'm reading books every day, although I wouldn't call myself a fast reader.

>What is your note-taking method?

If there's a bit in a book I figure I might be quoting multiple times in the future, I'll write it down.

>When answering questions do you usually reference a relevant work or can you recall much from memory?

I can't recreate quotes from memory (that'd be a pretty impressive feat), but I'll generally remember what book made what claim and either consult it or look at my notes.


 No.10843

Any opinion on the yellow vest protests in France? Isn't this pretty much a once-in-a-decade opportunity for communists to take charge?


 No.10844

>>10843

It would seem like a hopeful start to things.


 No.10845

To what degree is Arab socialism / baathism actually socialism (in theory and in practice)? Also to what extent is Syria democratic?


 No.10846

>>10845

By Marxist standards, Arab socialism (including Ba'athism) isn't socialist. It can certainly be progressive in carrying out reforms, weakening the control of foreign capital, taking anti-imperialist positions in international affairs, etc. but so long as it denies class struggle or only cares to struggle against tribalism and feudalism it's hard to see it as much more than an ideology tailor-made for the national bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie rather than the proletariat.

>Also to what extent is Syria democratic?

Multiple parties exist (including communist parties) and since 2012 there are mechanisms for rival parties to run, although the civil war has obviously made holding elections a bit difficult and no doubt the Ba'athists enjoy many advantages (far greater access to media and campaign resources, for example.)


 No.10847

why did countries like the PRK, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba not join the Warsaw Pact?


 No.10848

Sumarize Congo Crisis and the two Congo wars? Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys?

Who were the imperialists, who were pro west who did Soviets support? Did Soviet Union helped Congo in it's independence war? Why was Zaire pro west, was it just colony?


 No.10849

opinion on Rohana Wijeweera?


 No.10850

>>10847

Because the purpose of the Pact was to counter NATO. It was a defensive alliance of European socialist countries.

>>10848

Very briefly and leaving out a bunch of stuff, leader of the Congolese independence movement was Patrice Lumumba, who admired Nkrumah's Pan-Africanism but otherwise didn't have much of an ideology beyond wanting independence. However, he strongly denounced the record of Belgian colonial rule, telling King Baudouin at Congo's independence day celebrations, "From today we are no longer your monkeys."

The Belgians and Americans were convinced that Lumumba would allow "communist penetration" in the Congo. Shortly after Congolese independence the Belgians backed a secessionist government in Katanga (the wealthiest part of the Congo.)

Lumumba invited the United Nations to intervene in what he assumed would be putting down an illegal secession in Katanga. Instead UN troops were used by the organization's Secretary-General to "keep the peace," allowing the secession to continue until a time when the government and Katangan secessionists could peacefully work out their differences and reunite (which the secessionists, backed by Belgian troops and mercenaries, had no interest whatsoever in doing.)

Lumumba was infuriated and began seeking Soviet weaponry to put down the secession himself. Meanwhile the CIA conspired to get Lumumba thrown out of office, whereupon he was shipped to Katanga and murdered.

With no more pesky Lumumba (and a Soviet-supported, pro-Lumumba rival Congolese government led by Antoine Gizenga soon to disappear), the West was divided on how to deal with the Katangan secession. The US under JFK determined that the stability of the Congo under a pro-West leadership would be endangered so long as its richest province was in rebellion under a different pro-West administration, so eventually the UN was given the task of putting down the secession by force.

Mobutu, a CIA asset, overthrew the civilian government in 1965 and loyally served American interests in Central Africa from thereon out. He was dependent on the aid of Western countries to stay afloat (e.g. in 1977 and '78 leftist Congolese rebels attacked Zaire from Angolan territory and would have overthrown Mobutu if it hadn't been for Western intervention to beat back the rebellion.)

The USSR was not involved in the Congo obtaining its independence, but as I said it did help out Lumumba once the latter asked for aid.

As for the Congo wars, they're rather complex. After the Rwandan Genocide the new Tutsi government in Rwanda was angry at Hutu refugee camps in Zaire which Rwanda argued were housing the perpetrators of the genocide and preparing armed forces to attack Rwanda. So Rwanda backed the overthrow of Mobutu. However, the new Kabila government was fairly weak and other African states (including Rwanda) backed militias to keep Congolese government control over certain areas weak and obtain control of resources. Kabila didn't like this and worked with other African countries to oust the militias.

Post last edited at

 No.10851

>>10849

I have none.


 No.10852

>>10850

So basically Patrice Lumumba who decleraed independence of Congo was overthrown by western backed puppet, who ruled the country until first Congo war, when he was overthrown by alliance led by Zimbabwe and Angola (two good guys of cold war) and during second Congo war, total chaos ensued?


 No.10853

File: 3dd6b3f0b52883e⋯.jpg (205.72 KB, 645x835, 129:167, Patrice Lumumba.jpg)

>>10850

Story of Patrice Lumumba sounds similar to Sukarno. Two left-wing anti imperialists who were overthrown by cia.


 No.10854

Summaries central American crisis. Who won, who lost? How strong is left wing there now?

From what i understand good guys won in Nicaragua, and in Salvador FMLN become a political party, In Guatemala URNG remains small left-wing part.


 No.10855

>>10852

Yeah basically. I've never actually learned much about the Second Congo War (I have books about it but haven't read them yet.)

>>10854

Your summary is correct. FMLN is a major force in El Salvador, although it's social-democratic. FSLN moved quite a bit to the right after 1990 but is still at odds with American imperialism.


 No.10856

>>10855

Do you know anything about left wing in South America? Anything major during cold war? Anything major today?


 No.10857

>>10856

Not anything modern.


 No.10858

>>10857

Anything from cold war?


 No.10860

>>10858

Anything specific?


 No.10861

>>10860

Were there any armed uprisings? Any Latin American country had socialist revolution?


 No.10863

>>10861

There were plenty of guerrilla movements across Latin America during the 1960s-80s, but only Cuba and Nicaragua had guerrillas come to power and only Cuba built socialism (Nicaragua in the 80s described itself as having a mixed economy in transition to socialism.)


 No.10864

>>10863

Were there any electoral victories? Did Soviets had any friends in Latin America?


 No.10865

>>10850

>The USSR was not involved in the Congo obtaining its independence, but as I said it did help out Lumumba once the latter asked for aid.

Did Soviets at least support Congo diplomatically? How big was arm's support for Lumumba?

How large was Soviet support for Cuba an Nicaragua?


 No.10867

Is there a "Black Book of Capitalism"? Something that lists and details the atrocities and crimes of capitalism?


 No.10868

>>10864

Allende was the only case of a Marxist being elected in Latin America. There was also Forbes Burnham in Guyana although "elected" in that case is a bit of a stretch (he came to power with CIA backing against a Marxist, then turned on the US, but always rigged elections whether as a CIA asset or self-described socialist.)

There were a few military governments that the USSR supported, namely that of Velasco in Peru and the Argentine junta.

>>10865

Yes they supported it diplomatically. Khrushchev's infamous shoe incident at the UN was related to his anger at the organization's activity in the Congo.

The Soviets bought Cuban sugar at advantageous prices, much of Cuba's trade was with the USSR and its allies. When these countries began reducing their aid in the late 80s, Cuba's economy suffered badly.

The USSR sent weapons to Nicaragua to help fight the Contras.

>>10867

Not that I'm aware of, although there are numerous books on deaths caused by capitalist regimes, e.g. http://b-ok.cc/book/887149/c061ac (Killing Hope, on CIA interventions abroad and their consequences)


 No.10874

So as we all know western Marxists and whatever Marxist sympathizers love to repeat how Marx never thought about historical materialism, or scientific socialism or DiaMat, and in fact Engels is mostly to be credited for these terms/ideas. We know that's bs because Marx uses dialectical language in Capital. To their credit, Marx doesn't use any of the terms in his works.

I read somewhere that Marx got the idea of historical materialism from a contemporary philosopher of his. Not sure about dialectics. Do you know any of the sources Marx used or a book after Marx that summarizes and analyzes his methodology/ideas on history?


 No.10875

>>10874

>I read somewhere that Marx got the idea of historical materialism from a contemporary philosopher of his.

To quote the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, "Before Marx and Engels, the ideas of historical necessity and social development had been formulated by. G. Vico and G. Hegel, the labor theory of value had been stated by Smith and Ricardo, the class struggle had been discovered by A. Thierry, F. Mignet, and F. Guizot, and certain features of socialism, although in Utopian form, were anticipated by T. More, C. Fourier, Saint-Simon, and R. Owen."

To quote from a Soviet biography of Marx:

>Marx vividly expressed his attitude to bourgeois historiography in a letter to Engels of July 27, 1854, when writing about a book by Augustin Thierry, one of the leading historians of the Restoration period. The book was A History of the Formation and Progress of the Third Estate, which held that French history was pivoted on the struggle by the third estate against the feudal aristocracy, and made a detailed examination of the rise of the free cities (communes), the cradle of the French bourgeoisie. Marx called Thierry " [the father] of the 'class struggle' in French historiography'".

>Marx gave Thierry his due, but used his book to show the defects of bourgeois historical writing even in its heyday. Thierry and other historians of his school had failed to reach down to the material basis of class contradictions, and had believed that foreign conquest was the main cause of society's division into classes. Marx stressed that Thierry had been wrong to identify the third estate with the bourgeoisie, and to regard it as a single class, failing to notice the origination of antagonistic contradictions within it. Thierry had revealed the narrowness and inconsistency of his views by his attempts to confine the sphere in which the law of the class struggle operated to feudal society, and by his unwillingness even to consider the nature and character of the class struggle under capitalism. Marx's critique of Thierry's views showed the profound antithesis between the revolutionary-proletarian and the liberal-bourgeois views of the class struggle.

Dialectics Marx obviously got from Hegel (Marx in his youth having been among the Left Hegelians.)

For an intro to Marx's views on historical progress, see: https://archive.org/details/HistoricalMaterialismCornforth


 No.10876

File: 604f287a3643051⋯.jpg (92.67 KB, 720x767, 720:767, 604f287a3643051d0e89467fd4….jpg)

>>10875

See, nobody can ever actually directly quote Marx on dialectics, instead having to rely on second-hand sources for this nonsensical philosophy just because Engels had to "rediscover" philosophy in Anti-Duhring after shitting on it for decades as best shown in the German Ideology. And since Lenin found comfort in Hegel after the failure of the 1905 Revolution we've been riddled with this garbage eversince. Historical Materialism, or the idea that human history operates according to the struggle between various classes and that the first requisite of any society is that they must first be able to eat has nothing to do with the "dialectical" materialism that has imported ruling-class concepts into our movement.

Also, Marx does indeed give a concise method of his "dialectical" method in the preface, and upon reading it one discovers that *gasp!* it has nothing to do with Hegel or philosophy at all!

http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Anti-D_For_Dummies%2001.htm

https://www.marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/jordan/article2.htm


 No.10877

>>10876

The idea that dialectics is a "ruling-class concept" is silly. Hegel was no revolutionary, but Marx was able to take what was valuable, just as he was able to take from bourgeois historians like Thierry who wrote on class struggle.

Also the reason I wasn't directly quoting Marx on dialectics is because the question was about Marx getting "the idea of historical materialism from a contemporary philosopher of his."

The same author (Maurice Cornforth) who wrote that aforementioned work on historical materialism also wrote a useful intro to dialectical materialism: https://archive.org/details/MaterialismDialecticalMethod

There's also a 400+ page book on ML philosophy: https://archive.org/details/tfomlp

That "Anti-Dialectics" page is run by a Trotskyist crank who used to make innumerable threads and posts on the RevLeft forum blaming dialectics for the rise of "Stalinism" and thus everything bad in the international communist movement.

Anti-Dühring was written in Marx's lifetime, Marx read drafts of it and even worked on a chapter.


 No.10879

1) Are you currently involved in a party or organization, if so, which?

2) what would you recommend Marxists be doing right now if they live in America


 No.10880

>>10879

1. I am not.

2. Not much different than Marxists do anywhere: support working-class and other struggles. Join groups if any are nearby. Explain Marxism to interested people. If you're in a job, look into trade unions.

Post last edited at

 No.10883

>>10880

You need to join up with one! You’d be a great asset for writing articles and other similar things, I’m sure. And on your advice, that’s definitely the next thing for me to do, I feel like I’m not doing anything being holed up online, I’ll have to look into what exists in my area that’s not complete shit.

Thanks as always


 No.10884

have you ever watched trailer park boys?


 No.10885

>>10884

A few episodes a long time ago. I recall it being fairly amusing.


 No.10887

What do you think of Trump and his followers?


 No.10889

>>10887

Trump is a bourgeois politician and corrupt businessman who during the 80s and 90s was accorded fame from the decadent elements of American culture, such as tabloids. He's a hero to reactionaries of just about all stripes, his "America First" rhetoric is designed to portray US imperialism as a victim of "ungrateful" European allies and the supposed machinations of developing countries practicing "unfair" trade relations with the US.

Because Democrats are a rival bourgeois party, they often attack him from the right, so when Trump's bellicose rhetoric toward the DPRK failed and he was obliged to negotiate with Kim Jong Un, the Democratic Party attacked Trump as a "Kim puppet" and other absurdities, similar to how when Nixon felt compelled to approach détente with the USSR Democrats attacked the policy on "human rights" grounds.

As for Trump's followers, no doubt many of them are workers misled by the two-party system and Trump's phony populism, but his main constituency seems to be the petty-bourgeoisie, not the working-class. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/?utm_term=.7903102defe8


 No.10892

>>10874

>Do you know any of the sources Marx used or a book after Marx that summarizes and analyzes his methodology/ideas on history?

In addition to my message here >>10875 I forgot to mention there's a handy collection of writings by Marx, Engels and Lenin on historical materialism: http://b-ok.cc/book/855166/1d2d74

There's a similar, 450-page book of their writings on dialectical materialism which I intend to get my hands on and scan within the next few months.

Post last edited at

 No.10893

File: fa97b26448f8620⋯.jpg (254.9 KB, 800x527, 800:527, anwarshaikh-capitalism.jpg)

Opinions on this book? Worth a read?


 No.10894

>>10893

Never read it but I've heard Anwar Shaikh is good when discussing capitalism.


 No.10896

Was Yugoslavia socialist? Is it true they enjoyed a higher standard of living than the Soviets? Why? Why did it collapse?


 No.10897

>>10896

>Was Yugoslavia socialist?

Yes.

>Is it true they enjoyed a higher standard of living than the Soviets? Why?

In part it was due to its trade with the West being much more extensive, which meant greater access to consumer goods.

>Why did it collapse?

Combination of reasons:

1. The economic system, while guaranteeing a basically stable way of living, was rapidly accumulating debt to Western banks and faced problems with productivity and efficiency similar to those of the USSR and friends.

2. Bickering between the republics, e.g. Slovenia and Croatia accused the federal government of forcing them to subsidize the poorer republics, and also accused Serbs of trying to monopolize power in the federation via the armed forces and via pro-Milošević administrations in Montenegro and the autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina.

3. US intrigue, such as the quote by Sara Flounders I gave here: >>10787

4. The "collapse of Communism" in the Warsaw Pact states during 1989 gave anti-communists in Yugoslavia added strength to their arguments that socialism had "failed" and ensured that the US and Germany would be able to dictate to Yugoslavia far more than hitherto.

5. Election of governments in Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia which claimed they wanted to turn Yugoslavia into a confederation, whereas Serbia saw this as an insincere attempt to lay the basis for liquidating Yugoslavia at a later date.

6. The Serbian populations living in Croatia and Bosnia were afraid of President Tuđman's chauvinism and efforts to rehabilitate the memory of the fascist Ustaše, as well as President Izetbegović's hope back in the 1970s-80s of turning Bosnia into an Islamic state. So the Serbs formed their own rival governments and military clashes broke out.

Post last edited at

 No.10898

File: 0443561790f4aac⋯.jpg (53.84 KB, 604x453, 4:3, islamig nazbol.jpg)

File: 6ce618fdad00739⋯.png (468.19 KB, 851x315, 851:315, islamig bolshevism.png)

File: 58f64ca36789137⋯.jpg (101.16 KB, 657x960, 219:320, islamig gommunism.jpg)

File: 288270c9295440a⋯.png (178.45 KB, 437x425, 437:425, sankara is islamo-christco….png)

>>10897

>President Izetbegović's hope back in the 1970s-80s of turning Bosnia into an Islamic state

Based


 No.10899

>>10898

>Sankara hasn’t read Capital

I feel better about myself now


 No.10900

>>10898

Not based, considering Izetbegović was a bourgeois politician who opposed socialism and was backed by US imperialism.

As Parenti notes, "during World War II [he] had been a member of the Young Muslims, a fundamentalist organization that advocated an Islamic Bosnia. Expecting that an Axis victory would advance their cause, the Young Muslims actively recruited Muslim units for the SS. Trained, equipped, and directed by the Nazis, the Muslim SS perpetrated atrocities against the resistance movement and the Jewish population in Yugoslavia, and helped guard the railway link between Auschwitz and the Balkans."

And as another author notes, Izetbegović "was jailed in the early 1980s for inciting racial hatred. For decades, he had been an advocate of making Bosnia an Islamic religious republic, despite the fact that Muslims were a minority of the population."

His politics were somewhat similar to the Muslim Brotherhood, not the Algerian FLN or other "Islamic socialist" groups.

Post last edited at

 No.10901

Thoughts on Althusser?


 No.10902

>>10901

I have none.


 No.10905

What do you think of the practice on online political spaces of people labeling everything as a distinct "ism"? I sometimes see people call themselves "DeLeonists" or "Luxembourgists" or insert any obscure figure + ism and try to play it off as a distinct ideology. Personally, I think it is silly and obsessed with labeling to an extent which is off-putting to real working-people and that many of these figures aren't even distinct enough to be called anything other than "Marxist". I really admire Thomas Sankara but I would never call myself a "Sankarist" or anything like that, because Sankara himself, regardless of his leadership style and policies, saw himself as simply a Marxist-Leninist.


 No.10906

>>10905

Sometimes it makes sense, other times it doesn't. Like in my experience "Luxemburgism" is just left-coms appropriating her name. Her actual politics, while divergent from Lenin in important respects, still included stuff left-coms would reject like having a workers' party and having it partake in bourgeois elections.

De Leon mixed Marxism, syndicalism and reformism to create an ideology that basically said the workers' party exists to get elected to office, whereupon it will vote to abolish the capitalist state, the party then disbanding itself and allowing trade unions to take over society. So if there are people who think that sounds like a swell idea, then calling themselves DeLeonists makes sense even though actual DeLeonism pretty much died after De Leon himself.

Enver Hoxha only ever saw himself as a Marxist-Leninist, but he clearly had some distinctive views, so while "Hoxhaism" wasn't something the Party of Labour of Albania officially endorsed, one can still speak of "Hoxhaist" positions that were held by pro-Albanian parties (e.g. viewing Albania as basically the only socialist country in the world after the 1950s.)

But yeah if you're approaching an average person and calling yourself some made-up ideology like "DeLeonist-Technocracy with Cybersyn characteristics" to sound special, then that's no good.

When I interact with "ordinary" people, I simply say I'm a communist or Marxist. That gets the point across. Obviously when I'm with other communists I say I'm a Marxist-Leninist.

Post last edited at

 No.10908

File: 32674557cf89d0d⋯.pdf (5.36 MB, A-Certain-Amount-of-Madnes….pdf)

>>10906

I'll admit I don't know much about De Leon but it sounds like he needs to read The State and Revolution. Does he have any works you know of that are worth reading?

As a side note though, I'd be wrong to say that 'Sankarism' isn't a thing to some degree, as seen with some 'Sankarist' parties today in Burkina Faso and Africa at large (not to mention that Julius Malema in South Africa supposedly heavily draws from his legacy), though in the African context it makes more sense to identify with him. About Burkina Faso though:

>Many contemporary assessments of Sankara’s legacy, however, touch only lightly, if at all, on that aspect of his outlook. Even among the generally small ‘Sankarist’ political parties that are active in Burkina Faso today, few leaders have drawn attention to their hero’s communist beliefs. One went so far as to deny that Sankara was ever a Marxist (Sidwaya, 17 October 2007). It is possible that they regard Marxism as an outmoded viewpoint ill-suited to the realities of today’s world or to the exigencies of electoral politics. So they gloss over Sankara’s Marxist views in favour of other elements of his outlook, such as his Pan-Africanism and overall commitment to social justice.

Quote is from pdf related, a recent work on Sankara that came out this year. I have read only sections but I think you would enjoy it


 No.10909

>>10907

>I'll admit I don't much about De Leon but it sounds like he needs to read The State and Revolution.

He died in 1914, so that'd be a bit difficult. Amusingly, because Lenin admired De Leon's stand against opportunism (though Lenin was also critical of his sectarianism), De Leon's party wrongly claimed for many years after 1917 that Lenin was actually a DeLeonist and the October Revolution a confirmation of De Leon's views.

If you want info on him, I scanned this good account a while back: https://archive.org/details/LifeTimesDanielDeLeon

>Does he have any works you know of that are worth reading?

His "Two Pages from Roman History" is his most influential work, to the extent Lenin suggested it be translated into Russian: https://archive.org/details/cu31924002673725

Thanks for the PDF.

Post last edited at

 No.10910

>>10909

Thanks for the reading, Ismail. Sorry I deleted the original post you were replying too, it was riddled with typos and missing words!


 No.10913

Favorite Soviet song? All-time favorite communist song?

What SSR had the best anthem? My vote goes for the Tajik SSR.

Can you tell me anything about the switch of the Soviet anthem from the Internationale to the now-known State Anthem/Hymn to the Soviet Union? What were the real reasons? Do you know if there any truth to Stalin himself wanting to be glorified in it, and that the line glorifying him (Нас вырастил Сталин — на верность народу) was added on his orders?


 No.10914

>>10913

I have no favorite communist song. As for SSR anthems, I like the Ukrainian and Estonian ones.

>What were the real reasons?

"the 'International' ceased to be the official Soviet anthem, and reverted to its original role of a Party and working-class hymn. It did not reflect 'the basic changes that have taken place in our country as a result of the success of the Soviet system, and does not express the Socialist nature of the Soviet State', explained the edict. Indeed, it was no longer to slumbering 'starvelings', or to 'criminals of want', that an appeal was needed: 'reason in revolt' had thundered loudly from 1917 to 1921, and its victory had built up a state of society which masses, 'servile' in the olden days, now knew they were defending as their own." (Andrew Rothstein, A History of the U.S.S.R., 1951, p. 332.)

>Do you know if there any truth to Stalin himself wanting to be glorified in it, and that the line glorifying him (Нас вырастил Сталин — на верность народу) was added on his orders?

I do not. It seems unlikely to me that he'd personally intervene to add it though.


 No.10915

>>10914

>"the 'International' ceased to be the official Soviet anthem, and reverted to its original role of a Party and working-class hymn. It did not reflect 'the basic changes that have taken place in our country as a result of the success of the Soviet system, and does not express the Socialist nature of the Soviet State', explained the edict. Indeed, it was no longer to slumbering 'starvelings', or to 'criminals of want', that an appeal was needed: 'reason in revolt' had thundered loudly from 1917 to 1921, and its victory had built up a state of society which masses, 'servile' in the olden days, now knew they were defending as their own." (Andrew Rothstein, A History of the U.S.S.R., 1951, p. 332.)

Fascinating. On Wikipedia it says "When the Communist International (Comintern) was dissolved in 1943 in order for the Soviet Union to maintain its alliance with the other Allies of World War II, a new musical piece was needed to replace "The Internationale" as the national anthem." When you think about it, it sounds pretty absurd.

It is absolutely shameful how poorly Soviet history is researched in "mainstream" history.


 No.10918

What's your opinion on the French goings on Ismail?


 No.10921

>>10915

I'm sure replacing The Internationale with a more obviously "national" anthem was due in part to bolstering the wartime alliance with the US and UK (the aforementioned Rothstein notes how there were problems getting Britain's radio to play The Internationale), just not the sole reason.

Same thing with the dissolution of the Comintern: there were other reasons (excessive centralization, the affiliation of communist parties to it being used as a pretext by bourgeois governments to persecute said parties) for disbanding it besides simply desiring better relations with the US and UK, and these reasons were the ones Dimitrov noted Stalin and others discussing in his diary.

>>10918

Haven't looked at the situation too closely. Apparently Macron's government slandered the movement as far-right, even though the left is playing a large role in it. On the other hand, a lot of non-French leftists are acting like France is on the verge of revolution, which is dumb.

So basically, as with all working-class struggles, communists explain to workers why putting their faith in bourgeois candidates is bad and why socialism is good. It seems like the left is benefiting more from the protests than the right.

Post last edited at

 No.10932

Was redirected with my questions here, all fit into the same general theme:

>Why didn't the Soviet Union establish socialism right away instead of amassing a bureaucracy that developed with industrialization?

>Was it right for Stalin it have ended the NEP, and should Lenin have initiated collectivization from the start?

>Why is democratic ownership of the workplace not equivalent with socialism?

>Why did the Soviet Union skimp out on OGAS?

>Why didn't Stalin pick a proper successor to continue his plans and methodology instead of leaving the leadership position open to people that eventually went back on a lot of his policies?


 No.10934

>>10932

>Why didn't the Soviet Union establish socialism right away

Because of the economic backwardness inherited from Tsarist Russia and the devastation caused by constant warfare from 1914-1920.

>Was it right for Stalin it have ended the NEP

In hindsight it certainly made sense considering that rapid industrialization and collectivization allowed the USSR to meet the Nazi threat.

>and should Lenin have initiated collectivization from the start?

No, nor did he want to do so. Lenin argued, as did Marx and Engels, that collectivization has to be a gradual process. Even during War Communism the goal wasn't to collectivize agriculture, it was simply to force peasants to give up grain so that workers and soldiers wouldn't starve to death.

>Why is democratic ownership of the workplace not equivalent with socialism?

Because socialism is a mode of production. "Democratic ownership of the workplace" is not what defines it.

>Why did the Soviet Union skimp out on OGAS?

See: >>7700

>Why didn't Stalin pick a proper successor to continue his plans

Presumably because appointing a successor is a rather autocratic method. However, he did seem to favor Malenkov (who delivered the main speech at the 19th Party Congress.)


 No.10935

>>10934

Is it true Malenkov was a bit of a push-over?


 No.10936

>>10935

He certainly wasn't a strong-willed leader.

His main ally was Beria, whom he didn't trust (nor did anyone.) Once Beria was removed, Khrushchev was able to triumph over Malenkov (whom Khrushchev considered too liberal; he attacked pro-Malenkov economists as "Bukharinites.")


 No.10937

>>10936

Didn't Khrushchev turn out to have liberal/reformist tendencies himself?


 No.10938

>>10937

In a different way than Malenkov.

Malenkov wanted to focus much more on light industry and consumer goods, whereas Khrushchev wanted to retain the Stalin-era emphasis on investing in heavy industry. Both advocated decentralization, but Malenkov's program was more reform-minded.

Malenkov, like Khrushchev, placed a greater emphasis on peaceful coexistence compared to Stalin, and if anything went further than Khrushchev (e.g. in 1954 the USSR asked to join NATO as a way of strengthening peace in Europe, which NATO of course refused to do.)

One area Khrushchev exceeded Malenkov though was the question of "de-Stalinization." Stalin's cult was significantly reduced under Malenkov, but it was Khrushchev who openly criticized Stalin and under whose leadership banners showing Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin were replaced with those just showing Marx, Engels and Lenin (in other words, Stalin was no longer considered on the same level as them, though still a noteworthy figure.)

Post last edited at

 No.10939

>>10938

What was the overall domestic reaction to de-Stalinization? I know there were some riots in Georgia and shit, but how was it elsewhere? How did the international communist movement react?

What can you tell me about the Soviet intervention in Hungary? What were the reasons, was the revolt rightful or was it the right choice to send in the Soviet army, etc?


 No.10942

What do you think of this "Nazbol"/national bolshevik shit? I don't quite understand the meme myself, but it seems to be decidedly anti-Marxist and anti-Communist.


 No.10945

>>10939

Ordinary people reacted positively to the more open atmosphere, but there were many who found it strange how the CPSU went from praising Stalin to rarely mentioning him.

>How did the international communist movement react?

The pro-Soviet parties largely echoed the CPSU's line. The Communist Party of China and a few others, however, gradually revealed their differences with the Congress and its assessment of Stalin, which would later culminate in the Sino-Soviet split. On the other hand, the Communist Party of Italy thought the Soviets weren't going far enough in their critique.

>What can you tell me about the Soviet intervention in Hungary?

Wages and other conditions of life in Hungary experienced a decline in the early 50s under Rákosi. This led to unrest which anti-communists exploited in 1956. An open revolt took place in which Communists were lynched and pogroms carried out. The rightist leader of Hungary, Imre Nagy, appealed to the UN to send troops into the country (which, considering the UN was dominated by the US at that point, was tantamount to placing Hungary under imperialist control.) Meanwhile, a rival government was set up under Kádár which requested Soviet help. The Soviet Army entered the country and put down the revolt. It was right to do so.

>>10942

People make fun of Nazbols because they're basically fascists using Soviet imagery. Obviously if someone unironically calls themselves a "National Bolshevik" then that's bad because fascism is bad.


 No.10946

>>10945

Are you planning on producing some kind of comprehensive list of common questions on socialism and answers? Like having a PDF or something full of questions posted here and answering them, and putting that in the sticky. Seems like it'll be more efficient and organized that way when managing and distributing information; you won't have to repeat yourself and looking for a question can be a simple Ctrl + F thing instead of scouring all these threads on it. Meanwhile these questions threads could stay up for new questions or clarifications and the like.


 No.10948

>>10946

I intend to do that one of these days.


 No.10951

What's up with Lenin having the intelligentsia killed during the civil war? Among his other purported atrocities, how true are the claims and what was the reasoning for them?


 No.10952

>>10951

Lenin did no such thing. He actively defended the use of members of the bourgeois intelligentsia to build up the Soviet state, provided they did not display hostility to the new order. There's a whole book about this process: https://archive.org/details/OctoberRevolutionIntelligentsia

In 1922 over a hundred reactionary members of the intelligentsia were deported from the USSR for their anti-Soviet activity. That was the harshest punishment Lenin oversaw, obviously falling far short of "having the intelligentsia killed."


 No.10956

File: 29d736cf6e34e71⋯.jpg (114.32 KB, 640x452, 160:113, yuri2.jpg)

Got any good ML reading lists/study plans?

I'm looking for a good introduction into Marxism and the development of a solid understanding of ML ideology.

PDFs would be greatly appreciated.


 No.10957


 No.10958

>Socialism can't work because it has a high risk of some strongman coming along, seizing most of the power, and manipulating the government to their personal desires. The socialist project will last a very long time before the government withers away and so you need to rely on lots of strongmen to make the correct and altruistic decisions instead of transforming the state into a capitalist dictatorship.

How to respond to this?


 No.10959

what were DRPK and Romanian relations like? i saw that Kim had a huge celebration play out when Ceausescu visited. seems like a lot of work for someone who is considered one of the worst Warsaw Pact leaders (especially considering the DPRK wasn't exactly all too friendly with "revisionists"). i don't remember them doing anything like that for Brezhnev or other leaders at the time, did the two countries have one of those odd Albania/Vietnam relationships? why?


 No.10960

File: c4520aa54c5973b⋯.jpg (6.3 MB, 4256x2832, 266:177, Palace of the Parliament.jpg)

>>10959

Nicolae Ceaușescu decided to visit the DPRK early on in his reign and was impressed with the idea of completely transforming a country as the North Koreans had, and with this he was further inspired by the cult of personality surrounding Kim Il-sung. When he returned to Romania he began to implement these elements into his own nation that he had seen in the DPRK, trying to become self-sufficient too as per the ideal of Juche. Ceaușescu admired Kim Il-sung for having such an extensive level of control over his country while managing to remain largely independent from the Soviet Union (except when it came time for the Soviet Union to give bux, of course). As a result of Ceaușescu's visit Romania became increasingly centralized in its hierarchy, which Ceaușescu naturally led, on top of becoming ultra-nationalist while still posing as a socialist state. One other aspect of North Korean living that Romania adopted were the Potemkin villages used to impress foreigners, which hid the fact of Ceaușescu's drastic mismanagement of the economy (like when he sold so much of the nation's products to pay off the debt the country's own people had very little to live off off). Of course, Kim Il-sung liked having a copycat, someone who did the things he liked, and so saw Ceaușescu as an ally. Translated North Korean books were frequently found in Romania, and the militaries of the two countries even collaborated some. Around this time too Romania started getting cozy to the United States and North Korea saw Romania as an avenue to communicate to the US with, however the Romanians rejected this venture as they considered the DPRK as a liability to their burgeoning relations with the US.

Also Ceaușescu liked the kind of grand, Stalinist architecture in North Korea and emulated it in the Palace of the Parliament. A beautiful building, made entirely with Romanian products and labor, however it came at a huge cost to the livelihood of the capital city on top of straining already scant resources. So, in the end, it was because Ceaușescu wanted to be god-king of his Romanian nationalist """socialist""" state and though North Korea's way was an awesome example, so North Korea reciprocated by finding an ally in him, after swearing off almost everybody and coming to suffer for it, and seeing Romania as a reliable supporter.


 No.10961

>>10958

The poster here >>10960 gave some legitimate reasons. Another is that China and the DPRK wooed Romania due precisely to its almost antagonistic relationship to the Soviet "revisionists" (Ceaușescu having denounced the Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.) Romania also tended to have similar third world interests, e.g. the Chinese, North Koreans and Romanians all built up relations with Zaire.

>>10958

It's inaccurate. In the first place, numerous authors testify that the first few months of Bolshevik rule were fairly benign. It ruled as part of a coalition government, it allowed all except openly counter-revolutionary newspapers to function, and it pursued a rather moderate economic policy. However, with the Civil War and imperialist intervention, all that changed. To quote William Blum, "History does not tell us what a Soviet Union, allowed to develop in a 'normal' way of its own choosing, would look like today. We do know, however, the nature of a Soviet Union attacked in its cradle, raised alone in an extremely hostile world, and, when it managed to survive to adulthood, overrun by the Nazi war machine with the blessings of the Western powers. The resulting insecurities and fears have inevitably led to deformities of character not unlike that found in an individual raised in a similar life-threatening manner."

Furthermore most socialist states haven't been led by so-called "strongmen," and a majority of those under such leaderships subsequently moved away from them. Could also add that it is quite easy for "strongmen" to come to power in capitalist countries as well, as the examples of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Salazar, etc. attest in the 1920s-30s (let alone innumerable examples in the third world.)

Post last edited at

 No.10962

>>10961

How come the Soviet leaders seemingly had so much power in retracting the policies of Stalin? I head Khrushchev and all those leaders following him undid his work quite a bit and dis-adhered to the very principle of socialism. Was this a perchance fault of the Congress members as well?


 No.10963

>>10962

They did not "dis-adhere to the very principle of socialism." There were obvious problems with industry and agriculture by the time Stalin died, so enacting changes wasn't difficult (e.g. the government raising the price it paid to collective farms for produce.)

There was some opposition to "de-Stalinization," led by the so-called "Anti-Party Group," but it lacked a majority in the Central Committee and Zhukov threatened to use the military to keep Khrushchev in power, so its opposition collapsed.

>Was this a perchance fault of the Congress members as well?

Since the 1920s delegates to congresses were carefully picked to ratify decisions presented by the leadership. It was possible to have debates and disagreements at such congresses, but nothing substantial. So it doesn't make much sense to blame delegates.

Post last edited at

 No.10964

>>10963

>There were obvious problems with industry and agriculture by the time Stalin died, so enacting changes wasn't difficult (e.g. the government raising the price it paid to collective farms for produce.)

I wasn't aware of these problems. What kinds were they? Surely things would go smoothly if the government kept paying as much as they had before, given agriculture probably thrived in collectivization and instead that pay could be allocated somewhere else.


 No.10965

>>10964

>Surely things would go smoothly if the government kept paying as much as they had before, given agriculture probably thrived in collectivization

Er... no. During the 1930s agricultural production fell due to the great losses in livestock and the like caused by the struggle to collectivize. During that decade only 1937 and 1940 saw agricultural production top pre-collectivization figures. Both Malenkov and Khrushchev pointed out the disappointing situation in agriculture as of 1953.

Living standards for collective farmers were generally quite bad until after Stalin died and a bunch of taxes were removed (plus the aforementioned price rises giving more material incentive to produce.)

Agriculture was always rather neglected by the government when it came to investments.

As for industry, it faced the usual problems attributed to Soviet-style economies: lack of incentive to produce quality goods, plenty of incentives to act in a corrupt manner, planners screwing up orders so that factories would get raw materials either late or not at all, enterprises operating at a loss because they knew the state would cover the costs, etc.

Post last edited at

 No.10966

File: 5faa737cdb2c825⋯.jpg (43.22 KB, 512x338, 256:169, gross-production-of-grain-….jpg)

>>10965

If collectivization decreased agricultural production, why was it beneficial for preparation for the war effort against the Axis? I've always heard that collectivization enabled the Soviet government to more easily manage agriculture and streamline agricultural production and that the only negatives of it were uprisings by kulaks; is that true or is there a part missing to this?


 No.10968

>>10966

Because the amount of grain the state obtained increased. There was no possibility of a "grain strike" as kulaks attempted in the late 20s. Consumption by peasants also decreased.


 No.10972

Now that Cubans are apparently getting mobile internet for the first time, I've seen an increase in people spouting anti-Cuban sentiment based on the supposed "censorship" of the internet. So why is it that internet is so restricted in Cuba? Doesn't it have to do with the connection of internet to western companies rather than censorship?


 No.10974

>>10972

>Doesn't it have to do with the connection of internet to western companies rather than censorship?

That's my impression. The DPRK and Cuba clearly are trying to develop a bigger Internet presence for their citizens (e.g. for the past eight years Cuba has had a Wikipedia-esque website called EcuRed) but financial and telecommunication problems are the main impediment.


 No.10977

Not necessarily socialist but, why is a small country like Hungary so much of a better place to live in than a large country like Brazil? Brazil has so much land and resources, but in general it's nowhere as good a place to live in as Hungry by nearly any metric.


 No.10978

>>10977

The Congo could potentially be one of the richest countries in the world, yet colonialism, civil wars and its sheer size and fighting for control over its vast resources have made life there terrible for many people.

I haven't studied Brazilian history so I can't comment, but in the case of Hungary I don't think its small size is necessarily relevant. It was one of the more backward parts of Eastern Europe before 1945, having a large feudal sector.

Albania is smaller than Hungary and was (and is) even more backward.


 No.10979

Which countries do you think have a reasonable chance of turning socialist and benefiting from that, that is, given their leaders suddenly turn socialist themselves? Could it be a really developed one like Belgium or the United Kingdom, or just a very industrial one like the United States or China?


 No.10980

>>10977

In whose hands is all that Brazilian wealth though? Back in the 60s, when Joao Goulart (one of the most progressive presidents the country ever had) started redistributing land and nationalizing industries, he was quickly deposed by CIA-backed reactionaries who installed a 20-year-long military dictatorship. No post-dictatorship president, I'd argue not even Lula, has really broken with neoliberal policies in a meaningful way. As you may know this is far from a unique scenario in Latin America and other developing parts of the world. Like Ismail pointed out, many third world countries could be rich if they weren't incessantly raped by capitalism, neocolonialism and war-mongering.


 No.10981

>>10974

Thanks. How do you argue against people who claim it's impossible to openly criticize the government in Cuba? Or is this true?

Also would you consider making a designated general for Cuba questions or don't you have enough information about it to do so?

>>10979

>given their leaders suddenly turn socialist themselves

Do you mean the leaders of a bourgeois state "turning into socialists" and suddenly deciding to completely overthrow the economy? I don't think anything like this ever happened anywhere on earth.

>like Belgium

As a Belgian, I fucking wish, but people are often so politically apathetic here, it's frustrating. French people are at least more militant although I don't think that's enough to create the conditions for revolution.


 No.10982

>>10981

>Do you mean the leaders of a bourgeois state "turning into socialists" and suddenly deciding to completely overthrow the economy? I don't think anything like this ever happened anywhere on earth.

Yeah, that's what I meant. As in, if the government wanted to, could they establish actual existing socialism and it be better than what they have now? Or would it be better for them to take the state socialist route? I can imagine undeveloped countries will do state socialism but more developed ones could probably do regular socialism... probably.


 No.10983

>>10979

I don't get what you mean by "turning socialist and benefiting from that" or by "given their leaders suddenly turn socialist themselves."

You can't "turn" a country socialist. Socialism has to be built under the leadership of a working-class government. In the USSR it took about seven years (1928-35) to declare socialism established in the main.

I can't imagine any bourgeois leader having an epiphany and suddenly deciding Marxism is good. Even if they did they'd still have to contend with their bourgeois political party and every branch of the capitalist state (not to mention the police and armed forces built to defend capitalist relations of production.)

>>10981

>Thanks. How do you argue against people who claim it's impossible to openly criticize the government in Cuba? Or is this true?

As far as I know Cuba, like numerous other socialist countries, makes it possible to criticize in the press about shortcomings, bureaucracy, etc., but explicitly denouncing the government or its leaders is not allowed.

John Stockwell (a CIA officer turned critic of the agency and of US foreign policy) visited Cuba in the late 70s and recalled an incident where he was at a dinner with a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and various people involved in making films. One of the latter got up and said that while communism is superior to capitalism, he regarded himself as an anarchist, and Stockwell observed as the CC member and film person arguing the merits of their respective positions.

>Also would you consider making a designated general for Cuba questions or don't you have enough information about it to do so?

Yeah it's not a subject I feel I have a fairly good command over like I do with the USSR, Albania and Jonestown. I've certainly read books about Cuba though.


 No.10984

>>10982

I started replying to your older post before you made this one, but how do you distinguish "state socialism" from "regular socialism"?


 No.10985

>>10984

State socialism is where the government takes charge of the MoP as a transitory move before it is to be provided to the proles, using it to benefit them meanwhile in other ways as opposed to continuing their exploitation. "Regular socialism" just has the common ownership of the MoP directly in the hands of the proles. Point is, I can imagine an undeveloped nation would have to centralize things more with state socialism, but a more advanced nation could probably implement "regular socialism"... which I heard was the plan for the Soviet Union to do however the socialist revolution was limited to mostly just them, and so they didn't have enough allies to implement non-state socialism. Is that how it is?


 No.10986

I know you sometimes like to debate ultra-leftists on r/cth. If you're in the mood to debate leftists who believe the USSR was fascist/state capitalist:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/a4c4bt/comment/ebe5wt6

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/a4c4bt/comment/ebe7diw


 No.10987

>>10983

>explicitly denouncing the government or its leaders is not allowed.

So why is this? Would you say this can be justified?


 No.10988

>>10986

I'm a bit busy running a simulation of the world of 1919 on my own forum, but if you have any questions from such threads feel free to ask them here.

>>10987

The main arguments used are that with imperialism encircling Cuba and innumerable attempts made to overthrow the government, it is especially important that criticism be constructive rather than simply "argh the President of Cuba sucks" or whatever.

The other argument is that if one is a socialist, there is no need to denounce the government anyway, since the political and economic systems as such aren't the problem, it's particular aspects and policies enacted.

>>10985

Marx and Engels never spoke of handing the means of production "directly in the hands of the proles." They spoke of socializing the means of production via the state. As society transitions from socialism to communism, the state withers away and only in that sense are the means of production given to society without the need of an intermediary known as the state.


 No.10990

>>10988

>The other argument is that if one is a socialist, there is no need to denounce the government anyway, since the political and economic systems as such aren't the problem, it's particular aspects and policies enacted.

This is a pretty silly argument. There's no need to ban "wrong" viewpoints rather than just criticizing them, actually banning them only makes socialism seem ideologically weak (making it seem as if it can't defend itself on a rational basis). Besides, you said it's not just forbidden to denounce the economic system but also the country's leaders. Perhaps socialism itself can be seen as "infallible", but surely no individual leader can. For example, would you say it's a good thing people living under Ceausescu weren't allowed to criticize him personally? That really wouldn't have constituted an attack upon socialism.

Could get behind the imperialism argument though.


 No.10991

>>10321

>1. Abolished feudalism, socialized means of production

By socialized, you mean the state took control of it? Can you still even call it socialization if it's not literal socialism, but state socialism?


 No.10992

>>10991

>Can you still even call it socialization if it's not literal socialism, but state socialism?

You are fucking dumb


 No.10993

>>10990

Obviously the policy of making it taboo to attack a country's leadership has its drawbacks. Just saying, it was an argument that was used in socialist countries. For example,

>Swedish journalist Curt Carlson argued [in an interview with Czechoslovak Communist official Vasil Bilak] that any Swede "can openly criticise the Swedish Prime Minister, asserting that he is a blackguard, crook or liar." Can a Czechoslovak citizen, he asked, say the same about his Prime Minister or President?

>"Is it an example of freedom and democracy when a citizen can talk about a prime minister as a blackguard, crook or liar?" replied Bilak. "You are right, this cannot be said in Czechoslovakia, because a blackguard, crook or liar cannot become Prime Minister in our country. The above characteristics cannot apply to a Czechoslovak President or Prime Minister. They are representatives of the people and not of some gang. To accuse someone without grounds of being a blackguard, crook or liar has nothing to do with freedom. It is, of course, slander which is punishable. If someone used such insults against you, you would surely sue him for slander or defamation of character, and with justification."

>>10991

Again, Marx and Engels saw socialization taking place via the state. As they wrote in the Manifesto: "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property. . . . When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character."

I don't know where you're getting talk of "literal socialism" or "regular socialism" in their writings.


 No.10994

opinion on Siad Barre? how was Somalia under him? what were some of his mistakes? i heard he committed a supposed genocide and according to Wikipedia gave rise to "tribalism" and cut ties to the USSR.


 No.10995

>>10994

Somalia made impressive gains in the first half of the 1970s when Barre, who called himself a socialist, carried out progressive reforms and received assistance from the USSR.

However, his was a nationalist "socialism." When revolution took place in Ethiopia and a socialist-oriented government came to power there, Barre eyed the Ogaden region of Ethiopia and, taking advantage of the weaknesses of the new Ethiopian government, invaded the region. Castro tried to convince Barre to agree to form a federation of Ethiopia, Somalia and South Yemen as a possible solution to the conflict, but Barre refused.

The Somali invasion was denounced by the OAU and was endangering the existence of the socialist-oriented government in Ethiopia. Accordingly, the USSR and Cuba assisted the Ethiopians in repelling the aggressors.

Barre then swung to the right, calling on the US to help it thwart Soviet "expansionism" in the Horn of Africa. From that point on Somalia became a US ally and put a halt to any progressive domestic policies. As corruption and opposition to Barre grew during the 80s, he relied more on pitting Somali clans against one-another as a way of staying in power.

So as you can see, he did more than make "mistakes." He went from directing Somalia from a socialist orientation to an anti-communist outpost. In that respect he was similar to Nimeiry of Sudan, Sadat, and other US-backed "socialists" in the region.


 No.10996

>>10995

Speaking of progressive reforms, is there any practical difference between a Marxist-Leninst state that carries out land, budget, and social reforms like many do and a liberal state that does the same, aside from supporting other ML regimes? It seems that the USSR and all those other states which call themselves socialist are, in practice, merely progressive.


 No.10997

>>10996

As Lenin pointed out on the first anniversary of the October Revolution, "We have consummated the bourgeois-democratic revolution as nobody had done before. We are advancing towards the socialist revolution consciously, firmly and unswervingly, knowing that it is not separated from the bourgeois-democratic revolution by a Chinese Wall, and knowing too that (in the last analysis) struggle alone will determine how far we shall advance, what part of this immense and lofty task we shall accomplish, and to what extent we shall succeed in consolidating our victories."

For example, when the Decree on Land was issued as one of the first measures of the revolution, it served the struggle for socialism by giving legal authority to the expropriation of the landowning nobility, even if the decree itself didn't bring socialist relations to the countryside.

By the time the USSR was carrying out its five-year plans and collectivizing agriculture, it had obviously moved beyond merely progressive reforms and was constructing socialism.

To give another example, in this case progressive reforms carried out in Albania shortly after WWII which nonetheless had a socialist goal in mind:

>[The new government] first confiscated the lands of the landowners and redistributed them among the farmers. According to the Agrarian Act of 1945, every farmer with a family of 5 members is allowed the use of 5 hectares (approximately 12.35 acres). That is all the land allotted to him. In case he has a larger family, he receives ½ a hectare for each additional member. But the farmer gets only the produce from the land. Ownership is vested in the state. . . .

>Unlike the landowners, [merchants] were not deprived of their property by outright confiscation. Instead, the government levied taxes so excessive that, even if they sold everything they possessed, they could not pay. If any merchants miraculously were able to pay their taxes, the government imposed a second tax. When they were unable to meet their obligations, the government confiscated their property. But as this seldom covered the required taxes, the merchants were imprisoned and their families were evicted from their homes.

(Source: "Albania within the Slav Orbit: Advent to Power of the Communist Party" by Stavro Skendi)

Obviously the source is anti-communist, but it gets the point across that stuff like taxation wasn't confined to making the wealthy elements "pay their fair share," as would occur under a liberal administration, but to gradually restrict and reduce the economic power of the exploiters.

Another thing to note with land reform is that, in order to give land to the landless peasants, the end result was often tiny plots that weren't very efficient to farm on. The liberal solution would be to allow the growth of capitalist agriculture as better-performing farmers buy out other peasants and hire them as laborers. However, workers' governments prohibited the buying or selling of land and prohibited hired labor. Instead, the existence of small plots was used as an incentive to get peasants to collectivize.

Post last edited at

 No.10998

Part of the core tenets of the labor theory of value is the notion of surplus value derived from the exploitation of workers, however isn't a lot of that surplus value used for upkeep of the business? Bosses don't even make that much more than workers do in comparison to the costs of operating the business, so it doesn't seem fair to say that capitalism is that grossly exploitative of workers. How much do people even work every day for their boss's salary, a few minutes? Or do they work even longer to account for the wealth of stock options that investors take stakes in and such? Even still, don't investments grow businesses, and it's really just a matter of regulation to ensure people get paid according to labor hours put in?


 No.10999

>>10998

The capitalist spends money on two things: constant capital (such as buying or repairing machinery and buildings) and variable capital (wages.)

The worker requires a certain amount of money to live. In order to acquire this money, he sells his labor-power to the capitalist. The capitalist pays the worker in wages that meet his basic needs, but the worker works hour slonger than is necessary to satisfy those needs. It is this unpaid portion which constitutes surplus-value, and is how the capitalist makes a profit.

Since surplus-value is the basis of profit, you cannot create regulations "ensur[ing that] people get paid according to labor hours put in" without wrecking the capitalist economy.

>however isn't a lot of that surplus value used for upkeep of the business?

Some profit has to be diverted to pay for repairs to continue the process of extracting surplus value, yes. I don't see the relevance.

>Bosses don't even make that much more than workers do in comparison to the costs of operating the business

The capitalist doesn't create value. He shouldn't be making anything.

Also, again, I don't see the relevance of writing "in comparison to the costs of operating the business." He knows he has to pay those costs or his else business will cease to be. It clearly doesn't prevent capitalists from amassing obscene wealth through huge profits, and they're always trying to reduce costs anyway.

Post last edited at

 No.11000

Do you believe that supporting Melenchon and his Social-Democratic party in France to stop right-wing / Liberal is that bad

Keep in mind in terms of their conception of socialism and communism the French "Communist" Party is pretty much identical to Melenchons party anyway


 No.11001

What was your opinion on the Cuban President basically doing a Mini world tour of all remaining Marxist / Marxist Allied states (Venezuela Nicaragua Vietnam Laos China DPRK) and basically stressing a need to stop bickering over territorial disputes and other issues?

I'm still concerned quite a bit about the nature of Cuba's Market reforms and Political opening (Allowing Individual free access to the internet) possibly giving way to counter revolution but that gave me some tbh


 No.11002

>>11000

From what little I've read, communists shouldn't come out in favor of Mélenchon. He isn't proposing anything that would "stop right-wing / Liberal." He seems to be basically akin to Bernie Sanders, a pro-imperialist "democratic socialist."

The PCF abandoned the dictatorship of the proletariat back in the 1970s. If it was willing to jettison a central concept of Marxism back then, I've no doubt it has further deviated to the right in the past three decades.


 No.11003

>>11001

I see nothing wrong with his tour. It's definitely important that the DPRK not be wooed by the United States and used as a wedge against China (which is what the Trump Administration is trying to do), just as it's important that disputes between China and Vietnam don't intensify, as that would only benefit US imperialism.


 No.11004

>>11002

How about Corbyn though? He seems a lot more genuinely left-wing than both Mélenchon and Sanders.


 No.11005

Why didn't the USSR send more support to the Portuguese republic after the fall of the Estado Novo?

For a brief period a Combination of the Communist party (Marxist) and Sympathetic generals controlled the country and even attempted to write a socialist constitution (Though the only article that survives till today is the one saying that the Portuguese people have a right to implement socialism if they wish)


 No.11006

>>11004

The UK's situation is a bit unique due to the Labour Party's trade union origins, and Corbyn is indeed to the left of Sanders and Mélenchon. I don't know enough about politics in Britain to comment, but I guess it depends what one means by "support." Communists should presumably run their own candidates in elections and point to the limitations of Corbyn's politics.

>>11005

How should the USSR have given it "more support"? It clearly welcomed the downfall of the Estado Novo and presumably provided funds to the Communist Party when it had a clandestine existence. But Portugal belonged to NATO, and there's only so much the Soviets could do.

Post last edited at

 No.11009

What do you think about Sukarno? Was he a leftist? Was he a Marxist , a communist?


 No.11010

>>11009

He never claimed to be a Marxist, and obviously didn't belong to the Communist Party of Indonesia.

He criticized Marxism as atheistic and saw class struggle as a consequence of imperialism, which spiritually corrupted Indonesians. He viewed Islam as the most "scientific" and "rational" religion, one which would combine with the struggle for national independence to produce a harmonious society.

He saw Communists as allies in the national struggle, but otherwise thought that time would convince them that Islam is good and one party must exist to represent the whole nation.

Whether Sukarno could be classed as a leftist is something I'm not sure about. He wasn't right-wing, but he didn't seem especially radical in his domestic policies.


 No.11011

What do you think about Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle?

What do you think about Marhaenism? Is it Marxist and left wing?


 No.11012

>>11011

>What do you think about Marhaenism? Is it Marxist and left wing?

That was Sukarno's ideology. As I said, "Whether Sukarno could be classed as a leftist is something I'm not sure about."

>What do you think about Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle?

Judging by its record in power, I'd say it's a bourgeois party.

Post last edited at

 No.11013

>>11012

Why do you think according to wiki some scholars argue that Marhaenism is a variant of Marxism


 No.11014

>>11013

I don't know. Soviet scholars used terms like "petty-bourgeois socialism" to refer to Sukarno's ideology.

Post last edited at

 No.11015

>>11014

You mentioned that Soviets allied with Sukarno becauseSukarno was seen as carrying out left-wing policies and opposing imperialism.

What were some of his left-wing policies?

How large were his anti-imperialist policies? Did he support ant- anti colonial movements?

What did he think about the Soviet Union?


 No.11016

>>11015

I haven't read up on his domestic policies, but in foreign affairs he was a major force behind the Bandung Conference, a precursor to the Non-Aligned Movement. He denounced colonialism and in fact ended up in a dispute with the imperialist powers over the West Irian region and over British intrigues in Malaysia.

He was somewhat closer to China (especially since the Communist Party in his country was pro-Chinese), but he tried to maintain stable relations with the US, USSR and China.


 No.11017

File: 0ca5c4a6ed7085a⋯.jpg (93.26 KB, 424x500, 106:125, Gamal Abdel Nasser.jpg)

What do you think about Gamal Abdel Nasser? Was he a leftist?


 No.11018

>>11017

No. He persecuted communists.

He was progressive in the sense that he opposed imperialism and carried out some positive reforms, but there were more left-wing elements around Nasser, like Ali Sabri, who ended up being sidelined in favor of Nasser's associate Sadat, who moved Egypt's foreign and domestic policies to the right.


 No.11019

>>11018

Why did he persecuted communists despite being somewhat left wing and allying with Soviet's against the west?

What do you think about Nasserism? Should it be supported?


 No.11020

>>11018

What did Nasser think about Soviets and vice versa?


 No.11021

>>11019

>Why did he persecuted communists despite being somewhat left wing and allying with Soviet's against the west?

Egypt's communist party was portrayed as trying to import a foreign ideology into Egypt, of trying to subordinate Egypt to a foreign power, of being incompatible with Islam, of being un-Arab, and of conspiring to overthrow the government. Obviously these were all rather absurd charges, but they were ones given back then. There was also Nasser's adoption of a single-party system, which meant other parties (including the Communists) were prohibited on principle.

>What do you think about Nasserism? Should it be supported?

Depends on the circumstances.

>>11020

Under Nasser, Egypt's relations with the USSR gradually improved over time, in large part because the Soviets provided the bulk of equipment for its military. The persecution of Egyptian communists did cause some consternation in the USSR, but the Soviets advised their Egyptian counterparts to disband the party and work within the ruling Arab Socialist Union, arguing that Egypt was pursuing a non-capitalist path toward socialism.


 No.11022

File: ed0a1e101334282⋯.jpg (109.46 KB, 363x280, 363:280, Unle Ho.jpg)

File: 4ba3ef2e34f194d⋯.jpg (107.17 KB, 750x625, 6:5, Ahmed Ben Bella.jpg)

How vitals was Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam in liberating Laos and Cambodia from Franco-American occupation? What role did Vietnam and Algeria take in destruction of French Colonial Empire?


 No.11023

>>11022

>How vitals was Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam in liberating Laos and Cambodia from Franco-American occupation?

The Laotian and Cambodian communist movements came into being thanks to the Vietnamese communists. That alone establishes Vietnam's importance.

>What role did Vietnam and Algeria take in destruction of French Colonial Empire?

The French defeat at Dien Bien Phu helped convince many Africans that France's colonial empire was in decline.

The Algerian War expedited the collapse of colonialism, and the newly-independent Algerian government gave aid to anti-colonial movements on the continent.


 No.11029

Despite them not establishing a dictatorship of the Proles and still operating within the framework of a Liberal Democracy (De-Facto'ly) do you think Nepal could be considered a Marxist state on account of the Communist parties almost complete dominance of politics after the last elections? (Basically every other party participating got crushed)

Also do you know anything of the economic policy of the Nepalese communist party?

All I really know of any of their policies at this point is that they wish to reorientate Nepal to be in China's Orbit instead of India? (For obvious reasons)


 No.11030

>>11029

>Also do you know anything of the economic policy of the Nepalese communist party?

I do not.

States are defined by their class character. Nepal's constitution defines it as "an independent, indivisible, sovereign, secular, inclusive democratic, socialism-oriented federal democratic republican state" and that the intention is to establish the foundations for a socialist economy.

So long as Nepal's Communists pursue this road, it would be fair to call it socialist-oriented. I wouldn't call it a "Marxist state" since the Communists have no formal vanguard role in the constitution (and also the term itself is a bit imprecise, since it defines a state by ideology.)


 No.11031

was Sankara a Marxist-Leninist? i know he read Lenin and supposedly had a bust of him on his desk, but i've never seen people directly reference him as anything other than a regular old Marxist or an "African socialist". what system was closest to that of the one in Burkina Faso? what was his opinion on countries like the USSR and China? was he one of the "anti-revisionist" types?


 No.11032

>>11031

When Sankara and friends first came to power, Sankara said on having recently visited Libya: "We saw social achievements in Libya—hospitals, schools, houses, and all of it available for free. . . If we could transform Upper Volta [old name for Burkina Faso] tomorrow the way Qaddafi has transformed Libya, would you be pleased, yes or no?" Those assembled shouted "Yes!" Sankara added that the government is non-aligned, in favor of good relations with all "camps" (the West, the East, etc.)

On ideology he said, "They accuse us of being communists, and they tell the people that communism is bad. We have no intention of telling you that communism is good, nor of telling you the opposite. We intend only to tell you that we will take actions with you and for you. The label that will be pinned on these actions matters little."

A year later he was writing, "The great revolution in October 1917 transformed the world, brought victory to the proletariat, shook the foundations of capitalism, and made possible the Paris Commune's dreams of justice."

On the other hand, he criticized both the US invasion of Grenada and the Soviet intervention of Afghanistan as equivalent and in 1985 was interviewed by the Intercontinental Press (associated with the US SWP, a Trot party.) He told the interviewer that, "We have a very, very great admiration for the Cuban Revolution" and referred to the USSR's aid to that country as internationalist in character.

In a different interview, Sankara said Lenin's State and Revolution "provides an answer to problems that require a revolutionary solution. On the other hand, the Bible and the Koran allow us to synthesize what peoples thought in the past and what they continue to think, in time and space. . . Muhammad was a revolutionary who turned a society upside down. Jesus was too, but his revolution remained unfinished. He ends up being abstract, while Muhammad was able to be more materialist. We received the word of Christ as a message capable of saving us from the real misery we lived in, as a philosophy of qualitative transformation of the world. But we were disappointed by the use to which it was put. When we had to look for something else, we found the class struggle."

I can't find anything about Sankara formally considering himself a Marxist-Leninist, but he was clearly influenced by the ideology and he worked alongside avowed MLs in the government, ironically including the man who overthrew him and ruled the country with France's support until being recently ousted (Blaise Compaoré.)

>was he one of the "anti-revisionist" types?

As the quotes above show, obviously not, although there was a pro-Hoxha party in the country which split, one side opposing Sankara's government and the other supporting it and having a member in the cabinet. Sankara sent a letter of condolences to the Party of Labour of Albania when Hoxha died.

But yeah his foreign policy was basically just praising every single leftist or left-wing country on the planet and denouncing imperialism. Sankara visited Beijing in 1984 and met with Deng, but it seems China had no particular attraction to him.

Post last edited at

 No.11033

How exactly are right wingers idealist, and why precisely is such a methodology wrong in relation to the materialism of Marxism? Does it have to do with how they tend to justify solutions with cherry-picked evidence instead of using analysis to arrive at a solution last?


 No.11035

File: 6714c65d20bccf4⋯.pdf (433.68 KB, A-Course-in-Marxism.pdf)

File: 3cc1234bb8f269a⋯.pdf (117 KB, Introducing_Marxist_Econom….pdf)

>>10956

Personally I found "Value, Price and Profit" the best intro to Marxist economics written by Marx himself that i've read. If the first paragraphs are somewhat unclear, you should start from §4 onwards which is the most important part of the text and less confusing/boring than the beginning. PDF here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf

The other PDFs I attached are another very concise intro to Marxist economics and a (pretty extensive) reading list that you may find useful.


 No.11037

>>11033

Bourgeois ideology is idealist, doesn't matter if one is talking about American-style liberals or Republican Party supporters.

In general bourgeois ideologists see history as a battle of "ideals" forwarded by "heroic" or "villainous" individuals. Many conservatives go even further and argue that the US Constitution was divinely inspired, which is obviously not materialist thinking.

Bourgeois ideologists also speak of concepts like "natural law," that capitalist property relations are best suited to "human nature" (just as feudal nobility and slaveowners would argue their systems were the most natural), etc.


 No.11038

File: 8d9fe03fa0d79c2⋯.png (204.21 KB, 1080x1386, 60:77, IMG_20181211_094834.png)

I wonder if you anons have an answer for this question, or whether another instant and permanent ban is coming my way for asking it?

How is marxism not identity politics?

(Substitute 'class' with 'race', and you don't sound much different from /pol/)


 No.11039

>>11038

It's in your class interests to fight for socialism even when you don't "identify" with other people of your class in any way. However, it's not in your interests whatsoever to fight for "your race" (outside of an identitarian perspective) since that only benefits the ideology of the national bourgeoisie.


 No.11040

>>11038

Well, what do you mean by "identity politics"?

According to the Webster dictionary definition, "politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group."

That doesn't describe Marxism. The working-class aims to unite all exploited and oppressed segments of society under its banner by recognizing that capitalism is the main obstacle to be overcome.

One of John Brown's associates wrote of him that he "condemned the sale of land as a chattel, and thought that there was an infinite number of wrongs to right before society would be what it should be, but that in our country slavery was the 'sum of all villanies,' and its abolition the first essential work."

By struggling against an exploitative system, Brown was able to draw the sympathy of broad sections of the people (to the extent that he, a devout Christian, was effortlessly able to enlist Jews and agnostics by his side.)

By the time slavery was abolished, the struggle against it was joined by practically every segment of society, from the industrial bourgeoisie to Marxists (both of whom could be found in the Republican Party at that early date.)


 No.11041

>>11039

It's the process of "othering" that is the issue. Marxists will put capitalists against the wall as readily as natsocs will put jews against the wall. (and has anyone connected the dots to your common bogeyman, yet?)

>>11040

>According to the Webster dictionary definition, "politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group."

That doesn't describe Marxism

Apart from the social identity.

Proles vs bourgies. Nazis vs jews. If you're not with us, you're against us.

Pick your own dichotomy.

I really don't see much difference.


 No.11042

>>11041

>and has anyone connected the dots to your common bogeyman, yet?

There are no connections. The Nazis attacked Jews as Jews, whether the latter were workers or capitalists. Meanwhile the Nazis had no problem serving the interests of "truly German" companies such as I.G. Farben and Krupp, which enriched themselves off of war and concentration camp labor. Anti-Semitism was used to help perpetuate capitalism in Germany.

As for dichotomies, to return to my earlier example, slaves versus slaveowners was an entirely legitimate distinction to make. The world versus the Jews isn't.

Your attitude is akin to pacifists who hold all acts of violence equally wrong regardless of context.

Post last edited at

 No.11043

>>11023

>and the newly-independent Algerian government gave aid to anti-colonial movements on the continent.

Do you know any specific examples of support to any groups? Did Sukarno's Indonesia support any anti colonial groups?


 No.11047

File: 5ff8597829e14cc⋯.jpg (20.98 KB, 234x312, 3:4, Ahmed Ben Bella.jpg)

Yes, Che [Guevara] had come to Algiers bringing me the message from Fidel Castro whom I had encountered two times. He asked us to support the struggles that were developing in South America, as Cuba couldn’t do anything; it had been under the control of the United States that occupied Guantánamo Bay. Therefore nothing could leave Cuba, not even a box of matches, without the United States knowing about it. I didn’t hesitate for a second. It’s from Algeria, and with the participation of Che, who stayed with us six months, that the state major of the liberation army of South America was created. I can say now: all the combatants who participated in the fight for freedom in South America came to Algeria; it’s from there that all those who fought left. We trained them, we arranged for the weapons to reach them, we created networks.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article138838.html

What a MAN!


 No.11048

Do you think that with the Inaguration of the New Mexican president and the ensuing normalisation of relations with the Cuba / Negotiation with the rebellion in the South that Mexico may have a chance to become a socialist aligned state?


 No.11049

>>11042

I see you sidestepping the issue of "othering". Duly noted.

>There are no dots. The Nazis attacked Jews as Jews.

Okay. Why? (Hint - dots)

>You're assuming dichotomies are necessarily bad.

Just false ones.

>As for dichotomies, to return to my earlier example, slaves versus slaveowners was an entirely legitimate distinction to make. The world versus the Jews isn't.

Do you think that the bankers and other porky capitalists (the marxist's "other") being jewish is just a spooky coincidence?

And, seeing as you mentioned (won't shut up about) slavery, yes, the abolition of slavery in the west was a good thing, but when will we see the end of slavery globally? Starting with the middle east. Have you got the testes to go to mecca and tell allah he was wrong? Oh no, you can't; the saudi's have some apartheid shit that doesn't allow infidels anywhere near the kaaba...

/tangeant... yes, i'm anti-everything.

>Your attitude is akin to pacifists who hold all acts of violence equally wrong regardless of context.

My attitude is that I have seen both parties eager for their version of DOTR.


 No.11050

>>11043

African National Congress is one that comes to mind, also the Polisario Front.

>Did Sukarno's Indonesia support any anti colonial groups?

I'm not aware of any.

>>11048

I think that's giving the new Mexican government a bit too much credit.


 No.11051

>>11049

>Do you think that the bankers and other porky capitalists (the marxist's "other") being jewish is just a spooky coincidence?

Caused by the historical condition that Christians were barred from engaging in usury, so it was outsourced to Jews. But it doesn't matter because the ethnicity does matter when it comes to the position you hold in society.


 No.11052

>>11049

>Okay. Why?

Because they claimed Jews were trying to morally corrupt German society, destroy the economy, and weaken it militarily on behalf of Britain, France, the USSR, etc.

They also created a false dichotomy between exploiting Jews and exploited gentiles in Weimar-era Germany.

>Do you think that the bankers and other porky capitalists (the marxist's "other") being jewish is just a spooky coincidence?

Yes. Replace every Jewish banker with a gentile and the latter will behave no differently.

>seeing as you mentioned (won't shut up about) slavery, yes, the abolition of slavery in the west was a good thing

Which isn't my point. You went on about Marxism being bad because it engages in "othering." I said there was nothing wrong with that, as plenty of movements, nowadays recognized as just, engaged in "othering" their opponents. The American Revolution similarly "othered" the British colonialists and the loyalists.

The real question is to ask *why* this "othering" exists. We Marxists argue it is because of class struggle, which inevitably arises out of class society.

>but when will we see the end of slavery globally? Starting with the middle east.

With the overthrow of imperialism and the reactionary regimes it supports.

The imperialists have given billions of dollars to the Saudis for decades. They have unstintingly supported the House of Saud against all manner of opposition on the part of the people of Arabia, including by Marxists who would resolutely uproot all slaveowning and feudal practices.

Post last edited at

 No.11053

File: 1465f73a0289e56⋯.jpg (32.92 KB, 638x360, 319:180, Mandela Castro.jpg)

>>11050

>African National Congress

Very nice! Do you know anything specific or can recommend any books?


 No.11054


 No.11055

>>11054

>>11053

Talking about South Africa....

Is the SACP still a viable party or is it simply an orbiter to the CCP

Also thoughts on the EFF?


 No.11056

>>11055

From what I've read (admittedly not a lot), the SACP is very much attached to the ANC, to the extent it has spent the last two decades covering up for any retreats and even reactionary actions (e.g. shooting striking miners) pursued by the government.

If it is possible for communists inside the party to make it pursue a better course, they should do so.

As for the EFF, I'll quote what I said in the last thread: "I don't know enough about them to comment."


 No.11057

>>11056

>>11055

*orbiter to the ANC

Sorry


 No.11058

Can i get a TLDR on the History of Burma / Myanmar from the start to end of its socialist period?

Also what was the "Burmese Path to socialism" and was it as disastrous as it was made out to be?


 No.11059

>>11041

>Marxists will put capitalists against the wall as readily as natsocs will put jews against the wall

Yep, and the former is justified while the latter isn't. What about this don't you understand?


 No.11060

>>11058

It isn't a country I've studied, although from what I recall reading the black market was pretty much how anything got done in the country since the state-owned enterprises were notoriously mismanaged.

However, I have scanned two Soviet works (one of them just now, since you made this post) that have chapters on Burma:

* https://archive.org/details/SoutheastAsiaHistoryEconomyPolicy/page/n115 (this focuses on its history from the end of WWII to the end of the 60s)

* https://archive.org/details/NationalLiberationUlyanovsky (pages 265-304, focuses on the period that the USSR described as socialist-oriented, i.e. 1962 onward, and analyzes the Burmese conception of socialism)


 No.11061

>>11059

Murder is never justifiable, no matter what your or your victim believe in.

If it's okay for bourgies to get the bullet, then it's also okay for nazis to bullet jews, for jihadis to bullet kefir and for me to bullet you.


 No.11062

>>11052

>Because they claimed Jews were trying to morally corrupt German society, destroy the economy, and weaken it militarily on behalf of Britain, France, the USSR, etc.

The jews have been expunged from more countries than any other group. Is what you described 'normal jewish behaviour', or just propaganda? I think, a little from column A, a little from column B.

>They also created a false dichotomy between exploiting Jews and exploited gentiles in Weimar-era Germany.

...similar to the belief that all capitalists bad and capitalism bad, I would say.

>Do you think that the bankers and other porky capitalists (the marxist's "other") being jewish is just a spooky coincidence?

Yes. Replace every Jewish banker with a gentile and the latter will behave no differently.

Maybe. But that wouldn't have changed hitler's attitude towards bankers, you'd still have a common enemy.

>seeing as you mentioned (won't shut up about) slavery, yes, the abolition of slavery in the west was a good thing

Which isn't my point. You went on about Marxism being bad because it engages in "othering." I said there was nothing wrong with that, as plenty of movements, nowadays recognized as just, engaged in "othering" their opponents. The American Revolution similarly "othered" the British colonialists and the loyalists.

>nothing wrong with that

Except when the "far right" are othering minorities, amirite?

Othering is part of the process of dehimanisation, which makes killing bankers easier on your conscience, yes?

>The real question is to ask *why* this "othering" exists. We Marxists argue it is because of class struggle, which inevitably arises out of class society.

Some people are born wealthy and use it for some truly altruistic purposes. Would they be also against the wall just because of their class identity?

but when will we see the end of slavery globally? Starting with the middle east.

>With the overthrow of imperialism and the reactionary regimes it supports.

>The imperialists have given billions of dollars to the Saudis for decades. They have unstintingly supported the House of Saud against all manner of opposition on the part of the people of Arabia, including by Marxists who would resolutely uproot all slaveowning and feudal practices.

So... no testes, then? Not going to overthrow the house of saud's imperialism (and their booming slave trade), just going after the ex-imperialists of the former British empire (that outlawed slavery almost 200 years ago)?


 No.11066

>>11061

is this the power of radical centrism? your ban on /leftypol/ was certainly justified.

the difference between Marxists and Nazis is that we don't want to genocide a people, we want to dismantle a system which is responsible for exploitation of the worker, imperialism, etc. Nazis on the other hand just want to kill ethnic groups because they have built up the belief that Jews and minorities are the root of societies problems. there is no proof behind this, unlike the obvious reality of the capitalist system.

if you honestly can't see the difference between the people wanting to take back what is theirs and a bunch of fascists who want to kill non-whites because it gets in the way of their ethnostate, then you are deluded. do you also think we shouldn't kill paedophiles, murderers, and other people responsible for suffering? what about killing Nazis? this idea that all "murder" is the same is idealistic dribble and is the kind of nonsense that enables the very people responsible for oppressing the masses.

there is literally nothing wrong with giving people what they deserve. are you really going to let capitalists step all over you because killing them would be mean ;_; and is somehow the same as Nazis killing Jews? no tolerance for the intolerant.


 No.11067

File: 758b5f452e30729⋯.png (42.48 KB, 890x498, 445:249, Beautifull red flag!.png)

Burma and Burmese road to socialism is something I wanted to ask about for some time now. You said that you don't know much about it, but perhaps you could answer few broad questions.

1. How and why did Burma turn socialist?

2. Do you consider it socialist?

3. According to wiki before turning socialist Burma was rich and prosperous, but because of socialist policy and isolationism it became poor. How much truth is to that claim?

4. How was economy like?

5. Was it really isolationist like Albania?

6. Was it allied with Soviet Union or was it isolationist ?

7. What was it's relationships with socialist Vietnam,Laos and Cambodia?

8. Why did it fail, but Vietnam is still socialist?


 No.11068

File: e99d93b129f02c3⋯.webm (7.64 MB, 540x360, 3:2, [this is your brain on po….webm)


 No.11069

>>11066

Checked, but only for 'radical centrist'

>the difference between Marxists and Nazis is that we don't want to genocide a people, we want to dismantle a system which is responsible for exploitation of the worker, imperialism, etc.

>new, improved, Dismantle™ (up to 6 million dead bankers is not a genocide or your money back)

>unlike the obvious reality of the capitalist system.

Unfortunately, there are those that employ corporate cronyism with a facade of capitalism. Are you really going to tar all business owners with the same brush? Or is it just the global mega-corporations?

>if you honestly can't see the difference between the people wanting to take back what is theirs and a bunch of fascists who want to kill non-whites because it gets in the way of their ethnostate, then you are deluded.

If you honestly cannot see the similarities between your stated goals and those of your adversaries, it it you that needs help with your delusions.

Nazis didn't want to kill non-whites, especially not their non-white allies during WWII. No, they wanted socialism for all, but separate from each other.

>do you also think we shouldn't kill paedophiles, murderers, and other people responsible for suffering? what about killing Nazis? this idea that all "murder" is the same is idealistic dribble and is the kind of nonsense that enables the very people responsible for oppressing the masses.

I am against the death penalty for convicted felons, but think prison should be a lot tougher than the current holiday camp conditions.

>there is literally nothing wrong with giving people what they deserve.

What do you deserve? To you adhere to the 'golden rule'?

>are you really going to let capitalists step all over you...

As a capitalist, no.

>... because killing them would be mean ;_; and is somehow the same as Nazis killing Jews?

Murder is murder, your beliefs and those of your victim are irrelevant.

>no tolerance for the intolerant.

Ditto.


 No.11070

>>11069

Typo: *Do you adhere


 No.11071

>>11062

>The jews have been expunged from more countries than any other group. Is what you described 'normal jewish behaviour', or just propaganda?

This addresses that question: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/7295lg/antisemitism_is_historically_a_result_of_jewish/

>...similar to the belief that all capitalists bad and capitalism bad, I would say.

No it isn't. Nazi opposition to Judaism was based on supposed "race science." Marxist opposition to capitalism is based on economics.

>Maybe. But that wouldn't have changed hitler's attitude towards bankers, you'd still have a common enemy.

Nazis generally use "bankers" as an euphemism for Jews. The very fact they fixate on "bankers" rather than capitalism is itself suspect.

>Except when the "far right" are othering minorities, amirite?

Yes, since obviously what you describe as "othering" can mean different things in different contexts. Fascists scapegoating non-whites for the benefit of the capitalist class is opposed by us.

>Othering is part of the process of dehimanisation, which makes killing bankers easier on your conscience, yes?

Our task isn't to kill people. The capitalist's property can be expropriated or otherwise gradually transferred to state ownership, while the capitalist is able to live life anew as a non-exploiting member of society. All socialist countries have sought this route to greater or lesser extents, dictated by the degree of resistance from the capitalist class.

As Engels explained on the possibility of a peaceful transfer of power, "It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. . . But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words."

>Some people are born wealthy and use it for some truly altruistic purposes. Would they be also against the wall just because of their class identity?

An exploiter is such regardless of whatever he does to "atone" for his exploiting others. So long as the capitalist is willing to work with the workers' state to immediately or gradually socialize his property, he has nothing to fear, not even imprisonment.

>Not going to overthrow the house of saud's imperialism (and their booming slave trade), just going after the ex-imperialists of the former British empire (that outlawed slavery almost 200 years ago)?

Again, the best way for people in the United States, Britain, and other imperialist countries to overthrow the House of Saud is to put an end to its sources of foreign support. What you seem to be proposing is a "humanitarian" imperialism, like that used against the former Yugoslavia and against Ba'athist Iraq and Libya.

>>11069

>Are you really going to tar all business owners with the same brush? Or is it just the global mega-corporations?

Marx and Engels, as early as the Communist Manifesto, differentiated between what was called the petty-bourgeoisie (small shopowners, self-employed, etc.) and the bourgeoisie. The former are a vacillating class, afraid of being run out of business by the capitalists but also fearful of dropping down into the ranks of the workers. Nonetheless, many elements within the petty-bourgeoisie can serve as allies of the working-class, just like many peasants could.

>>11067

I haven't studied Burma that much. The Soviets themselves described it as being "socialist-oriented" (i.e. not socialist, but in that direction.) From what I've read, the military government resorted to socialistic policies in order to bring stability to the country and try to get the Communists and other guerrillas to stop fighting (which wasn't a success.)

I can't comment on its economy, but I've never heard of anyone describing it as performing well. It apparently had somewhat cordial ties with the USSR but otherwise kept its distance. I don't know how isolationist it was in terms of its peoples' access to foreign information.

>What was it's relationships with socialist Vietnam,Laos and Cambodia?

Ne Win apparently refused to oppose US aggression against Vietnam because he wanted a US presence in the region as a counterweight to China.

>Why did it fail, but Vietnam is still socialist?

Vietnam carried out market reforms in the 1980s that grew the economy. Burma's junta apparently never seriously tried any such reforms, and also the military had much greater political power in Burma than in Vietnam and therefore it was easier for the Burmese government to be overthrown.


 No.11077

>>11069

>Unfortunately, there are those that employ corporate cronyism with a facade of capitalism.

>not real capitalism

everytime.

and as Ismail stated, there are distinctions between small and large business owners.

>Nazis

>wanted socialism

by privatising the economy, purging all the "left-leaning" elements of the NSDAP, persecuting socialists, invading and attempting to destroy the Soviet Union and "Jewish Bolshevism"? what kind of "socialism" is that? only in name, nothing the Nazis did was socialist in nature. and don't give me that "socialism but not marxism" bullshit, you can't just steal the term socialism, get rid of everything that makes it socialist, then claim that it's yours (or that you're the "real socialists" like i see a lot of National Socialists do).


 No.11078

Why did Leftcom thought take root in Germany in Spain, which arguably lead them to fail their revolutions as they were more disorganized? Was it just a chance thing of leaders, and how come fascism was more prevalent in those countries than was communism? My hunch is that fascists want to make things "great" as they were in the past -- Spain and Germany were both developed countries that had a stronger influence of nationalism/capitalism as a result of their industrialization. Didn't Marx foresee this, in thinking rather that the industrialized nations should lead the revolutions?


 No.11079

>>11078

>Why did Leftcom thought take root in Germany

Before the October Revolution, the left-wing elements in the socialist parties reacted to the opportunism and reformism of these parties' leaderships by embracing syndicalism, abstaining from parliaments, and other ultra-left positions.

This was reflected in the early years of the KPD. Even Luxemburg was overruled when she argued against the party boycotting the Constituent Assembly elections. One of the tasks of the Comintern was to "Bolshevize" the communist parties to remove right-opportunist and left-deviationist policies.

But "left-communism" as people understand the term today didn't really exist in Germany. In fact its most prominent proponents in the early 1920s were Dutch: Anton Pannekoek and Herman Gorter.

>in Spain

There was no "leftcom thought" in Spain. Also Spain was not a developed country; the Comintern envisioned a bourgeois-democratic revolution taking place as a precursor to socialist revolution.

It was in part due to Spain's backwardness that anarchism gained a strong influence among the rural laborers.

Post last edited at

 No.11080

>>11079

I thought Spain had a ton of various socialist and communist factions which were mostly left-com, being separate from ML and more democratic in nature, and which were represented in the different interests during the civil war.

And still, how come the revolutions in Germany and Spain failed, whereas the one in Russia succeeded? Was it just a matter of chance, who led the armies?


 No.11081

Why is there such a strong conservative influence in the CPCh regarding Confuzianism? The problem with their idea of "social cohesion", "social harmony" seems to be almost fascist in character considering that China has capitalists unlike the USSR.

I mean it's especially strange considering the Cultural Revolution was basically targeted against Confuzianism.


 No.11082

File: 57e6432adea377e⋯.jpg (31.11 KB, 462x312, 77:52, Ben.jpg)

Yes, Che [Guevara] had come to Algiers bringing me the message from Fidel Castro whom I had encountered two times. He asked us to support the struggles that were developing in South America, as Cuba couldn’t do anything; it had been under the control of the United States that occupied Guantánamo Bay. Therefore nothing could leave Cuba, not even a box of matches, without the United States knowing about it. I didn’t hesitate for a second. It’s from Algeria, and with the participation of Che, who stayed with us six months, that the state major of the liberation army of South America was created. I can say now: all the combatants who participated in the fight for freedom in South America came to Algeria; it’s from there that all those who fought left. We trained them, we arranged for the weapons to reach them, we created networks.

Che came in 1963, shortly after I had come to power. With my government, we engaged in bringing our help to fights for national freedom. At that precise moment, several countries were still colonised or had barely overcome colonisation. This was the case in practically all of Africa. We supported them. Mr. Mandela and Mr. Amilcar Cabral themselves came to Algeria. It’s me who coached them; afterwards they returned to lead the fight for freedom in their countries. For other movements, which were not involved in a military fight and who needed only political support, such as Mali, we helped in other ways.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article138838.html

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/12/07/Minister-Mandela-received-his-first-military-training-in-Algeria.html

What a MAN!


 No.11083

>>11080

>I thought Spain had a ton of various socialist and communist factions which were mostly left-com

Nope. There was basically the PCE (i.e. the Communists), the PSOE (i.e. Social-Democrats), the CNT-FAI (Anarcho-Syndicalists), and the POUM (which like many anarchists saw what was occurring in Spain as a proletarian revolution, but which wasn't left-com.)

>And still, how come the revolutions in Germany and Spain failed, whereas the one in Russia succeeded?

They're three entirely different situations. Very briefly:

* The Provisional Government that came to power after the downfall of Tsarism was very weak and was continuing Russia's involvement in World War I. Alongside the government were the soviets of workers, soldiers and peasants whose leaders (the Mensheviks and SRs) were indispensable in keeping the Provisional Government in power.

However, by backing the continued participation in the imperialist war, the Mensheviks lost much of the working-class base, which switched over to the Bolsheviks in the course of 1917. By November that year the Bolsheviks had a majority in the major soviets and overthrow the despised Provisional Government.

* The Kaiser was overthrown a year later, but the new government was in the hands of the SPD, which claimed to be Marxist but which zealously prevented a proletarian revolution in the country. Meanwhile the KPD had only formed after the Kaiser's overthrow and was badly organized. The SPD government was able to use the efficiently-run Freikorps to suppress the multiple risings of the KPD.

* In Spain the PCE (and Comintern) argued the immediate issue was not proletarian revolution, but the defense of the bourgeois-democratic Republic against a fascist revolt. The Republic lost mainly because of the policy of "non-intervention" forced on it by Britain and France, which prevented it from getting arms from either country while Italy and Germany were able to send troops and planes to help the Francoists with impunity.

>>11081

>Why is there such a strong conservative influence in the CPCh regarding Confuzianism?

I haven't read up on the subject.


 No.11084

>>11081

I wouldn't call ideas of social harmony and cohesion as inherently "fascistic" in character. These type of ideas seem rooted in Chinese culture in one way or another and what exactly that means can vary on depending who you ask. Kang Youwei, for example, was a part of the reformist Confucianism movement and author of the book Ta-t'ung-shu (大同書, Universal Harmony), which explained that the world evolved from a state of primitive disorder up to a coming great unity (ta-t'ung or 大同). In the last stage there would be a disappearance of social classes, borders, a universal civilization and peace, along with an abolition of the family, private property, etc. This figure also influenced Mao to some degree, as he references him in "On People's Democratic Dictatorship"

>Kang yu-wei wrote Ta Tung Shu ... but he did not and could not find the way to achieve Great Harmony

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_65.htm

Chinese words above are in the old romanization so I gave the characters if you want to search around for this stuff


 No.11085

File: 1e1762fde552c11⋯.jpg (44.99 KB, 650x419, 650:419, 1e1762fde552c119075bc8fcb0….jpg)

did any changes happen to the DPRK after Kim Il Sung died besides stuff like Songun? did Kim Jong Il run the country any different than his father? how about Jong Un? all i know is something about "special economic zones" but i have no idea what their functions are or how much of an impact they have on the country. did the DPRK attitude towards revisionism take a shift from the 90s onward? not like they have anyone to call revisionist nowadays, besides China maybe.


 No.11087

>>11085

There were already discussions about creating special economic zones when Kim Il Sung was alive. Attempts to attract large-scale foreign investment have floundered in part due to tensions with the US and reluctance among many officials.

>did the DPRK attitude towards revisionism take a shift from the 90s onward?

No, DPRK history books to this day mention the rise of "modern revisionism" in the 1950s-60s and how Kim Il Sung opposed it, and Kim Jong Il's "Respecting the Forerunners of the Revolution is a Noble Moral Obligation of Revolutionaries" praised Stalin.

Kim Jong Un seems to be trying to modernize the economy (Kim Jong Il spent a lot of years just trying to recover from famine.)


 No.11088

>>11016

>Bandung Conference

>Major debate centered around the question of whether Soviet policies in Eastern Europe and Central Asia should be censured along with Western colonialism. A memo was submitted by 'The Moslem Nations under Soviet Imperialism', accusing the Soviet authorities of massacres and mass deportations in Muslim regions, but it was never debated.[7] A consensus was reached in which "colonialism in all of its manifestations" was condemned, implicitly censuring the Soviet Union, as well as the West

Was Soviet Union colonialist? Was it anti colonialist? What did nations decide?


 No.11090

>>11088

No, it wasn't colonialist. Not only did it actively support anti-colonial movements abroad, but it liberated non-Russians from Tsarist colonial policy.

". . . the regime's economic policy as a whole does not discriminate against the minority areas and their economic development in favor of the Great Russians. Soviet industrialization was, of course, based on forced savings, which the government extracted for investment at the cost of popular consumption. But the minorities were not asked to bear a disproportionate share of the resulting hardships of a depressed living standard. The burden fell on all; in fact, it might be argued that the Great Russian majority initially made the greater sacrifice in order to permit the development of the capital-hungry, economically backward areas.

One economist has estimated, for example, that while the all-Union living standard fell markedly during the 1930's, in the four republics of Central Asia (not counting Kazakhstan), it may actually have improved to a slight degree. At the time the local economy was undergoing rapid change, as indicated by the fact that industrial output, which had been negligible, multiplied between six and nine times over between 1928 and 1937. Such an increase could only have been accomplished by the substantial investment of capital drawn from other parts of the country and by the application of new technology. Such help was even more important to the agriculture of the region.

In the initial stage of European colonial development, substantial capital was invested in the colonies, but often only in order to create a one-crop economy that in the long run was economically disadvantageous to the local people. There was an element of this approach in the Soviet regime's insistence on the expansion of cotton acreage in Central Asia, usually at the expense of existing wheat crops. But the area was not treated simply as a vast cotton plantation for the rest of the Soviet Union. On the contrary, existing resources of other kinds were widely developed. A hydro-electric power industry was developed, the output of which increased 8.5 times over in the period 1928-37. Earlier virtually all cotton had been shipped to Russia to be made into textiles, which in turn had to be shipped back, but in the 1930's a substantial textile industry was established in Tashkent. Leather shoe-making was established to utilize the hides from the region's extensive herds. These efforts make it evident that capital was retained in the area and not syphoned off for accumulation at the center. The data already cited on the growth of education and other cultural and social facilities similarly indicate that a goodly share of the returns accrued from exploitation of the region's natural wealth was reinvested in raising standards in the region.

Although the central Asian case may be one of the more outstanding examples, it reflects the general pattern of Soviet policy in the economic development of backward areas. The allocation of investment during the process of economic expansion has not in any significant degree been guided by considerations of nationality, but rather by those of economic efficiency or the defense needs of the country. And the benefits—as well as the burdens—which have resulted from economic development have been more or less equally shared by all peoples of the Soviet Union."

(Inkeles, Alex. "Nationalities in the USSR." Problems of Communism Vol. 9 No. 3 (May 1960). pp. 33-34.)

>What did nations decide?

What do you mean?


 No.11092

>>11090

>What do you mean?

What did Nations of the conference decide?Did they decide that Soviet Union was colonialist or anti imperialist?


 No.11094

>>11092

As the quote you gave notes, "A consensus was reached in which 'colonialism in all of its manifestations' was condemned, implicitly censuring the Soviet Union, as well as the West"


 No.11095

File: 53ca71115bfb878⋯.jpg (118.18 KB, 700x930, 70:93, Soviet officers pose durin….jpg)

File: e1764a723f7b00d⋯.jpg (153.42 KB, 951x645, 317:215, A group of Soviet advisors….jpg)

File: afb55148002bbba⋯.jpg (163.28 KB, 988x800, 247:200, Ho Chi Minh moscow.jpg)

>>11094

Did they change their mind over time?


 No.11096

>>11095

Considering that the Bandung Conference was a forerunner of the Non-Aligned Movement, and the NAM was filled with both pro-Soviet and pro-US countries, I doubt the latter organization was ever explicitly like "the USSR isn't colonialist."

As far as the Bandung organizers went, India's relations with the USSR improved during the 1960s and especially 70s, to the extent that it refused to denounce Soviet intervention in Afghanistan whereas many other third world countries (even ones having fairly cordial relations with the USSR) did.

Indonesia of course had a CIA-backed coup that brought Suharto to power, and Sadat moved to the right and aligned with the US, so they weren't likely to change their mind.


 No.11097

File: 1820fc5b824f58a⋯.jpg (52.89 KB, 630x541, 630:541, colonialism.jpg)

File: 16d0b13239dc03a⋯.png (45.12 KB, 1350x625, 54:25, World literacy.png)

File: a6390ba80d7df6f⋯.png (1.69 MB, 1492x1578, 746:789, post colonialism.png)

>>11096

>Indonesia of course had a CIA-backed coup that brought Suharto to power, and Sadat moved to the right and aligned with the US, so they weren't likely to change their mind.

Why did certain people and nations aligned with the west? I can understand disliking Soviet Union, but they could at leas remain against both groups. Specifically I am wondering why did certain nations that had just won their independence like Egypt or Indonesia aligned with the west at one time or another?


 No.11098

>>11097

I can assume they got benefits from it, a la Marshall Plan but to a lesser extent. Probably wanted to be the next Japan or Taiwan.


 No.11099

>>11098

I know that Sukarno was overthrown, Nasser's work was undone by Sadat whose work was somewhat undone by Mubarak. Patrice Lumumba was overthrown. So there were a lot of coups and assassination's, but otherwise I agree with you.


 No.11100

>>11098

In two years, there were 22 military coups d’etat, essentially in Africa and the third world. The coup d’etat of Algiers, in 1965, is what opened the path. Algeria was therefore only the beginning of something that was in development: this is why I say that it’s the global capitalist system that finally reacted against us.

In two years, there were 22 military coups d’etat, essentially in Africa and the third world.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article138838.html


 No.11101

File: 265ccbc2584325f⋯.jpg (38.85 KB, 622x413, 622:413, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara ….jpg)

Do you know anything about Algerian-Cuban relations? I assume Ben Bella didn't lie that Algerians trained Latin American guerrillas, do you know anything more about that? After all Cuba did help Algeria in Sand War and Arab States during Yom Kippur War?


 No.11102

>>11097

Many newly-independent countries had neo-colonial leaderships cultivated during the pre-independence period, Houphouët-Boigny of Côte d'Ivoire being a good example.

As for Egypt and Indonesia, economic problems were used as one of the pretexts to turn away from any socialist course, and anti-communism was used as an excuse as well (e.g. Sadat promoted Islamist groups to oppose communists within Egyptian society.)

>>11101

There's an article by Piero Gleijeses, "Cuba's First Venture in Africa: Algeria, 1961-1965," but besides that I got nothing.


 No.11103

>>11083

What could each of the failed groups have done differently to succeed in their attempts for socialism, with this the implication that eventually socialism will come one time or another as predicted by Marx? I think the Marxists could have been better prepared, organized, and fought with guerilla tactics, or alternatively just playing the propaganda game and waiting for enough support. Either that, or people just weren't too aware of socialism at that time, so possibly socialism was meant to succeed the second time around. As for Spain, were their supply shortages really that critical for not having received arms from France and Britain? Surely they could ask the Soviets for more supplies or any other country; France and Britain would likely not care too much, especially if they were fighting a civil war, given that they turned their backs to Germany's flat-out expansionism into other countries.


 No.11104

>>11103

The USSR sent Spain plenty of aid. The Soviets were concerned that sending even more would jeopardize attempts at convincing the UK and France to agree to collective security against Germany.

In the case of Germany, it's possible better organization in 1919 could have had an effect, or the victory of the Bolsheviks in Warsaw in 1920.

>or alternatively just playing the propaganda game and waiting for enough support.

In the 1930-33 period the KPD was gaining electoral strength. The main problem is that the SPD, rather than try to work with the KPD to stop Hitler, placed its hopes on "the lesser evil" (reactionaries like Hindenburg who ended up supporting Hitler anyway.) The KPD at that time also suffered from the sectarian "social-fascist" thesis, but SPD intransigence was a bigger issue.

Post last edited at

 No.11109

Do you know anything about the ruling Marxist party of Laos?

What little I could find about them mentions them happily "reforming" down the path of Gorbachev in the late 80s which is worrying...


 No.11116

Excerpt from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/girl-scout-cookies-interrupted-geoff-schiller:

>Think about this: Generation Alpha (born between 2010-2025) girls everywhere will grow up with digital as their everything. If Gen Xer's are the generation that bridged the gap between analog and digital, and Millennials and Gen Z'ers are the digital-first generation, Generation Alpha will be the "Digital-everywhere Generation."

>The Digital Everywhere Generation will grow up not knowing what its like to partake in even the most mundane daily activities. They will control the majority of their lives from their mobile devices. They probably won't even learn how to drive!

What are your views on the development of digital-oriented technology taking over its analog counterparts? Will this lead to more alienation, is this the next step for capitalism to maintain control over people after everything becomes automated?


 No.11148

>>11109

Vietnam and Laos have basically the same economic reforms (they even call them by the same name: socialist-oriented market economy.)

Laos' government still exists. Gorby's doesn't. That alone should indicate that they weren't copying him.

>>11116

I don't really have an opinion. No doubt capitalism turns what should be sources of efficiency and recreation into means of alienation and maintaining the capitalist system.


 No.11159

How much truth is there in this video?

https://youtu.be/gcqTJlnYtb4


 No.11160

>>11159

In the first place, Guevara also publicly denied that the Cuban Revolution had any Marxist content behind it during the early period after the revolutionaries took power. Castro was not unique in this regards.

It isn't true that the US backed the guerrillas. They did want to get rid of Batista (because he was so unpopular among the Cuban people), but they wanted a colonel named Ramón Barquín to take power.

Castro had read Marxist texts as a college student, and according to Carlos Franqui (an anti-communist associate of both men) he saw Castro and Che reading Stalin's "Foundations of Leninism" during their stay in Mexico in the years 1955-56 and approving its contents.

Furthermore, "The publication at the end of 1988 of the memoirs of Alexandr Alexeev, who had been the first Soviet ambassador to Cuba. . . reveals that he first met Che Guevara in Havana on October 12, 1959. According to Alexeev, Che told him that 'in his personal opinion, in order to win freedom and independence for Cuba there was no other path except the construction of a socialist society and the establishment of friendly relations with the countries of the socialist commonwealth.' Three days later, Alexeev met with Fidel Castro. Although Castro was not as explicit as Che, his remarks indicated a similar point of view. He told Alexeev that 'Cuban public opinion was still subject to the influence of anti-Soviet and anti-Communist propaganda and as yet was not ready to reestablish diplomatic relations with the USSR.'" (Maurice Halperin, Return to Havana, 1994, pp. 172-173)

As for Castro sending Che abroad as a "nuisance," that's not supported by the evidence. In the mid-late 60s Castro was expressing dissatisfaction with the USSR over its reluctance to support guerrilla movements abroad, and Castro's communications with Che on the latter's foreign operations are always friendly and encouraging.

The most you can say is that Che was more critical of the USSR than Castro was, and had a larger admiration for China and the DPRK because of their emphasis on moral over material incentives.


 No.11161

What are your thoughts of hate speech laws and similar kinds of censorship? It sounds kinda contradictory, but I’m not a fan of these giant corporations deciding what is or what is not allowed, but I think there needs to be some sort of limit on racist speech and the propagation of such views. I’m not talking about “that dude said nigger, throw him in jail!”, I mean more extreme stuff.

Did any socialist countries have similar sorts of laws?


 No.11162

>>11161

>I’m not a fan of these giant corporations deciding what is or what is not allowed

Yeah corporations are doing this under the banner of combating "extremism." They are just as capable of using their private property to strike against the left, as in fact WSWS (among others) has argued Google is doing: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/19/goog-s19.html

>Did any socialist countries have similar sorts of laws?

Yes. The Soviet Constitution stated: "Any direct or indirect limitation of the rights of citizens or establishment of direct or indirect privileges on grounds of race or nationality, and any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, hostility, or contempt, are punishable by law."

Other socialist countries had similar decisions, e.g. the GDR Penal Code prohibited fascist propaganda, warmongering, and racial hatred.

Rather than relying on the "responsibility" of corporations to oppose "extremism," it would be far better for governments to enact laws that explicitly prohibit fascist groups and fascist talking-points.

As an aside, Marxist historian Herbert Aptheker gave a defense of outlawing racism and anti-Semitism:

>By the Potsdam Treaty of 1945, signed by the victorious Allies—including the United States—the German people were forbidden the right to disseminate Nazi ideas. That Treaty specifically forbids to them all Nazi newspapers, books, propaganda, parties, uniforms, organizations, etc. Does this represent a deprivation of the freedom of the German people or does it represent rather the results of lessons humanity has learned and on the basis of such experience the enhancement of the actual dignity and rights and therefore actual freedom of humanity—including German people? . . . .

>It is only fifty years ago that Henry Ford through his Dearborn Independent spent millions of dollars publicizing the ideas and text of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion until public pressure forced him to cease and to promise to desist and indeed to publicly apologize for libeling an entire people. Shall we support a public debate as to the validity of the Protocols and their characterization of Jewish people? Were those who forced Ford to stop publicizing such ideas foes of freedom? . . . .

>The history of racist ideology and its promulgation shows that it is never an abstraction but historically always has been part of a sustained campaign for intensified racist practice. Just as one example: the writings of Thomas Dixon, such as The Klansmen, and the creation of the movie based upon his writings, Birth of A Nation, came at a time when hundreds of Black people were being lynched each year, when the legalization and institutionalizing of Jim Crow triumphed and when the disfranchisement of the Black masses of the South was accomplished. Birth of a Nation, vile in its racism, was shown to tens of millions of people during and after World War I and played a part, without any doubt, in the slaughters of Black people that took the lives of hundreds in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Washington, D.C.; East St. Louis and Chicago, Illinois; Elaine, Arkansas and in Texas, Oklahoma and Georgia. It played a part in the appearance of a mass KKK which by 1920 had about five million members and was a powerful political force in such states as Maine, Ohio, Colorado and Indiana as well as throughout the South.

>When therefore the NAACP—and Dr. Du Bois, in the first place—demanded the banning of Birth of a Nation and actively picketed theaters in an effort to prevent its showing, the NAACP was right and not wrong; it was seeking to prevent a curbing of human rights, an intensification of oppression. The banning of Birth of a Nation would have been a blow for freedom. Clearly it is not to argue for racism that freedom of speech exists.

Source: https://archive.org/stream/RacismImperialismPeace/Racism%20Imperialism%20Peace#page/n81/mode/1up

Post last edited at

 No.11164

>>11148

Does China Vietnam and Laos still claim that the Social-Market economy / State-Capitalism is a transition to a socialist Mode of production if so where is this stated?


 No.11166

>>11164

China doesn't refer to its system as a "socialist-oriented market economy." It considers itself socialist, albeit at what it calls the "primary stage of socialism."

As for Vietnam and Laos, I'm sure there's official documents, but here's a 2016 interview with a Vietnamese official: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/socialism-plus-markets-vietnam-s-chosen-path/

>But by socialist orientation, we also mean that we are not yet a socialist country. It’s only the future. It’s only the orientation of the economy. So that’s why we say socialist-oriented economy.


 No.11169

File: 231e218fa52566d⋯.jpg (114.65 KB, 800x577, 800:577, Eureka.jpg)

In what text does Lenin develop the idea of socialism as a prelude to communism most?

I'm looking to get a better understanding of socialism as opposed to communism and their relationship to capitalism.

As I understand it, Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. To what extent is this done by modern communists and are there any traps I should learn to avoid in regards to debates/arguments that play about with such terminology?


 No.11170

Thoughts on Pol Pot's Kampuchea? Were they socialists? Was socialist society itself established in Kampuchea? Did they cooperate with the CIA? Is it true the Khmer Rouge committed massive genocide? Is it true they killed intellectuals? Is there any truth to the notion that they would kill people simply for wearing glasses?


 No.11171

File: 341c5c232b63912⋯.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 150.7 KB, 548x500, 137:125, 341c5c232b63912ba8fd82ecc….jpeg)

>>11170

Pol Pot was a fucking anti-vietnam PLANT and probably never read marx lmao

Based Salvation Front to the rescue to save em from the madness of Pol "may he be cooked alive in a" Pot


 No.11173

>>11170

I dunno about the "killed people simply for wearing glasses" bit, but in light of what they *did* do that becomes a relatively minor detail. Yes, they killed intellectuals and large swathes of the population. A socialist society was not established in Kampuchea, what the Khmer Rouge implemented was at best what Marx disparagingly referred to as "barracks communism" and at worst slave labor.

Pol Pot's ideology was a hodgepodge. He was exposed to "normal" Marxism-Leninism while in France, but by the time the KR took power Pol Pot's ideology was infused with the idealization of peasant life and an xenophobia toward non-Khmer peoples.

The KR didn't collaborate with the CIA while in power, but once ousted by Vietnam they readily worked with the imperialists in collaboration with China, to the extent that Ieng Sary (Pol Pot's #2 associate) welcomed Ronald Reagan's victory over Carter. By the time Pol Pot died he declared it was "over for communism" and that his only wish was for Cambodia to be pro-West.

A good introductory text on the subject from a ML perspective: https://archive.org/details/KampucheaTheRevolutionRescued


 No.11174

>>11169

Lenin's "The State and Revolution," specifically chapter V: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm

>As I understand it, Marx used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably. To what extent is this done by modern communists

Marx wrote of the lower and higher stages of communism. Marxists today (except leftcoms) refer to the lower stage as socialism, simply to make an easier distinction between the two stages of communism.


 No.11176

File: 395c61586dc8a80⋯.jpg (27.09 KB, 423x396, 47:44, Assad (center) and Nureddi….jpg)

What is the difference between Nasserism and Baathism?


 No.11177

>>11176

The Ba'athists saw Nasserism as literally the personal views of Nasser, rather than a real ideology. Ba'athists in Iraq and Syria also saw themselves (in theory, anyway) as merely "branches" of a wider Ba'ath Party with equivalent branches in all the Arab states, whereas Nasser's Arab Socialist Union was confined to Egypt.

The Ba'athist conception of what constituted an "Arab" was also more inclusive than Nasser's, e.g. it was argued that Iraqi Kurds were Arab by virtue of knowing Arabic, living on Arab land, and having their history bound up with that of the Arabs. If I recall right, Nasser saw Kurds as distinct from Arabs.

Ba'athists were also occasionally willing to work with other parties, such as the Communists, rather than setting up a purely one-party state.

Post last edited at

 No.11186

File: 66cc50aacc84b62⋯.png (725.23 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, Heroes.png)

What was Nasser's relationships with full communists like Castro and Ho Chi Minh as well as full communist nations of the time?


 No.11188

>>11186

I don't know what you mean by "full communist."

In any case, socialist countries generally got along decently well with Nasser on anti-imperialist grounds. This includes Cuba. I don't know what Egyptian-DRV relations with like, but I assume they didn't differ from the rest of the socialist countries.


 No.11190

Do you have a favorite socialist country, outside of the Soviet Union?


 No.11191

>>11190

I don't really have a favorite socialist country. Obviously I think some countries had better policies than others (e.g. GDR and Hungary compared to Albania and Romania) but I try to make an effort to read up on most socialist countries rather than fixate on any particular one.


 No.11192

>>11191

what would you say was the biggest issue with Romania? do you think things were better under Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, or was the situation in the country always really sub-par compared to other socialist states?


 No.11193

>>11192

In comparison with other Eastern European leaders, Ceaușescu "personalized" his rule to an extent only Tito and Hoxha did. He built an absurd cult around himself, adopted an often opportunistic foreign policy aimed to curry favor with the West, and decided a great way to pay down the debt his government accumulated to Western banks was to impose austerity measures so severe that it led to his downfall.

Dej wasn't great either (he was a forerunner to Ceaușescu's nationalist policies, denouncing Soviet control over Bessarabia as "unjust") but Ceaușescu was one of the worst communist leaders. It's funny though how as bad as he was, many Romanians nowadays are still nostalgic for the socialist period under him simply due to how capitalism has treated the country.

Post last edited at

 No.11194

>>11191

What did they do better in the DDR and Hungary?


 No.11195

>>11193

so politically Romania wasn't very good, but how was life for its citizens? did they live fairly comfortably?


 No.11196

>>11194

Generally more "open" societies (e.g. jazz and rock music weren't denounced as "degenerate" like they were in Albania), a greater reliance on market mechanisms that tended to make their economies work a bit better, foreign policies that tended to be better than those of Romania, Yugoslavia and Albania.


 No.11197

>>11195

From what I recall, in the 1970s Romanians, like their counterparts in the other European socialist countries, generally lived okay and had rising expectations of living even better. It was in the 80s that everything became terrible when Ceaușescu imposed the aforementioned austerity measures.

Ceaușescu was actually quite popular among Romanians in the 60s and 70s (albeit many admired him precisely for his "maverick" foreign policy of criticizing the USSR and building up ties with figures like Nixon), but his performance in the 80s destroyed his popularity.


 No.11198

Let's say Trump's term ends next week and you're in line to succeed him. What would you do to change things in the US?


 No.11199

>>11188

full communist: communist. Fidel Castro, Vietnam.

(semi)leftist: socialist. Achmed Ben Bella,Libya.


 No.11200

>>11160

>In the first place, Guevara also publicly denied that the Cuban Revolution had any Marxist content behind it during the early period after the revolutionaries took power. Castro was not unique in this regards.

Why?


 No.11201

During cold war or history were there any right wing national liberation and colonial movements?

FinBol made video how Chinese communists were more eager to defend China from the Japanese, and there was a post once discussing anti-fascist regulars in Europe, and most of them were left wing. Curious if there were any right wing movements or are all right wingers submissive cuckolds?

https://youtu.be/NJAlbiBgk20


 No.11202

>>11198

nothing can be achieved within the constraints of the system. the capitalists wont allow anything that threatens their interests, which is why we advocate revolution over attempts at reform.


 No.11203

>>11198

>>11202

Yeah there's no way I can seriously answer that question.

>>11200

It was one of the peculiarities of the Cuban Revolution. Castro, Che, and the other guerrillas had no party supporting them (in fact the communist party on the island denounced their initial efforts as those of "putschists," although later members of the party did help the guerrillas) and tried to draw as many people as possible in the struggle against Batista.

Chapter 3 of the following book has a good read on the Cuban Revolution: https://archive.org/details/NewTheoriesOfRevolution

>>11201

The Iranian Revolution ended up with a right-wing government, although that's not a case of national liberation, just replacing a US-backed government with an anti-imperialist one.

That's pretty much it unless you want to count "moderate" pro-independence figures like Hastings Banda or Léopold Senghor who led their countries from colonialism to neo-colonialism.


 No.11204

File: 8815daef6dbab3b⋯.jpg (17.46 KB, 220x308, 5:7, IMG_0064.JPG)

What's your Opinion on Gough Whitlam?

>Normalized relationship with China

>Normalized Relationship with Yugoslavia and the Non-Aligned movement (neo-fascists in Australia were angered by this an attempted multiple terror attacks)

>Attempted to negotiate removal of US base's from Australia (This likely would have made Australia De-Facto / De-Jure Neutral or Non-Aligned in the Cold War

>Continued to Advocate Republicanism and Neutrality even after being removed in a conservative / Liberal coup


 No.11206

>>11204

>>10096

Oh Shit I also forgot...

>Immediately pulled Australia out of the Vietnam / Cambodian wars and brought all troops home in a week

>Tacitly Allowed the UDBA to operate in the Yugoslav expat community to spy on Nationalists and identify any family of theirs still living in Yugoslavia


 No.11207

>>11204

He's regarded favorably by Australian leftists, as far as I know. He wasn't a leftist, and even within the Labor Party there were apparently those to the left of him, but because of his more "assertive" foreign policy vis-à-vis the US and UK he was considered a dangerous figure, and therefore removed from office.

He is one of a number of examples of "good" social-democratic leaders who show the limitations of social-democracy.


 No.11208

>>11207

What did you mean when you said that UK Labor was a "special case" in terms of the split between social-democrats and Marxists never being defined in the party to this day?


 No.11210

What's your take on Antony Sutton's "Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development" and "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution"?


 No.11211

>>11208

I didn't say that. In the first place I was referring to the Australian Labor Party (not the Labour Party in the UK), in the second I'm just saying that even within the party there were those on his left who were more in favor of nationalizing industries and whatnot, while not themselves Marxists.

>>11210

I never really read the former (my focus was more on diplomatic history between the US and USSR, not economic) but from what little I recall skimming it years back Sutton isn't in conspiracy mode when writing, he's simply making inflated claims. There are a number of anti-communist books (Sutton's is just a prominent example) making the "argh the reason the USSR is a threat is because Western corporations are doing business with its tyrannical rulers" argument.

"Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" is different, it's directly influenced by Sutton's conspiratorial worldview. I read it many years ago and don't recall anything persuasive in it. There's evidence that the Germans financed the Bolsheviks (among other groups) to get Russia out of the war; there's no real evidence the Entente financed the Bolsheviks, nor is there any motive considering Lenin openly denounced Russian involvement in the war.

If you have any questions about claims raised by Sutton though, feel free to ask.

Post last edited at

 No.11212

>>11211

Wait I fought in a conversation about the French crisis / Melanchon you said that Melanchon and most Euro-SocDem's weren't "particularly leftist" but said that in the case of the UK "it was different"

(If false sorry for misquoting)


 No.11213

>>11212

As I said, >>11006

>The UK's situation is a bit unique due to the Labour Party's trade union origins, and Corbyn is indeed to the left of Sanders and Mélenchon. I don't know enough about politics in Britain to comment, but I guess it depends what one means by "support." Communists should presumably run their own candidates in elections and point to the limitations of Corbyn's politics.

"To the left" doesn't mean Corbyn isn't a social-democrat though, nor exempts him from the pitfalls of social-democracy. Furthermore from a historical standpoint he's still to the right of figures like Konni Zilliacus and D.N. Pritt, who represented Labour's left-wing in the 1930s-50s.

Post last edited at

 No.11215

if China is indeed socialist then why do they:

A) have shitty working conditions (sweatshops, poor housing for certain jobs, suicide nets, etc)?

B) have such good relations with capitalist powers such as the United States and Israel, and have practically opened up their country to every single company on the planet (even shit like Gucci)?

C) don't actively help international socialist movements and seem to not be interested in defending the DPRK as much as they could be?

D) claim to be "building productive forces" for 40 years, have become one of the leading economic powerhouses, provide products worldwide (i gaurantee 90% of the things people own are made in China) yet still haven't made any transition to socialism? and what even are "productive forces"? it just seems like a vague term they can use to excuse all their actions? how have they not built enough productive forces by now?

E) allow more markets than every socialist country has ever done before, including the USSR under Gorbachev?

F) engage in imperialism alongside western powers in African countries?

G) why did they even have to become a market based economy? what was the point in mass privatisation when China was already a socialist country under Mao that was for the most part doing fine?

honestly i want to believe China is socialist, why wouldn't i? but i don't see how anything they do can be considered socialist in anything but name, not to mention that everytime these questions are bought up people just give the same old generic excuses (like "they are building productive forces") which don't really explain much when you look into it.


 No.11216

>>11215

A. By the standards of places like India, Brazil or Indonesia, China's workplace conditions come out relatively good. Chinese workers and peasants are seeing their incomes and quality of life increase. Sweatshop labor as such is actually against the law. If one were to examine Soviet workplace conditions and quality of life during the First and Second Five-Year Plans, they would often be pretty bad, but this is no proof that the USSR was capitalist.

B. The opening up to the West started under Mao. Obviously one can criticize Chinese foreign policy, but it is not a new development.

C. What do you want China to do to "actively help international socialist movements"? They have ties with other parties, allow foreign Marxists to attend Chinese conferences on Marxism, translate books by foreign Marxists, etc. As for the DPRK, the US constantly complains about how the Chinese are "helping the North Koreans" in one way or another, and the DPRK itself clearly regards China as an ally (albeit one it obviously doesn't always agree with in foreign or domestic policies.)

D. "Productive forces" is a term Marx himself used to refer to labor productivity, machinery, and the extraction of raw materials. China's economy is still behind those of the developed capitalist countries in many ways, and the comparison of the average Chinese peasant with the average American farmer will make clear that the government still has a long way to go to raise living standards, which is what developing the productive forces is aimed at.

I'd also add that it makes no difference that "90% of the things people own are made in China." Much of West's clothing is made in countries like Eswatini or Bangladesh, that does not make them prosperous countries in terms of living standards for ordinary people.

E. Socialism is not defined by "anything that isn't the market." If that were the case we'd be praising isolated communal settlements like Jonestown or what went on in Democratic Kampuchea as exemplars of socialist economics. Stalin pointed out that the law of value continues to operate under socialism, and this is the starting point Chinese economists made in the 80s when discussing how to reform the economy.

F. They do not.

G. The Chinese economy was not "for the most part doing fine" under Mao. It did fine in the 1950s during the period of industrialization, but the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution hindered economic development compared to what could have been.

Post last edited at

 No.11217

>>11216

what i really don't get is how you talk about the Chinese being "far behind" developed countries. they seem pretty developed to me, and being undeveloped never stopped other countries from becoming socialist. the Russian Empire was an impoverished backwater, and was able to be turned into a fully industralised socialist state in a couple decades. you can argue that they had an NEP, but the NEP was nowhere near the level of what China is doing and ended up being scrapped for collectivisation which is what actually built socialism. same goes for nearly every other socialist country, besides China which seems to be stuck in this state of "developing productive forces" for decades. when will the productive forces be developed? do they even have any plans for what to do when they are? and i still don't understand why completely opening up to western companies and having good relations with an imperialist settlers state like Israel is necessary for them to achieve socialism.


 No.11218

>>11217

>they seem pretty developed to me

Not to the CPC or, indeed, any Chinese person. China clearly has more in common with third world countries than the likes of the US, Britain, France, Germany, etc. See: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-06/05/c_137231686.htm

>and was able to be turned into a fully industralised socialist state in a couple decades

Obviously the USSR industrialized a great deal, but it's a bit silly to act as if that suddenly made its society akin to developed capitalist countries. The vast majority of the rural population still went on foot or used animals, often having to travel great distances to reach decent medical care or access to consumer goods. Many consumer goods taken for granted in the West were luxuries or nearly so by the standards of socialist countries.

Obviously talk by Stalin and his successors of the USSR transitioning from socialism to communism (with Khrushchev going so far as to declare it would be achieved by 1980) was premature.

>when will the productive forces be developed?

The CPC estimates in the 2040s.

>i still don't understand why completely opening up to western companies

If they "completely opened up" then the state sector in China today would be insignificant.

>and having good relations with an imperialist settlers state like Israel is necessary for them to achieve socialism.

No one argues it is "necessary." It is simply a decision of the Chinese government, just like Romania also maintained diplomatic relations with Israel under Ceaușescu. Diplomacy does not determine whether a country is capitalist or socialist.

China in any case has repeatedly made clear its support for the Palestinians.

Post last edited at

 No.11219

>>11218

>Obviously the USSR industrialized a great deal, but it's a bit silly to act as if that suddenly made its society akin to developed capitalist countries. The vast majority of the rural population still went on foot or used animals, often having to travel great distances to reach decent medical care or access to consumer goods. Many consumer goods taken for granted in the West were luxuries or nearly so by the standards of socialist countries.

Could one say then, that life in a socialist country, for the average person, was considerably worse than in her capitalist counterpart? Why was this? Simply due to not having time to develop organically as capitalism had done, or what?

(not op)


 No.11220

>>11219

>Could one say then, that life in a socialist country, for the average person, was considerably worse than in her capitalist counterpart?

Better in some ways, worse in others.

If you lived in Soviet Central Asia, your standard of living was pretty much totally superior to that of nearby capitalist countries, as I noted here: >>10950

As for the rest of the USSR, there were categories in which the Soviets showed their superiority even when up against the most advanced capitalist states, e.g. to quote Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny,

>State subsidies kept the price of books, periodicals and cultural events at a minimum. As a result, workers often owned their own libraries, and the average family subscribed to four periodicals. UNESCO reported that Soviet citizens read more books and saw more films than any other people in the world. Every year the number of people visiting museums equalled nearly half the entire population, and attendance at theatres, concerts, and other performances surpassed the total population.

Soviet society, by virtue of its heavily planned economy, was also far more stable for ordinary people. There was no need to worry about recessions, unemployment was basically zero, rents for apartments were very low, etc., etc.

But there were significant downsides as well, most notably the often poor quality and inadequate number of consumer goods. Another example of a complaint was that while the health service did a good job providing coverage for all Soviet citizens at no cost to them, medical equipment and medicines were often in short supply and the general quality of healthcare left a lot to be desired. Chronic shortages incentivized corruption at all levels of society, which became another major complaint.

>Why was this? Simply due to not having time to develop organically as capitalism had done, or what?

Some of it was due to inheriting a backward economic base, some of it was due to the limitations of the Soviet model of socialism, and some of it was due to the need to confront imperialism as represented by the arms race and other military expenditures.

Post last edited at

 No.11221

>>11218

>Not to the CPC or, indeed, any Chinese person.

on that topic, what is the opinion of the average Chinese person on the government and system? are most of the people happy? i heard that public opinion towards socialism has been declining as of late (apparently most Chinese people view countries like the DPRK negatively)

>China in any case has repeatedly made clear its support for the Palestinians.

how can you support the state of Israel, but at the same time also support Palestine?

also unrelated but if China does build it's productive forces and transitions to socialism, how are they going to deal with all the private industry? i imagine it's going to be quite difficult for them to cut out all the foreign companies, especially considering how large the private sector is (along with the fact that China's biggest trading partners are countries like the United States and Japan).


 No.11222

>>11216

How can China be still a "developing" country while having all those millionaires and billionaires? Surely it can placate its ruling class with money while at the same time allocating sufficient resources to the industry? The ruling class probably doesn't need all that money to be satisfied, maybe a few million but the wealth inequality in the nation is rather high, is it really necessary?


 No.11224

>>11222

checked

not this anon but to add to what he is asking, why are there this many millionaires/billionaires? are they rich from accumulating capital, or is it similar to how millionaires came about in the USSR? what are they gonna do to them when they transition to socialism? kill them? confiscate their wealth? they are bourgeoisie, after all.


 No.11225

>>11211

I haven't actually read either, just skimmed some of the claims... his work is interesting because it dovetails with the anti-detente narrative and Team B e.g. Richard Pipes cites him so it wasn't only John Birchers listening to him. I find it weird for something like this not to have generated more of a response. Also all his works are conspiratorial, it's methodologically similar to Nesta Helen Webster, he seems to cite some known forged documents and questionable secondary sources along with reliable claims which muddies the water.

I found on libgen there's some articles by western Sovietologists on the "NTR" (the scientific-technological revolution) research going on in the 70s/80s in the USSR. Some excerpts:

>...Many Soviet theorists seem to be aware that technical breakthroughs can be effectively utilized only if adjustments are made in the larger social systems of which the new techniques are a part. For example, the installation of computers will surely not produce "revolutionary" changes in the forms and organization of production, or in administrative power relationships and decision-making practices, unless accompanied by changes in the content and flow of technical and social information (and probably also in bureaucratic attitudes toward information.)

>...But Soviet theorists pay remarkably little attention to the values that may be inherent in or closely associated with the effective use of specific techniques for the purposes for which they were designed (especially complex machines, but also systems and processes). They also place little emphasis on the different political, economic, and social contexts in which new techniques and technologies are generated. Rather than viewing international exchanges of technology as a form of cultural diffusion, most Soviet theorists postulate analytical distinctions between the objective and subjective components of technologies, their form and content, and their direct and indirect effects on society.

>Throughout the NTR literature there exists considerable confidence (or simply the tacit assumption) that imported and indigenous technological innovations can and will serve only those purposes that the Party and state leaders deem to be in the best interests of the Soviet people.

>...the present Soviet leadership appears to encourage theorizing about the NTR while at the same time seeking to preserve existing industrial and agricultural institutional structures. Western analysts might deduce that these theories are chiefly intended to legitimize institutional arrangements which in fact impede scientific and technological progress in the U.S.S.R.

>...the present Soviet leadership appears to encourage theorizing about the NTR while at the same time seeking to preserve existing industrial and agricultural institutional structures. Western analysts might deduce that these theories are chiefly intended to legitimize institutional arrangements which in fact impede scientific and technological progress in the U.S.S.R.

When microprocessors and such started transforming production in the West it seems to me obvious that the USSR didn't have the scientific capacity domestically to respond so had to try to copy/import the technology being developed under capitalism in the West... and this probably played a big role in the full restoration of capitalism. In the entire history of the USSR they never developed an actual "socialist technology" to really move beyond capitalistic relations of production and this was one of the key major failings... to adequately theorize the role of technology as being not neutral. There's not much written on this I don't think. I know there was some "unconventional research" done but not nearly enough: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1148




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / clang / doomer / komica / marx / sw / vichan ]