“The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.”
damn, bro almost cited dessalines’ List of US atrocities verbatim
That could be considered true if you were saying that like 5-10 years ago. Fascist discourse became very mainstream, especially because of 4chan. But in recent years, we’ve been seeing the opposite trend, Marxism is becoming more and more mainstream.
Sometimes I wonder what’s the point. As in, should I just back off and not say anything? It doesn’t seem like saying anything makes a difference anyway.
You should definitely criticize fascists publicly, because not all readers are fascists, and they can be convinced, however, it depends where you do that. I’d say if you wished to push communist discourse in 4chan or some Twitch streams it would be useless, but on social media, such as Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc., it makes more sense. You should never try to convince fascists, you are only debating a fascist because others will see it.
Fascism is also on the rise, unfortunately. It’s become natural in some spaces, so to give up criticizing is to let it rise further. It’s easier for fascists because fascist discourse is promoted by bourgeois means of communication, from TV to internet social media, but self-defeat only makes it stronger, so yes, there is a point indeed in criticizing these people.
It’s what you expect of YouTube, a propaganda machine. I got suggested numerous times videos of Bolsonaro, especially during election campaigns, and on Facebook it’s usually even worse. I get pushed outright anti-communist propaganda on Facebook. Recently Facebook pushed a page called “Sigma Postagem”
The page Sigma Postagem frequently posts incel, misogynistic, anti-communist, “Christian” and transphobic content, mostly using the image of Patrick Bateman, a known chan culture character. It’s still up, receiving 15 to 30K likes each post and hundreds to thousands of shares.
Here’s a sample, claiming gay people are “losers” for defending Che Guevara, the same old “Guevara killed gays” garbage, which never happened (and we all know capitalism is much more repressive to LGBT people):
“when you feel like a fool,
remember there are gay people who uphold Che Guevara”
Well, my opinion on this is that the US government has been so far really good at keeping revolutionary threats at bay, so any change must come from outside.
Consciously or not, you’re reproducing the “permanent revolution” Trotskyist thesis, but change can only happen from the inside. And the consequence of your self-defeating argument is that the Statesian communist movement should do nothing, just sit and observer hopelessly whatever their own bourgeoisie decides.
The most powerful weapon the proletariat of every country in the world is organization. And through a strong, resilient, encompassing organization, a revolution can be done. But it’s a slow process. For years the communist movement in the U.S. was falling behind, and in many respects it still is. But the only way out is organizing the workers through a revolutionary organization.
In the U.S., the most advanced party in this respect understanding is the PSL. If the coming convention of the CPUSA is able to change the political line of the party to a revolutionary instead of a reformist and opportunist as it currently is, perhaps they can also be a force for good (but that may be overly optimistic)
When the Statesian Revolution and the French Revolution happened, it began the complete rule of the bourgeoisie. The nascent bourgeoisie could only do this because they consciously organized themselves as a class, and politically organized a revolution.
Like every decaying capitalist system, the United States can go either in the direction of socialism or in the direction of fascism, imperialist war and aggression, or another form of capitalism which will manage the crisis but preserve the bourgeois state and law.
The United States can only move forward in the direction of socialism if the Statesian proletariat organize a revolution for that, otherwise the bourgeoisie will continue to rule, only changing their form of dictatorship.
Do we have to hope and pray that Xi and other AES states will liberate us
That will never happen. No country can install a revolution in other countries. A revolution is a historic process, with historical subjects. In this example, the U.S. proletariat would easily be compelled by the bourgeoisie to fight against Chinese interference because anti-China propaganda is already hegemonic in the country.
The U.S. proletariat would have to be convinced of the necessity of the revolution for one to happen. And a revolution can only be successful if there’s full agreement of the vast majority of people, otherwise it will fail.
In 2021, only two countries voted against this resolution: Ukraine and United States. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
Now, it’s more than 50 countries against this very same resolution.
We’ ve seen so many wasted years and lives spent on imperial-core electoralism, that you pretty much have to ignore history and rely on dogmatic quote farming to support it. The third world has always and continues to lead the way, because capitalism breaks at the weakest points in the chain, not nations where its possible to bribe their relatively small number of workers via the surplus value extracted from other countries.
Excellent, comrade. And criticizing electoralism doesn’t mean boycotting the elections. Electoralism is what defines a party that is focused solely on achieving seats in bourgeois parliaments, not every party which participates in electoral activity. For instance, PSL is a Marxist-Leninist party which participates here and then in bourgeois elections, but they don’t do just that. They actively support struggles of the Statesian working class, they don’t just beg for votes every couple years
Depending on your country laws and how your elections work, participating in the elections can be useful because in some countries the candidates for some offices get a certain amount of TV and radio appearance, they receive a certain quantity of capital to fund their political campaigns, etc. If they manage to achieve a seat in parliaments, it’s useful to use the office for propaganda and agitation, to use the salary of the officeholder to fund the party, etc.
No, because Marxism is not only Marx and Engels. Marxism was first developed by them, but was also developed by many other non-European peoples, and just to name a few, Maurice Bishop, Thomas Sankara, Amilcar Cabral, Che Guevara, Raul and Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Luis Carlos Prestes, Clovis Moura, Ruy Mauro Marini, Vânia Bambirra, Theotônio do Santos, Carlos Marighella, all of them non-European Marxists.
So no, Marxism is not euro-centric.
Enver Hoxha was a great leader who gave power to the Albanian people. His work as a revolutionary anti-fascist and struggle against Italian fascism was heroic and gave lessons the international working class should learn from and study.
However, his leadership also produced massive mistakes, especially in ideological matters, which reflected in concrete mistakes. For instance, the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania preferred to cut ties with the Soviet Union because of Khrushchev and causing massive upheal in the economy than to keep a relationship only while you’re independent enough to cut it. They put the ideological above the material needs of the people in numerous times.
It’s unfortunately why the Party of Labour of Albania could not withstand the bourgeois counter-revolutionary wave of the late 80’s, early 90’s, and China survived the Tiananmen square incident in 1989. The Communist Party of China is still in power up to this day, the Party of Labour of Albania is not.
That trilogy is a masterpiece. Beautiful cinematography and soundtrack.
Also, today it’s hardly any different. If anything, it’s worse because now these activities are being done in the Amazon forest, leaving trails and trails of destroyed forests and mercury in the soil which affects the health of indigenous peoples living in proximity.
Very nice descriptions of party organs, but their justification of the Reform is honestly bad and all over the place lol