Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **Make Way for Winged Eros - Alexandra Kollontai** Today's discussion is: * 1/25 - Make Way for Winged Eros - Alexandra Kollontai I'm reading the copy from Marxists.org: https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1923/winged-eros.htm **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What seems to be the main point of this work? What question is Kollontai trying to answer? * What has she missed? Is she wrong about anything? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this work applicable outside of the conditions of the early USSR? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? **Next Discussion** The next book will be: * 2/1 - The Red Deal - Red Media. - discussion 1. * 2/8 - The Red Deal - Red Media - discussion 2. I haven't gotten my copy yet, so those discussions may change once I see how long it is. I'd appreciate a line on a free e-copy if you've got one. I'll probably purchase it here: https://www.commonnotions.org/red-media **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the next title please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?). * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)

Is there a culinary tool or technique that you've found useful?

Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **Revolution in the Revolution - Régis Debray** Today's discussion is: * 1/18 - Discussion 2 - “The Principle Lesson for the Present”, “Some Consequences for the Future”, summary discussion on the whole book. I’m reading the Grove press edition translated by Bobbye Ortiz. These seem to be some digital copies, but please share if you find a better one! https://archive.org/details/revolutioninrevo0000regi_p5g2/page/n5/mode/2up http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=CA5F03D21F0EED6587F9663A5FDA5D8D **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What is Debray saying and how is he saying it? * What has he missed? Is he wrong about anything? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this work applicable outside of the conditions of Latin America in the '60s? What parts are universally applicable? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? **Next Discussion** Next week will be: * 1/25 - "Make Way for Winged Eros" - Alexandra Kollontai https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1923/winged-eros.htm **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the title for 2/1 , please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?). * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)

Hi folks, Today we'll be discussing: **Revolution in the Revolution - Régis Debray** Today's discussion is: * 1/11 - Discussion 1 - Preface and Chapter 1 “To Free the Present from the Past”. pp 1-91 in my edition. I’m reading the Grove press edition translated by Bobbye Ortiz. These seem to be some digital copies, but please share if you find a better one! https://archive.org/details/revolutioninrevo0000regi_p5g2/page/n5/mode/2up http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=CA5F03D21F0EED6587F9663A5FDA5D8D **Discussion Prompts** These are some ideas to address while considering this work. None of them are essential, and any of your own thoughts are very much welcome! I'll be adding my own thoughts later today. * What is Debray saying and how is he saying it? * Is he persuasive? * What has he missed? * What would you say the theme of this work is? * Did anything surprise you? * Is this work applicable outside of the conditions of Latin America in the '60s? What parts are universally applicable? * Is this really a “nonessential” or would it be good for any communist to read it? * Does the book seem cool? Would you go camping in the mountains with it and share a wistful glance over the flickering embers of a dimming campfire? **Next Discussion** Next week will be: * 1/18 - Discussion 2 - “The Principle Lesson for the Present”, “Some Consequences for the Future”, summary discussion on the whole book. **Next Title** If you would like to suggest the next title, please put in a separate comment with the words "submission suggestion". I think the highest voted title should win. Books should be: * not suggested for beginners. * not overly technical or philosophical (I’m just not smart enough to lead those discussions). * relatively short (so as not to lose too much momentum). * regionally or subject specific (like Che’s Guerilla Warfare is topically specific, or Decolonization is Not a Metaphor is regionally specific?). * readily available. Thanks for your time! :)

Hi y'all! I appreciated the discussion on my earlier post about regularly reading and discussing less recommended books. I didn't see a clear consensus on titles to read for this first session, so I'll default to the one that started this topic for me. # **The Inaugural Title:** # **Revolution in Revolution - Régis Debray** I'm reading the Grove press edition translated by Bobbye Ortiz. These seem to be some digital copies, but please share if you find a better one! https://archive.org/details/revolutioninrevo0000regi_p5g2/page/n5/mode/2up http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=CA5F03D21F0EED6587F9663A5FDA5D8D # **Dividing This Title:** # This is a short work, so we'll split it between two sessions: * 1/11 - Discussion 1 - Preface and Chapter 1 "To Free the Present from the Past". pp 1-65 in my edition. * 1/18 - Discussion 2 - "The Principle Lesson for the Present", "Some Consequences for the Future", summary discussion on the whole book. Some thoughts to think on while we read (please suggest some that you like as well!): * What is Debray saying and how is he saying it? * Is he persuasive? * What has he missed? * Is this work applicable outside of the conditions of Latin America in the '60s? What parts are universally applicable? * Is this really a "nonessential" or would it be good for any communist to read it? * Does this book have pizzazz? Is it cool? Would you take it to the barcade and have a pizza with it? We'll have an opportunity to suggest and vote on the next work in each session. I'm thinking the highest upvoted comment labeled "Submission Suggestion" will work. As always, please let me know if you have any suggestions! Big thanks to @redtea@lemmygrad.ml for the nudge to do this book, and the question suggestions! :) I'm excited to read it!

Howdy y'all! I'm thinking of starting weekly posts for a bit, as a sort of book club. I wanted to do something a little different, though. I thought it might be more interesting, and promote more discussion, to do "nonessential" works - things that don't get recommended for usual book club threads, or for new Marxists. Reading Debray's "Revolution in Revolution" made me think of this, but I haven't found a good online copy yet. What do y'all think? Any thoughts?

I got "Revolution in the Revolution" at the used bookstore, and thought this excerpt in the first section was very interesting: >"Fidel once blamed certain failures of the guerillas on a purely intellectual attitude toward war. The reason is understandable: aside from his physical weakness and lack of adjustment to rural life, the intellectual will try to grasp the present through preconceived ideological constructs and live it through books. He will be less able than others to invent, improvise, make do with available resources, decide instantly on bold moves when he is in a tight spot. Thinking that he already knows, he will learn more slowly, display less flexibility. And the irony of history has willed, by virtue of the social situation of many Latin American countries, the assignment of precisely this vanguard role to students and revolutionary intellectuals, who have had to unleash, or rather initiate, the highest forms of class struggle.

My copy of The Little Red Book has...some printing errors. This is the best I've found yet!

I'm reading through Caliban and the Witch, and having some thoughts about the role of hierarchical Christianity in oppression. The church has had a huge role in legitimizing colonialism (doctrine of discovery etc...), as the direct oppressive foot soldiers of colonialism (Missions in the U$, blessing of the crusades and colonizing missions), and in the direct oppression of women, minorites and the working class (witch hunts, legitimizing slavery, killing heretics who opposed social norms). I'm not as deeply familiar with the history of Islam, but I know there are some oppressive trends as well (i.e. Wahhabism and the Islamic State's religious rooting). I know the ML line is to accept the people's religious tendencies. But I have a few specific questions: * After the global revolution, what happens to the Pope? Does he keep institutional power? Who does the gold in the Vatican go to? Is the church allowed to continue gender oppression (i.e. no women priests)? * What happens to someone like Joel Osteen? * What happens to religious sects that are explicitly anti-equality or anti-communist (like some of the most backwards Christian sects in the U$, or hardline Wahhabism)? * Where does the balance fall between allowing the people to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs, and denying powerful reactionary elements entrenched institutional power?

This quote really stood out to me in the endnote of a chapter in Caliban and the Witch: >Capitalism — as Moulier Boutang stresses — has always been primarily concerned with preventing the flight of labor. This made the think that the real purpose of imperial core anti-immigration stances is to keep colonized workers where they are: oppressed and producing cheap goods. It works for denying illegal immigrants rights as well. Illegal immigrants do a vital amount of work in the imperial core, but wouldn't have to if they had better rights or citizenship. This might not be groundbreaking, but it helps me understand the material basis behind some reactionary views and who profits from spreading them.

This first chapter is clarifying a lot about serfdom, the transition to capitalism, and church oppression. I had never thought of the relationship between money and labor obscuring oppression! Can you imagine the effect if you could clearly tell how much work in the day was for your existence, and how much is for your boss?

"*You speak of your "devotion" to me. Perhaps it was just a chance phrase. Perhaps. . . . But if the phrase was not accidental I would advise you to discard the "principle" of devotion to persons.* It is not the Bolshevik way. Be devoted to the working class, its Party, its state. That is a fine and useful thing. But do not confuse it with devotion to persons, this vain and useless bauble of weak-minded intellectuals."

I've been looking for communist tracts and pamphlets, and in the process I've found a few anti-communist tracts like below. ****************************************************************** **Document #1: How to Spot a Communist** Background: This is a pamphlet prepared by the U.S. First Army Headquarters in 1955, but was reprinted in popular magazines in the 1950s **How to Spot a Communist** Events of recent years have made it obvious that there is no fool-proof way of detecting a Communist. The Communist individual is no longer a "type" exemplified by the bearded and coarse revolutionary with time bomb in briefcase. U.S. Communists come from all walks of life, profess all faiths, and exercise all trades and professions. In addition, the Communist Party, USA, has made concerted efforts to go underground for the purpose of infiltration. If there is no fool-proof system in spotting a Communist, there are, fortunately, indications that may give him away. These indications are often subtle but always present, for the Communist, by reason of his "faith" must act and talk along certain lines. While a … preference for long sentences is common to most Communist writing, a distinct vocabulary provides the... more easily recognized feature of the "Communist Language." Even a superficial reading of an article written by a Communist or a conversation with one will probably reveal the use of some of the following expressions: integrative thinking, vanguard, comrade, hootenanny, chauvinism, book-burning, syncretistic faith, bourgeois-nationalism, jingoism, colonialism, hooliganism, ruling class, progressive, demagogy, dialectical, witch-hunt, reactionary, exploitation, oppressive, materialist. This list, selected at random, could be extended almost indefinitely. While all of the above expressions are part of the English language, their use by Communists is infinitely more frequent than by the general public... … In addition to these very general principles common to Communist tactics, a number of specific issues have been part of the Communist arsenal for a long period of time. These issues are raised not only by Communist appeals to the public, but also by the individual Party member or sympathizer who is a product of his Communist environment. They include: "McCarthyism," violation of civil rights, racial or religious discrimination, immigration laws, anti-subversive legislation, any legislation concerning labor unions, the military budget, "peace." While showing standard opposition to certain standard issues, the U.S. Communist has traditionally identified himself with certain activities in the hope of furthering his ultimate purposes. Such hobbies as "folk dancing" and "folk music" have been traditionally allied with the Communist movement in the United States... A study such as this can lead to only one certain conclusion: There is no sure-fire way of spotting a Communist... The principle difficulty involved is the distinction between the person who merely dissents in the good old American tradition and the one who condemns for the purpose of abolishing that tradition. In attempting to find the answer to the question: "Is this man a Communist?" a checklist such as this can prove helpful, although in itself it cannot provide the answer: Does the individual use unusual language? ("Communist Language") Does he stubbornly cling to Marxist ideals without being willing to question them? Does he condemn our American institutions and praise those of Communist countries? Does he pick on any event, even the most insignificant occurrences in this country for his criticism? Is he secretive about certain of his contacts? Does he belong to groups exploiting controversial subjects? Above all, the approach to the problem of discovering Communists must be detached and completely free from prejudice. Using some of the clues mentioned in this study in connection with a factual approach provides the best system at present of spotting a Communist

We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon. But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations. Liberalism manifests itself in various ways. To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism. To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type. To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type. Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type. To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type. To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type. To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type. To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type. To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type. To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type. To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type. We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types. They are all manifestations of liberalism. Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency. Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism. People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work. Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution. We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist. All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

I've got a soft spot for "Dialectical and Historical Materialism" (though I can't claim I understand it all), but I remember liking the letter where he admonishes a comrade for calling themself a "Stalinist". I wish I could remember which one that was! I like his writing style, and the way he lays his points out. There's still a lot in the archive for me to read!