KKSankara

I'm not familiar with the material conditions of the country and how popular the EFF are, or how the election process is carried out, to know what to expect. But from South Africans and those more familiar what're your thoughts on the upcoming election? Will the ANC continue to rule? Does the EFF have a chance? Will another party take over?

Hey all,

We all know the importance of reading theory, but with so many leaders with so many works what should we consider absolutely necessary reading for an committed communist, and what is, for lack of a better term, supplemental?

While reading everything would be nice, there is so much to read, not mentioning works by other authors and theorists, that I'm not sure if reading literally everything Marx or Lenin wrote is the most helpful. Some works will be more universal and others, while still containing important information, may be more niche and specific.

I'll admit I'm probably a terrible Marxist for not having read anything from Marx, or Engels, besides the manifesto. But again, Marx and Engels have a lot of works and knowing what is more important than others I think would be helpful for everyone, especially baby Marxists. How important is reading Kapital, The Civil War in France, Critique of the Gotha Program, On the Origins of the Family, etc? Which should be prioritized over others?

I've read more Lenin but not much, only State and Revolution and Left-wing Communism. I'm trying to get through the beginning of Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism but it's so hard, so many facts and I'm not sure what he's even saying with them.

I also want to read Mao and have absolutely no idea where to even start there.

What would you say are the most important and necessary works of foundational leaders and theorists (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao)? Here's my list so far:

Marx Engels Lenin: State and Revolution, Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder Mao

Hey all,

I'll be honest that I have no idea how the Bolsheviks won the war considering the Red Army was newly formed, had no funding, WWI had already destroyed the countryside and led to millions of deaths, the White Army possessed most loyal and experienced top military from the former Russian Empire, the 13 most powerful and wealthiest empires and countries in history invaded on behalf of the Whites, rogue leftist anti-Bolshevik armies and gangs formed, sabotage and counter-revolution, etc. It seemed like the Red Army was fighting on every single possible front for the mere existence of the fledgling socialist nation.

So how did they win? Out of all this chaos how did the Bolsheviks retain power and, ultimately, were able form soviet republics across the former Russian Empire? I genuinely do not understand.

Of course I'm glad they won, but can an understanding of why and how they won still be illustrative to modern movements? Not in terms of copying all tactics, the Bolsheviks had to contend with their particular material conditions which led to their particular approaches, but rather in any underlying ethos or ideological tendency in building and maintaining power after the initial revolution which can be helpful to future and contemporary revolutionaries?

Also any good book recommendations would be helpful too!

Hey all,

I'm currently developing a Marxist-Leninist analysis of settler colonialism, especially in light of the situation in Palestine, and am going to read Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat by J. Sakai for the first time. Before I do I was just curious what other comrades think of the book and its analysis? It seems a pretty controversial text among many online Marxist groups, to whatever extent that matters, but as an Indigenous communist I feel having a clear and principled stance on the settler question is important for all serious communists. I'm not sure if I'll agree with Sakai specifically, but since I generally agree with the opinions of y'all, I was curious as to your thoughts on the book.

From Breakthrough News.

I'll admit I'm not super knowledgeable on the inner workings and operations of groups like the Bolsheviks, but before revolutions how did the professional revolutionaries necessary to lead the party, whether it be Stalin or Deng Xiaoping, get money to live? Whether organizing within the country or living in exile, they still need to eat and pay for things. What financially allows professional revolutionaries to make revolution their profession, so they can devote their time and energy fully to the cause without having to work a day job? The necessity of such a day job is what typically stops many from being able to become professional revolutionaries, as there are no doubt many Lenins and Sankaras in the world who aren't able to change the world due to their necessity to have to work a job in order to live and survive.

How can modern organizations and parties implement structures to facilite a class of professional revolutionaries?

For those of us, unfortunately, in the imperial core, what steps should we take to stop a US war with China over Taiwan? I've honestly been pretty scared since the war in Ukraine started knowing that China is next. We must avoid this at all costs to save the thousands of Chinese lives that will be sacrificed by the west in their bid to reestablish a unipolar world.

While I'm not discounting the achievements of the anti-war movement in support of Vietnam, the war still waged on for years. The same with Iraq. What should be done differently?

Hello, I'd like to first say as someone who is not Chinese and well-versed in the theory surrounding one country two systems, I'm asking this more for educational reasons.

From my ignorant perspective I understand the important practical usage of the policy regarding the handing over of Hong Kong and Macau, and hopefully soon Taiwan, into the control of the PRC. If, like many Ultras and Maoists wanted, the PRC had immediately brought the former colonies, with highly entrenched and developed capitalist systems, under the direct control and supervision of the CPC, than most likely the UK and Portugal wouldn't had even agreed to let them go, or if they did would immediately instigate color revolutions and mass violence. It was necessary, if undesirable, to maintain stability and social cohesion between the economies, west, and peoples of the former colonies by allowing a degree of independence and separation between them and the PRC. This is why the same policy is directed at the eventual reunification of Taiwan.

(As well its so hypocritical that the west demonizes China over its handling of Hong Kong given that China has been extremely lenient and hands-off compared to most governments, especially western ones, faced with the same situation of gaining control over new territory with a completely different, and opposed, economic model. We only have to look at the disastrous and quick implementation of decommunization to see such hypocrisy).

But will the policy end? And if so what are the preconditions which must be met in order to change the policy? Essentially, when will the PRC abolish the privileges Hong Kong and Macau posses and directly incorporate them within the economic and political system of the PRC? When will the CPC gain complete control over them? For many like myself I actively look forward to this day, to see the full freedoms the PRC grants given to the people of the former colonies. But what must be done in order for this process to begin? Is it a gradual process which has been actively taking place since reunification, or will it take place more rapidly in the future?

Again, I think China has bigger problems to worry about then this, and I believe the policy is itself correct and necessary. So I'm not proposing Xi must press the socialism button on Hong Kong now or else he's not a real comrade. Rather, I'm curious as to how this entire situation is to be resolved, or how the CPC currently sees this happening.

Currently the CPC is anticipating to move into a higher stage of socialism, or becoming a fully socialist country, by 2050. This will obviously change much of China, but how will it effect their foreign policy? China has famously had many bad takes in terms of foreign policy, but their post-Mao non-interventionism is important practically in retaining peaceful and favorable relations with global capital. They know that, even now, funding revolutionaries will only isolate them internationally.

But once China's productive forces are high enough to allow the socialist transition then they no longer have to remain non-interventionalist for practical reasons. They could still try and justify it, but at that stage it would be hard for China to reject the internationalist principles of Marxism. The USSR could afford, to an extent, to wield hard power in support of revolutions and their governments, and of course without the USSR it could be argued that most socialist states would have collapsed soon after gaining state power. The soviets could do this due to their high level of industrialization, military, and global economic power.

When China is able to realize the same stage of socialism as the USSR they will undoubtedly be the largest and strongest economy in the world. While the west will still have some influence and power with which to threaten and hurt China over supporting international socialism, they ultimately won't be in the position of power to isolate China then as they did with the USSR. So there could be even less consequences for Chinese interventionism at this stage. Do you believe, then, that China would adopt foreign policy similar to the Soviet Union? And could even create an international version of the Warsaw Pact, that is an economic and military alliance between socialist states?

From my ignorant non-Chinese POV, there appear to be neither a practical or ideological reason for a fully socialist China not to be internationalist.

By successful I mean in maintaining relative party unity, work with the masses, and thus the masses trust in the party, and political and economic stability.

With the exception of the latter years of the Cultural Revolution, the CPC has been remarkably stable, ideologically consistent, and have maintained power and dominance over the Chinese state and economy. All of this is even more impressive given the fall of communist states in Europe and the rise of western/American unipolarity.

While similar tendencies have been found in the CPSU, the rise of figures like Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and especially Gorbachev, and of course their supporters within the party, makes the CPSU appear less stable and ideologically consistent compared to the CPC. Added onto this the fact that the CPC has a much larger and diverse membership, including the national bourgeoisie.

Rather than viewing this question through great man theory, I want to know how the structural formation and process of the CPC itself maintains stability, and how it's party structure is different from the CPSU. While both parties are founded on democratic centralism, how does this manifest differently between the two? In an interview with Marxist Paul, Hakim said the ban on factions within the CPSU, while imperative during the civil war and early years of the revolution, ultimately hurt the party. He then praised the informal factionalism of the CPC: Dengists, Maoists, liberals, etc. From the outset it would appear that such a situation of factionalism should rip the party apart, but it doesn't. Why,?

Looking at the relatively young history of communist movements and parties show that many, for material reasons, were/are unable to be stable and ideologically consistent. Again, outside factors and capitalist sabotage are of course a major contributing factor, but could there be structural elements within various parties which explain, to a certain extent, their successes or failures?

Seeing the immense progress the CPC has brought their own people and, increasingly, the people of the rest of the colonized world, means we must understand how they operate. Every party and movement will be different and adjusted to their particular circumstances and material conditions, and thus copy and pasting the CPC anywhere else will not yield positive results. However, could/should the structural basis of the CPC be applied and modified to other countries and contexts?

I know the two groups view post-Mao China in very different ways. MLM denounce everything, claiming that the entire party has succumbed to capitalist revision, that they were all pretend communists who truly believed in nothing.

Or the views of MLs who say that the CPC was right to open up like the NEP, to improve material conditions in order to develop to a higher stage of socialism. But how does this contradict anything from Mao?

How does this contradict New Democracy? Coalitions formed through the class system under the leadership of the CPC. That sounds like Deng propaganda!

Deng allowed for the creation of a new bourgeoisie that it nonetheless kept under the rule of the Party. Xi currently shows this best of all with the anti-corruption campaigns. If these billionaires lived in any other country they'd be the ruling class, but in China they're not. It still is a DotP.

How is the improvement of material conditions not a vitally Maoist position?

Regardless of your opinions on the Cultural Revolution, for most of Mao's life his theory was incredibly pragmatic. What mattered most was actually creating a proletarian state, and so most of his ideas comes from that war perspective.

And even the name Dengism, it's not a real -ism. Deng is right, he was a a committed Marxist, but his thought is really just a continuation of Mao and Lenin. As such modern China is not Dengist but are still committed to ML.

But again why is there this ideological split? It seems the only aspect of MLM that ML reject is a denunciation of the CPC. Because I don't think there's anything from Mao that contradicts or majorly reverses previously held ideas. (thus as ML inverting the idea of revolution in the imperial core to outside it in the periphery). In the same way I don't see much of the reform phase that is antithetical to anything from Mao.

I don't know if I'm being overly paranoid or what, but I can't tell if it's safe for me openly publish some spicy stuff under my legal name. Not to sound like I think I'm the most popular girl at school, but don't most prominent leaders go by pseudonyms the rest of their lives? Not saying I'm Lenin but...

EDIT: Alright comrades you've won me over. New name, new me.