titsay
Discoholic šŖ©
Cosmic Funnies
I'd rather be in outer space šø
Game of Thrones Daily
Claire Keane
ojovivo
No title available
ā£ Chile in a Photography ā£
noise dept.
Jules of Nature
RMH
Love Begins
JBB: An Artblog!
styofa doing anything
$LAYYYTER
NASA
sheepfilms
pixel skylines
ā
seen from New Zealand
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from Indonesia
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from Finland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Finland
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Azerbaijan
@mongolian-socialist
Hello!! I'm a (proud) Mongolian Artist who makes a lot of art centered around my OCs and Mongolian history! I'm going to try to be more active on this site :P Interests:
history (medieval + Mongolian), disease, philosophy, phantom of the opera, and I'm in a TON of fandoms (current hyperfix would be countryhumans)
Yes my asks are open, ask away just keep in mind I am a minor (17 yrs old)
> "The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia was a cruel, assimilationist party which deported ethnic Hungarians."
> looks inside
> they were the ones who ended the deportations and allowed the ethnic Hungarians to return and regain their rights
Ive always been curious about the CPC, do you know any good articles to read on them? And if you are able to, would you mind giving a summary on the history of the party? From what I have read they were not staunch followers of Marxism Leninism and did not properly undergo the collectivization process as well as pander to the petty bourgeoisie
āļøššø
bbieal cartoon
You do not need to see the failure of previous socialist movements as failures of socialism and Marxism. Marx did not become a nihilist due to the failure of the Paris Commune; he sought to analyze its failures and continued in the goal of revolution and the liberation of the proletariat using this failure as a stepping stone to learn and better our fight against capitalism. If you cannot maintain your beliefs in the face of previous failures and have to resort to revisionism, you aren't actually committed to Marxism.
You can perfectly analyze the failures of Cuba, USSR, China, and other socialist projects and what caused them to fail. To just close your eyes and plug your ears and say that actually socialism is winning and there is no need for analysis of these alleged socialist projects is anti-Marxist. China is currently the 2nd largest supporter of Israel economically. Cuba and the DPRK are dominated by foreign capital and are reliant upon it. Cuba even opened up its economy to private ownership by US citizens over a decade ago! The DPRK is sending soldiers to aid Russia's Inter-Imperialist war in Ukraine! For gods sakes you can and I know you can understand these as unacceptable for any socialist country to do. Look past these states and look towards seeking to organize revolution within your own country, stop glorifying and upholding these nations which have obviously failed to meet the standards which we should hold them to. Analyze these nations seek to understand their failures to move past them, join a communist party, organize your community, educate others and yourself.
Is revisionism the greatest symptom of this historical defeat of communism when Marxism has become an incredibly marginal doctrine? What could orthodox Marxism mean in a time when, in the West at least, class struggles have become more common around rent, debt, and citizenship than in the sphere of production? When they have become more fragmented and atomized unlike the mass struggles of an era where the organization of the factory system allowed industrial class struggle unionism to become a reality for thousands of people? I think that the crisis we've experienced is far more fundamental than the collapse of the Marxist-Leninism of the Comintern, which was always an unsteady coalition from the start (do we mean the Marxism and Leninism of Zinoviev, Trotsky, Stalin, LukƔcs, or Bordiga?) and quickly fragmented into multiple factions after World War II. We are now back to the very basic issues of socialism itself as something that emerged as a mass movement from democratic revolutions. We're at the question of how we can even have mass politics in a world that has been designed from top to bottom to prevent or recuperate them.
I agree with your objections to the state of "actually existing socialism" in the 21st century, it poses no ready made alternative to us, but at the same time the Marxist tradition itself is now a dinosaur. If we were to make the contributions of Marx or Lenin to history a living reality for ourselves, I think we need to work past this baggage and think originally about the concrete conditions of our concrete conjuncture and develop concepts to meet the needs of the moment. This doesn't have to mean reformism (imo, the more appropriate target of criticism when people criticize revision in general) and I think it's in fact essential for demonstrating the strategic emptiness and deluded utopianism of reformism today. You are right that people need to focus on the realities of the world around them, but I think today this means starting all over again. We are constructing the communist movement from the ground up, and we're going to have to start from the various partial and democratic struggles today (immigrant rights, police/prison abolition, indigenism, feminism, queer politics, etc) if we want to ever reach the point of a politically independent proletariat and communist party.
I may be misreading but I am not a Orthadox Marxist?
I agree that the communist movement must meet the needs of its current political conditions but this doesn't call for the abandonment of the analysis and tactics of previous Marxists. Of course, we must be able to understand that these tactics came from different material conditions but they can be used as a foundation for modern tactics. United and Popular fronts come to mind as examples. Dogmatic application of previous analysis is nearly as harmful as revisionism.
In modern times the APL has founded Red Youth Rising a mass organization set on organizing workplaces, communities, tenants, and educating and agitating against capitalism and fascism within the US. I think it's an excellent example of tactics of Marxism under the USA's current conditions
To state that we have to start from the bottom up is completely illogical in my opinion because there is no need to do such a thing. Leninās theories on imperialism, Marxās analyses on capitalism, Stalinās application of socialism, all of this is still applicable to our modern day. Honestly anyone who holds this opinion has not truly understood the history behind why āsocialismā collapsed because to understand this they must understand what socialism is. They donāt understand even this basic concept and then go around spewing all sorts of incorrect statements.
I like the APL though their endorsement of Hoxha isnāt so great as well as the glaze of Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara isnāt great either
The APL has multiple articles denouncing Guevara on ML currents; I'm unsure about any articles directed at Ho Chi Minh tho (I'm just beginning to read through their collection). From my interactions with APL members including Sebastian, a higher-up in the APL they both see them as revisionist but still national liberationist figures who we can learn from.
I'm guessing the glaze you are referring to is the summary on the Website where it said, "...enriched by Hoxha, Che, and Ho Chi Minh" This was changed recently to place Hoxha into a separate category as a defender of Marxism-Leninism. I think Sebastian had a pretty good way of putting it as walking into a library and focusing on the summary plaque of the library while ignoring all the actual substance in that library. I'm paraphrasing Sebastian's points because I'm tired and it was a couple of weeks ago.
Iāve spoken myself to some APL members who commemorate Ho Chi Minh and Guevara + some wereHoxhaists as well but I guess I must have met some really bad apples in the group.
You do not need to see the failure of previous socialist movements as failures of socialism and Marxism. Marx did not become a nihilist due to the failure of the Paris Commune; he sought to analyze its failures and continued in the goal of revolution and the liberation of the proletariat using this failure as a stepping stone to learn and better our fight against capitalism. If you cannot maintain your beliefs in the face of previous failures and have to resort to revisionism, you aren't actually committed to Marxism.
You can perfectly analyze the failures of Cuba, USSR, China, and other socialist projects and what caused them to fail. To just close your eyes and plug your ears and say that actually socialism is winning and there is no need for analysis of these alleged socialist projects is anti-Marxist. China is currently the 2nd largest supporter of Israel economically. Cuba and the DPRK are dominated by foreign capital and are reliant upon it. Cuba even opened up its economy to private ownership by US citizens over a decade ago! The DPRK is sending soldiers to aid Russia's Inter-Imperialist war in Ukraine! For gods sakes you can and I know you can understand these as unacceptable for any socialist country to do. Look past these states and look towards seeking to organize revolution within your own country, stop glorifying and upholding these nations which have obviously failed to meet the standards which we should hold them to. Analyze these nations seek to understand their failures to move past them, join a communist party, organize your community, educate others and yourself.
Is revisionism the greatest symptom of this historical defeat of communism when Marxism has become an incredibly marginal doctrine? What could orthodox Marxism mean in a time when, in the West at least, class struggles have become more common around rent, debt, and citizenship than in the sphere of production? When they have become more fragmented and atomized unlike the mass struggles of an era where the organization of the factory system allowed industrial class struggle unionism to become a reality for thousands of people? I think that the crisis we've experienced is far more fundamental than the collapse of the Marxist-Leninism of the Comintern, which was always an unsteady coalition from the start (do we mean the Marxism and Leninism of Zinoviev, Trotsky, Stalin, LukƔcs, or Bordiga?) and quickly fragmented into multiple factions after World War II. We are now back to the very basic issues of socialism itself as something that emerged as a mass movement from democratic revolutions. We're at the question of how we can even have mass politics in a world that has been designed from top to bottom to prevent or recuperate them.
I agree with your objections to the state of "actually existing socialism" in the 21st century, it poses no ready made alternative to us, but at the same time the Marxist tradition itself is now a dinosaur. If we were to make the contributions of Marx or Lenin to history a living reality for ourselves, I think we need to work past this baggage and think originally about the concrete conditions of our concrete conjuncture and develop concepts to meet the needs of the moment. This doesn't have to mean reformism (imo, the more appropriate target of criticism when people criticize revision in general) and I think it's in fact essential for demonstrating the strategic emptiness and deluded utopianism of reformism today. You are right that people need to focus on the realities of the world around them, but I think today this means starting all over again. We are constructing the communist movement from the ground up, and we're going to have to start from the various partial and democratic struggles today (immigrant rights, police/prison abolition, indigenism, feminism, queer politics, etc) if we want to ever reach the point of a politically independent proletariat and communist party.
I may be misreading but I am not a Orthadox Marxist?
I agree that the communist movement must meet the needs of its current political conditions but this doesn't call for the abandonment of the analysis and tactics of previous Marxists. Of course, we must be able to understand that these tactics came from different material conditions but they can be used as a foundation for modern tactics. United and Popular fronts come to mind as examples. Dogmatic application of previous analysis is nearly as harmful as revisionism.
In modern times the APL has founded Red Youth Rising a mass organization set on organizing workplaces, communities, tenants, and educating and agitating against capitalism and fascism within the US. I think it's an excellent example of tactics of Marxism under the USA's current conditions
To state that we have to start from the bottom up is completely illogical in my opinion because there is no need to do such a thing. Leninās theories on imperialism, Marxās analyses on capitalism, Stalinās application of socialism, all of this is still applicable to our modern day. Honestly anyone who holds this opinion has not truly understood the history behind why āsocialismā collapsed because to understand this they must understand what socialism is. They donāt understand even this basic concept and then go around spewing all sorts of incorrect statements.
I like the APL though their endorsement of Hoxha isnāt so great as well as the glaze of Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara isnāt great either
This site feels so much better to use than twitter but I think ive seen only Dengists, unironic utopian socialists, and Khruschevites besides one person.
I agree that or they glaze the hell out of Fidel and Che ššššš
You do not need to see the failure of previous socialist movements as failures of socialism and Marxism. Marx did not become a nihilist due to the failure of the Paris Commune; he sought to analyze its failures and continued in the goal of revolution and the liberation of the proletariat using this failure as a stepping stone to learn and better our fight against capitalism. If you cannot maintain your beliefs in the face of previous failures and have to resort to revisionism, you aren't actually committed to Marxism.
Che's very much a very interesting historical and revolutionary figure. He rejected Khrushchevite revisionism but due to this was forced out of Cuba. He had many correct ideas and I wonder how he would have developed if not killed in 1968 and continued his education
Marxist Leninist Currents has an in-depth text going over Che's economic theory its a very interesting read.
Have you read Cheās Critical Notes on Political Economy?
Not yet but I'll read through them eventually
I highly suggest doing so as it also is extremely helpful to understand Cheās positions on polecon
Che's very much a very interesting historical and revolutionary figure. He rejected Khrushchevite revisionism but due to this was forced out of Cuba. He had many correct ideas and I wonder how he would have developed if not killed in 1968 and continued his education
Marxist Leninist Currents has an in-depth text going over Che's economic theory its a very interesting read.
Have you read Cheās Critical Notes on Political Economy?
LOOK AT THIS TINY BABY
THIS LITTLE SWEETIE
Every day Iām interacting with the most interesting Caucasian specimens. I genuinely donāt know what yakub was thinking in that laboratory when he concocted their dna
had a history teacher tell me once that communism and nazism were ālike the North and South Pole, theyāre basically the same but one has penguinsā
In another rant of his he insisted that āas a history teacherā he āstuck only to the facts, not peopleās feelingsā
levels of idealism not thought possible
Can tumblr communists stop praising china, Vietnam, DPRK, Laos, and Cuba. They are not socialist and have never been socialist (though the case can be argued for China during Mao). I need people to understand that socialism is not when the government gives people free health care š¤¦āāļø this is exactly how these social imperialists and social LIARS manage to distort the history and science of socialism. Like Iām sorry but itās a truth youāre going to have to swallow. China is a social imperialist, Vietnam + Laos + Cuba are market socialists aka CAPITALISTS, and DPRK is a revisionist nation that is also capitalist. I need to separate the DPRK because juche is so mind bogglingly idiotic I canāt stand it.
Before anyone gets on my case yes I recognize that Cuba is currently being strangled by the USA and the people are suffering. No I donāt support US imperialism in Cuba, BUT this does not mean I support the Cuban government. I support the people of Cuba and understand that the capitalist regime of Cuba is more beneficial than the US imperialist agenda. Two things can be true at once donāt come at me.
I can give more explanation if anyone asks but these are my two cents
I donāt understand what the confusion is. Socialism has specific characteristics + is an economic mode of production that makes it socialism. Cuba, China, DPRK, Laos, and Vietnam no longer or were never socialist to begin with. Itās not a difficult concept to understand as they either to put it simply allowed for the existence of private property, failed to merge the rural and the urban, or/and introduced capitalism back into the economy (as was the case in China with SwCC + Deng). Socialist *elements* can exist within a nation but these elements must not be confused for being actually socialist
May Day Demonstration in Ulan Bator, Mongolian People's Republic, 1960s.
Village Discount Outlet, Akron, OH
