Timeless art

Question, I have some ideas regarding this but I don’t know what’s correct/if there’s a more clear answer here and would enjoy others thoughts

But what was up with the popularity of determinism in the USSR and elsewhere in regards to the inevitability of socialism? The idea that capitalism must inevitably transform into socialism due to its internal contradictions.

I’ve been aware of this for some time, but reading a Soviet philosophy textbook from 1934 and while it’s mostly great, this theme comes up a lot so it reminded me of this.

I think philosophically, this stems from a poor understanding of dialectics and an over emphasis on the forces of production over the relations of production, which leads to a poor understanding of socialist transition. (On the forces of production part, I think this is due in large part to a bad reading of the Preface of Marx’s Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy) Particularly in regards to the fact that they did not recognize that class struggle continues under socialism, and prematurely thought that class antagonisms had ceased to exist, and classes themselves were beginning to whither away when they weren’t (this is embodied in a lot of Stalin’s writings on the topic)

But as far as being a product of historical circumstances, this is where I’m unsure. Obviously today we are knowledgeable of the fact that catastrophic climate change is a very real threat, which could very well occur before socialism ever has a real chance. But even without that pressing issue at the front of peoples minds , did the potentially existential threat of fascism not undermine this idea? Were they just over optimistic given the success of socialism at that time? Or did they just fundamentally underestimate capitalisms ability to adapt?

TragedyBerlusconi banned?

quit the forum in shame after he refused to scrap while I was in London

Going off this I think 4th chapter of this gives a very thorough and correct understanding of socialist transition in contrast to the general Soviet understanding. Whole book is great but recommend chapter 4 and the postscript for thoughts on this particularly

marx2mao.com/Other/CRIOC74.html

@PhilipMorris I am curious about your perspectives on Maoist lineage because there seems to be a divide between followers of Gonzalo-PCP Maoism and non-Gonzalo Maoism (largely in Philippines, India and Turkey)

TKP-ML is Hoxhaist group IIRC

Shoutout to the non-psyop i mean non-gonzalo maoists

DEFEND THE HONOR OF CHAIRMAN GONZALO'S ETERNAL SOUL

If im w my friends at the crib who i havent commiepilled yet and get too drunk/high i always show em these two classic

Let me get back to you on this one, that’s a big question

How often does this scenario happen

Not sure if this is the answer you’re looking but feel free to ask any follow up questions

It depends what you mean by “Gonzaloism”. Obviously I have a number of issues with a lot of the self described western “Gonzaloists”. That being said, I am in full agreement with Gonzalo’s primary contributions to Maoism, namely the theories of Concentric Construction, Militarization of the Party, and the universality of Protracted Peoples War as a revolutionary military strategy. I also think the PCPs organizational strategies, particularly the way in which they developed their network of above ground mass organizations is important for communists of all stripes to study. Their are also a number of criticisms to be raised of the PCP as well. I think in particular, their conception of the mass line was extremely week and tended towards commandism. Jefetura is mostly a nonsense concept as well and led them to at times make rather strange, idealist proclamations bordering on the theological.

I think the differences between the Indian, Filipino, and Peruvian Maoists are overblown, although they are of course all different. I’m not as educated on the Turkish movement. But anyways all three at least for all intents and purposes support militarization and concentric construction, even if they don’t always strictly use those terms. The Indians and the Filipinos of course don’t support jefetura, but that’s really not a line struggle that ever went anywhere outside of very niche internet debates. The CPP can at times be somewhat to the right of the other two, but I also think this is overblown. Joma (RIP) was not the acting head of the CPP for some time and his statements should not be conflated with the general line of the Party, which is where most “controversies” stem from. I’m not sure that the CPP has ever taken a formal position on the PPW question, but even if Joma didn’t believe it to be universal it’s clear a large portion of the Party does. That being said I do think they err to the right on certain things, but this is usually stuff being communicated by the United Front, which will naturally be to the right of the Party and again shouldn’t be conflated with the general line of the Party

Also remember all of these parties worked very closely and supported one another through the RIM

All and all I take a lot of inspiration from the PCP, and do think that contrary to popular belief they are a movement that should be closely studied and learned from. I wouldn’t consider myself a “Gonzaloist” however because I don’t see Gonzalos contributions as distinct from Maoism. The PCP was largely responsible for synthesizing Maoism, so to me those contributions of theirs which I outlined I consider to simply be part and parcel of Maoism generally

Now again if we’re talking about self described “Gonzaloists” in North America and the opposite camp that uses the term pejoratively to describe them, that’s a different conversation. If you’re interested in reading more about that stuff, I recommend this foreignlanguages.press/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/N05-Critique-of-Maoist-Reason-3rd-Printing.pdf

Just these past few months 4 times

He has a point, the state is working as intended

For even if the good of the community coincides with that of the individual, it is clearly a greater and more perfect thing to achieve and preserve that of a community; for while it is desirable to secure what is good in the case of an individual, to do so in the case of a people or a state is finer and more sublime. (The nicomachean ethics, book 1, ii, 5)
Was aristotle a commie?

they couldnt forsee the rise of the democratic welfare state

I think this something we gotta PSYCHOANALYZE and come to the conclusion that it was COPE for them feeling like it's me against the world and also kinda needing to make you (and really mostly the masses) feel like the sacrificies they had made weren't for nothing and the potential sacrifices in the future won't be for nothing

The Bolsheviks got to power with a promise to improve the conditions of the working class in the short term and bring about socialism and had an incredibly brutal civil war where 10+ million people died. I can imagine them not wanting to then tell them that it was all to develop the productive forces a bit like Bukharin wanted to, or even that you just got into the first stages of socialism like under Stalin, nah you gotta tell em communism is right around the corner yk. That impulse and a poor grasp of theory can lead to that typa silliness

21st century version of the internationale

Whats that anti american rap song from eastern europe again

More ameriboo than anti american tbh but still hard

Had a dream where @Scratchin_Bandit called me and said he was lapping some fool in a McLaren P1 as I see him pass me

move post to capitalism thread