weed cart type chune

Idgi. Ignoring the fact that it's two different authors, the visit ending up a propaganda tour is a possible outcome since that's been the case for all the previous ones.

I was in a twitter space with one of them grifters who was saying this. He was s***ting on a woman who organizes in real life and bragging about the influence he’s had on his online following…

any time i hear about someone trying to discredit in-person/real-life organizing it's the biggest of red flags and i don't mean this one:

From one of Lenin's final letters on national self-determination, obviously relevant today:

I suppose I have been very remiss with respect to the workers of Russia for not having intervened energetically and decisively enough in the notorious question of autonomisation, which, it appears, is officially called the question of the Soviet socialist republics.

When this question arose last summer, I was ill; and then in autumn I relied too much on my recovery and on the October and December plenary meetings giving me an opportunity of intervening in this question. However, I did not manage to attend the October Plenary Meeting (when this question came up) or the one in December, and so the question passed me by almost completely.

I have only had time for a talk with Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who came form the Caucasus and told me how this matter stood in Georgia. I have also managed to exchange a few words with Comrade Zinoviev and express my apprehensions on this matter. From what I was told by Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who was at the head of the commission sent by the C.C. to "investigate" the Georgian incident, I could only draw the greatest apprehensions. If matters had come to such a pass that Orjonikidze could go to the extreme of applying physical violence, as Comrade Dzerzhinsky informed me, we can imagine what a mess we have got ourselves into. Obviously the whole business of "autonomisation" was radically wrong and badly timed.

It is said that a united apparatus was needed. Where did that assurance come from? Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?

There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine.

It is quite natural that in such circumstances the "freedom to secede from the union" by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of paper, unable to defend the non-Russians from the onslaught of that really Russian man, the Great-Russian chauvinist, in substance a rascal and a tyrant, such as the typical Russian bureaucrat is. There is no doubt that the infinitesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietised workers will drown in that tide of chauvinistic Great-Russian riffraff like a fly in milk.

It is said in defence of this measure that the People's Commissariats directly concerned with national psychology and national education were set up as separate bodies. But there the question arises: can these People's Commissariats be made quite independent? and secondly: were we careful enough to take measures to provide the non-Russians with a real safeguard against the truly Russian bully? I do not think we took such measures although we could and should have done so.

I think that Stalin's haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious "nationalist-socialism" Stalin critised the minority nations for not being "internationalist" because they did want to unite with Russia, played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles.

I also fear that Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who went to the Caucasus to investigate the "crime" of those "nationalist-socialists", distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind (it is common knowledge that people of other nationalities who have become Russified over-do this Russian frame of mind) and that the impartiality of his whole commission was typified well enough by Orgonikidze's "manhandling". I think that no provocation or even insult can justify such Russian manhandling and that Comrade Dzerzhinsky was inexcusably guilty in adopting a light-hearted attitude towards it.

For all the citizens in the Caucasus Orjonikidze was the authority. Orjonikidze had no right to display that irritability to which he and Dzerzhinsky referred. On the contrary, Orjonikidze should have behaved with a restraint which cannot be demanded of any ordinary citizen, still less of a man accused of a "political" crime. And, to tell the truth, those nationalist-socialists were citizens who were accused of a political crime, and the terms of the accusation were such that it could not be described otherwise.

Here we have an important question of principle: how is internationalism to be understood?

I think a lot of the problems in the USSR originated from temporary measures taken during the civil war being turned into general party lines supposedly based on some deeper theoretical understanding

wasn't the temporary measures taken during the civil war turned into general party lines because even after the civil war the USSR felt like they were being sieged down by the rest of the world due to the failed revolution in Germany.

The world rn if the Sparticist won

That was definitely the case to an extent, but it wasn't framed as such by the party and instead presented as if it was an end in itself instead of a means to an end. Which makes it easier politically to maintain legitimacy, but only on the short term.

Like Lenin said in that letter:

"There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and tsarist hotch-potch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the course of the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine."

It's obvious from this that certain measures weren't meant to be permanent. Like he said the USSR was "busy" with the civil war and other crises. Here he was specifically talking about national self-determination being limited in war.

@Womanpuncher69

communism is when nice pizza hut?

also the 2nd pic is from australia and not the US

Outside of geopolitics China is just the USSR if Gorbachev got what he wanted with less liberal democracy idk why people love Deng but hate Gorbachev lol

@Womanpuncher69 @DontAtMe @Cudderwalks

Question for the Maoists, are you universally opposed opposed to taking part in elections? I agree that elections are in itself never gonna be a sufficient enough means in class struggle, so I'm not an electoralist either, but could it not be part of a broader strategy depending on the conditions of the specific country?

If you got any texts or anything explaining that stance I would appreciate that too

Hm, generally I am high opposed to elections but I’d say that there may be certain circumstances in certain places that would make a degree of electoral work a sensible tactical decision. For example in the Philippines or other countries where the state apparatus is not as monolithic as in the US that tactical inroads can be made through electoral politics. That being said I think if that is determined to be the case, it should only be conducted through the United Front, and not by the Communist Party itself (Altho the UF should of course be led by the CP to as high of a degree was possible)

This isn’t quite the same thing, but the PCP even had close relationships with certain judges and people within the State who would help them get cadre off the hook for certain charges, or get reduced sentences. So of course if there is an opportunity to use people within the State apparatus that should be seized.

Funnily enough, Mao actually advocated for US communists to work within the electoral system, at least to a degree. I don’t agree with that assessment but it’s discussed a bit in A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the ICM if you’re interested.

All this being said, if electoralism is tactically pursued in a United Front context, or if already existing state actors are used to leverage influence, revolutionary work should always be the primary means of struggle. And in a place like the US I pretty unequivocally oppose participating in elections.

Generally I think it’s only appropriate in highly specific contexts and it’s scope should be pretty limited and tactical

Preciate your answer and I'll look that up for sure, I've had the impression that Moaist anti-election stance was more universal so good for me to have that cleared up

What do you think of the rationale that electoral participation can be used with the goal to prove its futulity to those who still believe in it? I think it's fair to say that many people in the US for example radicalized because they realized this after experiencing the Bernie presidential run

Lenin made an argument like this in left-wing communism:

"How can one say that “parliamentarianism is politically obsolete”, when “millions” and “legions” of proletarians are not only still in favour of parliamentarianism in general, but are downright “counter-revolutionary”!? It is obvious that parliamentarianism in Germany is not yet politically obsolete. It is obvious that the “Lefts” in Germany have mistaken their desire, their politico-ideological attitude, for objective reality.

it has been proved that, far from causing harm to the revolutionary proletariat, participation in a bourgeois-democratic parliament, even a few weeks before the victory of a Soviet republic and even after such a victory, actually helps that proletariat to prove to the backward masses why such parliaments deserve to be done away with; it facilitates their successful dissolution, and helps to make bourgeois parliamentarianism “politically obsolete”.

Well I don’t want to be too generous, it’s pretty nearly universal but the conditions I described I can see it maybe being a thing but those situations are some what rare. And again, even if it is decided to do it it should be highly limited in scope. Revolutionary work should still be 95% of the focus

As for that other part, I can’t speak for other countries but in the US at least I think that’s an utter waste of time. There’s more than enough evidence elections don’t work and I think it’s our job to agitate and progandize around that fact, not waste our time giving any additional examples. Doesn’t seem like a wise use of resources when there’s a million examples we can point to of it not being in the peoples interest

I don’t know enough about Germany to really say. But all the Maoists I know there are opposed to electoralism so I would tend to take their word for it but I’d have to dig up some of their writings

I feel you

Looking from the outside in, I don't think there needs to be more examples of its futility either, although I personally think 2016 was still worth it, I think that experience pushed a lot of people to the left and see the US electoral system for what it was.

I completely agree that any participation in elections shouldn't take up too many resources and that other forms of organizing deserve way more attention for sure

I think the question is essentially how you handle the fact that a lot of people who may otherwise agree with your goals still believe in electoralism, how far do you take the logic that Lenin outlined in meeting the masses wherre they're at and proving its futility. It's a difficult question for me to answer tbh. Also because unfortunately politics is still seen as limited to elections by a lot of people, so if theh abandon electoralism they abandon politics altogether, so you have to be careful with the messaging as well

Are you paying attention yet?

i f***ing hate these pretentious s***s acting like they're making some unfoundly revelation by comparing pizza huts

Electoral pressure and electoral tactics are absolutely useful for building conventional bases as you further emphasize the contradictions that corrupt electoral systems provide

Definitely not any sort of avenue towards a real solution but more of a tool to help build revolutionary potential

I think the problem is I’d say almost every org in the US worth being a part of simply doesn’t have the capacity at this time for that to even be an option. There’s a lot of work that we can do besides electoralism, and attempting to pursue it now would only hamper our ability to build necessary infrastructure and achieve goals which are currently obtainable to make conditions more right for Revolution @Scratchin_Bandit

I absolutely agree. There needs to be a revolutionary base to bring people to before we can worry about putting pressure on politicians

multipolarista.com/2022/05/08/argentina-brics-china-invitation