Ideology

[blindpig]

Marxist education not culture wars vitriol

Bending socialist material to fit social media norms of ‘successful content creation’ only undermines our cause.
Proletarian writers

Saturday 24 May 2025


The ‘culture wars’ paradigm encourages workers to identify with members of the ruling class, and even to call on the bourgeois state to suppress or silence workers on the ‘other side’, who are perceived to be an ‘enemy’ and the cause of all society’s problems. Meanwhile ruling-class ‘team leaders’ are seen as allies and even saviours.
The following resolution was passed unanimously by the tenth party congress of the CPGB-ML.

*****

This congress notes with concern the growing tendency for political discourse to be conducted within a framework of bourgeois-defined antagonistic camps – what have become known as ‘culture wars’. These artificially imposed ‘dividing lines’ often have nothing to do with class and everything to do with keeping workers divided and blaming one another for the problems that are inherent to capitalist society.

Congress notes that the question of immigration was the original ‘culture war’ issue, identified by Marx and Engels a century and a half ago as the true secret of the stability of bourgeois rule in 19th-century Britain. The current proliferation of issues that are being presented in similarly heated and tribal ways is a sure sign of the senility and decay of imperialist society, which has no hope and no meaningful future to offer working people and so must present them with an array of scapegoats on which to vent their anger.

Today this can be seen not only on the key question of immigration, but also on other important topics like climate change, Brexit, the transgender trend, the Covid-19 pandemic, vaccines etc. Congress notes that as a result, public debate is being steadily reduced to something that has more resemblance to a football match than a political conversation, with competitors routinely exchanging insults that further entrench the dividing lines.

Congress notes with concern that even those who identify as ‘Marxist’ or ‘socialist’ are increasingly bending their publicity, especially on monopoly-controlled social media, to fit with (and therefore, whether wittingly or not, to promote) culture wars paradigms – usually because such behaviour is consistently rewarded by the algorithms that govern content promotion on such platforms as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

This congress believes that bending socialist material to fit these laws of ‘successful content creation’ is detrimental to the cause of the proletariat, since:

It helps to create extreme polarisation and mutually exclusive positions in regard to important issues, generating blind loyalties and entrenched antagonisms that prohibit meaningful discussion and considerably lower the chance of workers arriving at a nuanced and class-conscious understanding.
It lays the basis for encouraging workers on both ‘sides’ of these debates to identify with figures in the ruling class – ‘team leaders’ and ‘saviours’ who egg them on to ever higher levels of enmity – and even to call on the bourgeois state to suppress or silence the other side, which is perceived to be an ‘enemy’ and the cause of all society’s problems.
Its fundamental purpose is to keep us outraged but ignorant and impotent, adding to workers’ stress and anger levels without ever raising their understanding or bringing them to a positive and optimistic understanding of their own agency and power.
Congress notes that our party has earned for itself a reputation of standing firm and being guided by science on all important issues. Decades of consistently standing on principles rather than jumping on board the latest bourgeois fads, fashions, red herrings and propaganda campaigns has brought us the respect of friends and enemies alike, and is beginning to earn us a place in the hearts and minds of the most advanced section of the British working class.

This congress instructs its members and the incoming central committee to do everything possible to avoid allowing our party to be sucked into culture wars framing of any issue. This means:

1.Making sure we avoid directing inflammatory or deliberately provocative language at workers who have been misled by one camp or the other on any issue.

2.Framing our arguments, especially when criticising counter-revolutionary organisations, in such a way as to help educate those who have been misled rather than alienating them. This means telling the truth as calmly as possible and explaining the science that lies behind our position; helping workers take steps away from where they are and operating on the assumption that the masses are neither irretrievably bigoted nor stupid.

3.Avoiding the unhelpful terms, categories and insults that today proliferate online, whether they refer to a person’s supposed political grouping or even their age (ie, ‘Boomer’, ‘GenZ’, ‘Gammon’, ‘Libtard’ etc).

4.Avoiding presenting our analysis under ‘clickbait’ headlines that are unnecessarily catastrophic, sensationalist or antagonistic. We must strive to generate interest and awareness with sane good sense rather than counterproductive triggering of knee-jerk emotions.

5.Avoiding getting sucked into debates on social media, which should as much as possible be used as broadcast channels. Rather than writing angry and immediate responses to online controversies that are perceived as being ‘urgent’, we must set the example and build a culture of stepping back from constantly feeding the artificial and inflammatory ‘news cycle’, which distracts the energies and wastes the time of party members and the wider working class alike.

6.Building a reputation for rational and thoughtful analysis and for the promotion of material that is genuinely educative. If we judge that a question needs to be dealt with, we should write our comment as an article, publish it in our physical as well as online media, and post links to the article on social media platforms.

https://thecommunists.org/2025/05/24/ne ... s-vitriol/

[blindpig]

KKE leadership slanders international antifascist forum in Moscow

The Greek party’s leaders continue to rebrand Trotskyite formulae as ‘Leninism’ to cover their inexcusable treachery at a pivotal moment in history.
League of Communist Youth of Yugoslavia

Sunday 25 May 2025


While revolutionaries around the world are working to galvanise the maximum possible forces for the defeat of the US-led imperialist camp, Greece’s KKE continues to do everything in its power to demobilise this effort and justify keeping workers on the sidelines of the titanic battles to come.

This article is reproduced from the World Anti-imperialist Platform’s Youth Platform website, with thanks.

*****

In the run-up to the 80th anniversary of the victory over fascism, the second International Anti-Fascist Forum (IAFF), organised by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) was held in Moscow from 21-25 April 2025.

The event was attended by 450 delegates from 91 countries, representing 164 organisations. Many members of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties (IMCWP), as well as organisations affiliated with the World Anti-imperialist Platform (Platform), took this opportunity to express a strong voice against the worldwide resurgence of fascism.

One party notably bsent from this event was the Communist Party of Greece (KKE). Instead of showing solidarity with those who struggle against fascism (including many parties of the IMCWP, of which KKE is a member), it used this moment to yet again criticise not just the KPRF or the Platform (which has been its usual practice up to this point), but also to spread numerous falsehoods regarding the character of modern-day fascism and imperialism, with the ultimate goal of putting an equal sign between the imperialist and anti-imperialist camps.

This time, the criticism was presented in an article in Rizospastis on 4 May, entitled ‘On the International Anti-Fascist Forum of Moscow’, and signed by the international relations section of the KKE’s central committee.

The reason for analysing the aforementioned article is the fact that today’s communist movement finds itself in the midst of an ideological struggle between opportunist and anti-imperialist forces. The leadership of the KKE – a party which has a rich history and still holds significant influence and authority among numerous communist and left-wing organisations – has been watering down and revising its political line for several years (some would say even decades), up to the point where, in practice, it has completely abandoned any substantial struggle either against capitalism in its own country or imperialism worldwide.

Unfortunately, the incorrect political line of the KKE leadership tends to confuse and mislead many comrades both within Greece and internationally, who, due to a lack of proper theoretical education, can easily fall for half-truths and lies that are hidden behind the party’s strong communist iconography and rich party tradition. The Youth Platform has therefore written this article to correct confusion among the comrades who are willing to conduct real day-to-day struggle against imperialism and capitalism, with the additional aim of providing a clear political line and explaining the tasks of the working class in times when the battles of World War Three are intensifying.

Allegations against participating organisations
Right at the top, the Rizospastis article uses the time-tested tactic of ad hominem attacks against some of the organisations participating in the IAFF in order to thus undermine the event’s legitimacy as an international event. In the case of their home country, Greece, they didn’t miss an opportunity to present the “Greek branch of WAP” as an “obscure” organisation – precisely because the KKE leadership don’t tolerate any of their compatriots who dare to criticise their harmful ideology.

It is also interesting that [in substantiating their claim that no Greeks were present] while they were quick to notice the presence of “two South Koreans” who participated in the IAFF (it seems that Koreans started appearing even in the worst nightmares of KKE leadership), they weren’t able to report the participation of the renowned Greek philosophy professor Comrade Dimitrios Patelis, who is also a leader of the aforementioned “Greek branch of WAP” (ie, the Revolutionary Unification organisation).

Although it might have been that the keen eye of the article writers somehow missed Comrade Patelis, it is more likely that they ignored him on purpose, as every mention of his name strikes terror in their heads.

The fact that a large number of communist parties, including the ones that hold power in their respective socialist countries (like Cuba or DPR Korea), but also parties like the organiser KPRF (which is the second-largest party in Russia), as well as numerous historians and activists took part in the second IAFF is enough to prove its legitimacy and significance. The presence of some non-communist (patriotic, progressive, anti-imperialist, etc) organisations doesn’t change the essential character of the IAFF at all, since it was not a communist, but an antifascist meeting, meaning it could and should aim to gather participants from the wider political spectrum.

The creation of antifascist fronts; relation between strategy and tactics
In their critique of the IAFF, the KKE leadership is making a methodological error by equating and mixing communist tactics and communist strategy. For them, the creation of fronts (such as antifascist ones) automatically fragments the communist revolutionary struggle.

Of course, they do not provide any substantial explanation of the mechanics of the aforementioned fragmentation. For them, any tactical move taken by a communist party – any attempt to form an alliance or front – automatically means the betrayal of communist ideals. As if the communist struggle is just a matter of maintaining identity, and not an ongoing, developing process of class struggle and the gathering of class forces.

Unlike the opportunistic KKE leadership, genuinely revolutionary communists should always have in mind the dialectical relation between strategy and tactics. While the communists should never abandon their strategic goals, which are the overthrow of capitalism and the construction of a new, socialist – and later communist – society, they may have to, and more often than not will need to, adjust their tactical approach to make use of the current contradictions within society in order to fulfil those strategic aims.

The antifascist front (including the IAFF) is not a goal in itself, but rather a tactical manoeuvre that can attract non-communist forces and direct their resources and energy into achieving communist goals. The same can be said about anti-imperialism, with an important caveat that this latter front holds greater significance. In the conditions of World War Three, the main contradiction is between the imperialist and anti-imperialist camps, while fascism only serves to fulfil imperialist interests.

Critique of the IAFF appeal
One of the main KKE criticisms of the IAFF forum’s concluding resolution, entitled ‘Appeal of the Second International Anti-Fascist Forum’, is its supposedly one-sided view on the reactionary tendencies within Russia. The KKE leadership is quick to point out reactionary moves of the Russian bourgeoisie and to equate them with raging anticommunism in the west, and especially in Ukraine.

For them, historical revisionism within Russian society (which the appeal doesn’t deny, and in fact addresses the need to struggle against “all forms of decommunisation in state ideology and policies”, our emphasis) is the same as the openly Banderite ideology and historical falsifications promoted by the Kiev regime, or the equating of Nazism and Stalinism by numerous European Union (EU) parliament resolutions.

They are also quick to forget the prevalence of Russophobia in all EU countries, not to mention the victims of Kiev’s fascists, such as those who were burned alive in the Odessa House of Trade Unions in 2014.

The KKE leadership ignores the fact that the Communist Party of Ukraine (once the third-largest party in the country) has been banned since Euromaidan putsch, the persecuted Kononovich brothers being the most well-known symbol of communist repression by the fascist Kiev regime.

Instead of pointing out the fact that the rightful uprising of the people of Donbass in 2014 was the first antifascist uprising in Europe in the 21st century, as well as the fact that one of the goals of Russia’s special military operation is the denazification of Ukraine, the KKE somehow, without any explanation, equates Russia’s financial and energy aid to Ukraine between 1991-2013 with the rise of fascist ideologies in the country!

The IAFF appeal correctly points out that the cause of imperialist wars and aggressions, and subsequently the rise of neofascist forces and regimes, is the modern crisis of capitalism. It uses communist analysis to explain the war between Russia and not just Ukraine, but the whole western bloc, and has a strong voice against the three decades-long revision and falsification of the history of former socialist states.

All of these facts were somehow missed by the keen eyes of the KKE leadership – as if they hadn’t read the appeal at all – or, more likely, didn’t expect their followers to do so.

United front policy of the Comintern and the main contradiction of World War Three
Instead of providing contemporary solutions to the problem of fascism, the KKE leadership is quick to divert our attention to the past and to correct ‘mistakes’ that the seventh congress of the Comintern allegedly made nine decades ago. At that time, the Comintern adopted the policy of a united front against fascism, which involved creating alliances between communists and ‘democratic’ forces both on a national and international level.

The fact that fascism was defeated only ten years after the seventh congress, as well as the fact that during this period the number of socialist countries went from one (the USSR) to around a dozen, proves that the Comintern at that time had a correct political line and pursued it successfully.

These apparent results are, for some reason, not enough for the wise leadership of KKE, so they go even further into the past, more precisely to 1928 and the sixth congress of the Comintern. KKE revisionism has more problems with the clear Marxist-Leninist line of the 1935 Comintern as compared with the line of 1928, which was formed at a time when almost all communist parties still had very influential Trotskyist and other opportunistic elements within them.

The bankrupt ideologies of Leon Trotsky and even Karl Kautsky, recycled today by the KKE’s ideologues, are most clearly shown in their analysis of the contemporary world situation, which is also key to their understanding of the IAFF. While they falsely criticise the appeal for “mechanically applying” the conditions of World War Two to the modern geopolitical situation, they are actually the ones who are constantly [and mechanistically] going back to World War One to justify their own opportunistic views.

For them, the war in Ukraine is an “interimperialist conflict”, Russia’s role is the same as that of the US-EU-Nato alliance in qualitative terms, and even China represents a typical example of a capitalist-imperialist country. In their distorted view, any country that participates in trade or any economic activities with capitalist nations is itself capitalist and even, according to the imperialist pyramid theory, imperialist. This even includes proven socialist countries like DPR Korea and Cuba, which, if their analysis is applied to its logical conclusion, is not so much a victim of US imperialism as an imperialist country itself.

Starting from this position, as well as from its aforementioned rejection of any fronts, the KKE leadership urges the working class to stand aside and simply wait for the ‘right conditions’, when ‘communist paradise’ will somehow (of course, without any explanation) magically appear. Instead of gaining real advances, the workers should either remain passive or confine themselves to struggles for minor economic concessions.

In this way, the imperialist system stays intact, which suits the KKE bureaucrats fine, since they largely live off EU donations (part of the KKE printing enterprise is funded directly by the EU, for example). Thus it is clear that, in true Kautskian fashion, the KKE leadership is using ‘pure anticapitalism’ to rid itself of any need for anti-imperialism – in order to justify siding with its own imperialist alliance in World War Three.

Unlike the KKE, genuine communist forces analyse historical development in accordance with dialectical materialism – and, therefore, recognise the differences between World War One, World War Two and World War Three. The first world war was truly an interimperialist conflict, during which two groups of monopolists fought for the redistribution of the world’s wealth and resources. However, the contradictions within the imperialist system at the time enabled the birth of the first socialist state, the USSR, which itself drastically altered history from that time onwards.

During the interwar period, in order to combat the rising communist movement, as well as to resolve the sharpening contradictions of the deepening capitalist crisis in their favour, the bourgeoisie in many countries, notably Germany, Italy and Japan, adopted the most aggressive form of capitalism – fascism. The aggressiveness of this system threatened not just the socialist USSR but even the so-called ‘democratic’ capitalist countries, which eventually led to the alliance between them, in accordance with the aforementioned united front policy.

Therefore, the character of World War Two is defined by its main contradiction, the one between fascist and antifascist forces. After the defeat of fascism and the advance of socialist and anticolonial movements, the contradiction between the imperialist and anti-imperialist camps became the prevalent one. This contradiction shaped the cold war, and is now shaping the ongoing third world war. Therefore, World War Three is a war between imperialism and anti-imperialism.

The KKE apologists would argue that the aforementioned contradiction disappeared with the fall of socialism in eastern Europe. Although it is true that, at the time, the position of the communist and anti-imperialist forces in general was weakened, this did not mean their complete defeat. The socialist countries of China, DPR Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba managed to survive the renewed offensive of the west, while anti-imperialist movements such as those in Palestine, Venezuela, Yemen etc continued to resist the hegemony of the US-EU-Nato alliance.

Nowadays, even some capitalist countries are joining the anti-imperialist camp, with Russia and Iran (together with socialist China and the DPRK) forming a global Axis of Resistance against the west. Of course, we as communists recognise that the capitalist forces within our ranks have their own interests for the anti-imperialist struggle that are different from those of the working class. However, we would be incapable or dishonest if we missed an opportunity to use the contradictions between different bourgeois factions to strengthen the popular forces and advance the struggle against imperialism into a communist revolution.

Under the imperialist hegemony of the US-EU-Nato, any resistance to exploitation, let alone communist revolution, will be suppressed. This can be seen in the examples of Libya and FR Yugoslavia, as well as in the genocide against the people of Palestine and the six-decades-long blockade of socialist Cuba.

Since the main contradiction in today’s world is the one between imperialism and anti-imperialism, the fascist forces and regimes today play a secondary role in the grand scheme of things. They are mainly used by imperialists to quell the resistance in the places where it is particularly strong – the examples of which are Ukraine itself, south Korea with Yoon Suk-yeol, the anticommunist hysteria in the Baltic states and Poland, as well as fascist riots in progressive countries like Venezuela – and even the activities of radical islamists in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region of China.

The contemporary imperialist bourgeoisie has learned from its mistakes before World War Two, and today allows the independence of the fascist forces only to the point where they do not endanger their own interests. Therefore, the communists must view the antifascist front as an important one, but not as a goal in itself, as fascist regimes and forces will keep reappearing as long as the main contradiction, the one between imperialism and anti-imperialism, is not resolved in our favour.

After the defeat of imperialism, fascism could potentially still rise in weakened capitalist countries (which will be in an even deeper economic crisis than they are today), but without the support of a worldwide imperialist system, it would be far easier for the popular forces to defeat it.

The way forward
As we approach Victory Day, let us remember that the struggle against fascism didn’t finish 80 years ago, and that there is still a lot of arduous work and struggle ahead of us. While we remember and honor our ancestors, and also learn from their experiences and mistakes, let us not fall into the trap of ‘living in the past’.

Unlike the KKE leadership, which has been left only with the glorious past of their party, and with no future to look forward to, we, the consistent communist forces, must not revise the past, but instead apply and develop our theory and practice creatively and in accordance with modern developments.

Let us also remember that the struggle against fascism is incomplete on its own, and that only the communist forces can supplement it with the struggle against imperialism and eventually capitalism.

Our just struggle against fascism will not be finished until imperialism and capitalism are defeated; until communist forces establish socialism worldwide. With revolutionary optimism, we are sure that the people will win the battle for humanity.

Death to fascism and imperialism, freedom to the people!
The people united will never be defeated!
С Днем Победы! [Happy Victory Day!]

https://thecommunists.org/2025/05/25/ne ... um-moscow/

[blindpig]

Poem: Logic

A poetic response to VI Lenin’s classic work on philosophy: ‘Marxism and Empirio-Criticism’.
Proletarian writers

Saturday 7 June 2025


Lenin working on his book, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.

Lenin takes down the philosophers of old, those who would sell their ‘souls’ to have but an ounce of logic, they want to believe, but want to deny.
Born into a world of logic, their meanderings are tragic, they want to be Marxist, a respected line, but cannot depart from ‘no matter, no time’.

What matters is, they think the world wouldn’t exist, without some human input, an idealist trope, where they sit down and hope, that the world after death will be better. Unfettered ideas fly as they try to combine the material with the ideal.

Lenin deals them a hand, the world is not planned, their ideas are built on sand, which slips through their fingers, but their questions still linger in every philosophical school, ruled over by intellectual fools, who tell us the world is unknowable, that growing discontent isn’t meant to be serious, that furious people can hope for a better heaven, just wait a while, stay put where you are, don’t even think about reading Harpal Brar, or Lenin or Stalin, Marx or Engels, wait for the advent of angels and deny the world around you exists,

That sunkissed beaches and darkened forests, the history we build upon, the relatives dead and gone, are all a figment of your own, and very own imagination.

This ideation is at the wrong station, Lenin tells them again and again, but they prattle on that Marx was wrong, all under the veneer of helping the workers, they are intellectual shirkers, confusing themselves and everyone else, and confounding language.

We must gauge for ourselves the value of the real, what we feel is not distanced from the world around us, the world still exists behind us, unobserved, and the universe will still be here, when all life has ceased to be, sat in the dark of eternity, and we will not see that day. But it will be there.

https://thecommunists.org/2025/06/07/ne ... oem-logic/

[blindpig]

Solidarity Against ICE and the Entire State Apparatus
Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist 11 Jun 2025


Carlos Sirah of Black Alliance for Peace SoCal speaks as community groups in Los Angeles unite against ICE. Photo by Abraham Marquez for L.A. TACO

Popular resistance against the Trump administration in Los Angeles and other cities is a very positive development and one that Black people must embrace.

The devolution of Black politics has never been so evident and could not happen at a worse moment. While the crisis of legitimacy accelerates, and provides opportunities for movement politics, many Black people have declared themselves to be uninterested in political engagement or even worse, to be in solidarity with state oppression. Social media is replete with examples of Black people declaring that they don’t care about genocide in Gaza, or that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has nothing to do with them or even that they are glad other people are targeted for deportation.

The city of Los Angeles, California is now the focal point of resistance, and while there is Black solidarity within the coalition protesting ICE raids and Donald Trump bringing in the National Guard, there is also a strange resistance to acting in solidarity with those who are specifically targeted in this phase of state repression.

There is a great deal of confusion about what Black politics should be. The confusion continues because Black politics, the assertion of Black/African people’s human rights here and abroad, was killed off by repression, the influence of money in politics, years of right wing indoctrination, and the presence of a neo-liberal, imperialist Black man in the office of the presidency. The result is that the people who once were most likely to be at the very least skeptical of the state’s motives are now in support of some of its worst acts.

Entertainer Azealia Banks not only declared , “I’m a Zionist,” but felt compelled to add , “No black person should be supporting Palestine.” Ms. Banks attempted to explain away her inexplicable comments by asserting that all Arabs are racist and therefore undeserving of any solidarity. Even if that broad generalization were true, why would it mean that a genocidal state would be acceptable to her or to anyone?

Banks is one of the worst examples of this dubious narrative, which says that Black people should only be interested in themselves because all Arabs are supposedly racist or all Latinos are racists or because other groups have not been in solidarity with us, or because ICE isn’t raiding them. It is difficult but necessary to clear through many levels of misguided thinking if we are to find our way out of a dangerous morass.

The same forces that destroyed the liberation movement have convinced many Black people that effective political engagement is limited to voting, when in fact voting is the least effective means of bringing about change. Numerous studies have shown that voters don’t get what they want even when their chosen party is in office. Of course, bourgeois democracy delivers a revolving door of democrats and republicans who alternately fall out of favor with the public only to market themselves anew and periodically switch places so that the duopoly can take turns raising hopes and then failing the public over and over again.

We see Black people claiming that their vote for Kamala Harris or Joe Biden or Barack Obama is akin to movement organizing when nothing could be further from the truth. The claims that Black people shouldn’t be involved in the fight against genocide or ICE because we have all fought so hard often amounts to nothing more than people having voted for a democrat in a presidential election year. The duopoly confidence game causes people to be angry because they think their quadrennial trip to a polling place amounts to more than it actually does.

The lack of historical knowledge is another factor in the encouragement of apathy. “No one helped Black people.” “Why should we care if someone else is deported?” “They’re stealing our jobs.” The prevalence of discredited American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) and Foundational Black American (FBA) ideology leads to hostility even towards Black immigrants. The site of masked ICE officers making violent arrests elicits nothing more than a shoulder shrug from the masses who think their situations are not linked with those being victimized.

At the very least, one would think the admonition warning against cutting off one’s nose in order to spite the face, would be kept in mind. Black people should know better than anyone that police, whether local or from ICE, are the enemy and that we should never applaud their actions, even if we appear not to be the target.

As for anti-Blackness among other groups, discernment is important. There is anti-Black racism among groups who are not white and it isn’t difficult to find examples. But that should not mean support for arresting people when they appear for immigration check-ins as they have done for years or that we shouldn’t feel repelled by ICE agents seeking entry to school buildings, dragging people from work places, and arresting U.S. citizens in the process. Black immigrants are always targets and are easily swept up in a racist system.

But there is also a lack of understanding about immigration itself. Immigration secures a class of disposable labor for capitalists, which is why people from all over the world are admitted to the U.S. If immigrants take what Donald Trump referred to as “Black jobs” it is because that is what the ruling class wants. It is not an accident that entire industries rely on immigrant labor. These same capitalists want a race to the bottom. If they don’t have migrants coming to the U.S. to work, they will leave the U.S. in search of even cheaper labor, and find ways to emiserate citizen workers even more than they do now. That dynamic is a constant, and no one should be fooled into thinking that Black workers would benefit even if every immigrant returned to their home country.

There is a mistaken belief that the fortunes of Black people from the U.S. would improve if others disappeared. Such conjecture is completely ahistorical. Yes, we must wage our own battle but what and who are we fighting? Our enemies are racism and capitalism. There is no reason to believe that mass incarceration, gentrification, or low wage work would disappear if global south immigrants were to leave the U.S. Our situation was not better before they arrived, and thinking that corporate, capitalist parties would somehow offer up something different is not borne out by any experiences Black people have had.

Donald Trump’s actions and his persona are different from other presidents, and that is a problem, but not just for the obvious reasons. It is important to remember that the Democratic Party’s allegiance to its oligarchic class, and its determination to vilify Trump instead of doing what their voters want, led to his return to the white house. It would be unfortunate if the only conclusion reached about this crisis is that we need another Democratic Party president when that party’s fecklessness led to Trump’s second term in office.

The lesson to be learned is that US Black people must understand that every phase of repression is a danger to us. We have no choice but to be in solidarity with all oppressed groups as we struggle for a new system altogether. This is better than finger-pointing about why the democrats failed to win the presidency. Democrats have cut the safety net, increased military spending, created a prison industrial complex, deported millions, and promised their capitalist sugar daddies that they will do everything in their power to keep people in a constant state of precarity. There must be no confusion about who our enemies are.

https://blackagendareport.com/solidarit ... -apparatus

[blindpig]

What Is to Be Done Part I: A Disease Has Infected the American Left.
Posted by Internationalist 360° on June 10, 2025
Felix Dzerzhinsky


A police station and liquor store set ablaze in Minneapolis during the George Floyd uprisings. Source: New York Crimes

“There has never been too much of such “pushing on from outside”; on the contrary, there has so far been all too little of it in our movement, for we have been stewing too assiduously in our own juice; we have bowed far too slavishly to the elementary “economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government”. We professional revolutionaries must and will make it our business to engage in this kind of “pushing on” a hundred times more forcibly than we have done hitherto.-V.I. Lenin “What Is To Be Done”

A disease has infected the American left.

A disease of passivity.

We march and chant and shout slogans, but no one will do anything significant because they are waiting to reach some undefined, arbitrary (and constantly shifting, to provide an unlimited number of excuses) threshold of popular support. As if, when a certain point is reached, a switch will be flipped allowing the American left to actually act instead of just sitting on their hands. Until then, we can do nothing except block off streets and write witty slogans on signs. Meanwhile, the bourgeoisie drown the world in blood and rake in profits hand over fist.

It seems that nothing can spur us to action. Even though the situation has progressed to such an extent that our comrades are grabbed off the streets and sent to for-profit prisons to be tortured and deported for the crime of opposing genocide and apartheid, we still do nothing. Even as the American gestapo roams the streets rounding up migrants to be sent to Guantanamo Bay, we still do nothing. Even as bombs rain down on Gaza night and day, we still do nothing. As the Trump regime promises further repression, we still do nothing.

All the voices from the left cry out that to act now would be “adventurism”, a sin that they view as worse than torture and death. No, according to what counts as the left in this country, the worst crime that anyone could commit is to resist the state’s terror, to stand up and fight back for real instead of just chanting it in the streets.

But why? Why do we submit ourselves to such terror?

The Nature of the Infection

The Party is the organized detachment of the working class. The Party is not only the advanced detachment of the working class. If it desires really to direct the struggle of the class it must at the same time be the organized detachment of its class. The Party’s tasks under the conditions of capitalism are immense and extremely varied. The Party must direct the struggle of the proletariat under the exceptionally difficult conditions of internal and external development; it must lead the proletariat in the offensive when the situation calls for an offensive; it must lead the proletariat so as to escape the blow of a powerful enemy when the situation calls for retreat; it must imbue the millions of unorganized non-Party workers with the spirit of organization and endurance. But the Party can fulfil these tasks only if it is itself the embodiment of discipline and organization, if it is itself the organized detachment of the proletariat. Without these conditions there can be no question of the Party really leading the vast masses of the proletariat. -J.V. Stalin “The Foundations of Leninism”

It is easy to attribute inactivity to a lack of courage, labeling individuals as cravens afraid of disrupting their standard of living. It’s simple! If basic needs such as food, shelter, and comfort are met, there is no incentive to sacrifice for a better future and world.

This theory, however, oversimplifies the issue and lacks dialectical complexity. Americans have been rising, and they have been acting. From George Floyd to Standing Rock and everything in between, there have been recent examples of resistance among the American people. However, as they are lacking in direction and leadership these acts of resistance are little more than random outbursts, incapable of enacting any meaningful social change.

Even when Americans have risen en masse such as the George Floyd uprisings and college encampments, it has been done in an individualistic manner with no co-ordination among the various groups which did not allow them to use their numbers to their fullest advantage, thereby making it simple to isolate and defeat them in detail. Without a unified goal or clear leadership, these anarchic movements burn out on their own, wasting the time and courage of their participants in actions that are seemingly designed to fail.

Some left-wing groups believe workers will liberate themselves, with the role of the party to merely support spontaneous movements. However, history shows that successful movements need strong leadership, which the left lacks. The organized left in America follows rather than leads, failing to provide necessary direction for social struggles. The only difference between an army and a mob is leadership and organization, and it is that area where the left has failed utterly.

A new type of organizing is required. More militant, disciplined organizing designed to prepare people for a prolonged period of struggle. It is necessary to re-imagine the role of a party. Rather than simply a book club, we must make the transition into a hardened cadre of dedicated revolutionaries, with the end goal of building not an amorphous movement for vague political goals, but a concrete, flesh-and-blood organization which can confront the state and the people who run it and win.

The problem lies not in personal bravery but a lack of discipline and a misinterpretation of history. An emphasis on ancient theory combined with a lack of historical understanding has resulted in a movement that is so well educated it has infinite excuses for doing nothing. While there can be no revolutionary movement without revolutionary theory, it cannot and should not exist on it’s own.

Dialectical materialism serves as an analytical tool for understanding history, not as an end in itself. Understanding dialectical materialism without historical context is akin to a mechanic buying tools yet refusing to repair cars due to fear of soiling their hands, a waste of time, of resources and effort. In other words, knowledge of theory is not enough. We must also study history.

A cursory examination of recent history, viewed through the lens of dialectical materialism, reveals the futility of a passive strategy. The increasing repression by the regime in Washington and the material conditions now facing humanity necessitate immediate action.

For the first time, humanity at large, rather than one individual people or nation, faces an existential threat from capitalism-induced climate change. It is too late to escape this trap, we are already caught in its jaws. Coastal areas are rapidly submerging as we speak, threatening major cities and even entire nations.

As the current regime in Washington undoes even the token environmental legislation designed to curb the worst excesses, we can be certain that conditions will deteriorate further in the coming years. Even with full national mobilization, it would take decades of dedicated work to undo the worst of Capitalism’s terrible hangover.

Despite the ongoing climate apocalypse, the capitalists have made a conscious decision to put their foot to the floor, accelerating consumption to make up for the falling rate of profit. The system will carry on with the accumulation of wealth by any means and at any cost. Capitalism operates with the ideology of a cancer cell: relentless growth regardless of the consequences to the host. It should be treated the same and eliminated.

If we set aside the ravages of capitalism-induced climate change, the reality of this system is still one of monstrous, bloodthirsty excesses. In the 30 years since the fall of the USSR, capitalism is responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people worldwide through both direct and indirect warfare.

In Russia alone, Capitalism caused the deaths of at least 5 million people from 1991 to 2001. The butcher’s bill in the Union republics is another 3 million, at an absolute minimum. Most of the states were so wracked by corruption and anarchy that they simply lacked the infrastructure to count their dead.

The population growth in all ex-Soviet nations is still negative and the rates of hunger, homelessness and poverty all vastly exceed that of even the last days of the USSR. Even before the war in Ukraine, there were over 800,000 homeless children in the nation of around 40 million, forced to suffer because the machinations of Capitalism have deemed their lives to be superfluous.

The entire United States homeless population, at the height of the nation’s greatest housing crisis in the postwar era, is under 600,000. In the “repressive” Soviet Union, housing was a human right, guaranteed to all under their constitution.

In the so-called Global War on Terror, 5 million innocent people have been killed by the United States, it’s proxies and the forces unleashed on these innocent countries with almost complete bipartisan support in the government. Before that, the same guardians of the “rules-based international order” starved over 1 million Iraqis to death and murdered over 1.5 million people through the intentional destabilization of Yugoslavia. These crimes are ongoing all throughout the world today, so the more you look, the more bodies you find. Therefore these numbers are both incomplete and constantly rising.

I would be remiss not to mention the situation in Palestine in more detail, as it is both one of the most pressing issues facing us and one of the most emblematic of the monstrous nature of American imperialism. The rogue apartheid state known as “Israel” has been committing genocide in broad daylight with the full, unquestioned support of both parties. Even the Zionists themselves admit that they could not continue fighting without American support, and yet our government insists it has no leverage even as it ships them more weapons. Of course, this country provides more than weapons, it also provides a bottomless line of credit and constant diplomatic cover. This has never been more obvious than today.

We have seen atrocities in Gaza that harken back to the 1940s. Ironically, the Zionists who use the memory of the Holocaust as a cudgel are inflicting another one on Gaza. The atrocities are almost beyond counting. From gang rape to mass murder, the Zionists have filmed themselves committing the ghastliest crimes on the Palestinian people. It seems like every day we get more evidence from the perpetrators themselves, laughing and joking as they brutalize the Palestinian people for social media likes and sick mementos.

As shocking as it is, the saddest truth in Gaza is that this is nothing out of the ordinary. This has been their life, or what passes for life, for decades. The genocide did not begin in 2023, not in 2018 when we watched IOF snipers shoot unarmed children during the Great March of Return, and not in 1994 when Gaza was turned into a prison. It began when the Zionist state was founded in 1948 and has been ongoing ever since.

Despite hours and hours of footage from both sides, the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs are telling us that there is no evidence of genocide in Gaza. We have seen the evidence with our own eyes and yet we allow it to continue, acting as if we are powerless in the face of these crimes.

Even Bernie Sanders loudly insists that the Zionists have the “right to defend themselves” against the indigenous people they have put into open-air concentration camps. Every politician in congress insists that the Zionist entity has a “right to exist” yet says nothing about Palestine and its people’s right to do the same. It’s clear that some people have more “right to exist” than others.

Throughout it all, the resistance has begged us to open a second front. To do anything to physically stop the genocide. Rather than targeted action to degrade the capability of the Zionists to wage war, we responded with random violence against Starbucks windows and occupations of libraries while American arms factories worked third shifts to meet the increased demand. Even basic research could have revealed that the depth of collaboration in America is far more than a few businesses selling the Zionists coffee and yet it seems that the best we can do is this surface level, liberal analysis.

While the resistance views their struggle through a military lens, their supporters view theirs as nothing more than a performance. The goal of these skits can be little else besides personal gratification and the soothing of guilty consciences. Ask yourself one question. Even if Starbucks quit selling coffee to the Zionists tomorrow, what difference would it make? The nature of capitalism means someone else would quickly fill the gap. We can only hope to starve out the Zionist monster through systemic change and targeted action, not random violence against cafés.

Windows smashed, graffiti left on Starbucks near UO campus - Daily EmeraldThe lump sum of leftist “resistance” to genocide. Source: Daily Emerald

This does not imply that our approach should be restricted to direct action alone. We must utilize whatever tactics are fitting for the situation. All sorts of organizing should be welcomed as long as can be proven effective.

It should be noted here that many of the non-violent tactics throughout history have been anything but. Even the so-called pacifist Mahatma Gandhi intentionally provoked violent responses from the state by targeting key economic infrastructure of the occupier, and then physically disrupting it with massive “peaceful raids.”

Gandhi urged his followers to not resist the violent repression, garnering popular support by correctly portraying the state as bloodthirsty for attacking unarmed people. In essence, Gandhi weaponized shame against the occupiers.

Gandhian tactics are considerably more confrontational than those commonly used by the left in America. While we seek to avoid confrontations with the police, Gandhi welcomed them. Indeed, according to his biographer, Gandhi even encouraged his followers to sacrifice their own children on the altar of “non-violent” resistance.

“Farson saw one woman hold up her baby and endeavor to secure for it a crack on the head. When he expressed his horror to her through an interpreter she remained unmoved, anxious only to sacrifice her baby for the cause.” -Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi, 298

As of now, there exists no party which could lead even a Gandhian struggle in America. With both violent and non-violent disobedience off the table, the only alternative is obedience. The problem is simple. Rather than hard-working, self-sacrificing cadres willing to put their lives on the line for a cause, we have become an insular club of cloistered academics.

Every minute we wait, more people are dying.

As I write this, American bombs rain from the sky on the long-suffering people of Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia and so many others. Entire families and communities are wiped from the face of the earth via what we are told are “precision strikes” by a cowed corporate media that exists to maximize profits for their shareholders, not tell the truth.

However, merely counting the bodies is also reductivism. Capitalism does so much damage to the living that they may envy the dead.

Untold thousands are still held in black sites all around the world, tortured and brutalized off hearsay. They cannot be released due to fear of their stories becoming public, but they cannot be charged because they have done nothing wrong. Millions more have been displaced, forced to flee their homes for good thanks to an endless cycle of proxy warfare.

In “civilized” Europe, these migrants are robbed of their valuables, put in camps, exploited for cheap labor and ruthlessly victimized by criminals both legal and otherwise. Their lives are reduced to how much profit they can generate for the very same people who destroyed their homes and overthrew their governments.

These are the lucky ones. The less fortunate simply drown at sea, attacked by pirates or police and left to wash up on the shores of “civilized” Europe. As the war in Ukraine rages on, another generation of refugees have found their way to Europe, ready for exploitation anew.

The reaction of our politicians, even those on the “left” of the spectrum of mainstream politics, has shown us that the path of gradual reform is nothing more than fantasy. To wit, the section of the ruling class which sits in supposed opposition to Trump was obliterated when they tried to unite us behind one of the men most responsible for the disastrous policies which caused all this war and terror.

The Democrats think we have forgotten that it was Biden who sat behind George W Bush, telling us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the silo 45 minutes from launch. Even before the full-scale invasion of Iraq in 2002, Joe Biden had spent a decade pushing for a war.

He was far from the only one. Without Democratic support, the “Global War on Terror” could not have happened. Without their lies, millions would still be alive today. While they have glossed over this inconvenient truth, we cannot allow ourselves to forget.

Beyond war, the Democratic party has not delivered any of the changes necessary. Even when they hold majorities in congress the Democrats have only expanded the list of conflicts overseas and passed only token environmental laws, all of which have already been undone. This shows us that systemic change is necessary, and this is change the Democrats cannot deliver. After all, the system is partially of their making, and in turn, it sustains their party through massive political graft and corruption.

Even our supposed saviors, people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, shed crocodile tears for photo ops while they continue to maintain, year in and year out, the military and surveillance panopticon which is both the world’s most prolific killer and by far its largest polluter. In their minds, the only problem inherent to the American empire is that it does not distribute the loot equitably enough. When these so-called progressives had leverage during the Biden administration, they used it to maintain the system rather than force concessions. This is not an exception for them, but the rule.

They make performative gestures against the Republicans when they have no power but refuse to fight back against their own party’s maleficence when they do. They do not organize their followers to do anything except vote for the same Democrats who have caused all these problems.

In essence, people like Bernie and AOC exist to funnel the energy of the left into the Democratic party, where it can be safely dissipated inside the colossal machine. If they had genuine conviction, they would organize their followers into a new voting bloc capable of putting pressure on the Democrats to force concessions and yet they continually bow to the Democratic party without getting anything in return.

This is the farthest left of what is considered acceptable by our system. Even if the reformists had a genuine desire to change the system, they are outnumbered, outgunned and vastly outfunded. Their insistence on working within a system which was designed specifically to destroy them means that they were doomed from the very beginning. Maybe in 50 years they will have a large enough bloc of voters to get free healthcare and guaranteed vacation in a dead world and their best-case scenario is still wildly insufficient to resolve the crises facing us today.

This is the material situation facing us. The working people of the world are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun and the maniacs in Washington will never stop talking about how much they want to shoot.

Yet, despite this urgency, the left in America do not act. They still sit on their hands, sure of nothing besides the time is not right, at best slowly “building a movement” as the world continues to burn. It is imperative that we begin the transition to a more militant movement. The best time to do this was 20 years ago, the next best time is now.

We must join or form our own organizations and tighten our ranks. The time has come for us to lead by example, for a bold, self-sacrificing party to take charge in the struggles to come.

We do not have any more time to wait.

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/06/ ... ican-left/

What Is to Be Done Part II: The Red Line
Posted by Internationalist 360° on June 10, 2025
Felix Dzerzhinsky


Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) | Meaning, Significance, Impact, & Facts | BritannicaMK Chief of Staff Chris Hani inspects the troops. Source:Britannica

“A slave who cannot assume his own revolt does not deserve to be pitied.” – Ibrahim Traoré

The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.” –The Manifesto of Umkhonto we Sizwe

It is time for us to face one simple truth.

It is a hard truth, despite the fact that many of us privately acknowledge it, we publicly beat around the bush for fear of inevitable repressions. However, we no longer have the time to meekly beg for scraps from the table as the world burns. We must cross this red line, to say what has always been implied.

The United States Government must be destroyed. This should be our foremost goal.

It cannot be negotiated with. It cannot be reformed. It cannot be remade. It has no right to exist, nor should it. It must be destroyed, root and stem, and the earth must be salted underneath it to ensure it can never return. This government, and the system which it perpetuates on this earth, is a machine that exists to kill and poison. It converts our blood and suffering into endless profits for a tiny minority of humanity.

The government long ago lost the trust of its people. According to the capitalists own research, only around 20% of Americans trust their government under any circumstances. The vast majority do not believe that it ever has their best interests in mind. This mistrust, combined with the constant creation of more desperate workers, gives us the objective conditions to build a revolutionary coalition in America.



The United States government is the lynchpin of global capitalism and imperialism. Without its muscle, this system would collapse, as would the fetters it places on the world. This would benefit not just foreigners in far away lands, western workers have much to gain as well from reversing the de-industrialization caused by international monopoly capitalism that this government exists to protect.

Even thinking purely from self interest, it is obvious that the United States government is a parasitic entity and its destruction would free the majority of this nation’s people from the inevitable grinding of capitalism in its final stage.

This truth leads to another uncomfortable fact.

History has shown us that the only realistic way to defeat this monster is through armed struggle. Thanks to America’s unique position in the world, insulated by two vast oceans and with neighbors kept docile by imperialism, no foreign force can or will come to save us. This leaves us with only one option. We must organize an army of the working class, gradually building the forces necessary to engage and eventually destroy it.

We are, in truth, a long way from this goal or even meeting the requirements to initiate armed struggle. However, the contradictions continue to sharpen with or without our input and so it is imperative that we lay the groundwork for a prolonged period of struggle before the situation moves beyond our control.

This is uncharted territory for the American left. There have been sporadic outbreaks of violence from small vanguardist groups, but there has been no sincere attempt at organizing an army of the working class. The idea that a small group can act as “detonators”, that “a single spark can start a prairie fire” has been decisively disproven by history. Such misguided theories caused the eradication of the New Left in America. It is not enough to have a small group of militants, we need a real army with broad-based popular support.

We have correctly rejected the ‘pure detonator theory’ which is based on the belief that the localised military actions of professional armed cadres automatically generate growing resistance and support from the people. But on the other hand to postpone all armed activity until political mobilisation and organisational reconstruction have reached a level high enough to sustain its more advanced forms, is to undermine the prospects of full political mobilisation itself. Experience of South Africa and other highly organised police states has shown that until the introduction of a new type of action it is questionable whether political mobilisation and organisation can be developed beyond a certain point. Given the disillusionment by the oppressed mass with the old forms of struggle, demonstration of the capacity of the liberation movement to meet and sustain the challenge in a new way is in itself one of the most vital factors in attracting their organised allegiance and support. Thus we have been taught to avoid two extreme positions – in the one case the pure detonator theory and in the other case the pure reconstruction theory which implies that no organised armed activity should be undertaken until we have mobilised the people politically and recreated advanced networks of nationwide organisation. The first has within it the seeds of a dramatic adventure which could be over before it started. The second holds out little prospect for the commencement of armed struggle and the conquest of power in our lifetime. -Joe Slovo “10 Years of Umkhonto we Sizwe”

A careful balance must be struck between the sort of aggressive movement necessary to reach our end goal and a realistic, pragmatic movement which does not waste its strength on doomed enterprises. To embark on an armed struggle before we are fully prepared would be suicidal, a criminal waste of lives and resources which would not bring about any real gains. However, we cannot progress past a certain point of organization without the addition of armed action to our repertoire.

This balance can be reached only through analysis of the conditions facing us, as viewed through the lens of dialectical and historical materialism. Fortunately, those who came before us have left us with a considerable amount of work on the topic of transitioning from a party to an army. Differences in material conditions must be taken into account and carefully analyzed but if we are to embark on such a serious mission, we must be well-educated in both revolutionary history and revolutionary theory.

This is so because even in the typical colonial-type situation, armed struggle becomes feasible only if:

• there is disillusionment with the prospect of achieving liberation by traditional peaceful processes because the objective conditions blatantly bar the way to change;

• there is readiness to respond to the strategy of armed struggle with all the enormous sacrifices which this involves;

• there is in existence a political leadership capable of gaining the organised allegiance of the people for armed struggle and which has both the experience and the ability to carry out the painstaking process of planning, preparation and overall conduct of the operations;

• and there exist favourable objective conditions in the international and local planes.

In one sense, conditions are connected and interdependent. They are not created by subjective and ideological activity only and many are the mistakes committed by heroic revolutionaries who give a monopoly to the subjective factor and who confuse their own readiness with the readiness of others .-Strategy and Tactics of the ANC

While there is widespread disillusionment at the prospect of creating real change through legal and non-violent means and favorable material conditions both nationally and internationally, the requirements for armed struggle are not met.

There is no appetite for sacrifice among either the people or the parties which have unsuccessfully tried to lead them. American movements have mostly stayed within the realm of legal dissent, unwilling to violate the law owing to the state’s severe and wanton violence. If police can get away with shooting unarmed people, they have plenty of justification to shoot dangerous rioters.

This leads to a meek movement which often collaborates with the state to ensure its own security. When you ask permission from the government, they will only authorize methods of protest which do not threaten them. We must move beyond that, into forms of struggle that exist specifically to physically erode the authority of the United States government. It is necessary that the party prepare the people for a prolonged period of illegal struggle and the repressions that will begin from there.

While there have been some recent illegal actions in America such as the George Floyd uprisings, the university encampments, Standing Rock and et cetera, they have been sporadic and have predictably brought no results. These random outbreaks of popular discontent will never be sufficient and represent a terrible waste of people, blood and time. As Communists, we must oppose random violence. It is our duty to organize these spontaneous events into organized, targeted and effective actions.

The answer to government terror is not wild rioting, but organized and planned mass self-defense and resistance. Police and military violence against peaceful pass-burners or strikers cannot succeed if the brave and disciplined young freedom fighters are organised and prepared to stand up in defense of their homes, their lives and the security of their own people. –The African Communist, Vol 13 “The Revolutionary Way Out”

These deficiencies are our failures, driven by a lack of a clear goal in our organizing. We have created amorphous movements with vague demands when we should be focusing everything towards one goal, the defeat of the United States government.

In order to reach this goal, it is necessary to radically re-imagine the role of a party. Rather than a simple book club, the party must take the form of a unified military-political structure, with clear, realistic goals. It is the job of the party to prepare the people for a prolonged, extreme period of struggle, to instill discipline and lay the groundwork for the creation of an army. When the time comes to initiate armed struggle, it must represent a natural progression in our organizing.

This does not mean that all our operations must be military in nature. An armed struggle can and must exist in concert with a political struggle. War is nothing more than the continuation of politics. Without the threat of military action, political action has no teeth. Without political action, military action has no purpose. The two are not opposites, they are twins.

Theory and Practice

We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.” – Carl von Clausewitz

One example of the type of organizing that will be necessary could be seen in South Africa. While not directly comparable, the two situations share more in common than America and China or Russia, where the class basis of society was wildly different. Both the United States and South Africa are fully developed, imperialist capitalist nations, and both had advanced forms of racial exploitation and discrimination.

In particular, we can analyze the time when South Africa came to accept the uncomfortable truth of armed struggle to give us an example of how to transition from a party into an army.

Despite concerted attempts to whitewash the movement by the liberal elite, from 1961 on, the African National Congress maintained an extensive armed guerrilla wing called Umkhonto we Sizwe or Spear of the Nation1. MK started from a handful of novices in Joe Slovo’s office and matured into a real army capable of engaging and defeating the South African armed forces and police in pitched battle both at home and abroad.

By the 1970s, MK had armed cadres in all neighboring countries and had dragged the apartheid regime into a bloody, ruinous war of attrition across the region as their political organizers paralyzed the economy and increasingly isolated South Africa from its friends and finances abroad. In the end, struck by the twin hammer blows of political and military action, minority rule was defeated in South Africa.

Once again, without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. Joe Slovo, the South African Communist Party and the MK general staff left us with a vast corpus on strategy and tactics. We can no more ignore our comrades from Africa than we can Marx and Lenin. In their works, they call for the sort of unified military-political decision making which must be used by a revolutionary movement.

MK troops with their Soviet advisors. Source: University of Oxford


As correctly put in the Strategy and Tactics of the African National Congress: “When we talk of revolutionary armed struggle we are talking of political struggle by means which include the use of military force”. All our activities whether directly military or political are calculated to help bring about a situation in which insurrectionary conditions will mature. –Joe Slovo, 10 Years of Umkhonto we Sizwe

Even before they turned to the armed struggle, the ANC imagined the role of the party was to unify all the forces that could be unified against the government and mobilize the masses into a disciplined, courageous and self-sacrificing body which was capable of withstanding the severe repressions of the apartheid state’s security forces.

The African National Congress started in the early period of its existence by using the methods that were common at that time — protest demonstrations, resolutions adopted at conferences, various ways of trying to demonstrate the rejection of the system by the majority of the people. As time went on, the African National Congress began to rally under its banners all of the forces that were opposed to the system, especially during the era of apartheid, when a unity began to develop among the Africans and other racial groups in the country, including the whites. This force created problems for the regime; it compelled the regime to resort to naked force to repress the struggle for democratic change. In the period between 1950 and 1961, the people’s movement, which involved the peasantry, young people and of course the working people, was confronted with such violence that the most natural thing to do at that time was to reply to this violence with violence. The African National Congress advocated nonviolence — again as a means of mobilizing the masses, disciplining them and preparing them for brutal repression. By these methods the African National Congress also sought to win over more of the white population which supported the regime and to appeal to international opinion. The regime used not only armed police at the time. At that point, in 1961, the people decided to move away from non-violence and embrace violent methods, adopt the strategy of armed struggle. – Oliver Tambo, “The Struggle Continues”, 1978

Rather than simply waiting for the situation to mature, for some arbitrary point to be reached which would allow them to act, these disciplined cadres were able to force the issue by using all tactics short of violence. Through dogged determination and aggressive, targeted political actions such as civil disobedience and general strikes, the ANC was able to shepherd the movement towards a revolutionary path. This non-violent action was necessary to build discipline and organization among the people, and to psychologically prepare them to face the state’s repression. When the state finally moved to crush the movement, the people were already prepared to fight back and therefore armed struggle represented a natural progression.


African women protest pass laws. A similar protest led to the infamous Sharpeville massacre. Source: Workers World

Of course favourable conditions for armed struggle ripen historically. But the historical process must not be approached as if it were a mystical thing outside of man which in a crude deterministic sort of way sets him tasks to which he responds. In this sense to sit back and wait for the evolvement of objective conditions which constitute a “revolutionary situation” amounts in some cases to a dereliction of leadership duties. What people, expressing themselves in organised activity, do or abstain from doing, hastens or retards the historical process and helps or hinders the creation of favourable conditions for armed struggle.- Joe Slovo, Prospects for Armed Struggle in South Africa

When the battle was joined and the party transitioned to the path of armed struggle, they maintained an active political apparatus to maintain their base of support. This was always analyzed from a military-political lens.

In order for both the state and the struggle against it to be successful, they required a mass base. However, the mass base can only be drawn from the South African people. This means that the state and ANC were essentially competing for the same base of support, but in different ways. It was the state’s role to prevent a revolution by any means, while it was the ANC’s role to foment one. Even in a settler-colonial situation like South Africa, the state had many ways to ensure compliance beyond just violence.

The ANC could counter terror through organization and instilling discipline among the people, but other methods proved more insidious. For example, since the state controlled the educational system and the media, it was used to perpetuate apartheid via propaganda and indoctrination. In order to counteract that, the ANC had to make political education and agitation a top priority. To build and maintain a people’s army, it was necessary to conduct thorough and never-ending political work.

Military action needed clear political goals, with an eye towards maximizing agitation and mobilization of the people. All military activities had a political characteristic, and vice versa. However, military action was not enough. It was necessary to fight this struggle on all fronts, be they legal or illegal, violent or non violent. Tactics had to be carefully selected based on the individual circumstances and what could be gained. The goal was always to mobilize the maximum amount of people possible, instill them with revolutionary discipline and prepare them for the struggle.

What is our approach to the relationship between the political and military struggle?

The preparation for People’s Armed Struggle and its victorious conclusion is not solely a military question. This means that the armed struggle must be based on, and grow out of, mass political support and it must eventually involve our whole people. All military activities must, at every stage, be guided and determined by the need to generate political mobilisation, organisation and resistance, with the aim of progressively weakening the enemy’s grip on his reins of political, economic, social and military power, by a combination of political and military action.

The forms of political and military activities, and the way these activities relate to one another, go through different phases as the situation changes. It is therefore vital to have under continuous survey the changing tactical relationships between these two inter-dependent factors in our struggle and the place which political and military actions (in the narrow sense) occupy in each phase, both nationally and within each of our main regions. The concrete political realities must determine whether, at any given stage and in any given region, the main emphasis should be on political or on military action.

The creation of a national liberation army, with popularly-rooted internal rear bases, is a key perspective of our planning in the military field. Such an army unit must, at all times, remain under the direction and control of our political revolutionary vanguard. –The Green Book

While the material conditions of 20th century South Africa are not directly comparable to those of the 21st century United States, their experience shows that Leninist tactics are still valid and can be implemented in an industrialized, settler-colonial nation.

However, we must take into account the differences in historical and material conditions. South Africa had a system of minority rule, wherein only a small sector of the population (in this case, whites) had any civil rights and the majority were excluded from any political processes. The dividing lines of Apartheid were clearly drawn, allowing the ANC to focus its maximum efforts on the sections of the population that had the most to gain.

In America, the system has become more complex. First, we must reckon with the differences and similarities of the “democratic” systems. Although legally enfranchised, the majority of Americans of all races still have no real say in political affairs owing to the characteristics of our bourgeois “democratic” system. Since the candidates are all chosen by capitalists, they all speak for capitalists and no one else. While this was also true in South Africa, only whites were allowed to participate in elections until 1994. The illusion of bourgeois democracy did not apply to the majority of citizens, whereas in America it serves as a relief valve, making organizing more difficult. In South Africa, the majority could be organized around a clear goal, democracy. In America, our “democracy” is the problem.

Because of their great economic power and wealth, the owners of the means of production dominate in every capitalist country. They run parliament and the press; their ideas prevail in educational and religious institutions. The laws are made to suit their interests. The State, the army, the police and the courts, defend, in the first place, their property. However democratic it may appear on the surface, every capitalist state is in reality a dictatorship of the capitalist class. –The Road to South African Freedom, 1962

While America’s system of racial segregation has legally ended, nothing was done to reverse the social damage it caused, meaning that it is still present at similar levels to those prior to the Civil Rights movement. Both American and South African apartheid were economic systems, not just social, and without any attempt to correct the economic imbalances the systems have continued in all but name. Minority communities still suffer from severe economic deprivation, leading to extreme differences in health, income and incarceration.


Persistent Residential Segregation: America's Urban ChallengeSegregation of Neighborhoods. Source: Brookings Institute

We must also take demographics into account. In South Africa, the black population represented an absolute indigenous majority. This gave the ANC a solid base from which to draw massive popular support. In America, there is a slim white majority, but this is when all minority groups are considered to be a unified bloc, a situation which has little bearing in reality. In reality, racial politics in modern-day America is much more complicated than it was in South Africa, with its clearly drawn lines of apartheid.

Unlike in Africa, the indigenous people of America have been virtually wiped out and replaced with new settlers, both willing and otherwise. An incredibly complex system of race, racism and racial discrimination was the natural result of this. An in-depth discussion of this system is beyond the scope of this article, but we can still draw basic conclusions from history and theory.

The simple truth is that while the majority class basis of all races is the same, racial politics has been used as a wedge to divide them, making all-around political organization very difficult. Because of this, it is more important than ever that we maintain an active educational and propaganda apparatus, capable of educating people and instilling them with the militant class consciousness that will be necessary for the upcoming struggle.

The solution to the problem of racial division is both incredibly simple and incredibly difficult. It is to foster a unity based around class, rather than race, and create a program which broadly benefits all workers, regardless of race or ethnicity. Once again, we can find inspiration from the struggle of the South African Communist Party. They never denied the unique suffering of the black population under apartheid, but still made the case that a Communist South Africa would benefit white workers, too.

The relatively high standards of life and wages enjoyed by White workers represent, in reality, a share in the super profits made by the capitalists out of the gross exploitation of the non-Whites. Systematically indoctrinated with the creed of White superiority, the White worker imagines himself to be a part of the ruling class and willingly acts as a tool and an accomplice in the maintenance of colonialism and capitalism. However, in reality, the White worker, like the non-White worker at his side, is subjected to exploitation by the same capitalist owners of the means of production. White workers’ wages in general are high in comparison with those of non-Whites. But many categories of White workers are paid little more than non-Whites, and also struggle to support their families. The White worker is subject to the insecurity of the capitalist system, with its constant threats of depression, short-time and unemployment. The division of trade unions on racial lines weakens all sections of workers in their constant struggle with the bosses for better pay and conditions and shorter hours of work. The fundamental interests of all South African workers, like those of workers everywhere, lie in unity: unity in the struggle for the day-to-day interests of the working class, for the ending of race-discrimination and division, for a free, democratic South Africa as the only possible basis for the winning of socialism, the overthrow of the capitalist class and the ending of human exploitation. –The Road to South African Freedom, 1962

None of this is set in stone. We must reject all dogmatism and create our own path that matches our unique material conditions. However, in order to do that, we must be well-educated in both history and theory in order to learn from the successes and failures of the past. The process of building a new America will not be just like the process of building a new South Africa, or a new Russia, or a new China. The struggle will be unique and take on its own characteristics, which we must always be ready to adapt to. This is the essence of historical and dialectical materialism.

The struggle will be long and hard, and it will require sacrifice the likes of which this country has never seen before. However, the alternative is worse. The future needs our help. We must stand up now and slay the dragon called Capitalism before its flames consume us all.

It seems like we have no chance, but we already have everything we need.

The little thrush of history has shown us the weak spot on the dragon’s belly. The black arrow of theory waits in the quiver for the hand of a hero. We must become the archers who slay this dragon. No one else can. It has been done before, and it can be done again, if only we have the courage to try.

“Arrow!” said the bowman. “Black arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and always I have recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the Mountain, go now and speed well!

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/06/ ... -red-line/

[blindpig]

Why another world is possible: Comments at a socialist rally in Berlin
By Paul Le Blanc (Posted Jun 14, 2025)

Originally published: Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal on June 11, 2025 (more by Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal) |
Inequality, Marxism, Movements, SocialismAmericas, Global, United StatesNewswire

The following remarks by Paul Le Blanc were delivered at the May 31 evening session of the four-day Marx is’ Muss Kongress 2025 that was held in Berlin and organized by marx21, a left-wing current in Die Linke (the Left Party), which drew 1200 activists. These remarks are now first appearing in digital form, with the author’s authorization, simultaneously on LINKS and Communis. Both sites previously published another contribution by Paul Le Blanc to the event.

Here is the question I have been asked to address:

What makes us socialists believe that another world is possible?

Two things frame the answer to this question: (1) the problems and crises of capitalism, and (2) essential qualities inherent in humanity. After elaborating on these, I will conclude with a few remarks on the relevance of Lenin and how we must, as Lenin urged, organize ourselves.

For the first key element in the answer about the possibility of revolutionary change, I want to offer a summary report from my homeland–the United States of America, which throughout my lifetime has been the center of global capitalism, “the belly of the beast,” as some put it. That system is increasingly in trouble, which means that more and more of us are in trouble. We all should know what is happening, because it is all over the news, day after day, at least in the U.S.

First there is something which is always in the background of daily life, but more and more it is coming to the foreground: the weather. We have been experiencing increasingly odd weather. In various places, it is warmer than usual, colder than usual, rainier than usual, dryer than usual. This increasingly visible climate change now seems to be unfolding fast, furiously, extensively, with an unusual proliferation of floods, droughts, wildfires, high winds and tornados where generally such things have not been expected. We are told that this is worse in other parts of the world, but it is impacting more and more on the U.S. people.

In our own lives and experience, we know that there have always been both grotesque inequality and visible corruption. But I do not think we have ever seen the kind of soaring inequality that has been increasing in recent times, accelerating to unimagined proportions. And corruption is becoming blatant in the very highest circles of power. Those who benefit from such things, with all their immense power, have contempt for us. They tell us lies, they disregard us, they laugh at us, they set us against each other while pretending to be our best friend.

Impacting all of us, however, even on those at the top, has been a growing economic instability. Those of us among the bottom 80% of U.S. people are especially slammed by rising prices, the erosion of living standards, the increasing shakiness of employment, growing problems of housing and health care, the erosion of all things public–education, libraries, parks, transportation and more. This is generating an expansive anxiety, which is sharpening as we face declining social services and the dramatic slashing of programs that many depend on.

Such developments are now intimately related to the recent extraordinary shifts in “politics-as-usual”. The dominant faction of the U.S. ruling class–stretching from liberal Democrats to old-line conservatives among the Republicans–is largely discredited in the eyes of many. Both of these factions have made glowing promises for years but failed to provide genuine solutions to the growing plight of our people. Effectively trashing these losers and promising drastic action to improve the lives of people in the U.S. (while also playing on widespread biases and illusions), an erratic, ego-centric, powerful huckster named Donald Trump has now taken charge.

Trump claims he won the U.S. presidency by a landslide, but in truth it was a very narrow and unstable margin, less than a majority. Through the new regime we are now being treated to an expanding and deepening authoritarianism. The Trump faction of the ruling class is, quite obviously, inclined to give up on the pretense of democracy and constitutional government. It is overseeing the dismantling of long-standing institutions, policies, norms. Along with this, it is elevating and expanding new layers of governmental strata that seem to be afflicted by an ideological narrowness blended with a breathtaking shallowness, ineptness, and rigidity.

Not surprisingly, there is declining public confidence in the viability of the status quo, and in the ability of any faction of our rulers to deal with the increasingly overwhelming problems that we face. This has contributed to a rise in unofficial violence–including traditional “criminal” activity but especially involving new increases of bullying, vigilante activity, mass shootings, and sometimes targeted assassinations.

Yet the social and political crises are also accompanied by the ominous rise in official violence–ranging from political repression to outright killing–for those deemed to be “problematical”. But this inward-directed violence is consistent with the dynamics of U.S. foreign policy, with its increasing impacts of imperialism and militarism, support for genocide perpetrated by certain allies, and the growing threat of war.

There is certainly much more to be said–especially in regard to the unfolding of such dynamics across the face of our planet. But the bottom line is what Bertolt Brecht once told us:

Because things are as they are, they cannot stay as they are.

We now come to a second key element in the answer to the question we are wrestling with. It is the title of Carl Sandburg’s great poem of the 1930s, The People, Yes. Speaking of the laboring majority of humanity that has been long oppressed by a succession of exploiters, Sandburg says: “This old anvil laughs at many broken hammers.” He adds:

Time is a great teacher. / Who can live without hope?

Also from the experience of the 1930s is John Steinbeck’s novel The Grapes of Wrath, which was made into a wonderful motion picture in 1940. In it, a key character, Ma Joad, reflects in comments to her husband:

Rich fellas come up an’ they die, an’ their kids ain’t no good an’ they die out. But we keep a’comin’. We’re the people that live. They can’t wipe us out; they can’t lick us. We’ll go on forever … ’cause we’re the people.

Three decades earlier, in backward Russia, a novelist named Maxim Gorky, in his revolutionary novel Mother, put similar thoughts in what his characters had to say:

The time will come when people will wonder at their own beauty, when each will be like a star to all the others… The earth will be peopled with those who are free, great in their freedom…

Everything for all–all for everyone! That is how I see it. In very truth we are all comrades, all kindred spirits, all children of one mother, who is truth!

Of course, all of us have the many problems and limitations that people have, but in each human being we also find essential qualities for our survival. In the early 1840s, the young Karl Marx referred to these qualities as our “species-being,” involving an elemental striving for freedom, creative labor, and genuine community. Rosa Luxemburg–from her prison cell amid the catastrophe of the First World War–commented on this dynamic blend:

The psyche of the masses, like … the eternal sea, always bears within it every latent possibility: deathly stillness and raging storm, the basest cowardice and the wildest heroism. The masses … are always on the verge of becoming something totally different from what they seem to be.

Within ourselves, among people we know, and among the vast number of people we do not know, we can find qualities of insightfulness, creativity, humor, collaborative inclinations, generosity, caring, heroism–a vibrant blend of individualism and collectivism. Out of this, there is hope for the future. This hope is grounded in thousands of years of human experience. It can be found in a variety of human traditions. We can find essential qualities in the best of our spiritual traditions–the best that is in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam, in Buddhism, and more. I am, of course, speaking here not of the authoritarian and superstitious dogmas, but of the vibrant insight and energy animating these belief systems.

It is very much present in the centuries of what have been called humanism and the scientific spirit. It permeates the many social movements and struggles engaged in the elemental quest for popular democracy and human rights. Such things have been absorbed into the heart of socialism and permeate the Marxist orientation that inspires some of us. Not the authoritarian and superstitious dogmas passing for Marxism in some circles, but that which is alive, creative, critical-minded, and free. Such qualities animate Lenin’s outlook.

I have explored this in my recent book-length biographical account Lenin: Responding to Catastrophe, Forging Revolution. Lenin represents a way of understanding reality that is inseparable from an essential activist commitment, and inseparable from the kinds of sensibilities outlined here. His approach to the remarkable orientation developed by Marx is permeated by what he called revolutionary dialectics–which includes the interplay of complex and contradictory realities, and also (in Lenin’s words), “development by leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions.” This relates to the question of why and how we need to organize ourselves to bring about the changes we desire.

To put it simply, we need to organize ourselves because the terrible problems and people’s hopeful aspirations will not automatically result in positive outcomes. Mindful and activist elements of the population must, within that population, function as a leaven to enable the exploited, oppressed majority to rise and bring a revolutionary outcome.

For this, we need coherent and outward-reaching democratic collectives–involving the key concept of cadre (the German word is Kader). Cadres are the activists who have learned how to size up a situation, how to write a leaflet that can be effective, how to organize a meeting in a way that effective decisions come out of it, how to help ensure that the decisions are carried out. They are the activists who know how to organize rallies, demonstrations, strikes and other actions. Not everyone can do this–but cadres can. Such cadres also help more and more people develop the same skills and abilities.

This involves going beyond simple protests and self-expression around various discontents. It means the development and implementation of strategy and tactics–a program of step-by-step activity that can take us from the current situation to the goal we desire. We must help build and strengthen such a movement within the multi-faceted working class of our own time, pushing against all forms of oppression, and helping to bring a transition from capitalism to a society of the free and the equal.

https://mronline.org/2025/06/14/why-ano ... in-berlin/

(Seems like the 'baby-talk' version of what the 'Provists/Breakthrough' crowd is putting down. )

[blindpig]

Independence, initiative, voluntariness

Our main task is not threshing and grain delivery, as some believe. That is, not to write more, more often and brightly.

Our main task is to prepare the core personnel of the future Party of Scientific Centralism.

But even in this matter, it turns out, there is a lot of confusion and opportunistic rubbish.

The basis of the process of training personnel is self-education . The formation of a Marxist begins with the comprehension of Marxist-Leninist theory. And as a person masters it, he naturally takes the path of agitation and propaganda. So, the main thing in training personnel is the so-called question of party education. Or: how to organize the transfer of at least our knowledge of Marxism to supporters?

Many do not understand that the essence of production relations of class societies mediated the entire experience of society. This, in turn, is contained in concentrated form in habits, traditions, psychology and all hereditary and cultural baggage. Man is forced to enter into relations with other people regarding the means and factors of his existence in the historical form that prevails at the time of his birth and is influenced by the experience of previous generations. Such production relations are not only the basis of the formation, but also the most essential element of the existence of society. For thousands and thousands of years, people have been forced and compelled to work in various ways without any participation of conscience. Social necessity paved its way through the subjective contradictions of struggle, tragedy and horror. Naturally, we have all become accustomed to this collectively and adopt this habit in the course of socialization individually. We get used to being the one who formally fulfills what is required, and the one who tries to force others to do something. We get used to laziness, prodding, control from the outside.

The production relations of capitalism, as is well known, are violence and deception. Little constructive can develop on such soil by itself . Even free education in a bourgeois society with class thinking often takes the form of “just to pass the exam”, although , it would seem , a person should strive for knowledge and receive with pleasure what in other conditions has to be bought …

In addition, there are some biological prerequisites for slacking off and shoddy work. They can be considered a dialectical manifestation of the biological law of energy (material, space) conservation at the mental level . An immature consciousness , since it does not understand either the prospects of the future or its social essence, solves only the most pressing problems that are relevant to it as a biological organism . This is clearly seen in small children. On the one hand, they are infinitely persistent, diligent and hardworking in mastering the skills of crawling , standing, walking, running, chewing , communicating, manipulating things, because these are conditioned by the innate properties of both the nervous system and the systems of the body involved . On the other hand, when accustomed to elementary housework, absolutely all children demonstrate a desire to slack off. Even in play, children initially show something similar: extreme superficiality and unwillingness to persist. It is necessary to instill a culture of work and a culture of play in order to get rid of this innate habit.

In general, the baggage of heredity and culture is such that in a class society the nature of any more or less serious activity in which many people are involved takes the form of administrative-executive formalism . Capital cannot get rid of this in principle. On the contrary, capitalists spend a lot of effort of their intellectual lackeys to develop the most optimal ways of formalizing people's activities, motivating and controlling them.

Thus , the training of personnel from the point of view of ordinary, habitual, everyday, pro-bourgeois thinking , from the point of view of bureaucratic formalism looks like a system of events, orders, instructions and control over execution . This is how it happens in all parties with communist names . This is how it happened in the CPSU, when party training was checked by the number of notes and throat hours.

Practice shows the inconsistency of this approach even if there is motivation on the part of those who have declared themselves to be Marxists.

Time and again people come to us demanding that we organize their self-education. Give them a reading list , provide them with notes, remind them, demand from them and exercise control.

"Many leftists," writes O. B. Petrova back in 2015, "respond to our call for education by demanding that we organize regular lectures and seminars. We consider this a manifestation of laziness; it is obvious that if a person cannot find time for self-education and writing an essay on a topic chosen by himself by the deadline set for himself, then he will certainly not have time to write an essay and read it at a certain time and place at a seminar.

All these demanders of the approved seminar consciously or unconsciously want to have the opportunity to "slack off" - either to have the opportunity to refer to being busy or the inconvenience of the chosen day or place, or, like a bad schoolchild, to think that he will not be "called" but "summoned", so that he can make an excuse "in general terms". But Marxism cannot be studied as a non-core subject. Of course, we can conduct lectures and seminars, but we should not think that in doing so we recognize the listeners as experts in Marxism. Offering our readers self-education, we are ready to answer all the questions that arise. But these must be precisely the questions that have been suffered, that have arisen in the course of serious study, the answers to which the student has conscientiously sought himself, and not "tell me Marxism in a nutshell".

Another argument in favor of the lecture-seminar form of education our opponents cite is... their lack of will. It seems that with set deadlines it will be easier for them to force themselves to read and think. People who find it difficult to force themselves want to conquer the world. Well, we are no help here.

You can't call a student a specialist, even if he has listened to all the lectures and passed all the exams, even with excellent marks, until he has done independent work. The training programs for Soviet engineers necessarily included both an engineering project and a research paper, not counting the final project or research paper and term papers on all the main subjects. All these forms necessarily assumed the creation of something new, albeit small. My teaching experience shows that without independent work on something new, it is impossible to talk about any mastery of the subject. That is why we see independent, novel, theoretical and/or propaganda literary production as a criterion for a person's sufficient readiness to be called a communist."

It is amazing, but in the same way some authors ask to be given topics and to ask them for materials on time, seeing this as the organizational work of the newspaper.

It is quite obvious that this is a product of formalistic thinking, the other side of which, as stated in the quote, is a subconscious desire not to strain oneself. And to calm the beginnings of conscience: supposedly circumstances do not allow one to become a Marxist. "The editors are not working hard enough" or "they give me too difficult tasks." In any case, these are excuses.

An irresponsible attitude to self-education and a frivolous attitude to propaganda are explained by infantilism . In ordinary life conditions, nothing objectively prevents one from studying Marxism, taking it seriously, becoming a propagandist and writer. No special talents or extraordinary mobilization of will are needed for this.

Infantilism manifests itself in the non-recognition of unwillingness. Unlike the majority of proletarians, who admit that they are not interested in Marxism, politics, or class struggle, the leftists deceive themselves. In fact, almost all people under capitalism do not want to become Marxists, do not want to fight for communism, and are certainly not ready to sacrifice anything for communism. And, unfortunately, leftist views remain just views, a hobby, an interest.

Objective conditions in this regard can change the situation. V.A. Podguzov wrote :

"There are signs that modern capitalism will soon arrange for the world proletariat of mental and physical labor to undergo an intense "ordeal" and thereby form new Maxim Gorkys, Jack Londons, Anton Makarenkos, Vladimir Mayakovskys, Nikolaev Ostrovskys and Mikhail Sholokhovs who will find new, more precise plots and words to connect the dry calculations of Marxist theory with the consciousness of millions of deceived and rejected people. The appearance in the information space of journalistic works by Western authors such as Arnold Lokshin, John Parkins, Frank Partnoy, Grover Furr, James Stewart is also a good confirmation of this.

History has convincingly proven that Marxist theory is absolutely sound, but it is omnipotent only when it is CORRECTLY assimilated... by at least one person in the party leadership, and the entire party has matured to the point of realizing that theory must be respected, studied intensely, known precisely, and applied creatively, strictly obeying the requirements of party discipline. The work of Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung and Fidel Castro has shown that as long as the party is led by a truly COMPETENT Marxist, and the majority of so-called ordinary party members consciously follow the requirements of party discipline, working hard to improve their scientific and theoretical training, the party and the country are invincible. As soon as the party mass begins to grow with mercantile members, focused only on an intra-party career, and therefore is left without an absolutely competent and sincere leader, its policy quickly slides into opportunism. And so it will be until a special pedagogical theory is created and party education is organized so that each party member is guided by the Marxist-Leninist principle of life: to study communism continuously and intensely, to study continuously to teach others, to strive every day for something new in practice, to achieve something more. The achievements of higher education in the world prove that there is nothing fantastic in this task if it is approached from a scientific Bolshevik position."

We must look at things soberly and work for now with the few who show desire and perseverance.

Scientific centralism is not a system of centralized coercion and prodding. Scientific centralism is a serious, responsible attitude to the matter . And the seriousness and responsibility of our supporters are manifested in independence , initiative and voluntariness .

"First, a community of Marxists who already have a basic command of dialectical materialism must actually form," says Valery Alekseevich, "i.e. unanimity in theory and practice must manifest itself with all certainty and productivity. Like-minded people must voluntarily take on feasible responsibilities in various areas of scientific and organizational work, fulfill them rigorously and creatively, and only after gaining authority among the masses, constitute themselves within the framework of formal procedures."

Independence means, first of all, breaking with harmful forms of dependence and forming useful habits . Only by showing independence can one become a Marxist, then a communist and a scientific centralist. The path to becoming a breakthrough begins with independent work, in which there is scientific or practical novelty.

Initiative means, first of all, a sober assessment of one's abilities and the most competent use of one's available forces . A breakthrough is distinguished by the fact that he proactively takes on this or that burden.

Voluntariness means, first of all, responsibility and self-control . Pressure and coercion are signs of immaturity of personnel and personnel work.

These are the three target characteristics that supporters should work on. How to guide? How to inspire?

Firstly , the volume and quality of work done by Breakthrough.

Secondly , the consistency and steadfastness of the breakthrough position.

Thirdly , the prospect of victories.

Only the Party of Scientific Centralism is the guarantor of the success of the cause of communism . This is the most optimal form of the subjective factor of the communist revolution. Therefore, the formation of the party will have to be sweated.

Therefore, the organizational work of a newspaper does not consist of drawing up plans for the release of materials, finding authors and monitoring deadlines. This will not yield any results: the plans will fail, the authors will not cope, the deadlines will burn out. And no discipline will help. Moreover, such administrative-executive formalism will only give rise to a chimera of activity for the sake of activity. A person will write material for the sake of handing it over to the editor. Write not in order to understand it himself, to deepen knowledge and theory, to expand and improve propaganda, but for the sake of the vanity of publication.

The meaning of scientific centralism in terms of organizing work is that the leadership of the PNC assigns a section of work or a solution to a problem to a person, and the person competently, conscientiously understands and does everything necessary to achieve the desired result. This is a highly competent approach, for the sake of which it is necessary to prepare cadres of real communists. This is how Lenin's closest associates worked, and then Stalin. This is what distinguished real Bolsheviks from party card holders. We only voice objective demands on ourselves, which were demonstrated by the great revolutionaries of the past.

This task mediates the newspaper's personnel approaches.

If someone hopes for great achievements similar to those of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung without setting the appropriate bar for their own preparation, seriousness, attitude to the matter, self-sacrifice, then nothing will come of it. When they say that the workers' movement put forward leaders and an organization, this is only the objective side of the matter. It means that social conditions allowed it. Marx was made Marx by Marx himself. Lenin by Lenin himself. Stalin by Stalin himself, and so on. Bolshevism as a theory and practice was developed by Lenin, and not by the workers of the Putilov plant. Juche was developed by Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, and not by the proletarians of Pyongyang. In other words, it is necessary to understand not only the objective, but also the subjective side of social life.

With the objective side, the conditions of class struggle, the demands of progress, everything is now clear. The proletariat is well educated, can easily organize, capital is concentrated, production is obviously social in nature, state capitalism plays a huge role, and the oligarchy is a miserable gang of degenerates. That is, if you take control of minds, form a truly competent authoritative organization, you can painlessly move on to building communism even without a civil war, at least in Russia.

Redin
06/25/2025

https://prorivists.org/106_sid/

Google Translator

[blindpig]

Scientific Research in the Storm of Revolution
Summary of Belkin's article and theses

I
When, on March 18, 1871, the Parisian workers rose up in revolt and proclaimed the Commune, Karl Marx, who was in London, immediately joined the struggle – not with weapons in hand, but as a theorist, strategist and organizer of international proletarian solidarity.

Marx did not simply observe the Commune from the sidelines; he collected information daily, receiving data from 13 French and 7 English newspapers, which he studied, writing down key facts, from direct participants: members of the General Council of the First International, the Russian revolutionary Elizaveta Dmitrieva, and correspondence with the leaders of the Commune.

Marx did not simply describe events – he analyzed them in real time, trying to influence the course of the class struggle. Just two days after the fall of the Commune, he presented his work to the General Council of the International. It was not just a report, but a weapon of class struggle. "The Civil War in France" is a manifesto of revolutionary science.

Marx's work had a major impact. He exposed the Versailles counterrevolution, theoretically substantiated the significance of the Commune for communism as the first dictatorship of the proletariat, thus drawing key practical conclusions for future revolutions. Engels later wrote that no work on the Commune surpassed Marx's in precision and depth - despite the fact that it was written under conditions of information blockade and slander of the bourgeois press.

Even before the uprising, Marx warned in the International's appeals (July and September 1870) that the French workers should not act prematurely while the Prussians were at the gates of Paris - this would give the bourgeoisie a pretext for repression. And the German workers needed to fight against the war becoming a war of conquest (Bismarck wanted the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine). But when the Commune became a fact, Marx took its side without hesitation, seeing in it the first attempt to break the bourgeois state.

The relevance of Marx's conclusions was confirmed by the Great October Revolution. They remain relevant to this day. Thus, revolution requires scientific leadership - spontaneous impulse is insufficient. Internationalism is the key condition for victory. Counterrevolution always unites against communism.

Marx showed by his example that a revolutionary must both theorize and act. His work on the Commune is not a history textbook, but a manual for struggle.

II
In his book, Marx mercilessly exposes the so-called government of national defense. Its "patriotism" turned out to be a farce. As early as 1870, Thiers secretly traveled around the European courts, offering to exchange the republic for the king. Jules Favre admitted in private correspondence that they were "defending themselves not from Prussian soldiers, but from Parisian workers." General Trochu publicly declared that "the governor of Paris will never capitulate," but in reality he surrendered the city, fearing the armed proletariat. "The capitulation of Paris...," writes Marx, "was the beginning of a civil war." The bourgeoisie preferred national humiliation to the risk of losing power.

Power was effectively in the hands of the Central Committee of the National Guard. But instead of immediately attacking Versailles, it lost time and did not bring the revolution to an end. In 10 days, Thiers gathered 60 thousand soldiers. As a result, the alliance of Bismarck and Thiers — the international bourgeoisie drowned the Commune in blood. Marx reveals the class solidarity of the exploiters. Thus, Bismarck released 100 thousand French soldiers from captivity early to deal with the insurgent Paris. The Prussians blockaded the city, although formally the war was already over. All the bourgeois media in Europe slandered the Commune, calling it a "gang of murderers."

Thus, firstly, one cannot rely on bourgeois institutions - even the elections in the Commune led only to the penetration of the compromisers, the Mensheviks of that time. Secondly, the revolution must be merciless to the counter-revolution - delay is like death. Thirdly, bringing the revolution to the end plays a key role, in particular, leaving the bank in the hands of the enemy became fatal for the Communards. The experience of the Commune was a harbinger of the most important Leninist thesis:

"Any revolution is only worth something if it knows how to defend itself."

III
The historical significance of the Commune is the dictatorship of the proletariat. How did the Commune differ from all previous forms of power? Marx emphasizes that the Commune was not a reformed bourgeois republic, but a fundamentally new political form, a type of superstructure. Its key characteristics are as follows. The collapse of the old state machine, the liquidation of the standing army and police and their replacement by an armed people, the destruction of the bureaucratic apparatus, i.e. officials became elected and replaceable, the separation of church and state, deputies simultaneously passed laws and executed them, the maximum salary of an official = the average salary of a worker, full accountability and the possibility of instant recall.

“The Commune was, in essence, a government of the working class… a political form in which the economic emancipation of labor could be accomplished” (Marx).

That is why the bourgeoisie hated the Commune so much. The reactionary forces made three main accusations against the Commune. The Commune is a return to the Middle Ages, the Commune is the destruction of national unity, the Commune is chaos and anarchy. How many more times will such accusations be made against communism…

"The Paris Commune was the embryo of this form. Soviet power is its development and completion," Stalin wrote.

The experience of the Commune proved that the proletariat is capable not only of destroying the old state, but also of creating a new one.

https://prorivists.org/106_pk/

Google Translator

[blindpig]

Theses of social science

Our society is not a static structure, but a living, breathing, constantly changing, progressive organism.

How does this happen and what laws govern society?

Firstly
There are objective laws that operate regardless of where we are, what country or what culture we belong to. These laws, which we can call natural-historical, underlie all societies, despite their diversity. This means that, despite differences in traditions and living conditions, the same objective principles operate in every society.

All societies, like you and me, need resources to survive. These include food, water, shelter, and other material goods. The ways in which people obtain and distribute these resources determine how the society will be organized. For example, in an agrarian society, the main source of wealth is land and agriculture, while in an industrial society, it is factories and technology.

Thus, when we talk about the state of society at any given historical moment, we need to look at material factors. This means that we need to look at how people work, what technologies they use, and how production is organized. If we want to understand why inequality exists in modern society, we need to look into its past. We will see that it is connected with historical processes such as colonization, wars, economic crises, etc. We need to look for how weak tendencies that emerged in the past make their way to the present and become dominant over time.

In the process of development of society there is always a struggle between the new and the old , including new ideas and established orders. This confrontation is like a clash of two vectors: the weak new and the strong old. For example, when ideas of equality and justice begin to develop in society, they collide with traditional structures of power that do not want to lose their position. It is as if you were trying to break through a wall built of old bricks - you need a lot of effort to destroy it.

But we cannot base our decisions on subjective things such as personal opinions or emotions. The scientific approach requires us to look for objective causes and material factors that determine the life of society.

The natural-historical development of society is a complex and multifaceted process that requires deep analysis. We must take into account objective laws, material factors and historical context to understand how, why and in what direction changes occur in society. This understanding will help us better understand our place in the world and how we can influence the future.

Secondly
How has human society evolved over the centuries? This journey has not been linear, but has gone through several key stages, each of which has left its mark on history. Let's take a brief look at these stages.

The first stage is primitive. Imagine how people lived in small groups where there was no private property. All resources - food, tools, land - were used together and belonged to the whole community. This was the time when people hunted, gathered berries and roots, and their lives were based on equality and cooperation. In such societies, there was no class division and everyone worked for the common good. There was no hierarchy based on wealth or power. The one who was smarter, braver and more experienced became the authority. Everyone listened to his opinion. This stage of primitive communism lasted for more than a hundred thousand years.

But as time went on, with the advent of agriculture and sedentary life, a new stage of class-based, exploitative societies began. This stage spans approximately seven thousand years, including modern times, and is characterized by the emergence of private property and class division. In such societies, some people, the minority, began to control resources and the means of production, while others, the majority, became dependent and oppressed.

In class societies, a new, maximally toxic confrontation appears - between people. It represents class division and exploitation. People begin to compete for resources, which leads to conflicts and the struggle for power.

The long, tragic history of class societies should be presented as a succession of eras of exploitation. Slavery, when people captured in wars or for debts became the property of others and worked for them without compensation. Feudalism, where the land belonged to the feudal lords, and the peasants worked for them, giving part of the harvest or working off the corvee. And, of course, capitalism, familiar to each of us, where the means of production are in private hands, and workers sell their ability to work for money in order to survive. Here, too, there is a class division between the bourgeoisie, the owners of capital, and the proletariat, the working workers.

Confrontation between people is mainly connected with material goods, which are factors of survival. This confrontation becomes the content of private property relations . Private property is inextricably linked with violence. In order to protect their interests, the owners of means of production and resources use force, and violence becomes an integral part of class society. This violence can manifest itself in various forms - from physical coercion to economic pressure.

This is how class division of society occurs. On the one hand, there are exploiters who control the means of production and resources, and on the other hand, there are the exploited who are forced to work for them. This situation leads to the emergence of the state as an apparatus of violence that protects the interests of the propertied classes and maintains the existing order.

For thousands of years, humanity has faced various forms of minority domination over the majority, including slavery, serfdom, and wage labor. These forms of exploitation resulted in the exploiting class, which was initially an active manager, degenerating over time. Instead of being leaders and organizers, they turned into oligarchs who no longer had the competence.

With the development of technology and production capacity, humanity has reached such a level that it has become possible to provide everyone with the necessary benefits for life and work. However, despite this, the exploiting class continues to usurp power and wealth.

Thus, the stage-by-stage development of society shows how humanity has gone through various stages - from primitive communism to class societies. Ultimately, it will come to communism.

Fourthly
The scientific approach helps to understand society and its dynamics. These are not just abstract schemes, but a real tool for knowledge.

Where does the scientific approach begin? With the thesis that humanity exists thanks to its ability to change the conditions of its existence. Unlike animals, which simply adapt to the environment, people actively transform it. This happens through the creation of tools, technologies, and social institutions that help organize production processes.

The transformation of living conditions should be considered as a mode of production , which includes two components: productive forces and production relations . Productive forces are people, their skills, knowledge and tools. This is what makes up society and allows for the production of necessary goods. Production relations are the connections between people that necessarily arise in the production process. They determine who owns the resources, who works and how the results of labor are distributed.

The interaction between productive forces and production relations is the basis for understanding how society develops. When productive forces grow explosively, they come into conflict with existing production relations. First of all, due to the primitiveness and asociality of the latter (slavery, serfdom, hired labor). This contradiction, in turn, leads to social changes and revolutions.

As society develops, we have become smarter and have grown to scientific thinking that adequately reflects the world. People can finally consciously configure the forms of their interaction. A scientific approach to the organization of labor and production processes is becoming a key factor that allows society to develop at a faster pace. For example, with the advent of scientific discoveries and technologies such as electricity and automation, production processes become more efficient. This not only increases production volumes, but also improves people's quality of life. But the question is how to make production relations scientific as a whole, i.e. how to get rid of hired labor, exploitation, oppression, and a careless attitude to the results and process of labor.

Now to politics. Politics in society is not just about governance or lawmaking. It is actually a multi-layered process of class struggle in which different social groups and classes compete for power and resources. Understanding politics as class struggle allows us to gain a deeper understanding of how society functions and what forces drive its development.

Politics is derived from economics, but has primacy over it. Economics is primary in relation to all other aspects of society, including politics. However, politics plays a dominant role primarily because of the decisive role of violence. It serves as an instrument by which the ruling classes protect their interests and maintain dominance. The state as an organization is an apparatus of violence that serves the interests of the ruling class. Its main task is to root and maintain existing production relations.

Class struggle is not only the confrontation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but also the struggle of different groups within the bourgeoisie. Different classes and groups have their own interests, and they can conflict with each other. These conflicts can manifest themselves in various forms: from economic competition to political protests and revolutions. Class struggle is the driving force of social change and can lead to significant transformations in society.

It is important to understand that the political superstructure of society includes not only state institutions, but also ideas that justify the existing order. They range from liberalisms (bourgeois ideology) to socialisms (opportunism) and serve to legitimize power and maintain stability in society.

Thus, politics as class struggle is a key aspect in understanding the essence of processes in society and history. The doctrine of class struggle allows us to understand how different classes and groups interact with each other, how they fight for their interests and how this affects the development of society as a whole. Understanding politics in this context means that changes in society are possible only through the active participation of the masses. Recognition of class struggle as the central thread of the historical process suggests that at any given moment there is a relatively progressive class and reactionary classes. That very new, weak, and old, strong.

Moreover, economics and politics relate to each other as objective and subjective. Objective factors of politics are inevitable conditions, such as the necessity of the existence of the state and the struggle of interests of different classes. Subjective factors include the will of classes, their actions and ideologies. These factors can influence how exactly the objective conditions are realized.

A scientific approach to understanding society requires a clear distinction between the objective and the subjective. Our task is to combine science (subjective) with the movement of the masses (objective) and to subordinate all the activities of society to the objective laws of its development. This is the manifestation of freedom.

Fifthly
Communism is something that humanity is inexorably moving towards. It is not just an ideology, but the logical conclusion of a historical process in which humanity goes through stages of class division. Throughout history, we have encountered problems related to private property, exploitation and inequality. These problems are the result of economic relations.

With the development of productive forces and technology, humanity has reached a level where it has become possible to provide everyone with the necessary resources. However, existing production relations based on private property continue to create inequality and exploitation. Communism offers a solution to this problem by eliminating private property and creating social relations based on cooperation and equality.

But what is communism in practice? It requires total, comprehensive scientificity . All spheres of society's life must be organized on the basis of scientific principles. A scientific approach allows for more efficient use of resources, the organization of production and distribution of goods, and the resolution of social issues. This means that science must be integrated into all aspects of life to ensure the harmonious development of society.

To achieve communism, an organized struggle of the proletariat for power is necessary. This includes the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the organization of the dictatorship of the working class. The dictatorship of the working class is a temporary measure necessary to protect the interests of the workers and overcome the resistance of the exploiting classes. But the era of the dictatorship of the working class will last until the construction of complete communism.

In the process of class struggle, the proletariat must organize itself into a working class in order to become a force capable of changing the existing order. This requires not only propaganda, but also the combination of the will and activity of the people with science and communist theory. The Communist Party, as the vanguard of the working class, plays a key role in this organization, directing and coordinating the actions of the masses.

Thus, communism is not just a dream, but a real goal that requires active action and organization. It is the path to a society where all people are equal, where there is no exploitation and inequality, and where science will not only serve for the benefit of all, but will become the central core of all social relations. In order to move towards this goal together, using the knowledge and strength of our unity, it is necessary to study Marxist theory and organize.

2/07/2025

https://prorivists.org/107_socialtheory/

Google Translator

[blindpig]

Reject Western Marxism, defend the socialist countries, and stand with the peoples of the world against imperialism
Originally published: Friends of Socialist China on July 8, 2025 by Friends of Socialist China, Morning Star, the International Manifesto Group, Critical Theory Workshop and Iskra books Hosted Panel (more by Friends of Socialist China) (Posted Jul 29, 2025)

On Saturday 5 July 2025, Friends of Socialist China hosted—along with the Morning Star, the International Manifesto Group, Critical Theory Workshop and Iskra books—a discussion of Domenico Losurdo’s crucial book, Western Marxism: How it was Born, How it Died, How it can be Reborn, in which the legendary Italian philosopher charts the long and complex history of Marxism’s bifurcation into ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’—a division based primarily on the national question and the relative prioritisation of anti-colonial, anti-imperialist struggles.

The meeting was held in-person at Marx Memorial Library in London (and online via Zoom and YouTube), and the packed room was addressed by Gabriel Rockhill (Editor of the English edition), Jennifer Ponce de León (Co-author of the introduction to the English edition), Alex Gordon (Chair, Marx Memorial Library) and Carlos Martinez (Co-editor, Friends of Socialist China), and was chaired by Francisco Domínguez (National secretary, Venezuela Solidarity Campaign).

Embedded below is the video of the event, followed by the text of Carlos’s speech. Carlos describes the journey Marxism has taken since its inception around the world—“a journey to the East and South”, transforming it “from being a liberatory framework for the industrial proletariat in Western Europe and North America, to being a liberatory framework for the working and oppressed peoples around the world”.

He goes on to define academic Western Marxism on the basis of its rejection of this globalisation of class struggle, and explores the material and ideological reasons for this trend’s refusal to support the socialist states and to prioritise the struggle against colonialism and imperialism.

The speech concludes with a plan of action:

Reject dogmatism and purism, reject Eurocentrism and chauvinism, and get back to playing our part in a global united front composed of the socialist countries, the oppressed nations, and the working classes and progressive forces in the imperialist countries. That’s what will get us on the path to a socialist future.



I’ve been involved in the Marxist movement in the West in some way or another since I was a teenager, but thankfully have never got particularly close to Western Marxism.

The political tradition I grew up in emphasised the importance of supporting the socialist states, and always prioritised the struggle against imperialism, colonialism and racism. To support China, to support the DPRK, to support Cuba, to support the national liberation struggles of the Irish, Palestinian, Zimbabwean, Vietnamese and other peoples were very much part of that tradition.

So despite being a Marxist in the West, I haven’t had all that much exposure to the Western Marxist academics described by Losurdo, and haven’t had to go through that extremely difficult “unlearning” process that many others have. I’ve read a lot of Lenin; I’ve read very little Adorno, Zizek and Perry Anderson.

Nevertheless, Losurdo’s book was really clarifying for me, and helped me understand the ideological roots of some of the objectively reactionary positions that you come up against all the time. Because although Western Marxism exists mainly in an academic ivory tower, it seeps into the wider movement for revolutionary change, which it seems to find quite fertile soil.

Marxism moves East and South
Marxism is, obviously, Western by birth. The first line of the Communist Manifesto is after all:

A spectre is haunting Europe–the spectre of communism.

The nascent communist movement was geographically limited to Europe and North America, and focused almost exclusively on the industrial working class.

But from the beginning, it’s been on a journey to the East and South, including in Marx’s own lifetime.

First, the phenomenon of imperialism, which was studied systematically by Lenin but which Marx and Engels started to take note of in the 1860s and 1870s, expanded capital’s geographical sphere of operation. Capitalism was becoming a global system, and with that came the creation of a proletariat—a class of propertyless workers—from Mexico City to St Petersburg to Shanghai.

Second, Marx and Engels, as their own thinking developed, came to understand the inextricable link between the struggle of the working class in the capitalist countries and that of the oppressed nations against their colonial oppressors.

For Marx and Engels, this intellectual journey starts with the Irish question. Of course Ireland is not in the South or the East! But it was England’s first colony, and had suffered for hundreds of years under a system of brutal colonial oppression.

Marx had originally considered that socialist revolution in Britain would bring national liberation to Ireland. In 1869, however, 21 years after the publication of the Communist Manifesto, he wrote that “deeper study has now convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland.”

He went on: “A nation that oppresses another forges its own chains” and called on his followers to “put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with the Irish”. He pointed out that “the national emancipation of Ireland is no question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment, but the first condition of the English working class’s own social emancipation.”

So over 150 years ago, the founders of scientific socialism were already pointing to the indispensability of the struggle against colonial and national oppression.

Importantly, that understanding also extended to the struggle against national oppression within the capitalist heartlands. Hence that memorable sentence in Volume 1 of Capital: Labour in the white skin can never free itself as long as labour in the black skin is branded.

The development of imperialism gained pace towards the end of the 19th century.

Lenin noted that concentration of capital had reached a point where monopolies were increasingly driven abroad in pursuit of profit. As a result, more and more of the world was brought into the capitalist system, but not on equal terms. Rather, this was “a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the people of the world by a handful of ‘advanced’ countries”.

Lenin notes:

Imperialism is leading to annexation, to increased national oppression, and, consequently, also to increasing resistance.

The strategic implication of this is that the working class in the advanced capitalist countries must unite with the broad masses of the oppressed around the world against their common enemy: the imperialist ruling classes.

Hence at the second congress of the Communist International in 1920, the slogan “Workers of the world unite” was updated to “Workers and oppressed peoples of all countries, unite”.

And again, to go back to Marx’s point that this is “no question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment”: while imperialism is strong, the ruling class is powerful and the possibilities for socialist advance are extremely limited. National independence and sovereignty for the oppressed nations means the ruling class becomes weaker, and the relative position of the working class becomes stronger.

That’s why Lenin said in 1921 that “the outcome of the struggle will be determined by the fact that Russia, India, China, etc account for the overwhelming majority of the population of the globe… It is this majority that has been drawn into the struggle for emancipation with extraordinary rapidity, so … there cannot be the slightest doubt what the final outcome of the world struggle will be. In this sense, the complete victory of socialism is fully and absolutely assured”.

So we can say that by a hundred years ago, Marxism had developed a clear global applicability, had transformed from being a liberatory framework for the industrial proletariat in Western Europe and North America, to being a liberatory framework for the working and oppressed peoples around the world.

And with Marxism’s global applicability came its global application: the success of socialist and national liberation revolutions in Russia, in Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Angola and elsewhere. All these practical experiences have contributed to the broadening and deepening of Marxism.

Western Marxism resists
The Western Marxism described by Losurdo essentially rejects this whole process of globalisation of class struggle.

Firstly, it near-comprehensively rejects the experiences of actually existing socialism. The Western Marxist trend has consistently distanced itself from the process of building socialism in reality: in the Soviet Union, in China, in Korea and elsewhere.

Where these academics and groups do support a socialist process, the support is highly conditional. For example, there was reasonably broad support for the first “pink tide” in Latin America at the beginning of this century, in large part because it was a form of socialism being built within the limits of bourgeois democracy.

However, once the U.S. stepped up its destabilisation and propaganda campaign, and once countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua were forced to use the repressive machinery of the state in defence of their revolutionary processes, Western Marxism became disillusioned and withdrew support.

Some Western Marxist thinkers were for a time inspired by the Cultural Revolution in China, with its extreme emphasis on class struggle. But when the Communist Party de-emphasised domestic class struggle and found a place for capital within its development process, Western Marxism wrote China off as having restored capitalism.

So with Western Marxism we always find what Losurdo called “the dogmatic rejection of actually existing socialism”. If a socialist project doesn’t look like what people imagine socialist projects should look like, it’s rejected.

And that’s combined with, and closely related to, a downplaying of the role of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles; a rejection of the notion that the primary contradiction in today’s world is that between imperialism and the oppressed nations; a rejection of the ideas of national liberation Marxism, in a historical context where the vast majority of socialist experiments thus far have had a major national liberation component. In Cuba, China, Korea, Venezuela, Laos, Vietnam, Mozambique, Nicaragua, the struggle for socialism has been very closely bound up with the struggle against imperialism, the struggle for sovereignty.

Why is Western Marxism like this?
Western Marxism has lots of different trends and contradictions, but its essence is these two rejections: of actually existing socialism and of national liberation. Both are a function of Eurocentrism and dogmatism.

But it’s also important to bear in mind that there’s a clear material basis for a Western left that minimises the national question. In their introduction, Gabriel and Jennifer mention how the academic mainstream encourages a dogmatic, Eurocentric and essentially inert Marxism, creating a situation whereby success in academia more or less relies on taking positions that don’t fundamentally threaten the interests of imperialism.

I’d add that this is a microcosm of a trend Lenin recognised over a century ago, whereby the “high monopoly profits for a handful of very rich countries” opens up “the economic possibility of corrupting the upper strata of the proletariat”, creating a privileged layer of the working class that benefits from imperialism and that therefore has a material interest in its success.

So I’d argue that the distortions of Western Marxism really represent the extension of this trend of opportunism and social chauvinism into the realms of academia.

Where do we go from here?
Now, it’s important to recognise that the Western Marxist trend has produced some extremely valuable insights, and in many cases has expanded Marxism into a range of academic fields, from gender studies to cultural studies and a good deal more. Since it’s based in the advanced capitalist countries, it generally addresses itself to the problems faced by people in those countries, and on that basis has played a valuable role in moving human understanding forward.

But there are some things we have to absolutely insist on if our movement is going to make any real progress.

First is the primacy of anti-imperialist struggle, of solidarity with peoples fighting our ruling classes, of playing our part in a global united front against imperialism. Since today is the 50th anniversary of Cabo Verde’s independence, it seems apt to cite Amilcar Cabral:

If imperialism exists and is trying simultaneously to dominate the working class in all the advanced countries and smother the national liberation movements in all the underdeveloped countries, then there is only one enemy against whom we are fighting.

Second is the leadership of socialist countries. It should be obvious that it’s the socialist world that’s in the vanguard of the project of developing Marxism; that it’s the states, movements and parties engaged in the process of building socialism that are doing the most to build humanity’s collective understanding of how to carry out the task that history has placed before for us: completing the transition to world socialism.

As Mao Zedong famously put it in his essay ‘On Practice’,

if you want knowledge, you must take part in the practice of changing reality. If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself.

And obviously I would say this, but it is absolutely crucial to understand, support and learn from China—the largest and most advanced socialist country, that’s at the core of an emerging multipolarity. Indeed as China develops, increasingly we should be showcasing China as an example of what can be achieved under socialism.

China simply cannot be understood through a lens of Western Marxism, through a lens of purism and dogmatism. In the course of over a century of fierce and constant struggle, the Chinese leadership have developed a socialist path that’s suited to the traditions of the Chinese people and adapts to the ever-changing material reality they face.

Outside an academic ivory tower, the questions of whether people have food on the table, whether they have access to healthcare, whether they have a roof over their heads, whether their children get a good education are more important issues than whether China has billionaires, or whether there are branches of Starbucks and KFC in Shanghai. Deng Xiaoping’s insistence that “development is the only hard truth” and that “poverty is not socialism” may be dismissed as revisionist or capitulationist by well-fed intellectuals, but they reflected the actual needs of the Chinese people.

Domenico Losurdo of course understood all this.

On the question of inequality in China, Losurdo pointed out that China’s rise constitutes a most extraordinary contribution to the fight against global-scale inequality—the inequality between developed and developing countries. He also pointed to the existence of an “absolute inequality that exists between life and death” which Chinese socialism has addressed with extraordinary success,

eliminating once and for all the absolute qualitative inequality inherent in starvation and the risk of starvation.

That’s what a Marxist, dialectical analysis of inequality in China looks like.

On the question of China’s role in the world, China’s support for sovereignty and development in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, the Caribbean and the Pacific is more important than whether people think China should do more aid and less trade, or China should pursue a more militant foreign policy.

Suffice to say that the slogan ‘Neither Washington Nor Beijing’ is not often heard in Palestine, in Iran, in Venezuela, in Cuba, in Eritrea, in Zimbabwe.

And again, Losurdo understood this very well, describing China as “the country that more than any other is challenging the international division of labour imposed by colonialism and imperialism, and furthering the end of the Columbian epoch–a fact of enormous, progressive historical significance.”

Any Marxist that refuses to understand this enormous, progressive historical significance is, frankly, not actually a Marxist.

So we have a plan of action. Reject dogmatism and purism, reject Eurocentrism and chauvinism, and get back to playing our part in a global united front composed of the socialist countries, the oppressed nations, and the working classes and progressive forces in the imperialist countries. That’s what will get us on the path to a socialist future.

https://mronline.org/2025/07/29/reject- ... perialism/