#council marxism

[definitely-not-the-kgb]

It is long political post time, motherfucks

Today's heart attack:

Situationism

Now, I wouldn't be able to determine whether it is a leftwards radicalisation of the anti-consumerist right, if it is a counter-cultural movement to the consumer culture of the post-war economic boom, or if it is a rightwards degeneration of anti-capitalism to fit the Overton window of its time. In doubt, we'll use the prior under the assumption that a counter-cultural movement to consumerism existed before the economic boom and that Situationism is a byproduct of that movement.

So, for the sake of this post, Situationism is, in and of itself, a leftwards radicalisation of the anti-consumerist right in the specific ambits of art, advertisement, and commodity culture with a background of -at least partial- class consciousness.

With the definition out of the way, let's get to the juicy parts:

Situationism and philosophy

Situationism believes that Marx did not concentrate thoroughly enough on the philosophical aspects of capitalism, and -in a way- that may be considered correct, as Marx mainly addressed the practical incoherences and material failures of the capitalist system. Despite that, I would say such a material analysis is intrinsically philosophical.

Capitalism is not evil due to its inconsistencies or failures but for its design and consequences: Both factors are born of the liberal philosophy of the 18th century that gave birth to the concept of modern industrial capitalism. Capitalism is born of philosophy, and -consequently- any critique of capitalism is a critique of the liberal ideas and conception of liberty that moulded it.

I am not trying to say the Situationist analysis of the system of capital is incorrect, but that it is misguided in its interpretation of what capitalism ultimately is. And while the theory of isolation and fulfilment perpetrated by capitalism is correct, it falls entirely within the Marxist perspective of nature and is implicit in the belief that capitalism aims to bend the meaning of the word "humanity" for its goals.

"Situations"

Situations are, according to Situationist literature, "a moment of life concretely and deliberately constructed by the collective organisation of a unitary ambience and a game of events.". In this, we can see the use of dialectical Marxism, as the term "Situation" then started meaning a more general merging of life with art, with the principal example of the Paris Commune as a "Revolutionary Moment".

The concept of Situations, in my eyes, is one of the few entirely good characteristics of Situationism, not necessarily from a political point of view, but a more human one: it allows us to perceive the "Revolutionary moments" not as "Failed Revolutions which the damn anarchists praise" or "Perfect examples of why my specific ideological current is perfect above all others", but as small steps that the leftist movement has historically taken that prove the theory of material conditions and from which we can learn as we wait for the next time those conditions fully develop. 

Détournement and "Anti-Capitalism"

In addition to the worldview and theory of Situationism, one must logically analyse its praxis: A praxis funded on an individualistic and artistic approach to small-scale revolution, not to overthrow the system but to reject it. The use of capitalist tactics against the system of capital itself cannot destroy the system but can ridicule it, which is something we can see abundantly on the internet nowadays since even on the right, many people hold anti-corporatist, anti-consumerist, and anti-monopoly beliefs that they turn into Situationist protest through things like memes.

The "Anti-Capitalist" beliefs of the Situationist movement become, through the use of inefficient means of fight, ridicules and critiques that do not affect the system of capital but that make people more prone to understanding the system and its flaws: In this, Situationist praxis becomes not a way to overthrow the system of markets and spectacles, but a way to raise awareness of its incoherences and failures.

Arts and Politics

Another Situationist praxis is the rejection of non-political and bourgeois art and its usage for societal critique and analysis. What do I have to say other than this praxis is a little short of perfect? Arts should be the means people express concerns, ideals, and passions, and they should refer to politics and current events. This type of praxis naturally ties to what I previously stated regarding awareness and class consciousness.

"Work, leisure, and play" and Psychogeography

The concepts of "Work, leisure, and play" and Psychogeography are very similar in nature to the Philosophical critique of Marxism by Situationists, meaning that they are fundamentally Marxist concepts that have been restructured from a different perspective and misunderstood as products of Situationism.

The "Work, leisure, and play" concept is one of the most jarring contradictions of capitalism: it is the same concept Marx talked about concerning the dichotomy of profits and wages under the capitalist system.

Psychogeography can be seen not as a purely Marxist thought but as a shared view of the Communist Left and Centre: the National Ways to Communism. Psychogeography, as such, ends up being nothing more than the theory of the praxis of leftist view, turning into the study of what those ways could be for each psychogeographical group (the nations as defined by Stalin).

Conclusions

To sum up this analysis:

Situationism is a very interesting ideology that does a great deal to bring revolution in people's everyday lives, but its critique of Marxism suppresses its Marxist inspiration. The tendency of the Situationists to both take from Marxism and then criticise it until they express their equal thoughts as separate and unique brings the ideology to artificially moderate itself into protest and a refusal to comply rather than a shot to overthrow the system.

I am all for the revival of the Situationist movement, but -this time- it ought to be openly Marxist and instead of being inspired by it, it must be its direct extension into the arts and the lives of the people.

I'm sorry if it ended a bit more confusing than it began, but I'm tired and in a hurry now.

[jadwiga-abremovic]

The Yugoslavian Way, 1958

[themassespress]

For a Class Line in the Student Movement

By The New Labor Press Editor’s Note: We are excited to republish this response to and criticism of a piece earlier published and co-signed on The Masses, Center Palestine by Centering Revolution, written by the comrades at New Labor Press. At this point many of our comrades on both the Editorial Board and in RMC have read through this polemic and unite with many of the criticisms made of the…

[otterfool]

Random Thoughts on Marxists

This is gonna be me just rambling about things I saw on marxist spaces. I'll be focusing on experiences I had with council communists (CC) and Left communists (LC)

Dogmatism

Ok, I wanna be honest, this is just a vibe I got. If u had to ask me for tangible evidence, I'd be 🤷‍♂️

Is just a feelin I got of "this is the way to go cause Dude in 1924 said so". It feels very restricting, takin away the potential that human imagination has in socialist movements

It felt like "this is the way! Oh ure more keen on this idea? Let me see what Dude said in '32...mmm sorry! Can't do it!"

But maybe is just me! I'm the type of kid to ask why a 100 times! Did I ask why a 100 times? Not really I was a shy kid, but in my mind I did it so it counts

On Anarchy

Idk the hate coming from Marxists towards anarchists! And I'm not even talking about MLs, I'm talking about marxists/communists that have more in common with bakunin that with lenin!

Like, I remember a CC (council communist) talking about an anarchist revolt (in a hypothetical communist revolution) on the same terms of a counter revolution by reactionaries!!

Or how a CC insta page made fun of an anarchist comparing Lenin to Lasalle (socialist that though that socialism could be achieved by takin control of the state. Marx didn't like him) and being something like "anarchist critique of lenin is bad!"

And I was like "Bro, half the memes u posted are just you sayin that lenin and lasalle are the same!!"

Another thing that I notice is this mentality off "if a marxist said X, that's good, if an anarchist said the same thing, then bad!"

I heard ppl talk about Marxists sayin that the "dictator of the proletariat" is the revolution itself and I was like "ok, that feels like anarchism but with some marx sprinkles in it!"

The end goal is the same, the way of achieving it is the same, the anti-authoritarian sentiment is the same BUT we ain't anarchists! No no no, we're total opposite actually!!

On Ukraine

Since the beginning of the invasion, I heard so many shit takes from the left. When I heard em from MLs I was like "shit take? Yes, but I wasn't expecting something else from yall" But from the left communists?

They can only chant "no war but class war" wich is nice, don't get me wrong, but is...just bs

They always go against the MLs cause they're not good enough on examining the world, that MLs are just too blinded by propaganda, how MLs don't have a grip on the world, and then the only solution they give is "the Russians and ukranians soldiers should go against their generals and politicians (to achieve socialism)"

In what world will this happen? Defenetly not in this one!! How distant can you be from the real world to say that ukranian soldiers just have to go and fight their politicians!

I'd be like telling someone's who's house is burning down to go and beat the cops that arrived at the scene cause they're class traitors! They are, but saving the house from the flames maybe takes the priority!!

I'm not a patriotic person. I never was. So my thinking doesn't come from "we must save our country!" type of sentiment. It comes from a "This is my house, the street where I used to walk my dog, the bar where I used to go and chill with friends"

Idk how to end this ramble...if u read it all, damn, ure one cool person. If u have something to say, be nice about it. Have a good day!!

[workersolidarity]

Watch "Roger Waters calls for peace in Ukraine at UN Security Council" on YouTube

Roger Waters' gift for words is on full display as he gives a speech calling for peace in Ukraine, Palestine and elsewhere.

[kneedeepincynade]

China continues to work for peace and justice for Palestine despite west best effort to shield Israel genocide

The post is machine translated

Translation is at the bottom

The collective is on telegram

🇨🇳 il 30 novembre,il Compagno Wang Yi - Direttore dell'Ufficio Generale della Commissione Centrale per gli Affari Esteri del Partito Comunista e Ministro degli Affari Esteri della Repubblica Popolare Cinese, ha presieduto una Riunione di Alto Livello del Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite, sul Tema della Questione Israelo-Palestinese 🇵🇸

👏 Hanno partecipato all'incontro i Ministri degli Affari Esteri e i Rappresentanti di quasi 20 Paesi, tra cui Palestina, Brasile, Qatar, Giordania, Arabia Saudita, Egitto, [...], oltre ai restanti Membri del Consiglio di Sicurezza 🇺🇳

🇨🇳 Il Compagno Wang Yi ha ricordato che la Cina ha lavorato duramente per salvaguardare la Pace, sottolineando fin da subito la necessità di un "Cessate il Fuoco", per garantire l'apertura di un Corridoio Umanitario 🕊

🕊 Costruire un Consenso per la Pace, per una soluzione duratura, e che ponga fine alla spirale di violenza nella Regione, è stato l'obiettivo della Cina fin dall'inizio. La costruzione di uno Stato di Palestina, che sia indipendente e sovrano, secondo la "Two-State Solution", proposta anche dalla Delegazione dei Paesi Arabi e Musulmani a Pechino, rappresenta una soluzione 🇵🇸

🇨🇳 In qualità di Presidente di Turno del Consiglio di Sicurezza, la Cina ha messo in cima all'agenda la problematica del conflitto, promuovendo l'approvazione della Risoluzione 2712, e avviando i primi passi concreti per un "Cessate il Fuoco" 🕊

🇨🇳 La Diplomazia Cinese, costruita sui 和平共处五项原则 - Cinque Principi per la Coesistenza Pacifica, è anche edificata sulla risoluzione dei conflitti mediante il Dialogo e la Consultazione. Negli ultimi giorni, la tregua umanitaria e il rilascio, da entrambe le parti, delle persone, ha dimostrato che il Dialogo e i Negoziati rappresentano la migliore opzione per salvare vite umane ❤️

Il "Documento di Posizione della Repubblica Popolare Cinese sulla Risoluzione del Conflitto Israelo-Palestinese", pubblicato dal Ministero degli Affari Esteri, propone cinque punti concreti:

一 "Cessate il Fuoco" e fine dei combattimenti. Ogni Paese dovrebbe comportarsi in maniera responsabile, e lavorare per la de-escalation del conflitto 🕊

二 Proteggere efficacemente i civili. Migliaia di Palestinesi sono stati brutalmente assassinati dai bombardamenti incessanti di Israele. Tutte le parti dovrebbero sostenere il Diritto Internazionale Umanitario, ponendo fine ai violenti attacchi contro i civili e contro le strutture civili 🕊

🇺🇳 Inoltre, il Consiglio di Sicurezza dovrebbe inviare un messaggio chiaro di opposizione al tentativo, da parte di Israele, di promuovere un trasferimento forzato della Popolazione di Gaza 👏

三 Assicurare l'assistenza umanitaria. Il Consiglio di Sicurezza dovrebbe evitare di politicizzare le questioni umanitarie, e aumentare il livello di aiuti, coordinandosi con le agenzie competenti. Inoltre, in una visione a lungo termine, è anche necessario preparare il sostegno della vera Comunità Internazionale alla ricostruzione di Gaza, post-conflitto 🇵🇸

四 Rafforzare la Mediazione e la Diplomazia. Ogni Paese ha una propria concezione della Diplomazia, ma ogni Paese dovrebbe concordare nel risolvere i conflitti mediante il Dialogo, la Consultazione e i Negoziati, per assicurare Pace e Stabilità 🤝

五 Cercare una Soluzione Politica. La Soluzione accettata dalla maggioranza della Comunità Internazionale è la "Two-State Solution", come proposto da molti Paesi, dalla Cina alla Russia, passando per la Delegazione dei Paesi Arabi e Musulmani recatasi a Pechino 🤝

🇵🇸 Costruire uno Stato di Palestina, che sia sovrano e indipendente, con Gerusalemme Est come Capitale. È necessario promuovere una Conferenza di Pace a livello internazionale, e il cui obiettivo sia formulare un percorso concreto per l'implementazione della Soluzione Politica 🤝

💕 Tutte le parti, alla Riunione, hanno apprezzato l'Iniziativa della Cina: sostengono la proroga della tregua al fine di realizzare un "Cessate il Fuoco", la protezione dei civili, il rilascio dei prigionieri e il rafforzamento dell'assistenza umanitaria 👏

🌸 Iscriviti 👉 @collettivoshaoshan 😘

🇨🇳 on the 30th of November, Comrade Wang Yi - Director of the General Office of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission of the Communist Party and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, chaired a High-Level Meeting of the United Nations Security Council, on Theme of the Israel-Palestinian question 🇵🇸

👏 The Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Representatives of almost 20 countries participated in the meeting, including Palestine, Brazil, Qatar, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, [...], as well as the remaining members of the Security Council 🇺🇳

🇨🇳 Comrade Wang Yi reminded that China has worked hard to safeguard Peace, immediately underlining the need for a "Ceasefire", to guarantee the opening of a Humanitarian Corridor 🕊

🕊 Building a Consensus for Peace, for a lasting solution, which puts an end to the spiral of violence in the Region, has been China's goal from the beginning. The construction of a State of Palestine, which is independent and sovereign, according to the "Two-State Solution", also proposed by the Delegation of Arab and Muslim Countries in Beijing, represents a solution 🇵🇸

🇨🇳 As rotating President of the Security Council, China has put the issue of the conflict at the top of the agenda, promoting the approval of Resolution 2712, and taking the first concrete steps towards a "Ceasefire" 🕊

🇨🇳 Chinese Diplomacy, built on 和平共处五项原则 - Five Principles for Peaceful Coexistence, is also built on conflict resolution through Dialogue and Consultation. In recent days, the humanitarian truce and the release of people on both sides has shown that Dialogue and Negotiations are the best option to save lives ❤️

The "Position Paper of the People's Republic of China on the Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, proposes five concrete points:

一 "Ceasefire" and end of fighting. Every country should behave responsibly, and work towards the de-escalation of the conflict 🕊

二 Effectively protect civilians. Thousands of Palestinians have been brutally murdered by Israel's relentless bombing. All parties should uphold International Humanitarian Law, ending violent attacks against civilians and civilian facilities 🕊

🇺🇳 Furthermore, the Security Council should send a clear message of opposition to Israel's attempt to promote a forced transfer of the Gaza population 👏

三 Ensure humanitarian assistance. The Security Council should avoid politicizing humanitarian issues, and increase the level of aid in coordination with relevant agencies. Furthermore, in a long-term vision, it is also necessary to prepare the support of the true International Community for the post-conflict reconstruction of Gaza 🇵🇸

四 Strengthen Mediation and Diplomacy. Each country has its own conception of diplomacy, but each country should agree to resolve conflicts through dialogue, consultation and negotiations, to ensure peace and stability 🤝

五 Search for a Political Solution. The Solution accepted by the majority of the International Community is the "Two-State Solution", as proposed by many countries, from China to Russia, passing through the Delegation of Arab and Muslim Countries that went to Beijing 🤝

🇵🇸 Build a sovereign and independent State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital. It is necessary to promote a Peace Conference at an international level, and whose objective is to formulate a concrete path for the implementation of the Political Solution 🤝

💕 All parties, at the Meeting, appreciated China's Initiative: they support the extension of the truce in order to achieve a "Ceasefire", the protection of civilians, the release of prisoners and the strengthening of humanitarian assistance 👏

🌸 Subscribe 👉 @collectivoshaoshan 😘

[yuri-alexseygaybitch]

I'm 27 so I've basically spent my entire adult life watching the US political system and ruling class implode on itself at an exponential rate. Like, even if I didn't believe in the immortal and correct science of Marxism-Leninism, there's no way in fucking hell this country would have an ounce of credibility left in my mind. It's gone. It's done. I'm watching a convicted felon and twice impeached blowhard go up against an actual zombie and in all likelihood win. I've seen countless mass popular movements come and go without making a dent in the "democratic" political system. The highest decision making authority is a council of 9 unelected law wizards split along the most obvious partisan lines while claiming to be impartial and apolitical.

This is what we mean when we say liberalism has become utterly irrelevant. There is no room left for "everything is basically fine and will continue to get better." The only people of any serious political will left are those who have been stripped of this final delusion and recognize politics as the arena of naked power struggle between class interests it has always been. Respect, legitimacy, balance of powers, "fundamental rights", liberal "democracy" - it's all so fucking extinct that at this point we might as well be studying their fossils.

[super-ultra-mega-deluxe]

a lot of folks in my notes seem very upset that actually existing socialism isn't some sort of perfect vision of Marx's, or otherwise that socialism should be more ideologically or aesthetically amenable to their solarpunk spontaneous councilism. i'd like to apologize for the fact that Marxism Leninism dominates existing socialist experiments and only does things like provide for self determined proletarian governance and the elimination of poverty and the growth of productive forces instead of conforming to the true socialist vision of that one Chobani commercial. this is a gross error on my part and i'd like to apologize. i will hereby be joining the US democratic party and adopting liberalism as my ideology. i will bomb as many people as it takes to stymie world historical progress and ensure that my prior statements become false, even if this requires the ultimate extinction of the human race. thank you all for being with me for this journey

[mesetacadre]

I'm far from the first person to say this but there is a lot of overcompensating that goes on when communists oppose criticisms of specific communist figureheads. Stalin did not personally order the genocide of millions of people but he also wasn't the sole builder of socialism, nor was he the source of every good policy the USSR implemented. Same goes for Mao, Honecker, Lenin, Castro, etc. I don't think I need to harp on about why it's a remain of liberal historiography and ideology, although that should be acknowledged. Following in the same vein as this other post of mine, it constitutes a conscious and prolongued effort as a communist to adopt class, and more generally, a focus on the collective and processes instead of individual actions as the vehicle of your discourse. The better perspective with which to approach criticisms of a single transistor is to recontextualize it within the whole CPU that it's a part of, if you allow me the metaphor. You hinder yourself when you stoop down to the level of great man theory.

Lenin is a particular example because he tends to be great-manned both from the perspective of people criticizing and defending Stalin. He was neither a pure-hearted libertarian who was betrayed after his death by a conniving Stalin who hid Lenin's thought on him and who arrested/killed every other opponent, nor was Stalin a 1:1 replica of Lenin's positions but in a different stage of socialism. In both of these positions the role of the Bolshevik's party mechanisms and channels are completely ignored, as if it was a simple hereditary mechanism. In a democratic centralist organization, the Congress is the supreme organ of decision, and every office, from General Secretary to the base militant, is beholden to its decisions and has the duty to carry them out, as well as to contribute in its democratic process. Lenin was the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissar, sure, and the de facto "leader". The CPC was a mostly executive office, but like any other organ in the CP, it had a decided political role. The Congress is still the highest organ.

In the 13th Congress, when Stalin was elected to the position of General Secretary, there were 748 voting delegates. It is a misrepresentation of democratic-centralist principles to discount or ignore the vote of these 748 delegates. Lenin, as much as he was an important figure, was not the only politically competent communist, nor the only influential one. Never, even during the tensest months of the civil war or the underground work, was Lenin's criteria followed without criticism or input. He wasn't infallible or without fault, anyone can make mistakes or forget to consider some angles. This is also why Lenin was such a respected leader, because he did not govern alone. Stalin also governed like that, quite famously being skilled at listening to a discussion and being able to synthesize everyone's positions into a logical common ground. I am less concerned with what Lenin, at the end of his life, after two gunshots and a few strokes, personally thought of Stalin's aptness for the position, and more concerned with the opinions of those 748 delegates, all taking into account the discussions that took place in every lower organ of the party. What matters is that the party, democratically, elected Stalin to the position multiple times, and that his responsibility in leading cooperatively were proven competent throughout his tenure. Lenin was not an angel, nor the embodied spirit of revolutionary marxism. He was a very skilled and knowledgeable revolutionary whose words are not the gospel. The achievements made by Stalin's collective leadership (plus the entire party!) and the effective advancement of socialism are much more important than Lenin's opinion, as much as we can respect him. He wasn't clairvoyant

[apas-95]

How workers utilising Marxism-Leninism organise medicine production: the workers, organised into a national-scale federation of unions, elect local representatives, who themselves elect further representatives up to the highest levels of governance, where a people's congress deliberates on the results of investigation into issues submitted by a consultative body composed directly of workers, and eventually comes to a consensus, towards which all the nation's resources and work can be directed in unison; a state council directing state-owned assets administers the operations of a pharmaceutical industrial group, in concert with national laboratories and a state regulatory inspector, which directly manages its own logistics, covering 7 logistics hubs, 43 provincial-level logistics centers, and 500 municipal-level logistics centers, with more than 3 million square meters of warehouse space, supplying 8 tertiary hospitals, 21 secondary and specialized hospitals and 141 medical institutions, totalling over 16,000 hospital beds it directly administers, alongside the 700,000 institutions it supplies but does not directly administer, while under direct control of the workers' representatives and capable of both conforming to national-scale economic planning, as well as mobilising medical materiel in the case of emergencies and disasters.

How workers utilising anarchism organise medicine production: they'll figure it out, I don't know. Honestly it's both presumptuous of you to think that knowing how political-economy works means you should know how to organise a logistics chain, and also very insulting towards the individual workers to think they couldn't just organise the logistics chain on their own

[oceanicmarxist]

4th National Conference of the Socialist Workers Party (Australia), 1976. Not sure who the speaker is.

[jadwiga-abremovic]

" Lenin said: "The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of power, an organized force for suppressing the resistance of the exploiters and for readership of the great masses of the population, peasants, petty bourgeoisie, semi-proletariat, and also for the establishment of socialist ownership". (Lenin State and Revolution page 142, Russian edition, free translation). "But it should not be forgotten", says Lenin, quoting Marx. "That the proletariat needs only the state which is withering away". That is how Lenin refers to this matter. And what does the bourgeoisie need? The bourgeoisie, the exploiting class, needs the state as a permanent force for maintaining the exploited classes in subjection, meaning the majority of the people. The bourgeoisie does not contemplate the weakening of the state machinery, to say nothing of its withering away, for it considers its system, the system of exploitation, immortal and perfect. Accordingly, the difference between the bourgeois state, no matter how disguised it may be by a democratic screen, and our state, for instance, is that the bourgeois state, an apparatus of force in the hands of a minority, meaning the class exploiter, oppresses the majority of the people and has the tendency to increase in strength. Here, although the state has the job of restraining the minority of exploiters and enemies of new Yugoslavia, it is gradually dying away, for its functions, primarily in the economy, are gradually being transferred to the working people. According to Marxist science, the state is a product of "class conflicts", and it will wither away when classes disappear, when there is no longer anyone to suppress or any reason to suppress them. Where is the beginning of this withering away process in our country? I shall mention only the following examples. First, decentralization of the state administration, especially in economy. Secondly, turning over the factories and economic enterprises in general to the working collectives to manage themselves, etc. The decentralization of economy and political, cultural and other aspects of life is not only profoundly democratic but has inherent in it the seeds of withering away not only of centralism, but of the state in general, as a machine of force. This is a fact which anyone can check on here if they want to. How do things look in the Soviet Union thirty-one years after the October Revolution? The October Revolution made it possible for the state to take the means of production into its hands. But these means are still, after 31 years, in the hands of the state. Has the slogan "the factories for the workers" been put into practice? Of course not. The workers still do not have any say in the management of the factories. They are managed by directors who are appointed by the state, that is, by civil service employees. The workers only have the 'possibility and the right to work but this is not very different from the role of the workers in capitalist countries. The only difference for workers is that there is no unemployment in the Soviet Union, and that is all. Therefore, the leaders of the Soviet Union have not, so far, put through one of the most characteristic measures of a socialist state, that of turning over the factories and other economic enterprises to the workers so that they may manage them. Since the Soviet leaders consider state ownership as the highest form of social ownership, the fact that they have not turned over the means of production to the workers to manage probably issues from such a conception of state ownership. Besides, this is altogether in accordance with the strengthening of their state machine. That is also a fact that anyone can ascertain for themselves, if they want to learn the truth." Josip Broz Tito, 'Workers Shall Manage Factories in Yugoslavia', June 26, 1950.

[txttletale]

hi I've been following you for a while and I had some questions about MLism. First, while I think I have a decent understanding of how it works economically, how would a ML government (after the revolution) ensure it doesn't become too powerful? like what systems would be put in place so that it hears public opinion and dissent (should there be any) and not try to maintain power through oppressive means?

Secondly, what would the aftermath of the revolution look like? once the government is overthrown, there will most likely be a period of instability where different factions trying to sieze control. How would the MLs make sure that they get seated in power?

I am genuinely trying to learn more about it, so I'm sorry if those questions are ignorant. Thanks!

i mean, that first part? i'll be completely honest with you and say that in my opinion that's a partially unsolved problem. i think that lenin's prescriptions in state & revolution, based on the actions of the paris commune--that all 'officials' should be subject to democratic recall at any time and paid no more than anyone else--would be a good start.

but of course the USSR did not ossify and see abuses of power because its leaders simply forgot about what lenin wrote--the centralization of power and limiting of worker democracy was a direct result of the newly formed state apparatus having to fight brutal years-long civil war followed as mere decade later by a brutal years-long international invasion. & this is of course a situation that will be faced by any serious socialist government & their newly formed apparatus!

however, on the other hand -- cuba has succesfully maintained an incredible system of participatory democracy. i think that mao's idea of the 'mass line' -- that theory must constantly be in dialogue with the situation on the ground and the situation of the workers -- is vital to maintaining this. in its own time of crisis, during the 90s, instead of 'pulling the ladder up' on workers' councils, cuba expanded and doubled down on its participatory democracy. i think if any nation has succesfully followed lenin's theory and example, it's cuba, and the mass workplace and municipal democracy that the cuban communist party has invited should be the model for any future socialist revolution.

and quite frankly the reason why MLs will 'take power' after the revolution is because marxism-leninism is the only revolutionary socialist ideology with a plan and ability to take and maintain power over the bourgeoisie. i think one thing reading lenin will very much clarify is that the socialist state is not something that is built after the revolution but a continuation of the revolution -- lenin explains aptly the marxist position that, having taken up arms in order to dethrone the bourgeoisie, to not establish a marxist dictatorship of the proletariat is to throw aside those arms that have already been wielded and used. 'not setting up a worker's state' isn't inaction, but a deliberate choice to be disarmed and helpless in the face of foreign intervention or counterrevolution.

and this is also why i think that while solving the (very real and dangerous!) spectres of bureaucracy, of revisionism, of socialist militias becoming police forces "special bodies of men apart from and above" the people instead of "self-acting armed organizations" of the people is a vital and pressing question for marxism-leninism to address in both theory and practice, it is just as vital to note that only marxism-leninism can succeed to the point where this becomes a problem--only marxism-leninism has shown the historical ability to put the workers in a position of political supremacy that they might risk losing to these flaws and missteps.

& seriously, don't be sorry for asking questions. any questions in good faith are welcomed on this blog, because i'm a communist and i do in fact think it is my job to explain communism to people. have a nice day & don't be so down on yourself!

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

For Lula, Milei Has Gone From Being a Nuisance to Being a Problem

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has aspirations for regional and global leadership. Standing in Lula’s way is the fact that he cannot even get a meeting with his counterpart from neighboring Argentina, President Javier Milei.

Seven months after Milei’s inauguration, the two leaders have met only once and even then briefly, on the sidelines of the G7 meeting last month in Italy. Otherwise, they have unartfully dodged each other as they have darted around the region and the world promoting their opposing ideological views.

Lula’s global agenda is expansive. He wants Brazil to have a permanent United Nations Security Council seat. He plans for the country to take a leading role in climate change negotiations as he hosts the U.N. COP30 Climate Change Conference in Brazil next year. He has tried to insert himself as a mediator in the Ukraine conflict. And when BRICS—the political grouping that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—moved to expand last year, Lula made sure to bring along Argentina under then-President Alberto Fernandez as one of its new members.

Milei withdrew Argentina from the BRICS expansion process as soon as he took office in December. That’s consistent with his desire to move the country away from China and closer to the United States. Besides that, he has not clearly outlined an international agenda for his country. But Milei definitely has an international agenda for himself. He has portrayed himself as an ally of Israel and Ukraine, a contrast to Latin America’s left-wing leaders who have opposed the former’s war in Gaza and mainly attempted to remain neutral on the latter’s fight against Russian aggression.

Ideologically, Milei is attempting to turn himself into a global icon for free market libertarianism, speaking at conferences in South America, the U.S. and Europe, and meeting with venture capital investors and social media stars. He uses strong rhetoric in favor of capitalism and against any form of what he views as socialism or Marxism. His relatively extreme views, which only appeal to a small minority of Argentine voters who comprise his base, get him wild cheers overseas.

Continue reading.