Urbandale posted:at the end of the day all discussions about revisionism have to turn to what the hell that means today. do hoxhaists have a leg to stand on in their own ten men parties? do marcyites with their 50? probably not, and whats more the majority of the ML US parties could probably merge without incident. if individual members want to quibble over the history of the split they could do so but that can happen inside the education department.
well the only reason the issue is irrelevant in the US is because the ML movement doesn't really exist as a coherent political force, maybe a few thousand current members altogether. is the issue irrelevant in greece today? is it irrelevant in south africa? the drive for a mass labour party in the US (and somewhat in quebec) is often framed as "our syriza", which makes the debates relevant. syriza is itself a pretty much direct outgrowth of the repudiation of marxism-leninism by soviet-aligned parties across europe (like PDS/ die Linke, or even the Democratic Party in Italy).
Edited by Urbandale ()
Crow posted:basically what one should consider about modern China is the fact that 1) the party is actually still overwhelmingly non-capitalist
2) reduced poverty on a mass scale while not operating with any neocolonies:
In 2010 Professor Danny Quah, of the London School of Economics, noted: 'In the last 3 decades, China alone has lifted more people out of extreme poverty than the rest of the world combined.
[...]
In contrast the number of people living in such extreme poverty outside China increased by 50 million between 1981 and 2008 – the number of people emerging from poverty was less than the population increase.
http://ablog.typepad.com/keytrendsinglobalisation/2013/11/china-world-poverty.html
even though imperial organs try to take credit for it
and 3) has at least 50% of its economy in state hands (yasheng huang's estimate) with regulations and controls unheard of in the west (like making the practice of moving machinery out of the factory or out of the country, typical union busting and offshoring techniques, theft of state property ).
this may help explain why typical bourgeois economic readings of China's "economic bubble about to burst" have been wrong for decades
also it helps explain the left turn under Xi Jinping during this period of extreme imperial-led reaction
or, "Young Bears mistaken for Running Dogs"
Arise, devour much flesh!'
Edited by RedMaistre ()
Urbandale posted:this is where i announce the merger of WWP, PSL, and FRSO.
how dare you exclude the Clown Fucka Boys
My thinking on the Sino-Soviet split generally is that the CPC was younger, and less mature at realpolitik than the CPSU, which is the first divide between them. Stalin was slow to support the Chicoms, because he was hedging his bets and concerned about the long term. I think even leftists will agree that he was a little paranoid (somewhat justified, after almost being strangled in the crib ), but since Mao had just came from a victorious civil war, he was more chomping at the bit (similar to the Soviets with the Polish-Soviet War).
The real divide came from the denunciation of Stalin. Even though Stalin was slow to come to the aid of the Chicoms, he did eventually, so the Chinese had some respect for that. So when a new leader comes in and derides that man's accomplishments, it comes as an insult to them. Combined with the Soviet's realpolitiking, the Chicoms probably thought that the announced economic changes were probably related to the detente, and thus capitulation.
The big thing that gets me is Mao's rapprochement with the US. I was under the mistaken belief that it mostly happened under Mao's successors, but it started with Mao. How did he justify deriding the Soviets for their kowtowing to the United States when he started to do it himself? Why didn't he realise the reasons for the Soviet's behaviour when he himself pursued a similar course?
I regard the Sino-Soviet split as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, and the largest single thing that prevented communism. How is it that capitalist countries, divided and competitive on everything, can align against communism, while communist ones with brotherhood and unity as goals, (and parties) can't seem to stay together?
Same. But where the danger is, etc, etc.
How is it that capitalist countries, divided and competitive on everything, can align against communism, while communist ones with brotherhood and unity as goals, (and parties) can't seem to stay together?
Because socialism is the real movement in history that abolishes the repression of the plurality of the peoples on a planetary scale, not capitalist-imperialism, despite what both the apologists and detractors of the post-Taylorite-postmodern epoch have said.
Revolutionary Political Universality is a dividing sword, while commerce under conditions of finance-monopoly valorizes the colorful anarchy of individual interest only to return everything to the grey, desolate hegemony of the dollar and its settler-colonialist janissaries.
of course division in the socialist camp would have caused major losses (like the rise of neocolonial warlordism in Africa and now arab and former Soviet countries at the behest of the triumphant imperial bourgeoisie)
prikryl posted:Crow posted:lol maybe they just had bad translators back then
cpsu to cpc:
As for your attempts to juggle with words like “great-power chauvinism”, “self-important”, “domineering”, “inveterate habit of posing as the ‘father party’”, “God’s will”, etc. we have to tell you that the use of such expressions only testifies to the weakness of your position and to your wish in this way to cover up your own activities, which you try to ascribe to us.
For four years the fraternal Parties of the whole world have been appealing to the CC CPC to approach the matter from the point of view of the common interests and to cease its attempts to impose its erroneous “general line” on the world communist movement. However, the leadership of the CPC has not only failed to heed the opinion of fraternal Parties but with growing ambition is posing as the sole heir of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and the supreme judge of the theory and practice of communism. After all, it is none other than the leadership of the CPC that is attempting to dictate to the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries when they should begin the revolution and by what paths they should accomplish it. This leadership of the CPC pronounces irrevocable sentence on which country should be considered socialist and which not. It is the same leadership that affixes to whole Parties the labels of “correct” or “incorrect” and, depending upon whom it likes, declares some to be “outstanding Marxists” and others “modern revisionists”.
Your great-power habits also appear in your last short letter when, addressing the CC CPSU, you demand that it send to you its letter of February 12. You do not request, but demand. One asks, by what right? Can it really be that you consider that anyone will take your tone seriously, become frightened and rush as fast as his legs can carry him to fulfil your every demand? This is not merely rude but simply ridiculous.
Your letter and its deliberately rude tone compel us to reflect once again: with what purpose was it sent? After all, nobody will believe that such an unseemly message was sent in the interests of the strengthening of friendship with the CPSU, of which you ceaselessly talk to your own people and the international communist movement, thus deceiving them. Anyone who acquaints himself with this letter will see that it is aimed at the aggravation of differences and the exacerbation of the situation in the communist movement.
Losing its sense of reality, the CC CPC attempted to present us with an ultimatum — it demanded that it be sent the letter of the CC CPSU of February 12. When we politely explained that no Communist Party should permit itself to talk to another in the language of ultimatums, you alleged, obviously obscuring the issue, that there is no difference between the words “request” and “demand” in the Chinese language.
We hold a much higher opinion of the Chinese language. The Chinese are a great people with an ancient culture and understand the shades of meaning between “request” and “demand” perfectly well. It may even happen that the words are the same but the music is quite different. Incidentally, the word “request” was found in the Chinese language, after all, when there was a desire to use it. We hope that from now on the language of ultimatums will be excluded forever from our relations.
Why, then, was it found necessary to permit oneself to address a fraternal Party in this way? Why was your entire letter of February 27, like the preceding ones, written in an exceptionally rude and impertinent tone, and studded with imprecations and insulting expressions? To irritate us, to force us to depart from principled ideological and communist positions and embark upon a “squabble at the mouth of the well”? Apparently these were indeed your intentions.
Seeking political capital, you constantly deck yourselves out as “knights” of equality and at the same time try to convince people that the CPSU is clinging to the role of a “father party”. We cannot avoid the impression that all this is done solely to enable you to fill the role of a “father party” yourselves.
why is this so similar to the arguments you find on twitter? is this where they all learned it?
c_man posted:prikryl posted:Crow posted:lol maybe they just had bad translators back then
cpsu to cpc:
As for your attempts to juggle with words like “great-power chauvinism”, “self-important”, “domineering”, “inveterate habit of posing as the ‘father party’”, “God’s will”, etc. we have to tell you that the use of such expressions only testifies to the weakness of your position and to your wish in this way to cover up your own activities, which you try to ascribe to us.
For four years the fraternal Parties of the whole world have been appealing to the CC CPC to approach the matter from the point of view of the common interests and to cease its attempts to impose its erroneous “general line” on the world communist movement. However, the leadership of the CPC has not only failed to heed the opinion of fraternal Parties but with growing ambition is posing as the sole heir of the founders of Marxism-Leninism and the supreme judge of the theory and practice of communism. After all, it is none other than the leadership of the CPC that is attempting to dictate to the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries when they should begin the revolution and by what paths they should accomplish it. This leadership of the CPC pronounces irrevocable sentence on which country should be considered socialist and which not. It is the same leadership that affixes to whole Parties the labels of “correct” or “incorrect” and, depending upon whom it likes, declares some to be “outstanding Marxists” and others “modern revisionists”.
Your great-power habits also appear in your last short letter when, addressing the CC CPSU, you demand that it send to you its letter of February 12. You do not request, but demand. One asks, by what right? Can it really be that you consider that anyone will take your tone seriously, become frightened and rush as fast as his legs can carry him to fulfil your every demand? This is not merely rude but simply ridiculous.
Your letter and its deliberately rude tone compel us to reflect once again: with what purpose was it sent? After all, nobody will believe that such an unseemly message was sent in the interests of the strengthening of friendship with the CPSU, of which you ceaselessly talk to your own people and the international communist movement, thus deceiving them. Anyone who acquaints himself with this letter will see that it is aimed at the aggravation of differences and the exacerbation of the situation in the communist movement.
Losing its sense of reality, the CC CPC attempted to present us with an ultimatum — it demanded that it be sent the letter of the CC CPSU of February 12. When we politely explained that no Communist Party should permit itself to talk to another in the language of ultimatums, you alleged, obviously obscuring the issue, that there is no difference between the words “request” and “demand” in the Chinese language.
We hold a much higher opinion of the Chinese language. The Chinese are a great people with an ancient culture and understand the shades of meaning between “request” and “demand” perfectly well. It may even happen that the words are the same but the music is quite different. Incidentally, the word “request” was found in the Chinese language, after all, when there was a desire to use it. We hope that from now on the language of ultimatums will be excluded forever from our relations.
Why, then, was it found necessary to permit oneself to address a fraternal Party in this way? Why was your entire letter of February 27, like the preceding ones, written in an exceptionally rude and impertinent tone, and studded with imprecations and insulting expressions? To irritate us, to force us to depart from principled ideological and communist positions and embark upon a “squabble at the mouth of the well”? Apparently these were indeed your intentions.
Seeking political capital, you constantly deck yourselves out as “knights” of equality and at the same time try to convince people that the CPSU is clinging to the role of a “father party”. We cannot avoid the impression that all this is done solely to enable you to fill the role of a “father party” yourselves.why is this so similar to the arguments you find on twitter? is this where they all learned it?
tfw when whole squad squabble at the mouth of the well
Favorite Retweet Share
c_man posted:also does anyone have any cool sources or opinions on the labor issues in modern china? ive seen some articles in the monthly review, new left review and most recently jacobin and ive been thinking that it seems like a pretty damb important thing to fink about, since its one of the biggest concentration of industrial labor in the world. also detailed stuff about the modern chinese economy in general would be interesting
china labour bulletin, even though it takes NED money, has some good reports on chinese labour unrest and what demands are made etc. you probably already know it though
Edited by Bablu ()
Urbandale posted:imo crow is mostly talking about the RIM parties, and the naxals and filipinos havent/wont have anything to do with the group or its current boosters.
sorry? one of the two founding parties of the cpi(maoist) was a revolutionary internationalist movement member, as was the party that was recently incorporated in 2014
Urbandale posted:idk about the naxals, but the CPP call themselves maoists in the same sense mao did, right? (ie mao zedong thought).
the cpp consider both marxism-leninism-maoism and mao tse-tung thought as practically synonymous and referring to the third stage in the development of marxism that occurred with the confrontation against soviet revisionism
Mao Zedong Thought emerged as the third stage in the development of Marxism when Mao confronted the problem of modern revisionism and capitalist restoration already evident in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as well as in the manifestation of the same problem in China. He put forward the theory of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship in order to consolidate socialism, combat modern revisionism and prevent the restoration of capitalism and successfully put the theory into practice for the first time, from 1966 to 1976.
http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=17511
JMS: There is no difference in content between Mao Zedong Thought and Maoism. When the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) used the phrase Mao Zedong Thought in 1969, all the major theoretical and practical achievements of Comrade Mao were encompassed. They are also encompassed in the word, Maoism, used by the CPP since the early 1990s. The phrase Marxism-Leninism-Maoism evokes continuity and advance. The appearance of the word Maoism is symmetrical to Marxism and Leninism.
Crow posted:the problem with 'maoism' is its essentially a formation tied to western anti-revisionist groups (read the US section here: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/erol.htm) which tried to explain the sinosoviet split in terms of 'a new stage of marxism' even though the CCP is a Marxist-Leninist Party and Mao has always actually called himself a Marxist-Leninist, and not a "Maoist" (though there were of course attempts at some separate new 'Mao Tse-Tung Thought' which centered around a Three Worlds Theory which was ill-advised and has been completely dropped, sharing only faint similarity with the modern conception of a 'first and third world').
i'm not sure what you're saying here. the communist party of the philippines, as i have illustrated, in no uncertain terms considers and considered maoism and mao tse-tung thought as a third stage in the development of marxism, symmetrical to both marxism and leninism, emerging at the point of mao's opposition to the soviet union
let's also compare this to the naxal movement:
It is in this overall context, when the modern revisionists and those claiming to be followers of Mao Thought have been undermining the universal significance and application of Mao’s contributions and thereby refusing to accept it as a higher stage of Marxism-Leninism that our unified Party is bringing out this document. As the focus of this document is on Maoism, the basic tenets of Marxism and Leninism are dealt here briefly as introduction to show the Marxist-Leninist foundations. Comrade Mao Tse-tung not only firmly based on this foundation but also inherited, defended and developed it to a new, third and qualitatively higher stage. Hence MLM is the continuity of thought of our great Marxist teachers, and is also an integrated whole. Though in our understanding there is no distinction between MLM Thought and MLM and no Chinese Wall can separate the two, we have adopted MarxismLeninism-Maoism as a new, third and qualitatively higher stage because it is more scientific and appropriate.
The third great leap in the development of the proletarian science was brought forth by Com. Mao by applying the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete practice of the Chinese Revolution and the World Proletarian Revolution and in the course of the resolute struggle against modern revisionism led by Khrushchov & Co. He firmly defended, enriched and developed the science of Marxism-Leninism to a new and higher stage by making significant contributions to the three component parts of MarxismLeninism. Thus Marxism-Leninism Maoism marks the third stage in the development of the scientific ideology of the proletariat.
A correct scientific understanding of the development of the ideology of the proletariat over the last 150 years is very essential in order to grasp the significance of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as a qualitatively higher stage of Marxism-Leninism.
http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Founding/MLM-pamphlet.pdf
both the cpp and the cpi(maoist) consider maoism to not only be a third, distinct stage in the development of marxism but also the product of the opposition towards soviet revisionism, yet apparently this is being forwarded as the product of western anti-revisionists?
Crow posted:now, there are attempts at creating a MLM in the west to raise the specific conditions of People's War to a universal, generalized claim.
the thesis of the universality of people's war is the product of president gonzalo and the communist party of peru. regardless of what conclusions any of us might have regarding the validity of this thesis, the "debate" surrounding it has continued as if it was the product of minor north american sects, as opposed to a development of the most significant revolutionary struggle in recent history (the recognition of which has been repeated fundamental point of unity for maoist parties in the developing world, such as those in the ccomposa)
i'm not sure of any clear answer to the validity of this thesis but it simply can't be examined unless the questions of 1. the theoretical basis for this universality as laid out by the pcp 2. the tactics and strategy of ppw as laid out by the pcp (and identified in contrast to competing models of tactics and strategy in the developed world) and 3. a real and concrete analysis of the practical experience of ppw in peru are answered. rather than actually examining any of these, the "debate" on both sides has appeared to be not much more than the tired spats of bloggers
Edited by blinkandwheeze ()
c_man posted:slight derail, i recently found out that the soviets were behind some of the early machine learning work, as well as optimization and so on. does anyone know of any resources that position this in either a larger political or scientific context (preferably both, ofc)
soviet scientific education was really good and they came up with a lot of the early advances in computer science/algorithms due to being badass math wizards. if you just look at the list of algorithms like half of the important ones are named after some russian
the point was that RIM's 'successes' are two complete failures and theyre basing UPPW off of one of these failures. the other point is that crow was talking about RIM parties, and as i mentioned neither the naxals or the filipinos are in RIM.
NoFreeWill posted:soviet scientific education was really good and they came up with a lot of the early advances in computer science/algorithms due to being badass math wizards. if you just look at the list of algorithms like half of the important ones are named after some russian
what i know about the soviet math tradition indicates that it was really cool. they had a lot of "generalists" who made significant progress in lots of different fields at a time where everyone in the west was becoming more and more specialized, partially due to the influence and success of the french bourbaki-oriented mathematicians kicking off a formalization spree that's really still going on. so you have all sorts of people like kolmogorov and arnold (to say of landau) who each made lots of contributions that today span a remarkable number of different fields.
Urbandale posted:as for predecessor parties, no, what international groups they were part of doesnt count. this should be obvious, or one could just as easily say PSL fucks with the 4th international via its prior experience in the SWP.
you were pretty clearly suggesting the naxals "haven't had anything to do with the group," and you were specifically equating the rim to crow's invocation of a western maoism distinct from the naxal movement
the naxal groups did not break with the rim, they were member parties up until the point that the rim became defunct. it's also important to note that the cpi(maoist), as i have highlighted, share the same conception of maoism/mao tse-tung thought as a new, distinct third stage of marxism as was forwarded by the rim
i'm not saying that their relationship to the rim was in any way a defining characteristic, or even of any particular importance, but the naxal movement has a more significant connection to the rim than minor western parties do
Urbandale posted:the point was that RIM's 'successes' are two complete failures and theyre basing UPPW off of one of these failures.
the rim at no point held, nor do the parties currently associated with the rim hold, the universality of ppw as a point of unity, nor was it ever adopted by a majority of parties. as far as i'm aware, the only groups associated with the rim that have ever forwarded the concept are the pcp and the pcm(italy)
the pcm(italy) has been associated with efforts to rebuild the rim, but this has been in tandem the communist party (maoist) of afghanistan and the naxal group that was incorporated into the cpi(maoist) in 2014, neither of which hold the thesis of the universality of protracted people's war
we also have to talk about "successes" in a relative sense. no, power was not seized in nepal or peru, neither has it been seized in india or the philippines. but as marxists, the real, practical history of the struggles of the international proletariat demand real, concrete investigation and criticism that can't be reduced to the simplistic "win/lose" of absolute success or absolute failures. each of these struggles contained and contain a myriad of successes and failures that have to be assessed on their relative merits
despite the obvious eventual failings of the pcp, the people's war in peru was the strongest and most significant mobilisation of the masses as a revolutionary front in our recent history, being the single largest political organisation in peru at the time, resisting the genocidal counter-insurgency efforts of the peruvian-cia regime for a decade, and being understood by even western intelligence organs as being in a position to take power
yes, these successes are relative, but they are not born of failure. i'm not arguing the merits of the universality thesis proposed by pcp, i have no strong conclusions either way, but you simply can't engage with the thesis without an engagement with the theoretical output of the party or an investigation of their practical experience no deeper than "total success / total failure"
Urbandale posted:the other point is that crow was talking about RIM parties, and as i mentioned neither the naxals or the filipinos are in RIM.
i'm not sure exactly what crow was talking about, seeing as he was expressing that the conception of maoism as a new, third stage in the development of marxism that emerged from china's opposition to the ussr is the product of western anti-revisionists as distinct from the naxals and the cpp, when this is actually the understanding of maoism forwarded by the cpi(maoist) and the cpp
no parties are "in" the rim as it doesn't exist anymore, we can only talk about groups that have been a continuation of its members, which is something the cpi(maoist) has a better claim to than most western maoists
blinkandwheeze posted:.custom284443{}Urbandale posted:as for predecessor parties, no, what international groups they were part of doesnt count. this should be obvious, or one could just as easily say PSL fucks with the 4th international via its prior experience in the SWP.
you were pretty clearly suggesting the naxals "haven't had anything to do with the group," and you were specifically equating the rim to crow's invocation of a western maoism distinct from the naxal movement
the naxal groups did not break with the rim, they were member parties up until the point that the rim became defunct. it's also important to note that the cpi(maoist), as i have highlighted, share the same conception of maoism/mao tse-tung thought as a new, distinct third stage of marxism as was forwarded by the rim
i'm not saying that their relationship to the rim was in any way a defining characteristic, or even of any particular importance, but the naxal movement has a more significant connection to the rim than minor western parties do
.custom284443{}Urbandale posted:the point was that RIM's 'successes' are two complete failures and theyre basing UPPW off of one of these failures.
the rim at no point held, nor do the parties currently associated with the rim hold, the universality of ppw as a point of unity, nor was it ever adopted by a majority of parties. as far as i'm aware, the only groups associated with the rim that have ever forwarded the concept are the pcp and the pcm(italy)
the pcm(italy) has been associated with efforts to rebuild the rim, but this has been in tandem the communist party (maoist) of afghanistan and the naxal group that was incorporated into the cpi(maoist) in 2014, neither of which hold the thesis of the universality of protracted people's war
we also have to talk about "successes" in a relative sense. no, power was not seized in nepal or peru, neither has it been seized in india or the philippines. but as marxists, the real, practical history of the struggles of the international proletariat demand real, concrete investigation and criticism that can't be reduced to the simplistic "win/lose" of absolute success or absolute failures. each of these struggles contained and contain a myriad of successes and failures that have to be assessed on their relative merits
despite the obvious eventual failings of the pcp, the people's war in peru was the strongest and most significant mobilisation of the masses as a revolutionary front in our recent history, being the single largest political organisation in peru at the time, resisting the genocidal counter-insurgency efforts of the peruvian-cia regime for a decade, and being understood by even western intelligence organs as being in a position to take power
yes, these successes are relative, but they are not born of failure. i'm not arguing the merits of the universality thesis proposed by pcp, i have no strong conclusions either way, but you simply can't engage with the thesis without an engagement with the theoretical output of the party or an investigation of their practical experience no deeper than "total success / total failure"
.custom284443{}Urbandale posted:the other point is that crow was talking about RIM parties, and as i mentioned neither the naxals or the filipinos are in RIM.
i'm not sure exactly what crow was talking about, seeing as he was expressing that the conception of maoism as a new, third stage in the development of marxism that emerged from china's opposition to the ussr is the product of western anti-revisionists as distinct from the naxals and the cpp, when this is actually the understanding of maoism forwarded by the cpi(maoist) and the cpp
no parties are "in" the rim as it doesn't exist anymore, we can only talk about groups that have been a continuation of its members, which is something the cpi(maoist) has a better claim to than most western maoists
i think you're overlooking the contributions of the LNCP to the theory and practice of UPPW
NoFreeWill posted:i think you're overlooking the contributions of the LNCP to the theory and practice of UPPW
catchphrase
Anyway, onto my position on this whole debacle, because somehow i feel like me posting online matters to revolutionary socialism, i think the koreans and vietnamese more or less had the right idea. The USSR was the shock brigade of the world proletariat, it was the pillar on which most of world socialism was constructed. China was an emerging titan that could probably replace the USSR's position of dominance. The smart thing to do for people seeking social revolution was to basically warm up to both of them. The USSR, although it had its own huge failings, was an extremely reliable ally in a world where imperialism more or less was willing to commit genocide to stop the possibility of popular revolution.
ANYWAY the Chinese, despite all their sobbing about the poor Cubans, more or less bought Cuban sugar for exactly the same prices as the Soviets, and probably made far too big of a deal out of what started as a border dispute. Most of the time when my neighbors trim my hedges by accident I just ask them for ten bucks and then make friends again. That's probably what would be the smart thing to do. I'm not gonna talk about the GPCR coz it makes my head hurt.
hashish_nasrallah posted:I think it's unwise to ignore that a lot of the tensions between the PRC and USSR were caused essentially by border squabbles, and slowly developed into full blown political crisis. It's also salient to note that throughout the split, there was quite a lot of strife within the CPC w/r/t to the Soviets. I mean the original "comintern" faction, basically the gang of eight and some other old dudes, was more or less sidelined by mao and his crew fairly early on, but a sort of pro-soviet group existed quietly until basically Lin Biao's death. The CCP was never quite as unified against the dastardly ruskies as a lot of people think, tbh.
Anyway, onto my position on this whole debacle, because somehow i feel like me posting online matters to revolutionary socialism, i think the koreans and vietnamese more or less had the right idea. The USSR was the shock brigade of the world proletariat, it was the pillar on which most of world socialism was constructed. China was an emerging titan that could probably replace the USSR's position of dominance. The smart thing to do for people seeking social revolution was to basically warm up to both of them. The USSR, although it had its own huge failings, was an extremely reliable ally in a world where imperialism more or less was willing to commit genocide to stop the possibility of popular revolution.
ANYWAY the Chinese, despite all their sobbing about the poor Cubans, more or less bought Cuban sugar for exactly the same prices as the Soviets, and probably made far too big of a deal out of what started as a border dispute. Most of the time when my neighbors trim my hedges by accident I just ask them for ten bucks and then make friends again. That's probably what would be the smart thing to do. I'm not gonna talk about the GPCR coz it makes my head hurt.
this reads like a donald post, but with correct underlying assumptions (catchphrase (
Crow posted:hashish_nasrallah posted:I think it's unwise to ignore that a lot of the tensions between the PRC and USSR were caused essentially by border squabbles, and slowly developed into full blown political crisis. It's also salient to note that throughout the split, there was quite a lot of strife within the CPC w/r/t to the Soviets. I mean the original "comintern" faction, basically the gang of eight and some other old dudes, was more or less sidelined by mao and his crew fairly early on, but a sort of pro-soviet group existed quietly until basically Lin Biao's death. The CCP was never quite as unified against the dastardly ruskies as a lot of people think, tbh.
Anyway, onto my position on this whole debacle, because somehow i feel like me posting online matters to revolutionary socialism, i think the koreans and vietnamese more or less had the right idea. The USSR was the shock brigade of the world proletariat, it was the pillar on which most of world socialism was constructed. China was an emerging titan that could probably replace the USSR's position of dominance. The smart thing to do for people seeking social revolution was to basically warm up to both of them. The USSR, although it had its own huge failings, was an extremely reliable ally in a world where imperialism more or less was willing to commit genocide to stop the possibility of popular revolution.
ANYWAY the Chinese, despite all their sobbing about the poor Cubans, more or less bought Cuban sugar for exactly the same prices as the Soviets, and probably made far too big of a deal out of what started as a border dispute. Most of the time when my neighbors trim my hedges by accident I just ask them for ten bucks and then make friends again. That's probably what would be the smart thing to do. I'm not gonna talk about the GPCR coz it makes my head hurt.this reads like a donald post, but with correct underlying assumptions (catchphrase (
you son of a bitch
if you're not in the party nobody discusses work or internal stuff with you. which is fine and good. but they do discuss their public stands on things (the result of internal debate presumably) and take credit for internal actions, for instance expelling rapists or splitting from liberals or whatever. and to me you can't have it both ways. you can't reveal internal details only to brag. you can't really credibly tell me that you handled a complaint of abuse against a member, if there's no public record of it. if you did actually investigate someone and decide that they did rape someone or abuse someone and then got rid of them, that's great, but if the entire process was kept internal and known to like 3 people then who is supposed to really believe you? an frso person told me that they'd been doing militant minority work at ups for a decade and again, that's great, who the fuck knows if that's true though? and why on earth would you hide that? trade unions are legal, the smith act is basically suspended, we don't have state censors, why are we more secretive than the bolsheviks, who published internal debates in their underground highly illegal newspaper?
and i think the idea of security culture that these people have is totally incorrect. the fbi knows what the frso is doing. they have someone on the inside somewhere. if there are 'internal documents' the only people those are hidden from is the public at large and the lower membership of the frso. the fbi and the top leadership are the only ones who know whats going on. that's the lesson from the massive and successful infiltration of the new left which we have no reason to believe ended in 1980.
and front groups i completely dont get. communists disdain to conceal their aims. thats basically all i can say about it.
i don't know how many times i have heard anarchists(ish) go on and on about their supposedly ironclad clandestine communication as if accomplishing that is an end in itself. means and media are the same word. jesus christ people.
drwhat posted:i would be completely unsurprised if theatrical paranoia is encouraged by state agents.
one of the first COINTELPRO-era memos leaked to the public explicitly stated the FBI desired to "enhance the paranoia endemic in these (leftist activist) circles" and "further serve to get the point across there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox." so yeah.
