How is it that the USSR didn't have any issues with inflation, and what is actually the cause of it in capitalist societies"?

Want to give these libs some theory to read but think they'll be scared off by Marx and Lenin? Anything a bit more SocDem friendly that gets the basic points across - class consciousness, why they need to organise and how etc.?

Shoer articles preferred but anything will do tbh

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6119411

Good presentation.

I've heard this parroted my entire life, yet I'm having trouble finding sources, anti-communist or not, to back it up.

Could anyone please link some sources? (I'm sorry if this isn't the right community to post this in, I'm just not sure which one would be)

Dissanayake’s victory is significant, as he is the first Marxist to be elected president in Sri Lanka’s history. He has strong support from young voters in particular. His success in the election reflects the growing popularity of leftist ideas in Sri Lanka. The JVP led two armed revolts against the government in the 1970s and 1980s.

This electoral victory for the left comes after Sri Lanka defaulted on its foreign debt and went into bankruptcy. Current social and economic unrest in Sri Lanka has been motivated by the rapid decline of economic possibilities for the population, which faces shortages of essential goods, including food, fuel and medicines.

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe of the United National Party took Sri Lanka to the International Monetary Fund in 2023 to secure a $2.9 billion bailout, which has further trapped the country in a cycle of high-interest loans with corporate creditors in the [neo]imperialist West. Wickremesinghe continued to arm the government against the Tamil people’s resistance in the North and East of Sri Lanka.

Dissanayake campaigned on transitioning Sri Lanka away from the IMF and resolving ethnic disputes in the country, specifically the ongoing genocide of the Tamil people.

The election results represent the demands of the people but do not by themselves change the class character of the state. The capitalist class still controls the state, property and means of production in Sri Lanka, and the superrich maintain their ties to the military, courts, corporate media and police.

The global working class must be in solidarity with Sri Lanka’s efforts to develop independently of world imperialism and to advance towards socialism.

I'd have to read on it but it all seems fairly accurate. I also really like Max Miller's videos, very entertaining and educating

Whenever [neo]imperialism cannot coerce an independent country into its orbit, it will rely on disinformation and outright lies. This is to disarm the masses into believing that the biggest threat to their security is a country such as Iran that has no military bases remotely close to the number belonging to the U.S. Compare this to 19 U.S. military bases in West Asia located in 10 countries. This military occupation is an ominous threat that the Iranian people face on a daily basis.

Imperialism makes any excuse, claiming security concerns, to divert billions of taxpayer dollars into a gargantuan military budget to threaten independent countries including Iran and [the People’s Republic of] China. They have the right to develop their own economies to serve their populations, not for profits for billionaire bosses.

That money should be used instead to meet human needs, such as housing, education, food, health care and emergency funds to assist victims of climate-related disasters such as Hurricane Helene.

It is not in the interest of any worker to support a war against other workers who share the same wants and needs on a global scale. Don’t the workers [in the Anglosphere] have their own domestic fight against low wages, police violence, gender oppression, migrant bashing, poverty, mass incarceration and houselessness? Why should they kill or be killed or become permanently disabled in a war for conquest of other people’s lands for empire?

For those who consider themselves progressives and revolutionary socialists, defending Iran means opposing [neo]imperialist exploitation and expansion, the life’s blood of the profit-hungry capitalist system.

For the masses, defending Iran means understanding that every issue is a worker’s issue not only at home but abroad. And there is no more important political issue at this juncture than to oppose [neo]imperialist war in words and actions on countries from Iran to China to Russia.

I stumbled onto LeftValues and took the quiz. Turns out that my political leanings aren't what I thought they were. Like, not even close. Just to preface, apparently I fall somewhere between Democratic Socialism and Centrist Marxism, with some leanings towards Social Democracy. 0% in common with Marxism-Leninism, which isn't going to be very popular in this community, but it's likely because of my feelings on centralization.

So, with all that in mind, does anyone have any recommended reading?

Definitions from the website follow below. And if this should be posted somewhere better, please let me know! :)

• https://leftvalues.github.io

• Democratic Socialism is a form of socialism that seeks to utilize liberal democracy as a means to achieve a socialist economy and society. Democratic Socialists reject revolution and a centrally planned economy, instead supporting moderate social ownership in the form of publicly owned utilities and democratic workplace self-management.

• Centrist Marxism is a form of Marxism that adopts Marxist views on society and the economy while also refraining from taking a definitive position on revolution and reformism. Many Centrist Marxists may also be more nationalistic than other Marxists.

• Social Democracy is a centre-left ideology that advocates for mixing left-leaning values such as social welfare and corporate regulation with capitalism and liberal democracy in the form of a mixed economy. Many modern Social Democrats favor Keynesian economics.

• Marxism-Leninism is a form of Marxism that was forged in the 20th century in the Soviet Union. Marxist-Leninists heavily favor the use of a communist political party as the platform for both achieving revolution and establishing socialism. Many Marxist-Leninists are somewhat more nationalistic and patriotic than many other Marxists, and may favor industrial progress over environmental goals.

Hi there. I've joined my country's communist party a year ago, and for this year i've just worked in my province local circle.

From what i've observed nobody as much of a clue (or at least doesn't show it), from the party's administration (who just aims to exist another day as a party, just financially and bureaucratically) to the lowly comrades like me, on what it is to be done.

I've meditated for a full year on how things should work at our stage, but i admit i have no clue on how everything should work: mainly the local circles. This is a problem because now i'm secretary of my province circle. And now i don't know more than ever what to do.

So, now i come for help, i couldn't find any resource for what it's our stage in a socialist plan (near 0%). Briefly: we are 500ish in our country, 50ish in my region, and about 8 active member in my circle. We are mainly "middle-class", petty bourguesie student's.

What should we do to basically START? By literally the basics, my comrades don't seem to auto-organize much, they need quite an encouragement to work thorward something. And after I get around on how to manage the circle, what will we do on the long and brief term in my city? When should I go for activating the whole region rather than just my city? And how would I go about scaling everything?

Now I've figured I should build a collective where political discussion (which is pretty dead in the city) could florish. Also I should find a way to engage my comrade in actual Marxist theory (they just have a vague understanding). From this I could show the party's administration my worth and aim for regional secretary (and iterate the process).

But, again, I'm lacking any resource on this.

And ultimately, the most important, how do I avoid feeling like a teacher giving homework to my comrades? I want this to be about "us" not me.

Thank you very much!!

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5607117

What I said last time:

---

Calling all Autistic comrades!

And calling all neurodivergent comrades!

We will be going through Empire of Normality: Neurodiversity and Capitalism by Robert Chapman. You can purchase the book through this hyperlink here or here or even here (but preferably through the first two links as I want to support the publisher).

The first two chapters are:

Chapter 1. Rise of the machines

and

Chapter 2. The invention of normality

There's also the Preface and Introduction.

Every week, we'll go through two chapters, at least, every week, but if you want, we can go through it bi-weekly (as in, every two weeks, to be precise). I don't think it deserves to be monthly as it's a rather short book. It's about 165 pages of actual text and the rest of the book is supplementary pages, such as References and Works Cited. Otherwise, give your general thoughts down below.

My thoughts:

I'm near the end of the book. I like that Robert Chapman takes issue with Judy Singer and some of her comments later on. But also, regarding the first two chapters, I felt that they were really compelling and helped set up the general interest in the matter at hand. I felt that it does well in terms of getting the reader to understand why normativity is a negative feature of capitalism, even if it may have been preferable to the pseudo-science of the feudal era. The feudal era's views on mind and body are interesting, though, and more in line with reality, where there is no obsession with a "normative slate" (my words) and instead, everyone is literally different, more or less, from each other. Not sure how to explain it in my own words, but I think as children, we all kinda thought this before we had concepts of what was "right and normal" and what was "wrong and harmful." The relation to Das Kapital and Marx in the second chapter are also pretty interesting as well.

---

What I say this time:

The next two chapters are:

Chapter 3. Galton's paradigm

and

Chapter 4. The eugenics movement

The info about Francis Galton was interesting and it's no surprise that he helped found psychiatry, looking back on it all. Emil Kraepelin (a name that I didn't exactly recognize) was also fond of Francis Galton and probably carried the eugenicist approach with him. In sum, Kraepelin wanted to "winnow" people out so they wouldn't "mix" with the other races and wanted to expand on Galton's "scientific" study of intelligence and encompass every aspect of the human mind in his research. Also, the leading power of psychiatry was Germany which, well, certainly became more important later. And according to the first page of chapter 4, Winston Churchill was a big proponent of eugenicist psychiatry. The word normalcy also started to appear with Warren G. Harding's Presidential run in 1920.

My overall thoughts are that this book excels in bringing people up to speed on the history of psychology, psychiatry, and neurodiversity and capitalism from a Marxist point-of-view. Definitely well-worth the read. I highly recommend it.

Here are some questions to help guide you when giving your thoughts down below:

What, and how much, did you learn from the last two chapters?

and

What did you find most interesting from them and what would you like to be elaborated on more?

So same questions as last time, but they work here, in this case.

Join me in this book club that I've set up and I'll tag you all as needed.

Anywho, fire away!

(Make sure to invite others!)

I hear mixed things about countries that are building socialism vs are described as socialist.

Am I overthinking their stages? Especially with a timeline expected for china to hit socialism by their own definition posted a bit back, don't have a link offhand.

My friend made this.

Please:

Like

Share

Subscribe

Comment

etc.

Thanks! You won't regret watching it. Just give it a look-see, even if you skim through it.

What do you think?

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5330703

Does Lemmygrad or Hexbear count as the "Indie web"?

Let's see... Can anyone link me to these websites shown here?

Travelers of Agora Road (couldn't find this one immediately so I moved on)...

Aral Balkan...

Open Indie...

CozyNet Homepage...

Melon's Thoughts...

There's also this website.

Gah!

Afaik, this person hasn't really put much of the websites shown here in the description of the video down below.

Also, oh snap, Livestack seems better than linktr.ee.

Any "personal web" you'd all like to share with me and others?

Post them down below!

Give your comments too.

(Video is about 20 minutes long so it's not that much of a commitment.)

Comrades, I have been reading a lot and listening a lot to the classics like Lenin and Stalin. But I wonder if there are any contemporary writers that apply their theory to current events or have even furthered the philosophy without distorting it?

Hi, comrades.

Some time ago I finished "The Empire Must Die", by Zygar, an interesting book about the history of the early 20th century Russian Empire leading to the Russian Revolution, that covers the period until the October Revolution.

Although very unambiguously anti-bolshevist, the book provides a rather good recount of the historical events that led to the Russian Revolution, and the most important people within the revolution (sadly with an emphasis towards liberals like the Cadets, or the Socialist Revolutionaries who were more utopian than scientific socialists).

Now I'm interesting on reading about the history, or possibly the evolution of the institutions and the form of government, from 1917 to the death of Lenin. Is there any book you gorgeous people can recommend me about that time period?

Thanks a bunch!

El Buró Político del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Venezuela (PCV) hace un llamado a las fuerzas genuinamente democráticas, populares y patrióticas a unir fuerzas para defender la voluntad del pueblo venezolano que se expresó este domingo 28 de julio con una clara intención de cambio político en el país.

Alertamos a la opinión pública internacional que así como el Gobierno de Nicolás Maduro ha despojado al pueblo venezolano de sus derechos sociales y económicos, hoy pretende privarlo de sus derechos democráticos.

La denuncia de un supuesto intento de vulneración del sistema electoral, hecha por el presidente del Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE), Elvis Amoroso, lejos de brindar las garantías necesarias al proceso, profundizan las dudas sobre los resultados presentados al país. En tal sentido, exigimos al CNE la publicación de la totalidad de las actas de votación ─tal y como lo establece el reglamento electoral─ así como la máxima transparencia en el escrutinio de los resultados.

La proclamación de Nicolás Maduro como presidente reelecto bajo este escenario de incertidumbre en el que los resultados presentados por Amoroso contrastan abiertamente con el ánimo que imperó durante la jornada electoral, no es más que una provocación que abre paso a la configuración de situaciones de violencia.

En estos momentos se registran espontáneas movilizaciones populares en distintos puntos del país. Desde el PCV no solamente respaldamos el clamor de respeto a la voluntad popular, sino que hacemos un llamado a las fuerzas militares y policiales a no reprimir al pueblo.

En estas horas decisivas para el presente y futuro del país, las y los comunistas ratificamos nuestra convicción de construir espacios de amplia unidad para fortalecer la lucha por la recuperación de la Constitución y el estado de derecho en Venezuela.

¡Gobierne quien gobierne, los derechos se defienden!

Caracas, 29 de julio de 2024

TL;DR: They are questioning the legitimacy of Maduro as a winner, claiming he is undermining voting rights, while ignoring the growing right-wing reaction and coup attempt against Maduro

PCV is basically voicing reaction, to the point they even use liberal wording about "democratic rights" in a bourgeois state

When we think of "criticism and self-criticism", we often think of criticism we've been brought up to live with: the kind that simply seeks to destroy, or the kind that's naturally antagonistic.

It took me a while to truly understand what criticism means for communists; incidentally, working on ProleWiki helped me a lot with that.

Criticism is through other words the process of struggle (again a word that seems strong but that you might be more familiar with).

Criticism is not necessarily meant to be aggressive or even find faults. This, in my opinion, is actually counterproductive and even a deviation from what criticism is for us communists. You might know this better as constructive criticism.

Likewise, self-criticism is not necessarily you belittling yourself and listing all your bad traits.

I think we look at the pictures of struggle sessions in the early PRC, and we look inwardly at what the word "critique" means to us in late-stage capitalism, and we kinda form a nebulous idea of what that is and run with that. After all, "communists ruthlessly criticize all that exists", right?

I think however that criticism can be done with care, and is more productive that way. This is because the purpose of criticism isn't, like I said earlier, to necessarily find faults with what you did or what your org does.

A mistake I see often is to think of criticism as your chance to start blasting whatever woes you can think of, and the other party has to sit there and take it because you're doing it marxistly.

Criticism has to be productive and lead to action; it breaches from theory to practice. Practice then makes good on the criticism, changes the state of things (dialectics, if you are not at the stage you can tell readily yet), and then further criticism can happen.

The point of criticism, the whole reason we are doing struggle sessions in the first place is precisely to enact the best praxis we can, and do so quickly. We are not in a position right now as communists that we can build a party in a hundred years. We need to build it now, and for that we need effective praxis. This is the whole point of doing struggle sessions and crit and self-crit.

This is something both parties in a struggle session must first understand and mutually acknowledge. The critic is not here to disparage your efforts, but to help them reach their higher potential. You are not here either to shield yourself from all criticism on the basis that you're too proud to hear it or that your successes outweigh your shortcomings -- I prefer *shortcomings * to "faults" or "issues". I also prefer challenges instead of saying something is impossible; a challenge can be overcome.

Some criticisms we've dealt with on ProleWiki for example was super simple. It wasn't even a disagreement, which can happen sometimes and doesn't mean your idea is necessarily wrong or misguided, just that it's perhaps not fully realized.

Sometimes, we offer up ideas and then debate them in what I think is the ideal struggle session. Nobody necessarily disagrees or thinks "it's a stupid idea, why did you even bring that up, this'll never work": that would not be criticism, that would be cathartic bashing. A criticism has to offer a solution or, at the very least, seek improvement selflessly.

I myself have often debated ideas editors proposed not because I thought they wouldn't fit or we shouldn't follow up on them, but just trying to help them make sure they've covered all their bases and have thought about all questions before they proceed.

Thus the goal is to reach the full potential of our ideas so that we issue the best praxis once we get down to work, saving time and effort.

I'm talking about very practical critic self-crit here because that's mostly where I employ it, but this works also in more theoretically grounded struggle sessions, where you discuss strictly theory and which line is correct. By my own conclusion of what criticism is however, criticizing a party line that the party refuses to change (and calling attention to that fact) would not be criticism, but I think it is -- it is the most important criticism we can make as marxists, in fact. So remember that this is a model and not the final analysis.

The process of criticism acknowledges, weighs, analyzes, and then **acts. **

Acknowledge criticism that applies. The point is to make you stronger, even if it hurts to hear (it shouldn't if you follow the basis that it's done in good faith).

Then, weigh it: is this something we were aware of? How dangerous is it? How difficult would it be to overcome, and is there something more urgent we need to look at first?

Analyze before acting: what can we do about it with our current resources? Is it realistic to? Propose some solutions to the problem that was brought up.

And finally, deploy all of that to act on the criticism and improve. I guarantee you in one year, you'll have forgotten people made the criticism, but you'll remember forever that you did improve with it, and that you are in a much better position after it than before.

The dialectic between teacher and learner is one of great importance but is often misunderstood or, perhaps in more weighted terms, is not brought to its full potential by the teachers.

This permeates in the marxist environment, which is the only one I'm concerned with currently, where teachers do not realize their role and full capabilities as such. It remains by and large -- in my experience only -- as not a dialectic, but a unidirectional conveyance.

The teacher speaks, and the learner listens. This is the metaphysical model.

But are we not all being taught, and thus learning, at any time? From discussions I've had where I started in this metaphysical "authority" role of the teacher (a role most people, me included, subordinate themselves to rather easily as what they think a learner should be) and ended up learning more than I taught.

I may know dialectics well. But I may not know economics well. A learner is a fluid thing, it goes through stages back and forth. I teach dialectics to someone, and I learn economics from them. By asking their questions, they help me refine my understanding -- and capabilities to teach -- of dialectics further.

The teacher should explain, promote, make considerations. The learner should retain, evaluate and analyze.

This requires for the learner to understand that their role is not simply to nod along and retain everything from the authority, and for the teacher to be open to changing their mind and methods.

The dialectic (contradiction) is resolved when the session gives birth to a new third thing, in this case similarly to the "original" Ancient Greek dialectic, and both parties come out with a third new idea that did not exist previously. The learner has learned and taught, and the teacher has taught and learned in a way they both further their understanding of the topic.

It can then repeat with the learner being able to become a teacher (in any capacity) and the teacher having refined what they will say (and how) to the next learner.

I see the complete opposite too often; marxists that would rather confirm their biases, eschewing their own capabilities as teachers (and learners -- many think of themselves too highly to still be "learners") and completely smothering any potential their interactions may have had as a teaching opportunity, at least dialectically.

You see this most often on social media, where the order of the day is to make cheap jokes, quick "stream of consciousness" quips, and confirming one's own already formed beliefs.

In this role, they are being metaphysical (or at the very least undialectic). It's not bad for the sake of it and me being able to use the jargon; it's a malformed process because dialectic cannot take place, and cannot make things advance. Thus they remain stuck where they were exactly before: further confirming their belief that their tendency/ideas are the best, and working not to advance that tendency or idea, but to disprove that any other is good.