> “Leninists have rarely grappled with these facts, let alone provided a compelling explanation for them. In other words, they have assumed, but not actually demonstrated, that the dual-power / insurrection model of Russia 1917 — a revolution that toppled an autocratic, noncapitalist state, not a parliamentary regime — is relevant for capitalist democracies. Similarly, Post at no point provides any evidence for his assertion that only workers’ councils, not a socialist-led government elected by universal suffrage, are capable of leading a break with capitalism.”

The October Revolution overthrew the provisional government which was a parliament, although there was already a deep crisis caused by WWI at that point

Also, Leninists have talked about these facts

The rise of opportunism in imperialist countries due to the labour aristocracy and the super exploitation of the Third World, the cooption of communist parties in imperialist countries

On another point:

The Bolsheviks didn’t make the dual power situation happen

What happened was the masses spontaneously set up the Soviets in a time of deep political and economic crisis

The point that Leninists make is that in a time of crisis, the masses spontaneously take action (and this has happened in capitalist democracies too), the role of communists is to lead these movements to overthrow the state. The reason why this hasn’t happened is because of the rise of opportunism and the split in the working class

Ironically, the very ‘socialist’ parties that work through Parliament that this articles advocate for actually block this process from happening by diverting the energy into voting

Another point:

> "At the same time, the vast majority of elected left governments have never even tried to move down Kautsky’s suggested path due to the moderating pressure of labor bureaucratization and the immense economic power of the capitalist class."

This also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the split in the working class and the social basis of these left government

He’s implying that these left parties are radical but they are held back by ‘moderate Labour movements’

But the left parties spring up from the same class basis of these moderate labour movements they represent the interests of the section of the working class that make up these moderate labor movements

Also, if such a radical working class movement exists outside Parliament that is going to push this theoretical socialist party left…. Why doesn’t it just overthrow the state altogether and take power for itself?

> "Avoiding the dead-end of social democratization will above all require a very intense and sustained degree of mass action and independent working-class organization outside of parliament. Without this, even the most well-intentioned government will flounder."

Like… why do all this dancing around? Such a militant movement should and could overthrow the state if parliament becomes so hostile to it

The entire premise of this imaginary scenario is that a militant working class movement exists but only does stuff to keep its elected officials in check

Or when the state and capitalists block its agenda

I also just think the fact that it uses AOC and Sanders as examples kinda ruins the legitimacy of the article because these politicians are imperialists

A few more points:

> "Second, reclaiming Kautsky’s strategy should prompt socialists to focus more on fighting to democratize the political regime, a tradition that has gotten lost since the era of the Second International. Whereas liberals and social democrats generally accept existing governmental rules and structures, Leninists have often been reluctant to proactively fight for major democratic reforms because they seek to completely illegitimate the current state."

Leninism actively promotes the fight for democracy and democratic rights. Pro-migrant rights, solidarity with prisoners, being against anti-protest laws, police brutality etc. Lenin was very clear that these political battles have to be engaged with so we don’t fall into economism. I say again, just look at the BPP (Black Panther Party)

> "Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other newly elected radicals have raised working people’s expectations and changed national politics. Socialists should participate in this electoral upsurge to promote mass movements and to organize hundreds of thousands of people into independent working-class organizations"

These politicians were always imperialist btw, it’s just become very obvious post October 7. Also, very crucially, these politicians were encouraging support for the Democrats, a racist pro-imperialist party but one that was willing to give concessions to some workers. This is opportunistic. This doesn’t mean that socialists shouldn’t engage with such movements (I think US communists know better than I do) but that engagement always has to keep in mind that those politicians don’t represent the interests of all workers and they certainly don’t represent the interests of workers in oppressed countries, if anything I imagine communists would be trying to expose this.

This article is based in Euro Communism, essentially this kind of thinking means that they see the ‘global north’ (once again a term I really hate) is so stable, will never go into an intense crisis, etc that revolution is impossible. So your only hope is to basically form mass socialist parties and hope you get voted in. But at that point you’re not socialist parties, you’re just giving workers a bigger share of the imperialist pie.

Let's contrast these article with the praxis that Che and Fidel reached in Latin America.

These quotes represent Che's ideas on the following:

> "Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted."

He further clarifies that a revolutionary situation arises when:

> "People must see clearly the futility of maintaining the fight for social goals within the framework of civil debate. When the forces of oppression come to maintain themselves in power against established law; peace is considered already broken."https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1963/09/guerrilla-warfare.htm

> "It is not necessary to wait until all conditions for making revolution exist; the insurrection can create them. ... [But] where constitutional legitimacy exists, however flawed, guerrilla warfare is premature."

He stresses that mass disillusionment with the state is a prerequisite:

> "The confidence of the electorate in any of the old forms must be completely shattered, confidence in the ability of the old system to honestly organize any aspect of public life shaken to the core."

https://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/che.htm

Guevara's broader writings reinforce this principle:

In a 1959 interview, he condemned electoral systems as tools of oppression:"Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians."

https://bigother.com/2020/06/14/che-guevara-on-love-injustice-and-revolution-and-socialism/

He linked revolutionary violence to the failure of institutional justice:"Justice remains the tool of a few powerful interests; legal interpretations continue to be made to suit the convenience of the oppressor powers."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1964/03/25.htm

Theoretical Consistency in Anti-Imperialism

Guevara framed armed struggle as a response to exhausted alternatives in global contexts:

> "The feeling of revolt will grow stronger every day among peoples subjected to exploitation, and they will take up arms to gain by force the rights which reason alone has not won them."

https://bigother.com/2020/06/14/che-guevara-on-love-injustice-and-revolution-and-socialism/

Guevara agreed that the law of value remained under socialism but argued that measures taken by the Revolution to undermine the capitalist market meant that the law could not serve as the dynamic catalyst to productivity and efficiency in the same way as it did under capitalism.[8] Socialisation of the means of production and distribution had 'blunted' the tools of capitalism.[9] Marx described a commodity as a good which changes ownership, from the producer to the consumer. Consistent with this definition, Guevara insisted that products transferred between state-owned enterprises did not constitute commodities because when they were transferred from one state factory to another there was no change in ownership. The state itself should be considered as one big enterprise.[10] For Guevara commodity-exchange relations between factories threatened transition, via 'market socialism', to capitalism. He stressed central planning and state regulation as substitutes to such mechanisms.

Enphasis on:

For Guevara commodity-exchange relations between factories threatened transition, via 'market socialism', to capitalism. He stressed central planning and state regulation as substitutes to such mechanisms.

Why develop? We understand that the capitalist categories are retained for a time and that the length of this period cannot be predetermined, but the characteristics of the period of transition are those of a society that is throwing off its old bonds in order to move quickly into the new stage. The tendency should be, in our opinion, to eliminate as fast as possible the old categories, including the market, money, and, therefore, material interest - or, better, to eliminate the conditions for their existence.'

It was partly because material incentives became the main way to motivate people, the relationship between firms was set up in a way that it was about each firm being responsible for its own profits and losses, they had to purchase their inputs etc, and it encouraged firms to do dodgy things so they could be like “oh look we beat our target, bonus pls” etc

His planning system did have some material incentives but his idea was that it would be phased out and people should be motivated using moral incentives. To him the law of value should ‘fade away’

Using his analysis, the USSR didn’t collapse because it had a planned economy. It collapsed because its planning system undermined socialist consciousness, its leadership lost touch with the masses, and it developed a class who had a material interest in undermining the state, due to keeping the law of value.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/yaffeh/che-critic.htm

Edit: After Che left Cuba, they used the soviet model which had some benefits and allowed Cuba to enter the soviet trading system which brought even more benefits, but then that model had to be abandoned because what Che said would happen did happen: corruption, individualism, petit bourgeois consciousness, inefficiencies etc because the soviet model had a big emphasis on material incentives, bonuses if you over fulfilled the plan, etc

A bit after Che left they implemented the Soviet system, then got rid of it the 80s, then the special period happened after the socialist bloc started collapsing.

Under the Soviet system firms literally operated like businesses

Che's Balanced Flows System planning was an attempt at firms would simply be transferring the goods between each other, their finances would be managed centrally by the central bank etc

His idea was that firms in the country wouldn’t be buying and selling from each other and therefore the Cuban economy would be ‘one giant factory’. There would still be stuff sold to consumers, still be wages, money etc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Heo6QxpGWyQ

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/8194866

It seems the infighting within the bourgeoisie has ramped up in recent years.

Different factions at play.

What are they?

Are they segmented based on industry and sectors and geography as usual?

Or different boundaries altogether?

i can't marry before bringing socialism!

it's time for some communism in your life...don't you think?

Think of a world that changed fundamentally after Marx died. His books became forgotten, and never received circulation beyond the German language. In that world, there has been no Soviet Union. There has not even been an attempt at socialism anywhere, because there was nothing to drive it.

We don't live in that world. We live in one where all those things existed, and continue to exist, and continue to effect influence on us, traveling through time with ourselves as the catalyst.

https://www.tiktok.com/@socwithsyd

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTjusLw4s/

As an 11-year-old boy in 1941, I yearned to join the frontlines of the Great Patriotic War, my heart swelling with the same fervor as the heroes whose tales filled our radios. The station, guarded like a fortress, remained beyond my reach, but the war etched itself into my soul. I witnessed mothers’ tearless eyes, wives clutching folded flags, and children who grew old too soon. War, I learned, is a thief - stealing futures, leaving scars no victory parade can heal.

For 31 years, I served the Soviet Army, rising from private to colonel. I trudged through Azerbaijan’s scorching steppes, stood vigil in the Caspian sands, and endured the Arctic’s biting cold on the Novosibirsk Islands. My comrades - soldiers, officers, their families - bore hardships unimaginable to most. Why? Love for the Motherland, a pride stoked by stories of Papanin’s Arctic explorers, Chkalov’s daring flights, and Ostrovsky’s How the Steel Was Tempered. These were our compass, teaching us that sacrifice was the forge of greatness.

Yet history, I fear, is a double-edged sword. Today’s youth are accused of moral decay, but how can we blame them when our media pours poison into their jugs? “What is poured in, pours out,” warns a Georgian proverb. We once filled minds with tales of courage; now, screens scream of greed. I ache wondering: Where are the Zoyas and Matrosovs of tomorrow?

The shadows of fascism loom again - not as a ghost, but as a neighbor. In Ukraine, it’s enshrined in policy, a vile echo of 1941. I’ve walked Tbilisi’s streets, where gratitude for Russian sacrifice once bloomed, now choked by misplaced hatred. History repeats: In 1709, Mazepa’s betrayal mirrored today’s geopolitics. Europe’s leaders, like sleepwalkers, replay the 1940s, pitting nation against nation.

We stand at a precipice. The Cold War’s chill has thawed into a nuclear spring. Russia, again, bears the shield against chaos. But politicians - heed Kennedy’s clarity! War leaves no winners, only orphans.

To the young: You are not “worse” than us. You carry new battles - not against fascism, but apathy. Seek truth beyond headlines. Let your jugs hold courage, not cash.

I am Shamil Chigoev, a son of Ossetia, a soldier of history. My voice is one of millions who remember the cost of peace. Listen, before the sirens drown us out.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/63008977

So as we can see in this video of the alleged assault Ibrahim was convicted of on harvard campus there are at least several other people filming with their phones from different angles however this is the only video I can find online. And its just a consolidation of 2 videos. But it doesn't show the beginning of the incident and the view of Bharmal “assaulting” the israeli student is ultimately non existent.

The reality is it seems clear that the narrative is being manipulated by hasbara tactics. If there are so many cameras filming this altercation and theyvwere obviously filming before the beginning of the video that was released then where are they and why have they not been shown. Considering the fascist trump regime is using this as pretext to strip Harvard of funding(which they likely don’t need considering their super high tuition rates) but this is scary, dangerous and unprecedented.

What are everyone else’s thoughts and does anyone know if the other videos have been released anywhere and where to find them if so? I dont mean to sound like there is a conspiracy to obfuscate the facts and smear a Palestinian rights advocate but woth the behavior of the israeli lobby, their owned representatives in our government, and all the media outlets subservient to the Zionist regime i don’t believe it is a far fetched idea to put down.

Vladimir Lenin with another banger; why, Lenin should be a YouTuber or something!

you know how it is...the old rightoid meme of "hard times make strong men and shit"

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28258019

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/28169276

Every single time it has been implemented it has been a success; drastically improving the conditions of the vast majority of the lives of the people in those countries, establishing the world’s most proven successful education system, offering the only avenue for nations to escape imperialism, overthrow occupation, and develop up and out of poverty from under conditions of exploitation, eliminating unemployment, progressing science and culture more than ever before in their nation’s timeline of existence, and providing the most value-efficient and successful healthcare systems the world has ever seen.

Continuing to this day, Marxist-Leninist governments remain, in nearly every case, the absolute best government in their respective nation’s entire histories — especially for the poor and minorities — and are deeply missed by the majority of people that lived under communism (and no longer do), who also overwhelmingly regret it’s end. Communists saved the world from Hitler and fascism, took humans to space; they united and advanced China from a backwards, subservient nation to the position of the next world superpower. Communism made Cuba an international leader in medicine, who recently saved the much richer Italy during COVID-19, developed the DPRK into a cutting edge nuclear power, and liberated more of the planet from the most powerful empires in the world — more often and more successfully — than any other ideology or system, ever before and ever since.

Capitalism has violently forced its way into nearly every facet of every corner of the world, and socialist states are the only projects that have ever threatened to resist, repel, and overturn that domination, and it is only Marxist-Leninist projects that have ever neared the completion of that objective, thus far, in history. Communism works, and it works so effectively, all the time, so much so that the only way to get it to stop working is to have the most powerful empires in existence intervene in opposition to it, and even they can only boast mixed success. Communism has always worked, it will always work, and it continues to work right now, even as you continue to deny it.

The empire produces its vile miasma as a result of its normal operations, and when left to simmer in the heat, this toxic waste congeals into a form of life of its own: today, this form of life is the ACP, or American Communist Party.

I recently wrote an essay on Vietnam's liberation struggle and how they built a revolutionary movement to fight, for decades, against the French, the Japanese, the French again, and the US troops.

There are interesting parallels to be made with the latest venture from the certified communism-is-petty-bourgeois patsocs, which I will go into. I notice that while the community on Lemmygrad generally knows about the ACP, this remains surface level -- if you live in the US, you unfortunately have no choice but to take these enemies seriously.

I'm going to quickly recap how Ho Chi Minh built a movement, but it's generally the same as any ML party in history, and the reason they do so is because it works.

1. A movement is built over decades, strengthened, so that it can be put into action at the correct time.
2. In Vietnam, this started as far back as the early 1900s. Ho Chi Minh travelled the world, firstly finding his own line (he didn't become a communist until he read Lenin in 1920).
3. At this time, he started establishing contact with other movements, i.e. solidarity. He was part of the PCF in France (back when it still had potential) as part of the colonial affairs committee. He travelled around the world to talk with many figures and the diaspora, building a name which translates to support when the time comes. All of this has a point, it's not just travelling for the sake of travelling.
4. All this time though, he also agitated for Vietnam even as he travelled - writing a ton of press dispatches for his journal Le Paria, and even in 1919 writing a petition to the US and French presidents to ask for self-determination in Vietnam. Of course he knew better later, but this petition made him a name in Vietnam.
5. He was also an avid reader and learner during this time, learning English and Esperanto while in London, reading during his lunch break at the Carson Hotel (where he worked 6 days a week), etc.
6. Eventually he went to the USSR and then China. He lived in China for several years, near Guangdong (Canton), so close-ish to Vietnam. There he set up a school to teach revolutionary theory to not just Vietnamese but also other Asian refugees.
7. When Japan took over Vietnam from Vichy France in 1941, the movement had been built. This is what it all led up to. All you can do is make it as ready as it'll ever be, and then when the conditions arise (in China it was the civil war started by Chang Kai Shek's coup after Sun Yat Sen's death, in the USSR it was the WW1 campaign and the decade-long mismanagement by the tsar), start. But, starting is just one phase of the process. You have to keep it going.
8. In Vietnam, they exploited the mismanagement that arose from a Japanese military occupation (where like in China they only really controlled the urban centers and rail lines) under French administration to start an armed revolution.
9. The Viet Minh set up in the north and quickly delimited their own zone of governance. They built dual power there, enacting policies (mainly revolving around food distribution, land redistribution, abolishing forced labor and doing literacy programs). This built support with the peasantry, whom they relied on for food, security and success. It also shows the people what your policies will be like after the war so your dual power just becomes state power. It makes more people want to join your movement, picking up arms and supporting you in general.
10. The war with Japan lasted until their surrender in 1945, but in the chaos of the withdrawal France quickly established a parallel government in the south. The war quickly picked back up with France bombing civilians at Hanoi, and lasted until the monumental defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.
11. Notably, and this is often forgotten, I can confirm from official Vietnam websites that in 1950, the Viet Minh liberated border villages in the north so they could establish a logistics line with the newly-proclaimed PRC who provided military aid, food, and cadres to the struggle. I think it's important to note this considering the later border skirmish that took place.
12. In talks at Geneva a ceasefire was agreed upon so that elections could happen to reunite the two countries. When Ngo Dinh Diem realized he was going to lose because he was a nobody, he pulled a Korea and announced separate elections in the south. After the defeat of the French, the US invasion started and you probably know all about that one already (spoiler alert: uncle sam lost).

All of this -- this is how we organize a revolutionary movement. Learn as much as you can, teach others, build support at home and abroad before you need it. Support abroad is important with your diaspora in the case of a liberation struggle, but also to forge ties because you'll need this international support -- China provided help in 1950, and later the USSR and China were present at the Geneva Talks in favor of Vietnam (though by then the USSR was under Krushchev and we know how that went for international support. Notably if I'm not mistaken, the USSR was the one who pushed for Vietnam to be partitioned until elections while the CPV wanted to continue down to Saigon as it was called back then.)

The movement is built inside and out. You will have soldiers, but you will also have agitators, civil servants, and just workers. Not everyone in Vietnam at the time was a soldier and couldn't have been anyway. Stalin was not a soldier, and in the Bolshevik faction he was printing Pravda. But all participate in the struggle in their own way. At Dien Bien Phu, General Võ Nguyên Giáp of the People's Army of Vietnam had the genius idea to bring the artillery up the hills surrounding the base in the valley, so as to pound it from above. They built tunnels too in the hillside for the artillery. It took months of labor, and they relied on locals to help -- this was in the north, in areas they controlled -- to do this project. Thousands of workers. I'm not sure if and how they were compensated, but that's a detail for the broader point that an army does not march on its own two feet.

When seeing this and comparing to the operations of the ACP, we might at first glance think the two operate alike. The ACP also goes to establish contact with other movements -- Hinkle and runaway deadbeat dad Chris Helali just went to Yemen to meet with (possibly) Ansarallah. They interviewed Hamas officials, they went to Russia, China, etc.

But what do these meetings do? In China, Hinkle was invited by a private news network, Guancha, which was founded by a Stanford venture capitalist. Of course it's based in Shanghai, the most liberal city in China and the only place he could make Guancha. He later made a Weibo account but was banned there, though we can only speculate as to the reason why. Seems to me this venture was more to build an audience in China. Ho Chi Minh was meeting leaders, both deposed and current. It's not a "foot in the door" thing. You can arrange these meetings, maybe not with Xi, but certainly with an ambassador or someone in the Central Committee.

He is currently in Yemen with Chris Helali, dressed in traditional Yemeni clothes (by who and why? He never says, and in the pictures is the only one in this clothes)

The man to his left by the way is Mick Wallace, also a pro-Palestine MP in Ireland. I don't want to claim that they travelled together by the way, as far as I know they were just sat next to each other in the seat order. Where was this photo taken? At the Third Palestine Conference in Sana'a -- a very good thing to hold! But listening to ACP, you'd think only Helali and Hinkle were there and nobody else. The Yemen Press Agency doesn't even mention the two of them by name: https://en.ypagency.net/351804.

What did they do while there? Seems like they're just attending. Hinkle is posting pictures of him in the attire and pretending to speak in front of a camera and that's about it. It's clout-chasing. I don't necessarily need an interview or the transcript of all that was said, but at least explain how this is beneficial to the ACP, since you're in it. Is Yemen going to support your people's war? Do you even plan for a people's war? Why are you there exactly aside of the photo op? You need to say.

But I figured maybe if Hinkle's twitter account does not mention communism at all, at least the ACP account would mention this visit and why it was taken. But they don't. Not at all.

Rather, the ACP account (@ACPMain) talks about what they're doing in the US. So let's talk about it - what is their mass movement? Where even is it? Certainly a movement is built over time (literally decades), but it doesn't seem as if they are trying to build anything. Any attempt they have made to rally MAGAs to their party (and before that to their "MAGAcommunism" or Mecha Tankie movement -- yes, that one was real, and has now been scrubbed from history) have utterly failed. And yet, they insist on continuing to court MAGAs. A mass movement is a mass movement, you don't pick and choose -- and I think many people could stand to hear that! :) But this means there are ways to go about building mass support; this has been done before, and it has left us theory we must use. In Vietnam, the Viet Minh called for all patriotic Vietnamese to join them against Japan. They didn't say, "you're not patriotic if you have blue hair or pronouns though". There is also, mind you, a difference between a mass party and a cadre party; but I digress.

In ACP theory, only blue collar workers are real workers, and they conflate those with MAGAs as if all MAGAs are not petit bourgeois but uneducated unwashed factory workers. They are clear in who they want in their party, and, by definition (and in practice we see that as well), anyone else is rejected. They don't want the "blue-haired" baristas. Therefore, they are not building a mass movement.

ACP Main is happy to repost what their chapters elect to do. From what I can tell looking from the outside in, it seems that chapters essentially run their actions how they want and do what they want on their own dime. Because telling them what to do is work, it's easier to be travelling to Yemen to get cool gift bags and make content for your podcast or whatever Hinkle is on nowadays. Haz is still on Twitch I think, where he has donations turned on. Shouldn't these go to party dues? Why are you competing with your own party?

Really seems to me as though the chapters are doing whatever they want and funneling money to the streamers committee which the streamers then use to fund their private interests.

So what do ACP cells do? They distribute flowers to women on International Women's Day (while Hinkle has said on stream once, 'women are not people') -- Int. Women's Day is a day of struggle, for the struggles women have faced and continue to face, and in which they are instrumental. I've talked about how I'm disappointed in "my" party, but at least on March 8 they're out there marching, making the men hold up the signs, and giving speeches after the march. Also in the videos posted, the 3 women are the ones giving out the flowers while the 8 men are nowhere to be seen in the frame... you can't make this shit up. Also they don't show any ACP affiliation anywhere, no flags or even a pin or anything. For all I know (and someone on Twitter hinted to this), they just claimed someone else's event as their own.

What else do we see? Haz is out there organizing striking truck drivers! Cool! Except, well, you only see him for a few seconds at the beginning, and only him in the frame -- for all I know he recorded this outside his patio and then went back inside. In the rest of the video, ACP members are portrayed distributing leaflets to the drivers. That's great. But you don't see Haz anywhere. They also didn't post the leaflet, which is a missed opportunity. Because while I could certainly admit my first point (about haz not being anywhere in the video) could be bad faith, organizationally speaking, it's a huge missed opportunity not to post the leaflet online; and more importantly, it doesn't allow for its criticism or critical reading. I can't make a point about what's in the leaflet because this leaflet has not been made public. Why would you not do that? You made a cool tiktok edit-style video, you know how social media works, so why did you just conveniently forgot to post the actual leaflet? Secondly, seeing that I have no idea about why the truckers are striking, I also can't talk about that - this seems like important information for a communist party to cover. Not just why you're there but why they're striking and how that ties into the broader political context. Because if they're striking to deport immigrants, that's a very different thing than if they're striking for higher wages.

They posted an article from Ted Reese for their newspaper but don't provide a link to the article but to subscribe to the journal. I've honestly never seen this, except maybe from Trots. Usually communist papers republish their articles online because the point is to do agitprop, and it's counter-productive to paywall that. You run the paper at a loss and that's to be expected (I'm sorry, are we doing commodity production now?). And sorry but the thumbnail provided made me laugh. "Socialism has a long-term tendency to decentralize wealth and power" what the fuck does that even mean lmao.

Looking at the link provided to subscribe to the paper, most of the articles are written by the grifters in chief, with some written by outsiders, or at least I don't think they're in the ACP. Again, that's not really how you run a communist paper. It's a great idea to put out a submissions call to your members to write these articles, because it allows in more perspectives and also things you don't necessarily know to talk about that they can fill in. I will give the grifters this, at least they write for it lol. If they didn't write anything, it's true, I could easily make the point that they are using their members' labor to sell subscriptions. At the same time, I feel like I've definitely seen some of these titles around before they were in the journal, like "Civilize the Mind and Make Savage the Body" by Edward Smith (he stole the wording from Mao but I'm pretty sure he talked about it before)

If you want to subscribe to this incredible paper, they first ask for your email address lol. Never seen that before but okay. I log in, and the digital subscription is $15 fucking dollars a month. Print is 25. For context, my party's newspaper comes out to 7 a month, in an expensive place, and you get both print and digital. You can also contact them for preferential rates depending on your situation. It also comes out once a month in a magazine form.

Finally, they claim they are working "in tandem with" Randolph United, a tenants union, in Randolph, Massachussetts. The video they show was produced by Randolph United and never once mentions or shows anything related to ACP.

In tandem means that they are working parallel to them but never once together. It means Randolph is out there doing their thing, and ACP is leeching off of that to say "no we're here too!". In a reply to their own tweet, ACP posted a press release by Randolph that also never once mentions ACP. Can you imagine if people like Lenin, Mao or Ho Chi Minh had done that? We would rightfully have criticized their action, and even maybe not have ever considered them examples of the communist movement, because how can you be a communist when you consider leeching off another movement's achievements to be good praxis? Like, what does it say about you as a whole?

Seems to me like ACP only exists to fund the individual ventures of the unelected, we-picked-ourselves central committee -- who just happen to all be streamers that have been orbiting around each other for years now. It's the TikTok Hype House, where some TikTok producers and friends live together to produce content together. Võ Nguyên Giáp was picked for his skills at organizing an army (he was not a military officer before the war) and revolutionary education. What skills do people like Edward Smith of MWM possess, beyond having TikTok followers?

This is how you know you are operating in a cult. And this is how we know the ACP is nothing but a self-serving, twisted (and theory-twisting) investment venture. The only thing it can bring about is more pestilence.