I went on reddit for some reason recently and got into an argument with a Maoist. I soon revealed I had not done sufficient investigation and was mostly just curious for them to justify their differences in ideology. I repeated a trite talking point that “PPW is not universal” that I have heard many times and listed the vague arguments against its universality which I had heard. I was recommended this book amongst other things.

I read it in its entirety. It’s a theoretical debate for 2019. It opens with a Filipino communist arguing against universality, and that section left me confused. Then a Nordic guy rebuts him and had me thinking Gonzalo may have been right. Another guy comes at him with all the arguments I have heard before, sounding condescending, but rightfully so. I was pretty much convinced but wanted to keep an open mind to why the Maoists liked this. Then a new theory group finishes out with a strong sounding argument for the PCP position.

This question requires further investigation for me to develop an “all sided” perspective, and I can’t vouch for Gonzalo, but I don’t have reason to trust Bad Empanada or any rando on the internet. I must go through more source material when my ADHD compels me.

What I have taken away from the reading is the Protracted People’s War can and should probably be applied in varied situations. It is essentially years of guerrilla warfare against the capitalist state until victory is won over the exploiters. There is no other kind of successful revolution. Our strategy in the west is shit – trying to slowly protest and accumulate support. You cannot win war without practice, and no revolution happens overnight. We will not be ready if a revolutionary situation were to happen tomorrow. The Bolsheviks illegally fought their ruling class for years. European parties were most successful when forced to militarize by fascism, but stupidly disarmed.

PPW does not mean surrounded the cities by the country side. PPW is the universal Marxist element (in the works of Mao), but particularities of every situation must be studied. The IRA fought the British using urban warfare and were relatively successful before right opportunism led to compromise. More advanced theory could help a new BLA or Weathermen be successful in the US. Our ruling class is going and fascist militias are ramping up violence no matter what and we need a more systematic approach than little SRA chapters or whatever.

No, I’m not going to call myself a Maoist or whatever. There are shitty Maoists and Gonzalo did bad stuff, but the same is true of every leftist group. What matters is what works in practice, and legalist accumulationism is not working. We need to maintain ruthless criticism of all that exists and do investigations instead of resorting to dogma. Everyone has a different perspective, and we all need to realize we won’t convince everyone, so we should keep criticizing and refining. We should not seek “leftist unity” for the sake of tailing the least common denominator. We should seek the best methods (using Marxist analysis) and get people to join us in what works. No, I don’t understand all this or have all the answers, but I recommend people check out the essays. Criticize them too, as a matter of fact.

I took it out of the meme to avoid seeming cluttered, but I must mention that they don’t just want USian corporations to have the monopoly. Renewables are at odds with capitalism and capitalists know oil is more lucrative than less labor intensive alternatives. Ted Reese makes a strong explanation for the lack of adoption of hemp and solar in SoE.

I took it out of the meme to avoid seeming cluttered, but I must mention that they don’t just want USian corporations to have the monopoly. Renewables are at odds with capitalism and capitalists know oil is more lucrative than less labor intensive alternatives. Ted Reese makes a strong explanation for the lack of adoption of hemp and solar in SoE.

Tbf a lot of people just want a petty bourgeois vacation.

This Existential Comics-like sketch popped into my brain while I was reading Capital. I'm not well-read enough to make their personalities and language very accurate, but I tried to get their ideas right.

Engels, Marx, Hegel, Descartes, and Spinoza are sitting together at table.

Engels: Thank you for coming to this meeting of enlightenment dialecticians. Today the topic of discussion will be “free will.” Does anyone want to start?

Descartes: Well, obviously we have free will because God is good, and he gave it to us. God created us and left us the world so that we could affect the world in ways that would decide whether we go to heaven.

Hegel: I agree to an extent, our free wills move forward history by making rational arguments advancing the world spirit. That does not mean we are just souls doing whatever we want. We pick rational choices in line with the dominant thinking of our society.

Marx: Religion may comfort people, but there is no god to give free will. Hegel’s sort of on track, but the limits on freedom are material not ideal. People have material conditions that greatly limit the choices they can make, but the masses ultimate move history forward, not simply ideas.

Descartes: What do you mean there’s no God? I literally proved it in my fifth meditation!

Marx: No, you didn’t, you idealist fool! There are no non-material things and nothing can be proved by pure reason.

Spinoza: I agree with Marx. We are all part of the one material world. However, that has implications for your argument too Karl. Our minds are material too, and therefore our actions are a result not only of outside conditions, but also the material that makes up our minds is also a part of God. Thus, we are ourselves nature acting out deterministically, and free will is an illusion.

Descartes: What God are you talking about?!

Engels: Ignoring Descartes, You are not wrong, though the wills of humanity still move forward history toward communism regardless of if they are free.

Spinoza: True enough.

Hegel: What do you mean forward to communism? I live in the end of history. There is nothing beyond constitutional monarchy.

Marx: You bourgeois idealist bastard!

Marx gets out of his seat and goes to flip Hegel on his head.

Engels: That’s enough everyone. He mutters under his breath. I should’ve picked a different topic.

From boondocks: public enemy #2

Solidarity with the trees 🌲 🍉

This is the first I’ve used this format. Lemme know if it works.

Last month I did a digital declutter going without social media. Ironically, ceasing to consume memes only made me a better producer. I made many. Here’s a few:

I probably used the template wrong, but I like it. The left is from ‘The World as Will and Idea.’ The right is from ‘State and Revolution’ (which everyone should read).

This one’s immature, but it’s been in my screenshots for years, so why not?

Me irl. Fortunately, I was reminded that regular medical masks exist and I don’t have to wear N95 all the time. Before the liberal in the wall says I’m irrational, I must say that it saved me from a bad flu last week. I swear almost only communists take health seriously these days. People around me be coughing into their hands or straight into the air.

Fun, but obvious one. I like switching up the template though.