cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/12888907

Over the past year and a half, one of ProleWiki's editors has been conducting a course of weekly classes in Marxism and Juche that goes from basic philosophical foundations, such as dialectical materialism, to primary contradictions, and analyzing the real world application of these concepts. This course is open to people in different stages of learning and will adapt according to the needs of the learner.

Classes are held on Saturdays and Sundays (pick the day you can attend as both days are the same class). Classes are conducted in voice chat, currently via Jitsi Meet which is simple to use and requires no account. There is also an announcements-only Discord server for those who would like to see class-related updates there.

Class days and times

• Saturdays: 10am Mexico City time
• Sundays: 7am Mexico City time

Links for further information

• Discord
• DeltaChat

A little more about the course: As noted in the course's Discord server, these learning sessions uphold the inclusive values of Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed with critical consciousness and the Siksika pedagogy. This course is developed to be safe for all ages, for LGBT+ people, and people with sensory sensitivites to attend. When it comes to disagreements with classmates or the teacher, the focus is on developing competence in articulating your own understanding and communicating your differences respectfully, not on compelling people to conform. Students may communicate with the teacher to discuss special accommodations.

Dr. Fadi Lama is an international advisor to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and a consultant in geoeconomics, industry, SMEs, and academia, with a PhD in Mechanical Engineering.

Article | The west's Plan B: Secure the realm https://thecradle.co/articles/the-wests-plan-b-secure-the-realm

0:00​ The west's Plan B strategy 2:38​ Redefining economic power 7:02​ Analyzing sovereign vs vassal 10:35​ Erosion of the empire 15:10​ Financial system manipulation 20:10​ Internal decline and poverty 23:33​ China's economic transition 31:06​ The role of the RIC alliance 37:48​ The Iran war as a catalyst 48:05​ Geopolitical outlook and risk 58:46​ Irreversible decline of the west

The US has no strategy while Iran is very clear about their strategy to remove US bases and Palestinian self-determination...as Western propaganda clouds the reality, we discuss the fight for sovereignty from Iran to Yemen with Iranian political analyst Ali Alizadeh

Excerpts from a speech delivered at a conference of the USSR State Security Committee, February 1979

(...)

Ideological subversion takes place in the realm encompassing political, philosophical, legal, ethical, aesthetic, religious, and other views and ideas—that is, in the sphere of ideology where a battle of ideas is waged. Therefore, ideological subversion shares many characteristics inherent with ideological struggle. However, it is not the conventional ideological struggle, which is the objective outcome of the current existence of two opposing systems. Ideological subversion is, first and foremost, a form of subversive activity by imperialism against socialism. Its purpose is to weaken and destabilize the socialist system. It is carried out by special means and often amounts to direct interference in the internal affairs of socialist countries, contravening generally recognized norms of international law and socialist laws. The fact that it is conducted in the field of ideology does not alter its subversive and illegal nature. This is what determines, first and foremost, the firmness and intransigence of our fight against ideological subversion in any form.

(...)

Ideological subversion is based entirely and completely on lies, fabrication, and the gross distortion of facts. It is also distinguished by the fact that nowadays it is not carried out by a conventional propaganda apparatus, but by specially organized services. These special services, of course, make use of the machinery of bourgeois propaganda and utilize all forms of mass communication, but they place their main bets on specialized subversive channels.

(...)

This subversion is aimed at influencing citizens' views and feelings, their worldview, and, through their conscience, their political and moral conduct.

(...) in the sphere of the struggle for men's minds, imperialism does not rely exclusively on the means of conventional ideological struggle, on bourgeois ideas that were long ago exposed as unpopular and reactionary. It employs the poisoned weapon of ideological saboteurs: disinformation and slander, falsification and lies.

(...) it is precisely the morally powerful and politically characterless individual, susceptible to various feelings and rumors, who becomes the first victim of ideological subversion.

(...)

The work of the state security organs in neutralizing the ideological subversion of imperialism is, first and foremost, a political task. State security personnel must always remember that they are the political fighters of our Party in the most crucial areas of the class struggle. The primary and indispensable condition for adhering to the correct political line in all the activities of the state security organs is their daily guidance by the Communist Party and its Leninist Central Committee.

The specific working conditions of the state security bodies impose particularly rigorous demands on those assigned to work and fight in this area. Among all these demands, the qualities of communists hold a place of honor: ideologically dedicated fighters, politically mature, and energetic defenders of the Party line. They are obliged to be principled, selfless, and loyal to the Party.

Speeches and writings, YV Andropov.

Taken from https://telegra.ph/Subversi%C3%B3n-ideol%C3%B3gica--el-arma-envenenada-del-imperialismo-10-05

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/12967634

Five years ago, I visited two cities in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: Kashgar and the capital Urumqi. I went back again to see just how things have changed.

In Kashgar, I was refused entry to mosques, discovered an elderly Uygur working for much less than minimum wage, and chatted with children who are forced to learn a language that is completely foreign to them. But trust me, it's not what you think! And since I'm not the BBC or Buzzfeed, I will actually tell you guys the full story.

Come with me as I explore the ancient city of Kashgar and the modern metropolis of Urumqi, talking exclusively with ethnic minorities in the region.

In Urumqi, I visit a Uygur language radio station and a Uygur language newspaper, despite Western pundits claiming the language is banned.

And I celebrate Eid al-Adha, or Festival of the Sacrifice, the largest Muslim festival in all of Xinjiang, which gives the people of the region an extra five days of annual leave. More than anyone else in the rest of China. That is all despite Western pundits claiming religion is suppressed here.

I spent the day celebrating with a local family, eating lamb that was freshly slaughtered in accordance with tradition.

Don't be tricked by Western media and governments who are using Xinjiang as a tool against China and its development. Instead, come with me to see the place and chat with the locals.

On La Pirenaica radio, journalist Albert Santin interviewed Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kharlamenko, a prominent Russian philosopher, researcher, and political activist. A graduate and postgraduate of Moscow State University, Kharlamenko's academic and activist career has been deeply intertwined with Marxism, the labor movement, and solidarity with Latin America and Cuba.

He is also one of the founders of the Europe for Cuba Channel in Russia.

Aleksandr Kharlamenko explained what Perestroika truly was, when the process of dismantling the Soviet Union began, the true meaning of Glasnost, the creation of the office of President of the Soviet Union, the referendum to save the USSR, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and his experience during Russia's Black October in 1993, among other interesting topics.

1. Effective analysis should strive to be based in evidence and the most up-to-date scientific paradigm (currently, dialectical and historical materialism).

2. Effective analysis should serve action. Analysis without action is sort of like figuring out that a hurricane is going to hit your home and doing nothing in response.

3. Effective analysis should strive to limit speculation and assumptions, while also being realistic about limitations of information; some amount of speculation and extrapolation is unavoidable due to us always working with incomplete information, but is risky and error-prone as the driving force of an analysis and is not a replacement for investigation.

4. An accurate paradigm can sometimes make up for a limited array of facts. Knowing the principles that govern how an entity behaves and why can tell you things about it that direct research may not. However, it is nevertheless critical to investigate whenever possible. A paradigm and facts together will tell you more than either one alone.

5. Neutrality isn't real, aka: nothing exists without bias. Any entity that speaks as if it is neutral and unbiased is being dishonest, whether intentionally or through naivete. Being aware of this is not an excuse to be recklessly and intentionally biased in an exaggerated manner, as in lying, but rather a recognition of the nature of entities being motivated to do behaviors that reproduce themselves.

Thoughts?

Recommended reading instead of this post, or in addition to it: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm

Being forcefully pro-Palestine is the most efficient way to weed all the worst people out of your life.

It takes care of them all. Zionists. Islamophobes. Apathetic narcissists. Unthinking herd-minded right wing ideologues. Abuser-enabling “both sides” moral cowards. Emotionally stunted man-babies who turn every challenging conversation into an “allow me to play devil’s advocate” mental exercise to avoid feeling normal human feelings. Leaned-back, too-cool-for-the-current-thing victims of western meta-irony brain rot. It’s like spraying yourself with asshole repellant.

Supporting Palestine doesn’t automatically make you a good person; opposing genocide and apartheid is just the basic bare-minimum position we’re all morally obligated to take. But supporting Israel against the Palestinians absolutely does automatically make you a bad person.

Palestine is an interesting issue in that someone’s position on it doesn’t merely tell you about their politics, it tells you who they are as a person. If they can listen to you talk about all the horrific things Israel has done in Gaza and still have an objection to your position on the matter, then they’re not the sort of person you want in your life. If they can look at all those videos of shrapnel-shredded children and the satellite images showing entire neighborhoods pulverized to powder and then still think you’re the problem for opposing those things, then they’re showing you that there is something profoundly wrong with them as human beings.

I haven’t lost a single relationship I care about in these last three years. I’ve alienated a few obnoxious old acquaintances whom I’ve never liked, but all the people I actually value and want to keep in my life are fully on my side when it comes to hating Israel and supporting the Palestinians. Turns out I had done a pretty good job of surrounding myself with decent human beings in the years prior to the Gaza holocaust, but if I hadn’t I would have driven away the genocide supporters without a moment’s hesitation, and I would have been glad that circumstances forced them to expose their true nature to me.

You don’t even need to be that dramatic about it, though. Simply holding your position and refusing to be bullied out of it is generally all it takes to get such individuals to step away from you. If they know you think their whole worldview is wrong and that their values system is depraved, and they know they can’t talk you out of that perspective, then they’re probably not going to want to hang out with you.

In a world that has gone mad, it’s important to find little signposts of clarity to help you morally orient yourself so you don’t get swept up in the insanity with the herd. Palestine is one such signpost, because it’s such a blatantly obvious moral position to hold on to. But in a world that has gone mad, insisting on sanity will often turn the insane against you.

While studying for his PhD at Tsinghua, Ben Norton is even giving amazing lectures on political economy at Fudan University. Life goals.

In his magnum opus, "What Is to Be Done?", Lenin devotes profound reflections to political tactics and harshly criticizes "opportunism" and what he termed "followers," which is the abandonment of tactical autonomy by spontaneously adhering to a plan whose strategy is unknown. In other words, it is the most common mistake made by mobilization without awareness.

Whoever practices it is already a slave to their comfort because their actions are, by default, insubstantial.

Studying history helps. In these times, when many people are wondering what to do, I recall reading somewhere that this question existed even before languages ​​were born. So, what question has been the driving force behind our evolution?

So, given the complex global panorama characterized by a civilizational crisis, a paradigmatic implosion in every sense, a rules-based order in its death throes, and a threatening accelerationism—economically and ecologically—it becomes necessary to address the simplest and most useful question that has ever existed: what to do?

Lenin's most important phrases and arguments starkly attack submission in the face of "spontaneity," defined as "the fear of taking a step forward, the fear of breaking with what is already familiar and habitual... the tactic-process is reduced to political following." "What Is to Be Done?" is a treatise on conscious organization, the accumulation and construction of symbolic goods.

In his work, particularly in key strategic texts such as "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" (1920) and in his debates on the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918), Lenin draws a fundamental line of contrast between making a necessary tactical compromise and betrayal. He also makes it clear that the latter has served as a pivotal factor in fostering the division of a bloc that has had to remain relatively homogeneous in the face of an enemy that surpasses it in strength.

It could also be the case that the tactic is not a tactic at all, but rather vices, deep-seated deviations, false consciousness, and blind obedience, thus demonstrating that without a critical mass aware of its power, there is no possible solution or correct tactic. Because the enemy will always seek ways to maximize its power, which can only be countered by a much greater capacity for accumulating force, spearheaded by the conscious masses.

The logic of capital, however incorrigible and self-destructive it may be, has found its most effective tactic in division and manipulation. Great emancipatory processes have been stifled through processes of systemic alienation.

For Lenin, tactics constitute movement. They are the steps taken that must always be thought out and calculated, whether to advance or retreat. Temporarily yielding to an overwhelmingly superior force is not only reasonable but a revolutionary duty if such a decision, however difficult, serves to preserve one's own forces, whereas capitulation implies an unnecessary ideological surrender or complicity with the enemy.

Lenin establishes this premise and supports it with examples such as the "bandit's assault," which he explains as follows:

"Imagine that your car is stopped by armed bandits. You hand over your money, your passport, your revolver, and the car. In exchange, you are freed from their pleasant company. This is undoubtedly a compromise, a pact with the bandits [...] But I ask: Will you find a man in his right mind who would call this compromise 'inadmissible in principle' or declare the person who made it an accomplice of the bandits?"

• Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder. Page 43

For Lenin, tactical concession translates into legitimate compromise: it occurs when circumstances force the surrender of resources, territory, or tactical advantages due to an unfavorable balance of power, as long as the ultimate goal and a certain degree of independence in political decisions remain intact.

Betrayal occurs when a political actor makes a pact with the enemy (the bandits) not out of necessity for survival, but, for example, due to the need to divide the spoils. And history certainly provides examples of this.

In 1918, the young Soviet Russia was exhausted, and the German army was advancing relentlessly. At that time, Lenin insisted on ceding vast swathes of territory to Germany by signing a peace treaty, against the wishes of factions within his own party who favored a suicidal "revolutionary war." Lenin argued that ceding territory would buy time—while they awaited the revolution in Europe—and save the new state from total and devastating destruction. For him, refusing to make this tactical concession was the typical action of someone who treats strategy as empty rhetoric that leads directly to destruction.

In essence, Lenin's tactical maxim states that it is preferable to retreat or make a forced material concession rather than allow a political and doctrinal capitulation that would annihilate the movement. This is summarized in the following statement:

"The entire history of Bolshevism, before and after the October Revolution, is full of instances of maneuvering, agreements, and compromises with other parties, including bourgeois parties!"

• Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder. Page 53

The current political situation coexists with readjustments within a complex framework of relations in which negotiation implies accepting that not all actors do so on equal terms, since there are many political-military, economic and geopolitical elements that demarcate the margins of action for each one.

There are emerging powers whose advance relative to the hegemon necessarily aims to conquer the "phase of mutual destruction," that is, their development goes hand in hand with development and innovation in the military industry that allows them to protect what they have conquered and secure more.

This is the case with China, a strategic partner with whom the hegemon maintains a game of probing, provocative ploys with frictions that can be overcome through diplomatic means—for the moment and that do not endanger relations—because, even though China is the victim of unilateral sanctioning measures associated with tariffs, what develops in the real field is a bilateral economic interdependence solidly structured over years.

Another way to understand it is that not everyone plays by the same rules, and as the game unfolds, the rules can be altered at the discretion of whoever has the power to impose them by force. Therefore, in the ideal scenario, it would simply be a matter of being right and acting in good faith, and preserving those qualities at all costs. But in the convergent scenario, it's about managing friction at different levels by making tactical moves based on existing negotiation incentives. The strategic approach would be to remain in the game because it's the only situation with tactical potential.

When discussing resistance from a political perspective, it implies acknowledging that the playing field is stacked, the referee is bought off, or the scoreboard is rigged. While reformism relies on the utopia of liberal concord, tactical resistance prioritizes the contradictions of the game as potential leverage points.

Because of all this, it could be said that we are in an era where tactics have become an applied mathematical science on a game board. Something that, whether we like it or not, speaks more to calculations than to passion. Which is to say that, according to game theory, the winner is not the one who desires or wants to win, but the one who uses incentives and manages to implement the tactic that reduces the possibility of being eliminated.

In Lenin's words: "Even the smallest chances of gaining an ally must be seized, even if it is temporary, hesitant, unstable, uncertain, conditional. Anyone who does not understand this does not understand a word of Marxism or contemporary scientific socialism in general."

when you're a senile oligarch surrounded by dumb techbros betting on AI, but no one expected that the AI would have an ESL moment

Welcome again to everybody. Make yourselves at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread.

☭ Matrix homeserver and space
☭ Theory discussion group on /c/theory@lemmygrad.ml
☭ Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive

Quite literally a huge mistake on my part. I was looking for advice on how to attend medical school in Cuba, any age limits for self financed students, what requirements I need grade wise, etc.

Instead, when I clicked on the Reddit link, I got people talking about how people needed to bring their own gauze for surgery, the doctors there are incompetent, and the hospitals lack resources. The lack of resources was blamed on the healthcare system and the country rather than the embargo.

Next time I just need to email CubaHeal because that was so disheartening to read.

Video explaining China's democratic system, including: elections, accountability, consultations, and responsiveness.

It was September 24, 1960. Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro, newly arrived in New York for the 15th UN General Assembly, couldn't find a hotel to stay in. The United States government had pressured all establishments in Manhattan to deny lodging to the Cuban delegation.

It was then that Malcolm X, the leader of the Nation of Islam, invited him to Harlem , to the African American-owned Hotel Theresa, where the Black community welcomed him like a hero. "In Harlem, we're not addicted to all the propaganda the U.S. government puts out," Malcolm X said. "As long as Uncle Sam is against you, you know you're a good man and you're on the right track."

Thousands of African Americans gathered in front of the hotel, twenty-four hours a day, to support Fidel, and therefore, the Cuban people.

That scene, which today seems like something from another era, summarizes better than any treaty what the UN should be: a space where sovereign nations, regardless of their size or military power, can meet, dialogue, and challenge imperialist powers. Sixty-six years later, that promise lies shattered in the very building where Fidel once held court with his speeches.

This 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, still underway in September 2026, has been a stage where hypocrisy has reached levels that not even the most cynical screenwriters could have imagined. From the podium once occupied by Fidel Castro to denounce the blockade and demand justice for the Global South, two war criminals paraded, flaunting their impunity without the slightest shame.

Benjamin Netanyahu, with his hands stained with the blood of more than 70,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, dared to declare that "accusing Israel of genocide is the biggest lie of the century" and that "Israel's army is the most moral in the world."

Not content with such obscenity, the Israeli prime minister insulted the representatives of the countries who, in a gesture of dignity, left the room before hearing his speech: "If there are any other moral cowards who haven't left this room, please do so now." His contempt for the international community could not have been more blatant. And yet, there was the UN, granting him the platform, allowing him to laugh in the face of the victims and their families.

Days earlier, Donald Trump, the same one who ordered the kidnapping of a sovereign president, the same one who launched a war of aggression against Iran, the same one who turned hunger into an instrument of blackmail against Cuba , took to the podium to threaten to "quickly annihilate Iran, plunge it into hell with no possibility of survival or hope for future generations."

Not even Hitler dared to go that far. And to leave no doubt about his intentions, the tycoon boasted that "with Venezuela, we have more than 60% of the world's oil," adding that "the riches of the losing country belong to the victor of the war." In other words, he declared the Monroe Doctrine before the entire planet, without any anesthesia or shame.

How did the Assembly react? Half the delegates left the room during Netanyahu's speech. It was a symbolic gesture, certainly, but insufficient. Because what was truly revealing was not the exodus of those who left, but the passivity of those who remained.

The same countries that year after year vote in the General Assembly to demand an end to the blockade against Cuba—187 votes in favor, barely two against—were unable to stand up and tell Netanyahu to his face: “You are a genocidal maniac.” They left, yes, but they didn’t confront him. They left the stage clear for the criminal to continue his monologue.

And as for Trump, there was no stampede. There was no protest. There was, at best, an uncomfortable murmur, a few subsequent statements of "concern," a few condemnations that were lost in the sea of ​​diplomatic bureaucracy. Because no one dares to challenge the empire when it holds all the cards. And that is precisely the tragedy of the UN, since it is not a space of equals, but a mirror of the world as it is, with its hierarchies, its fears, and its complicity.

The United Nations was founded in 1945 with the promise to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." But that promise has been systematically violated by the very powers that drafted it. The Security Council, with its five permanent members and its veto power, is the clearest example of how the postwar international order remains a club of victors.

The United States has vetoed more than 80 resolutions condemning Israel. Russia and China have vetoed those condemning their allies. And the Global South—Africa, Latin America, Asia—continues to wait for some of those resolutions to be implemented.

The UN, as it is currently designed, cannot respond to the interests of the peoples of the Global South because it was not created for that purpose. It was created to manage the order imposed by Western powers after World War II. And within that order, the countries of the Global South are suppliers of raw materials, captive markets, and, when they rebel, targets of intervention.

The UN Charter itself enshrines the sovereignty of states, but practice has shown that this sovereignty is a privilege of the powerful. Cuba has been blockaded for 67 years. Venezuela has been invaded. Iraq was destroyed with lies. Libya was dismembered. And the UN, the great guardian of peace, has been unable to prevent it.

What remains is a space for moral posturing and empty rhetoric. The same leaders who order bombings gather annually in New York to deliver speeches about human rights, democracy, and peace.

Netanyahu calls those who leave the room "moral cowards" while his soldiers abduct more than a thousand Palestinian children each year in the West Bank. Trump threatens to "annihilate" a country while his administration blocks 65% of the humanitarian aid entering Gaza. It's an absurd charade where the main actors are the executioners, and the audience, the victims, has no right to respond.

The contrast between words and deeds is so grotesque it borders on the surreal. While Netanyahu proclaimed that Israel is "the most moral army in the world," his forces were destroying more than 90% of Gaza's wells and desalination plants, leaving two million people without access to clean water.

While Trump promised "peace and prosperity" for the Western Hemisphere, his agents were kidnapping the president of Venezuela and stifling the development of the Cuban people. While both spoke of "security" and "freedom," their armies were killing children in Gaza and the Sahel, training terrorists in Ukraine, and financing coups in Africa.

And amidst all this, the UN—the same UN that in 1960 was unable to secure a hotel for Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro—continues to function as a machine for producing resolutions that no one heeds. The General Assembly votes time and again against the blockade of Cuba, and the blockade continues. The General Assembly condemns the occupation of Palestine, and the occupation expands. The General Assembly demands a cessation of hostilities, and the hostilities escalate.

It is a cycle of good intentions without consequences, a mechanism designed to give the illusion that the world governs itself, when in reality it is governed by the powers that control oil, finance and weapons.

This is not about demonizing the idea of ​​a supranational body. Humanity desperately needs a space where differences can be addressed without resorting to war, where people can develop common strategies to overcome centuries of underdevelopment and dependency, where multilateralism is a reality and not just a facade. The problem is not the UN as a concept, but the UN as a concrete structure, captured by the very powers that created it to manage their hegemony.

A UN that responds to the interests of the Global South should have a Security Council without veto power, a General Assembly with binding authority, an International Criminal Court that tries everyone equally—Netanyahu, Trump, Ben Gvir, those responsible for the blockade against Cuba—and a funding mechanism that does not depend on voluntary contributions from wealthy countries. But none of that will happen as long as the world order remains unipolar or, at best, multipolar with hierarchies.

Sixty-six years after Fidel was received in Harlem as a liberation hero, the lesson remains relevant. Solidarity among oppressed peoples is stronger than imperialist propaganda. The UN can be a hostile space, but it can also be a platform for denouncing injustice, for highlighting struggles, for building alliances. Fidel did so in 1960, and he did it again every time he took to that podium.

Today, as war criminals take the podium and representatives of the Global South silently leave the room, the question is not whether the UN is useful or not. The question is what we, the people, do with that space.

Because as long as empires dictate the rules, the UN will remain a club for the rich where the poor have the right to speak, but not to be heard. And as long as that continues, peace, justice, and dignity will remain empty words in the vocabulary of the powerful.

it seems that he was just trying to clean the name of his family spying those evil capitalist pigs in america to restore the family honor, maybe he's a double agent for communism infiltrated on muskrat ranks