(Note:I am specifically referring to China here, but I'm fine with answers pertainubg to other currently existing or formerly existing socialist states)

I'm not quite sure how to describe what I'm asking really. But anyway, since I dont live in a socialist country with these programs I just want to know what someone majoring in marxism is learning when pursuing a degree in it. What courses do they take? What are they learning? What are the post-graduation goals(this one is probably pretty obvious thinking about it)? Etc.

I hope that's clear. I'll try to elaborate more if need be though. Thank you in advance.

SUMMARY:

1. Although the West will not admit it, China’s “whole-process people's democracy” is not only true democracy at play, but is also a more functional type of democracy than that practised in Western countries.

2. Chinese democracy outclasses Western democratic electoral systems because of the complex processes it has developed which have allowed it “to move closer towards ‘the people being the masters of their own house’.” Unlike in China, procedural rather than substantive democracy best defines what is now practised in the West.

3. Chinese democracy recognises the existence of “the people” in its holistic sense. Only by doing so can one ensure the people’s “overall, long-term and fundamental interests”.

4. Chinese democracy belongs to the majority, not to a minority as in the West. Unlike in America, China is not “owned by the 1%, governed by the 1% and for the benefit of the 1%”. Low voter turnout in election-based political systems is another reason why, unlike in China, electoral democracies are not able to represent the people as a whole.

5. Western elections have become a “talent show”, where people vote for the best performer rather than for those who are best suited to govern.

6. The general population does not have the specialist knowledge nor the long-term perspective required to elect competent representatives who have their nation’s best interests at heart.

7. Chinese leaders are “tested through practice, not through votes”. Democracy in China thus ensures that “political amateurs with no experience or qualifications” cannot become its leaders.

8. Unlike in the West, China’s political system allows democracy to be practised “at both the input and output levels.” It is a system in which people are able to “participate fully” and one in which officials serve the people and actually get things done.

9. Western democracy encourages competition, confrontation and the fragmentation of interests, which leads to constant political bickering and deadlocks. Chinese democracy, in contrast, is a “consensus-finding process” that ensures that policymaking is always moving forwards with the country’s core objectives firmly in sight.

10. Yan concludes: “Let the flower of democracy in China bloom even more colourfully, let the light of Chinese democracy shine even brighter, so that China can help mankind transcend its narrow, superficial and inferior view of democracy and contribute to the building of a better, higher quality [form of] democracy for humanity in the 21st century.”

So, I guess I get the general gist, but I think my main concern is just how many plots (or supposed plots) there were against Stalin and his faction or the USSR in general at the highest order of government.

There were two heads of the nkvd, several generals, the trotskyites, the Bukharin group, Lev Kamenev and Zinoniev (who were both previously aligned with stalin), then later there was Krushchev who had the help of many, including Zhukov. I think Molotov is even cited as saying that Stalin wanted him out of government too around the 1950s.

Am I right in being concerned about this? It's not just the day to day people, but so many people in high government that, even if every single accusation is true, would still leave the soviet system as being insanely unstable under the Stalin government.

Maybe my perspective is off, but I would like an answer to why there was so much of this. Each individual case can be argued, definitely, but it feels like having such a volume is indicative of a bigger issue, no?

I have begun reading Wang Huning's America Against America and there's one section where he talks about the intial colonization of the Americas and the difference between settler colonies and enslavement colonies. He cites Li Qiren's argument that the native americans were expelled and exterminated because they had not reached a high enough stage of development to be worth enslaving rather than just stealing their land. Meanwhile in Asia and africa and such the societies had reached a high enough stage of development to be worth enslaving.

I hadn't really thought about it, but it is odd to me. I don't fully buy Li's argument here because of the existence of Israel. To my knowledge palestine wasnt much different materially from other Arab areas like Jordan, Iraq, etc. Obviously zionism was a genuine ideology and movement (I don't think there were many advocates for settlement of Saudi Arabia) but beyond that it feels like it should have probably followed the same playback as the other middle eastern colonies like Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, etc.

There is of course the unsinkable aircraft carrier/interference justification argument, but that feels more like a reason for staying rather than a reason for doing it in the first place, especially since the colonization already started under Britain all the way back during the first world war, where they already controlled a lot of land there and thus wouldn't have needed to do this for that purpose.

I mean, they're probably correct, I just don't know enough to be sure or not on this.

So, I was finishing up Lyudmilla Pavlochenko's autobiography (which I strongly reccomend), and there was one section where she met then prime Minister Winston churchill and his wife. Something I found surprising was one of her reasons as to why she was surprised to be meeting with him.

"On hearing this, we were at first bewildered. What had Soviet newspapers not written about Mr.Churchill during the pre war years! He was referred to as an inveterate enemy of the socialist order and the young workers and peasant state...He was blamed for the so called Munich Agreement with hitler and Mussolini in 1938 (although it was not churchill at all who signed it)."

It's that last sentence that confuses me. Obviously churchill was a fairly notable supporter of early Italian fascism and such, but I thought churchill was fairly famous for opposing the aforementioned Agreement (which is also what google shows, although obviously that wasn't a throughough investigation). Am I missing something or was that just (somewhat justifiable) Pravda zealoutry?

So, in discussions about Gaddafi era Libya, people usually say it was state capitalism, from what I've seen anyway. Thats fair and I think I agree (although if you pointed a gun at me and forced me to define it, the best I could think of would be anti-colonial bonapartism, but idk). However, it does make many wonder what splits socialism from state capitalism. For instance, the soviet union under the NEP is fairly regularly called a period of "state capitalism." Bukharin is also usually labeled a right oppurtunist who was open to the Bourgeois elements of the NEP men. Conversely, China and Vietnam today are said to be "market socialist."

In terms of Gaddafi's Libya, what does make it state capitalist versus socialist? Profit motive? Commodity production?

What about post Krushchev soviet union? Was it state capitalist and social imperialist like maoists say?

I know theres not one concrete answer to this. It's not like there's a communism button you can press to confirm communism (I wish), but I am curious

So, I'm currently reading On Contradiction, just got done with Chapter 3

And I came across this banger "The dogmatists do not observe this principle; they do not understand that conditions differ in different kinds of revolution and so do not understand that different methods should be used to resolve different contradictions; on the contrary, they invariably adopt what they imagine to be an unalterable formula and arbitrarily apply it everywhere, which only causes setbacks to the revolution or makes a sorry mess of what was originally well done."

Mao Zedong in On Contradiction, Ch. 3, par. 8

Mao Zedong would have completely been against modern-day MLMs and saying stuff like "China is capitalist because they don't do XYZ"

So, obviously books denying the Nanjing Massacre, promoting fascism and other things are banned, but where's the general line. For instance, the book Beijing comrades is banned (although it wasn't published by an actual publishing house, rather it was distributed online), and Peacock cries was banned before the author won in court and was allowed to publish it (after removing the references to real life things like the three gorges dam).

So basically is there a concensus on what you're able to get away with or is it inconsistent with general throughlines of don't try to create disruption or interfere with irl things?

Good pamphlet, similar to "on protracted war" by Mao. Quick short except for motivation.

Concerning Defeat of “One’s Own” Government in the Imperialist War

Both the advocates of victory for their governments in the present war and the advocates of the slogan “neither victory not defeat”, equally take the standpoint of social-chauvinism. A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war, cannot fail to see that its military reverses facilitate its overthrow. Only a bourgeois who believes that a war started by the governments must necessarily end as a war between governments and wants it to end as such, can regard as “ridiculous” and “absurd” the idea that the Socialists of all the belligerent countries should wish for the defeat of all “their” governments and express this wish. On the contrary, it is precisely a statement of this kind that would conform to the cherished thoughts of every class-conscious worker, and would be in line with our activities towards converting the imperialist war into civil war.

Undoubtedly, the serious anti-war agitation that is being conducted by a section of the British, German and Russian Socialists has “weakened the military power” of the respective governments, but such agitation stands to the credit of the Socialists. Socialists must explain to the masses that they have no other road of salvation except the revolutionary overthrow of “their” governments, and that advantage must be taken of these governments’ embarrassments in the present war precisely for this purpose.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/6839496

~~stolen~~ collectivized from @[email protected] on mastodon/akkoma.

Link to original post: https://social.marxist.network/@TheDialecticalCommunist/113892128990028728

The assassination of the arch-hangman Stolypin occurred at a time when a number of symptoms indicated that the first period in the history of the Russian counter-revolution was coming to an end. That is why the event of September 1, quite insignificant in itself, again raises the extremely important question of the content and meaning of the counter-revolution in Russia. One discerns notes of a really serious and principled attitude amid the chorus of reactionaries who are servilely singing the praises of Stolypin, or are rummaging in the history of the intrigues of the Black-Hundred gang which is lording it over Russia, and amid the chorus of the liberals who are shaking their heads over the “wild and insane” shot (it goes without saying that included among the liberals are the former Social-Democrats of Dyelo Zhizni who used the hackneyed expression quoted above). Attempts are being made to view “the Stolypin period” of Russian history as a definite entity.

@SovietReporter asked a really good question on c/askLemmygrad, and later on I stumbled on a text by Huey Newton that synthesises well the need for a vanguard party, so I decided to share it here for more visibility.

Choice quote from the text:

The relationship between the vanguard party and the masses is a secondary relationship. The relationship between the members of the vanguard party is a primary relationship. It is important that the members of the vanguard group maintain a face-to-face relationship with each other. This is important if the party machinery is to be effective. It is impossible to put together functional party machinery or programs without this direct relationship. The members of the vanguard group should be tested revolutionaries. This will minimize the danger of Uncle Tom informers and opportunists.

The main purpose of a vanguard group should be to raise the consciousness of the masses through educational programs and certain physical activities the party will participate in. The sleeping masses must be bombarded with the correct approach to struggle through the activities of the vanguard party. Therefore, the masses must know that the party exists. The party must use all means available to get this information across to the masses. If the masses do not have knowledge of the party, it will be impossible for the masses to follow the program of the party.

Does anyone have it, or any similar resources for that matter? Thank you in advance.

Happy 204th birthday to Friedrich Engels, co-founder of scientific socialism and the international workers’ movement! Over 100 years of class struggle are built on Engels’ works and legacy.

Born into a bourgeois family, he committed class treason by working with his closest comrade, Karl Marx, to build the scientific foundation for a revolution that would put the workers at the top of the ruling order. Engels’ legacy is not only composed of his work at his desk but also of being a trained soldier who participated in numerous armed workers’ uprisings and survived several battles.

After the death of Marx in 1883, Engels completed the last two volumes of the flagship work “Das Kapital.” At the funeral, Engels said of Marx, “His name will live on through the centuries, and so will his work!” A few years after Engels’ death, his and Marx’s writings became the blueprint for the communist revolution in Russia that would change the world forever.

*source red. telegram channel

This is maybe more of just a hypothetical or unimportant, but given the current situation in Ukraine maybe it could illuminate the correct position there.

Anyway, generally anti-imperialists have 2 rules

1.Fight against imperialist wars, even if it means your side will lose, to further revolution and stop the useless death and destruction

2.Support the self determination of people's in order to further the national revolution (that will lead to further socialist revolution down the line, and prevent the expansion in the labor aristocracy of the imperialist nation)

But the problem for people in Belgium and Serbia during this time is that one is conflicting with the other. If you fought to get self determination for Belgium and Serbia, you would be supporting inter-imperialist war. If you fought to hamper the war effort in these nations, you would be cosigning them to be subjugated (although thus perhaps applies more to Serbia than too Belgium. But I bring Belgium up since initially they were neutral in the war and only got involved because of the German invasion, unless I'm wrong on that of course)

Again, this is isn't directly pertinent to the modern day, save more maybe some comparison to current geopolitical events, but I'd appreciate answers anyway

I’m currently writing an article for a newspaper and one of the subsections revolves around a societal responsibility towards propaganda; especially racial or ideologically Nazi propaganda as in the example of Jud Suß.

For this, I wanted to discuss the Soviet reaction to Protocols as the book was a product of the Russian Empire and served as a driving justification for Nazi racial propaganda, making the Soviet reaction towards the book potentially very useful to my article.

I’ve found very little information regarding this, and thought it would makes sense to ask if anyone here has any sources as to the Soviet reaction to the book or if it was banned? English or Russian would do as I can read both.

I'm looking for a good book on Chinese civics. I know the very basics of how the government's structured, but I want to go more in-depth.

So far I've found ebooks for The Government of China (Yu Bin), Chinese Politics and Government (Sujian Guo), and Understanding Chinese Politics (Neil Collins). I'm also looking to find a copy of Modern Chinese Government (Qianyou Zhang) but I'm not optimistic.

Is anyone familiar with any of these? Any recommendations?

You can read the text here. This week, we're covering everything up to but not including "War and politics". Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space.

A short set of rules that lays down in a pretty clear fashion some fundamentals of democratic centralism.

You can read the text here. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space

A review of Banerjee's "Fighting Imperialism and Authoritarian Regimes: Between the Devil and the Deep Sea" (2003) and Salamey's "Hezbollah, Communitarianism, and Anti-Imperialism" (2019).

Highly recommend reading this one as it addresses a ton of bad faith arguments we still see to this day when it comes to actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. Basically a takedown of the western pseudo-left "anti-authoritarian" argument that leftists shouldn't stand in solidarity with global south anti-imperialist forces because they are insufficiently morally pure in some way or another. They do this same shtick when it comes to Russia, Iran, DPRK, and to a certain extent China as well, always conveniently finding some leftist sounding reason to demonize precisely those forces which happen to be the Empire's greatest foes, whether it's that they're insufficiently advanced in social justice causes, or insufficiently secular, or whatever else they need to say to get naive baby leftists to align themselves with the CIA and the State Department. This "compatible left" is and has been for a long time the greatest obstacle to real revolutionary movements in the West. So long as this chauvinism and this tailing of liberal Empire propaganda infects it, the western left will continue to be, by and large, little more than larpy liberals.