If you look towards history, this question has been asked many times:

• In slave societies, if you abolish slavery, who will do the harvest / work in mines / construction?
• In feudal society, if you abolish serfdom, why wouldn't the serf just leave? How would the serf work to supply the Lord and the city with food and services?
• In capitalist society, why would anyone work without wages or profit incentive?

The reality is, when society changes, the material incentives for work also change. In slave society, the material incentive was violent coercion, in feudal society, the serf would be able to keep part of his work but would also be coerced through an oath to their Lord, in capitalism the worker is coerced through a wage and through the fear of unemployment.

In communist society, which now is only an idealized abstraction, society will have its own material incentives. But speaking of today, we do have blueprints for what could evolve in the next stage. We could all have a share on both in direct wage or in the capital accumulated, in case of cooperative enterprises. We could have an incentives based on goals and performance, as it happens in state owned companies. The wage system won't disappear overnight, but wage is not necessarily a problem if you don't have labor-capitalist social relations.

While I do identify more with Marxist Leninists than any other tendency, I don't like these labels a lot. I think sometimes this leads more to group identity, so people are forced to uphold values of a particular tendency rather than criticize and evolve our thinking.

Marx and Engels laid the foundation of the system and there were many contributors to our field. We have people like Rosa Luxemburg, Kautsky (before he turned into a renegade), Bebel, Liebknecht, Plekhanov, Bukharin, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, Stalin, Losurdo, Deng, and many others. Some people held contradictory views, some argued against each other, but I do think debating is important to make our field grow scientifically. Our science needs criticism and contradiction in order to develop itself more and to respond to our current practical issues.

It does not mean, however, we should embrace eclecticism, as some people may criticize correctly. When we are building a political movements we need to have a clear political line and avoid embracing everything, or we end up with nothing. In this way, MLs were the people who brought me to Marxism, and I tend to agree with them more than anyone else.

Some people will be organized members of the party. But even if you are not formally organized, if already follow what your local party is doing and join them in events or demonstrations, you are indirectly organized.

I don't like the term revisionism. I think in the context of the second international, when there were opportunistic tendencies in the SPD that wanted to deviate from the revolutionary strategy, I think calling out revisionism made a lot of sense. Revisionism was a real danger and basically sabotaged the revolutionary movement in Germany and Europe, which was growing strong at the time.

Afterwards, I think this "revisionism" turned into a senseless accusation that caused many different socialist/communist groups to start factionalizing and splitting into smaller and smaller groups, to the point that all of them became insignificant or isolated.

In the case of China, it's not as if there aren't real contradictions in the Chinese development. Yes, China has a bourgeoisie, and many petite bourgeois tendencies growing among the middle classes. Yes, China coexists in the same imperialist system which other neoliberal powers operate. China exports capital to Brazil and to many countries in the Global South and North.

However, China also was able to restrict the bourgeoisie into a cage so they don't go out of hand. They also seized control of financial capital by the state to avoid the trap of having the economy being dominated by speculators. China's economy is very reliant on planning, and with this was able to avoid the profit rate pitfall that caused many developed global north nations to desindudtrialize.

So, I'd say that China is just China. It still has many contradictions. The contradiction between capital and labor hasn't been overcome yet. The contradiction of unequal development still exists between China and other global South countries. But, still we better have China than not have it.

In the end, China is not going to save us. We need to undergo our own revolutionary processes, even if our countries and our movements enter in contradiction with China.

It's impressive how inexplicable fires and internal accidents happen when US ships are near Iranian waters.

That's not exactly what she said. The problem lies with the despolitization of the last Kirschner-aligned governments. Even though they invested a lot in social programs, they never radicalized against the system. So, they became the defenders of the status quo, while far-right politicians like Macri and Milei took advantage of the worsening of their material conditions to propose a program that seems like anti-system. The fact is, while Milei is indeed bad, people are tired of the innaction of the Kirschnerists.

I'd avoid using Kulaks because this term does not apply to the US current material conditions. But I agree with you, Mao's strategy of encircling urban areas from the countryside wouldn't work because nowadays the rural areas aren't as populous anymore. We'd hardly ever have a strong base there, even if we managed to convince a lot of rural workers to join the communist movement. So yeah, I don't think the strategy is applicable for the US or UK.

In Brazil, which is still an agrarian nation (and on most global South nations that depend on agriculture), this strategy could have benefits. But even in Brazil's case, focusing on the urban proletariat is still important.

Because many anarchists you find online are just left leaning liberals trying to join a subculture. They are after a pseudo-radical group identity, not revolutionary transformation. They are not different from ancaps and right wing libertarians who are more concerned with posing as radicals while they are just reproducing the ideology of the system.

Many self alleged anarchists in the Internet are not even part of the anarchist movement. They just pick a label because that makes them feel cool, but most of the time they are just liberals with no depth in theory (even anarchist theory). These people are also insignificant, they don't do anything other than complain in forums about other leftists (and more often than not are a bunch of NATO simps).

Regarding theory, I think there are more Marxists who have read Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin than supposed anarchists.

I generally don't care about what internet anarchist talk about... They are insignificant. I would say they spend more time having beef with other socialists than building anything useful.

We are all online communists, you know... So I'm not going to throw a rock when my roof is made of glass.

I think having an online presence is essential in this day and age. It frustrates me some orgs that are still very attached to printed newspapers that nobody will read.

On the other hand, communication in any medium requires a good strategy and the proper tactics. Many YouTubers are there just to make a living of communist entertainment, and that's good if they are doing what they like. However, this kind of isolated effort won't do much to our cause because the scope of the work is very limited.

They will be very successful at blowing up their own people, that's what they will achieve.