More languages
More actions
Discord: puzzledfox99_32168
My contributions.
For my convenience: Template:Citation, Template:Video citation, Template:Web citation.
Questionnaire answers
| Questionnaire answers |
| FIRST SET:
1. I found ProleWiki on a list of partisan wikis (I forget exactly where that list was). I was in the middle of studying Marxism when I first heard of the wiki, and when I first found it, a number of articles were helpful in clearing up the meanings of terms. Ever since then I have read a number of articles here. I would be interested in contributing to articles on various social movements and political parties on this wiki. I got the idea to join because I noticed that there were a number of red links that could be turned into articles. 2. While my education on Marxist theory is ongoing, the current that I find to be the most coherent would be Marxism-Leninism. As a kid, I (like many others) absorbed liberal ideology from my surroundings, but when I first took interest in political theory as a teenager, I became an isolationist conservative, mostly due to my poor understanding of what Marxism was. Things started to change when I joined an online debate group, and (despite my rightism) I consistently found myself arguing against right-wing "libertarians" more often than against socialists, due to the sheer refusal of "libertarian" rightists to understand the nature of political power; I even found myself taking the side of the socialists despite not being one at the time. In my early adulthood, I started reading the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin to understand the theory better, and the more I read, the more I realized that I had already agreed with a lot of Marxism, I just didn't know it until then. This process of reading would've happened over the past five or so years, and it is currently ongoing. (I should note that I am not a "MAGA Communist" or class reductionist; my past "conservatism" was mostly shallow). 3. Yes, I have read your principles, and I agree with them. One thing in particular that I like is that you explained what you mean by "critically supporting" bourgeois dictatorships; the sympathy showed by many socialists for non-socialist regimes always puzzled me before I read theory. I am also happy to hear that you strive for democratic decision-making on this wiki. 4. It is only logical that Marxists should advocate for the rights of the LGBT+ community. A consistent socialist would oppose all forms of unjust oppression, and arbitrarily discriminating against people for their sexual orientation or gender identity is one such unjust oppression. 5. My opinion on Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong is that they were men who saw the conditions of their respective places and times, and acted accordingly. I will talk more about Stalin here since, admittedly, there is still much I have to learn about Mao. Even when I was a rightist, I understood that Stalin was a pragmatic man who made difficult decisions for the sake of the Soviet Union. He was not perfect (for instance, his purges of suspected opponents may have targeted some loyal people), but he was not the monster that he is often made out to be. 6. Based on my current knowledge, the DPRK, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba are socialist, albeit with variations coming from their respective material conditions. For instance, the DPRK has become incredibly isolationist due to practically being under siege. China has privatized sections of their economy due to having a relatively short history of capitalism, but even though something like capitalism currently exists in China, the government is still committed to building socialism. Vietnam has also privatized parts of its economy for similar reasons as China, and while I do not know much about Laos, I expect it is in a similar situation as well. Cuba has a longer history of capitalism than the Asian socialist states, but it is also under siege, though to a lesser extent than the DPRK and therefore is not as isolationist. Cuba and Vietnam have both negotiated with the United States, the former because of its geographic proximity to the Imperial Core causing concern for the US bourgeoisie, and the latter because of a curious geopolitical situation following the collapse of Vietnam's previous ally (the USSR). 7. Settler colonialism is the imperialistic conquest of land and replacement of its population with settlers from the imperialist power. Examples of settler colonialism include the United States, Canada, Australia, and the State of Israel. The last of those four in particular should be dissolved as a political entity and have its settlers expelled, since Palestine still has a substantial native Arab population. As for the other settler colonial states, where the indigenous peoples are vastly outnumbered by the descendants of settlers from hundreds of years ago, it is best for the settler-descended working-class to join forces with the remaining indigenous peoples and prevent the colonial state from taking even more land from people who have so little left; and whenever possible, undo the most brazen acts of land theft and betrayal of promises. I also believe that immigrants and ethnic minorities in general should have their rights defended and upheld as much as possible. 8. I must confess that my knowledge of the precise details of the ongoing Palestinian crisis is limited (I am not the kind of person to track news headlines). But these things I know for sure: one side (the Zionist state) is committing genocide, the other side (Palestine) is resisting genocide, and the Zionist account of what happened on 7/10/2023 has been thrown into question by a number of reputable organizations, even in the bourgeois press of Western countries. SECOND SET: 1. In layman's terms, dialectical materialism is the idea that things in this physical world are constantly evolving due to interaction and conflict between said things. In Marxism, "dialectic" (a term Karl Marx borrowed from G.W.F. Hegel) refers to the interaction between things in this world, and "materialism" (in the philosophical sense) is the position that reality is made up of tangible, physical things (rather than abstract ideas or spirits). While non-Marxists often see the phrase "dialectical materialism" as ideological jargon, it is really just the philosophical term for something that everybody can observe in their daily lives. Most of the natural sciences (chemistry, biology, mechanics, etc.) already accept the principle that physical interactions between things shape and change those things; Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels simply applied that obvious truism to the social sciences as well. 2. National liberation is essentially the right to self-determination put into practice, and self-determination (properly understood) is an element of democracy. Imperialism is inherently antidemocratic because it happens without (and contrary to) the consent of the peoples being conquered by imperialist powers. Therefore, the cause of national liberation - the struggle of a people to be represented in the world of geopolitics - is bound to be tied with the cause of democracy. This is not to say that bourgeois nationalism and revanchism is democratic (on the contrary, nationalism is very often used to divide the working class and pit it against itself), nor is it to say that socialists should desire a world of ethnostates (absolutely not). But, in practical terms, the struggle of colonized peoples against their colonizers naturally coincides with the struggle of the workers against their exploiters. 6. I would say that the main difference between Marxism and other anti-capitalist movements is that Marxism is comprehensive. Marxism is not JUST a critique of capitalism, nor is it JUST the suggestion of an alternative; rather, Marxism is essentially a philosophical and scientific theory, and when this theory is applied to the social sciences, it results in a critique of capitalism and endorsement of socialism. Most non-Marxist anti-capitalist movements draw upon moral sensibilities, and while there is plenty objectionable about capitalism from that perspective, it is Marxism that provides an explanation of capitalism's very nature and what should logically come after it. Marxism provides a framework through which we can understand the natural progression of human history from primitive communism, to slavery, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism and (eventually) full communism. On top of that, Marxism provides a lens to understand other social phenomena such as politics, religion, culture, and the like, and it also explains how these phenomena are tied to capitalism and material economic conditions. 7. Imperialism is the subjugation and exploitation of one country (or more) by another country (or more). According to V.I. Lenin, imperialism is the final stage of capitalism. In the past, imperialism was very blatant: one country would send an army to a far-off land, declare a colony, and openly funnel capital to the colonizing power. But from the mid-twentieth century onwards, with the rise of democratic and national liberation movements worldwide, imperialist powers have worked to smokescreen their imperialism behind the more advertisable slogans. One of these slogans is "economic freedom" aka neoliberalism. International bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank disproportionately represent the interests of Imperial Core countries, and push for neoliberalism across the Third World. The IMF and World Bank use debt traps to make Third World countries give into demands, specifically demands to privatize large their economy and open up trade with foreign powers. Under the guise of "economic freedom," these measures allow corporations based in the Imperial Core to dominate the economy of these Third World countries and exploit their population for labor. China's Belt and Road Initiative is not like these imperialist endeavors; it is simply a project to build further political and economic ties between China and other nations. If Belt and Road was imperialist, then why would Imperial Core countries like France willingly take part in it without coercion? Imagine if 19th century France, right as it was building its own colonial empire, willingly made provinces of Metropolitan France into British colonies! 8. I have read a few different works from Marxist writers here and there on the topic of various socialist states, though I have not read anything comprehensive. I have read the basic stuff from Marx and Engels (though I am in the process of reading Das Kapital). One work that helped me gain a more positive view of socialism was V.I. Lenin's "The Working Class and NeoMalthusianism"; when I was a rightist, I mistakenly thought that Marxism was pro-Malthusian and that the elites pushing for Malthusianism were Marxists; it is this little work by Lenin that made me realize that the opposite is true, and thus pushed me in the right direction. I have also read a few articles from an English translation of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3rd ed.), and some of the ones relevant to this discussion include their articles on Vietnam, Cuba, and the GDR; it gives insight into what a general purpose encyclopedia from a Marxist perspective could look like. As part of my ongoing quest to better understand China, I have read a few works of Mao Zedong, including his "Quotations," and I have also read a few works by the post-Mao government such as "Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party" (1981) and Xi Jinping's "Regarding the Construction of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" (2013). But I admit that there is still much for me to learn about current and former AES countries. OPTIONAL: 1. I'm curious if this criteria is updated based on current events. I ask because you include a mention of the ongoing Palestinian crisis following October 2023, which is a relatively recent event. 2. I am not deeply familiar with coding, but I am generally familiar with MediaWiki, and I have edited wikis that use MediaWiki such as Wikipedia in the past. |
GSE 3rd ed.
My template for GSE citations:
{{Citation|author=[ ]|year=[ ]|chapter=[ ]|chapter-url=https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/[ ]|title=[[Great Soviet Encyclopedia]] (3rd ed.)|volume=[ ]|page=[ ]|city=Moscow|pdf=https://ia804601.us.archive.org/2/items/B-001-032-507-748-ALL/[ ].pdf|trans-title=Boljšaja sovjetskaja enciklopjedija|trans-lang=Russian}}
"Bonapartism" draft
In Marxist thought, Bonapartism refers to a system where a counter-revolutionary dictatorship attempts to mediate between antagonistic class interests.[1] Bonapartist regimes typically come into existence during times of revolution, where they appropriate revolutionary symbols while actually having reactionary goals. For this reason, Bonapartist regimes tend to characterize themselves as "neither left nor right," despite actually serving the right in practice.[2] According to Vladimir Lenin, "Bonapartism is a form of government which grows out of the counter-revolutionary nature of the bourgeoisie, in the conditions of democratic changes and a democratic revolution."[3]
The name of Bonapartism derives from the Bonaparte dynasty, which ruled France twice, first under Napoleon Bonaparte and then under his nephew Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte. It was on Louis-Napoleon that Karl Marx, a contemporary, wrote The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, which described the nature of Bonapartism in detail. Marx described how, when Louis-Napoleon became emperor, the bourgeois class surrendered some of its political power to the emperor so that it may continue to have social power, for "in order to save its purse it must forfeit the crown."[4]
Bonapartism is not the same thing as fascism, but they are related to each other and very often overlap. Fascism inherently has a Bonapartist character, but Bonapartism is not inherently fascist.[5]
Outside of Marxist circles, "Bonapartism" also refers more specifically to the belief that the Bonaparte dynasty should rule France.[6] "Bonapartism" in this sense would be a sub-category of Monarchism.
Examples
Notable examples of Bonapartism include:
- The First French Empire under Napoleon Bonaparte
- The Second French Empire under Napoleon III
- The German Empire under Otto von Bismarck[7]
- The Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek[8]
- The Republic of Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew
- The Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin[5]
See also
References
- ↑ Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3rd ed.), vol. 3: 'Bonapartism' (1971) (Russian: Boljšaja sovjetskaja enciklopjedija). [PDF] Moscow.
- ↑ Second Thought (2022-03-18). "Why "Neither Left Nor Right" Just Means Right Wing". YouTube.
- ↑ Vladimir Lenin (1917). They Do Not See the Wood for the Trees. [MIA]
- ↑ Karl Marx (1852). The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: 'Rise of Louis Bonaparte'. [MIA]
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 1Dime (2022-08-21). "Post-Soviet Russia: From Gangster Capitalism to Bonapartism (Documentary)". YouTube.
- ↑ Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. "Bonapartism," accessed August 30, 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Bonapartism.
- ↑ Friedrich Engels (1866). Friedrich Engels to Karl Marx in Margate, 13 April 1866. [MIA]
- ↑ Parson Young (2015-05-13). "How is the KMT Still a Thing?" New Bloom Magazine.
Evidence against "Judeo-Bolshevism"
Thomas Henry Rigby (historian, unknown background but probably Gentile, unknown ideology)[1]:
| Nationality | Percent of party 1922 |
1927 |
Percent of population 1926 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Great Russians | 72.0 | 65.0 | 52.9 |
| Ukrainians | 5.9 | 11.7 | 21.2 |
| Belorussians | 1.5 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Poles, Latvians, and other Baltic peoples | 4.6 | 2.6 | 0.7 |
| Jews | 5.2 | 4.3 | 1.8 |
| Minority peoples in R.S.F.S.R. | 2.0 | 2.3 | 4.3 |
| Transcaucasian peoples | 3.4 | 3.6 | 2.5 |
| Central Asians (incl. Kazakhs) | 2.5 | 3.5 | 7.0 |
| Others | 2.9 | 3.8 | 6.4 |
| 3 SOURCES: Izv Ts K, Nos. 7-8, August-September 1923, p. 61, Sotsial'nyi i natsional'nyi sostav VKP(b), p. 114, Lorimer, op.cit., pp. 55-61. The 1922 figures cover members and candidates, the 1927 figures, members only. For additional details on national representa- tion at this period, see Fainsod, How Russia Is Ruled, p. 219. On the growth of party organizations in minority areas between 1922 and 1927, see Sotsial'nyi i natsional'nyi sostav VKP(b), p. 117. | |||
Jeffrey Herf (Jewish liberal/Zionist historian, would probably be dismissed by antisemites but whatever)[2]:
- Given Nazi claims about "Jewish Bolshevism," it is important to take note of the actual role of Jews in Soviet political life. Drawing on data gathered at the annual party congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the historian Benjamin Pinkus has assessed the statistical and organizational representation of Jews within the power institutions of the party-the Central Committee, Politburo, Secretariat, and government bureaucracies. He concludes that there was "no historical basis" for claims that the Bolshevik regime was the work of the Jews. As of 1917, roughly 1,000, or about 5 percent, of the 23,000 members of the Bolshevik party were Jewish. By August 1917, 6 of 21 members of the Central Committee were Jews: Lev Kamenev, Grigory Sokolnikov, Jakov Sverdlov, Grigory Zinoviev, Leon Trotsky, and Moisei Uritsky. The party census of 1922 showed 19,564 Jewish members, 5.21 percent of the total. By 1927, the 49,627 Jewish members comprised 4.34 percent of all party members. Pinkus estimated no Jews remained in the Politburo. In the Stalin era in the 1930s, Lazar tral Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium. the ministers, and the chairman of the Executive Committee), 27, or 6 percent, were Jewish. This proportion decreased radically in the 1930s, partly owing to the purge trials, which had strong anti-Semitic overtones. During the Holocaust, the Stalin regime said very little about Nazi policies aimed specifically at Jews. By fall 1943, and perhaps earlier, the Nazi death camps were within range of the Soviet air force. Yet Stalin did not order it to destroy the gas chambers and crematoria. the percentage of Jewish members of the party in 1940 at 4.3 percent or less. By 1939, only 10 percent of the Central Committee was composed of Jews. After Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev had been ousted from the leadership in 1926, Kaganovich became the only Jewish member of the Politburo-the exception that proved the rule. Of the 417 people who constituted the ruling elite of the Soviet Union in the mid-1920s (members of the Cen- of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, Thus, Nazi propaganda about Jewish domination of the Soviet regime had no basis in reality. It was a complete fantasy.
References
- ↑ Thomas Henry Rigby (2019). Communist Party Membership in the U.S.S.R. (p. 366). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- ↑ Jeffrey Herf (2006). The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust (pp. 95-96). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.