Comrade:Ksynwa

Primary

=

1. On Lemmygrad 2. Marxist-Leninist 3. I have gone through the principles. I have no objections as of now. 4. Gender is separate from sex. The manifestation of gender is shaped by societal and cultural factors rather than only biological sex as the traditional understanding dictates. Marxists should support gender, sexual and romantic minorities. 5. Stalin's organisation of the USSR around military reinforcement to push back the Nazi invasion is something that saved the world from coming under the shadow of European Fascism. He existed in difficult times and made some serious of his own but his contribution to defeating fascism cannot be overstated. Mao Zedong's organization the communist party and the PLA changed the face of the China that would emerge from the shaking off of the colonial chains. A China ruled by bourgeois opportunists would have pretty much given imperialist powers free reign for extraction. The programme of the CPC which is considered a "failure" by liberal detractors improved the lives of the most downtrodden which can be tangibly measured through metrics like life expectancy and access to education. The educated and healthy proletariat is the foundation on which the success of the Deng's opening up is built. India on the other hand suffered (and still does) from the proletariat being extremely unproductive due to denial of access to basic education which is why we are an awful destination for foreign investment expect for a narrow set of sectors like IT. 6. If forced for an answer I would say that all these are socialist. The actual situation is complex and difficult to assess because there are many factors at play like imperialist siege, market economy, private capital holders. Overall I think it is unproductive to discuss whether these countries are socialist or not because western discourse around this subject has devolved into a vulgar analysis of wealth inequality, existence of billionaires etc. A better metric is IMO always how and to what extent private property owners control the governance according to which all these countries are socialist in my view.

Secondary

=

1. Dialectical Materialism is the application dialectic ontology to the study of history. As Marx expounded, this involves understanding that the primary driver of history is class struggle rather than the liberal understanding of great men having great ideas then everyone in the room stands up and claps. For example, the USA had its war of independence not because the founding fathers had lofty ideals about freedumb and liberty but because the English were hampering the class interests of American proprietors by subjugating them under taxation and prohibiting westward expansion (probably not because they cared about the native Americans but because they did not want Americans to gain a tremendous amount of land). 2. I am looking into post-Independence Indian history so probably around that topic. I am reading a book called India is Broken by Ashoka Mody which despite having a clearly liberal bent looks at the Indian history critically which is an improvement over the nationalistic mythology that pervades our education. Once I am done with the book I want to go through the citations used in the book so I can draw a clearer picture on my own. 3. My understanding of Land Back it is going to be extremely difficult and unlikely to achieve. Regardless of this if the American society is to be founded on principles of justice, giving natives sovereignty will be critical. If someone thinks that land back is impossible, it tantamount to thinking that American can never be a just society. I think it is difficult but not impossible. Anyone who thinks that Land Back should not be supported because it offends the sensibilities of the White American working class is a settler apologist and therefore a clear reactionary. There is some criticism to be made of certain manifestations of Land Back which have been co-opted by liberal performers and corporations to rainbow-wash their image but these are never done in good faith. 4. Marxist feminism should aim to liberating the women that are ignored liberal feminism---the working class women---who form 99% of the women population. It should focus on how stratified gender and cultural norms deny women access to basic rights and equal opportunity just because of the biological sex. It should look at how biological determinist understandings of gender and family are causing harm not just to women but to the society as whole. 6. In India, communists should ideally be looking at organising and protecting the various minority communities---women, dalits, muslims, scheduled tribes---from the nexus of corporate capitalism and Hindu facism and vigilantism. I feel like electoral means for making any gains should be secondary since it is a realm infested by opportunist politicians and criminals (who are often the same person).