More languages
More actions
A pragmatic zealot. Death upon struggle through struggle.
"For our demands most moderate are, We only want the earth."
- James Conolly
(my entry q/a that magically appeared here, I have no idea I didn't put it here lol)
First set of questions:
1) I found prolewiki through reddit, however I am not really sure since I know of it's existence for quite a while now. As to what made me join? I have been writing Marxist-Leninist articles and essays (From ecology, morality, Marxist philosophical materialism in relation with and critical approach to Spinoza, Hegel, Tolstoy etc, in rejection idealist voluntarism and vulgar mechanical materialism, and also on caste in India, since I am Indian, those texts are mostly blueprints for a war of position for cultural hegemony of the socialist movement in India). I would particularly like to contribute to essay writing, I already have a few texts ready for publishing here. I could also potentially contribute to primary source collection, although not very sure on that.
2) Marxism-Leninism. To put simply, the organization of the proletarian class (the class which is forced and coerced because of it's non-ownership of the MoP, to sell it's ability to labor, and not the labor-commodity produced by the wage slave itself, but the ability to produce it to the capitalist in exchange for means of subsistence) into a coherent and conscious political fighting force, capable of overthrowing the bourgeois state apparatus, and thus transforming society from a capitalist mode of production to a socialist mode of production. A transitionary democratic and proletarian mandate and diktat over society to defend the revolution and begin socialist construction in one's own country (As Lenin said, the material conditions of each country while unique and also inter-connected are subject to varying stages of development, so revolution worldwide all at once is simply a theoretical impossibility by our very own framework). Through socialist construction and the potential-eventual (history has tendencies, it does not follow a fixed path but tendencies as Marx and Engels asserted) victory of socialism worldwide, comes the communist stage of society, a classless, moneyless and stateless society, to be concise. I could go into detail about each material aspect, but I'll leave that for later.
As for my political journey, I was nothing in 11, then a communist sympathizer at early 12ish (in that I upheld the ideology without particularly understanding it) and from late 12ish I began to actually read. I have been a Marxist-Leninist and developing my positions and theoretical capabilities since then, with quite a few differences from when I first started out.
3) Yes I have read the principles. I have no disagreements, since that is also my theoretical framework being a Marxist-Leninist. However I suggest nuance on the principle of self-crticism, in relation with Stalin's "Against vulgarising the slogan of self-criticism", there are two fundamental kinds of self-criticism one could articulate, one is vulgar self-criticism for the sake of it, as if self-criticism was a Kantian noumenon (a thing in of itself, which dialectical materialism rejects fundamentally) but rather that self-criticism must serve a material utility in advancing socialism, self-criticism because the inner self demands it, is idealist. (I am not suggesting that the principles declare that but it is important to articulate this, lest we fall into Bukharin-ite and Trotsky-ite vulgar self-criticism that destroys rather than advances)
4) Should is an incorrect question. The question must be, why are the rights of transgender people and other sexual minorities under persecution firmly tied to the victory over capital? And from it understanding why our movement if it seeks structural power, must be bind to these sections.
Let me first articulate how transgender and other sexual minorities are tied to our movement, to side with transphobia is to side with idealism. It asserts an abstract, immutable "biological essence" over the material reality of a person's consciousness and lived experience. A revolutionary movement that fails this test abandons its core philosophical basis, becoming vulnerable to bourgeois reaction (as we obviously observe with parties like the ACP and other NazBol reaction). A movement that tolerates the superstructural tools of the bourgeois to divide the proletariat into arbitrary sections to prevent class consciousness and worker organization is fundamentally incapable of fighting for revolution and devours itself. The success of the Marxist-Leninist movement is contingent on its ability to be the most consistent and thoroughgoing force for human liberation, without exception.
Second on the question of how, I have particularly studied only Indian material conditions and the conditions of transgender people in India in detail to comment on it, so here is what I think, most transgender people due to absolute societal alienation are forced into begging,the Hijras for example are forced into material conditions of desperation, in that they cannot even enter exploitative wage-labor relations, this is where I fundamentally think the communist party must work, in not only fighting for the dignity of transgender individuals through quantitative means (educational work among the masses and legal battles) but in prepration for the qualitative rupture itself, the communist party must organize these damned sections of society into capable and articulate forces, primarily done through, providing shelter, work and what have you within areas where the communist party holds power, so for example, Kerala, the CPM (I have my disagreements with them which I can articulate later) must provide for employment directly to transgender individuals, alongside basic education campaings and what have you (as most transgender individuals are often expelled from their homes at a young age). This of course also presents us with access to transgender individuals political organizations, to collaborate and create a united front, trans rights and workers rights are not two distinct dualist entities but rather one single symbiotic and unified interests.
The dialectical materialist approach to gender identity is that first we identify the material basis of patriarchal society and it's cultural superstructure, specifically the patrilineal descent of property. This ideology enforces a reproductive and social order that serves capital by atomizing society into manageable, productive/reproductive units.
The contradiction in this is that capitalism being it's own gravedigger like any previous mode of production is born pregnant with the seeds of it's own negation in that the very superstructure it maintains is undermined by the material realities that developing and ever increasing productive forces produce, which pulls women into wage-labor as well. The idealist superstructure thus comes in contradiction with the material reality of human diversity, that it seeks to reject through it's gender roles and binary view of sexuality.
The resolution of this secondary contradiction of course lies in the overthrow of capitalism and the reconciliation of human society with human sexual diversity. Sublation or as Hegel called it Aufheben.
5) I uphold their theoretical works of course being a Marxist-Leninist. Their historical role? Working cogs in the socialist structures of their nations, anything beyond this is great man theory, anything below this is historical rejectionism.
On Stalin, a particular comment comes in mind, I was reading Felix Chuev's Molotov Remembers and there is a conversation with Marshal Golovanov, let me just cite it alright, it was pretty fun to read.
> "The fact that I or Konstantin Konstantinovich Rokossovsky, who also suffered in 1937 - to say the least!-hold such a high opinion of Stalin and won't allow his name to be trampled into the dust, is especially unpleasant for many people. "When Khrushchev asked Rokossovsky to write some filth about Stalin, Rokossovsky responded, 'Comrade Stalin is a saint to me.' The next day Konstantin Konstantinovich comes to his office and finds Moskalenko sitting at his desk, who hands him the orders on his retirement."
Lol
6) My thoughts on Marxist-Leninists states are that.... they are Marxist-Leninist. Dictatorships of the proletariat. The state apparatus of these states has been conquered by the proletariat, with the vanguard of the proletariat at helm in defense of the revolution and for socialist construction. The reasoning is of course infinitely detailed, I have also written a paper on this particular thing in relation with Chinese debt relief and structuring (contrasting it with Western imperialist core's approach). So let me just give you a concise understanding of the text I wrote (this isn't the only reason why China in particular is socialist but it is mechanism into understanding it's socialist structure).
Chinese debt relief has been from a capitalist and bourgeois perspective unfathomably irrational, because the Chinese not only do not seize assets, quite the opposite.
> "Moreover, despite critics’ worries that China could seize its borrower’s assets, we do not see China attempting to take advantage of countries in debt distress. There were no “asset seizures” in the 16 restructuring cases that we found. We have not yet seen cases in Africa where Chinese banks or companies have sued sovereign governments or exercised the option for international arbitration standard in Chinese loan contracts. Restructuring a loan is only one of a menu of options for an underperforming project. Other options might include public-private partnerships (PPPs) involving equity injections from Chinese companies. Yet, although Chinese firms participated in some African debt-equity swaps in the 1990s, we have not yet seen this happening in the new millennium."
and
> "If any debtors encounter difficulties to pay on time, there may be tailored plans including rescheduling… adding grants to help bring projects back to life, conducting debt-equity swaps, or hiring Chinese firms to assist operations. Just like repairing and enhancing a patient’s hemopoietic system, adopting such measures to help the projects get back on track and gain profit has advantages over simply offering write-offs which may only solve issues on the surface and are unsustainable"
Whereas the west builds dependency the Chinese build mutual benefit and independence with cooperation. The Chinese also do not enforce austerity.
Only two conclusions can emerge, either the Chinese are stupid or the Chinese are Marxist-Leninist with qualitatively different interests. The first assertion is of course just utterly nonsense and the second is the natural conclusion.
7) Settler-colonialism is unlike classical colonialism (e.g. British rule in India), which seeks to exploit indigenous labor and extract resources from a governed native population, the primary economic logic of settler colonialism is the permanent seizure of land and the elimination of the indigenous population that constitutes an alternative claim to that land. As to what should be done? The unfolding of the primary imperialist contradiction and the annhilation of the settler-colonial regime, from the Zionist entity to Northern Ireland and what have you.
As for the second part of your question, oh my, answering that would take up pages, maybe I'll write an essay on this if you guys accept me as an editor. What is to be done? Organization, integration, nurturing organic intellectuals, and allowing for their own but integrated space within Marxist-Leninist organizational structure. I know I am being concise here, but I have studied this topic in detail and if I begin articulating the liberation of each community in India (because the reality is the material conditions of say the urban Dalit and the tribals from Bhar are very different and validate a whole understanding and lengthy essay of their own.)
8) The primary contradiction in the region of Palestine and in general the whole of that region and the states that exists there is in between the fundamentally and diametrically opposite interests of the Zionist entity backed by western imperialism as their forward base in the region and the native population of those regions. The primary function the Zionist entity serves is that they halt the march of history in the region, crushing any non-Western aligned power and even western aligned powers if needed, this is to prevent the development of productive forces in the region and expand imperialist control and extraction, this is how they ensure that the dual faced bourgeois (being both nationalist and comprador remains subservient to imperial interests). In halting the march of history they cause great devestation and merciless slaughter.
Particular in Palestine the Zionist entity enforces an apartheid regime and is always in a process of the slow and unmerciful erradication of the Palestinian people (which in periods of the contradiction is enflamed by a confrontation by the Palestinian people standing up leading to a merciless Zionist response) and I must emphasize that the Zionists do this not because they are "Evil" people in the sense that they have "bad morals" (I actually have a text on morality which confronts this exact question) but rather it is in the direct material interests of the imperialists and the Zionists to engage in this genocidal and apartheid tendencies for capital to maintain it's boot over the totality of the region.
As for my views on October 7th, I am not going to be very explicit, my comrades, because things have been heating up in India, but it was a confrontation and uprising against the non-stop erradication of the Palestinian people. My support lies with any force that fights against genocide (I am guessing you can probably infer what that means).
Second set of questions:
1) So I am going to use one of my own philosophical texts which described dialectical materialism in contrast to vulgar and mechanistical materialism, this in my view is the best way to approach a definition of dialectical materialism, in contrast to what came before dialectical materialism and thus understanding the dialectical motion of the dialectic itself.
> There is a difference between Marx's materialism, which is dialectical and the materialism which precedes dialectical materialism. One is vulgar and mechanistical, and one is dialectical.
The vulgarity of French materialists particularly and Greek atomists are in essence the same, and basically it was their view that the world was composed of static, unchanging bits of matter moving in a void. Change was seen as external, caused by collision and force, like billiard balls hitting each other. It was essentially a passive and non-historical process. The main contrast that we as dialectical materialists posit is that we see matter as inherently active and driven by internal contradictions.
We see change as developmental and directional, i.e. it's change with a pattern, moving from lower to higher forms of organization through conflict and resolution (think the evolution of theoretical physics example I mentioned before) -> [The entire text I wrote had a section on the evolution of theoretical science and this is what the bracket comment refers to in mentioned before] .
The materialism of the pre-Marxian era was mostly contemplative in nature, it's purpose to understand the static picture of reality it observed at the moment, in isolation from the whole. (something something philosophers have thus far only interpreted history, the point however is to change it, as our boy marx once said)
The materialism of the Marxist on the other hand is active and practical, it see's human agency and activity itself as a material force, we don't just observe and exist in isolation from the world, we exist in tandem, it changes us, and in response we change it, and in it's response to our response it once again changes us.
(This is from my own text)
3) Let me first detail what I have read on Marxist feminism. Anna Louise Strong's journalistic works on the Soviet Union, my favorite one being 'The Soviet World', I have the totality of Kollontai, my philosophical queen whose works form the basis of my views on modern family structures and approach to feminism. I have also read Anuradha Ghandy's work on philosophical trends in the feminist movement.
As for my views on feminism, I would like to demonstrate them through analysis, this is an analysis I wrote of monogamy and polygamy from a communist perspective, combining the works of Engels and Kollontai and what have you.
> "Monogamous relationships as definite societal norms arose alongside the patriarchal family unit and the emergence of the bourgeois nuclear family.
Socialism is neither for monogamy or polyamory, I have seen some assert that polyamory has a progressive character because it challenges the bourgeois institutions of marriage which assert themselves as eternal, while that has some truth to it, it also attempts to disguise the fact polyamorous relationship are often cloaked under the facade of sexual liberation, they often insinuate that such relationships are free from societal factors which perpetuate oppression(not true), you will definitely see it mask the asymmetrical dynamics with the liberal language of "choice", it also reflects petty bourgeois individualism, where oppression can be "escaped" or bypassed.
Under socialist society there will be no coercive structure enforcing monogamy or any form of relationship for that matter. People will be free to enter relationships based on mutual respect and genuine emotional connection and not property or dependence."
> "To expand on the escape and bypass part, liberation in the sphere of relationships can only come about through overcoming the material base for oppression, and not merely rearranging intimacy within the existing bourgeois system. The nature of heterosexual relations within capitalism make them inherently unequal, there is no escaping this reality regardless of one's beliefs (I have often heard communists say that when communists/progressives are in relationships, this fact becomes untrue, this is complete and utter nonsense, as if societal oppression exists because of individual choice rather than a deeply rooted material base, [okay double brackets to clarify I'm not saying that relationships within capitalism itself cannot be improved via protections and rights, that would be nonsense itself, the assertion here is overthrowing patriarchal domination, and no amount of awareness or individual ideology alone can remove a relationship from the dynamics of oppression and domination that patriarchy reproduces]), the same logic goes for polyamorous relationships that they cannot transcend the material conditions which allow for patriarchal oppression to exist in the first place. "
This is also from something I have written before, I think this sufficiently explains my Marxist-Leninist approach to feminism, I could articulate the internal framework itself but I feel like application matters more.
Also I would like to give a special mention to Dimitrov on this on his the fascist offensive and the task of the communist international, his section on integrated wings for women and spaces for them to organize themselves is enlightening.
You know what comes to my mind? If you know Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, the original rebel girl as Joe Hill, called him, a CPUSA og and IWW organizer before the IWW was crushed by the bourgeois apparatus, in one documentary a woman in her 70s told how Gulery Flynn would hold all womens' meetings and how the energized all the working girls in how the agitation was specific to their own issues, this is a fundamental thing we should remember, dying the direct and immediate material interests of all peoples' with the qualitativ and long terms interests of humanity.
4) Okay this relates back to the text I wrote about polygamy and monogamy, essentially, yes the destruction and annihilation of the bourgeois nuclear family (which is not an eternal thing standing outside human society but a historically condtioned unit of capitalism which serves the material interests of capital an captialist societal organization). The resolution of this doesn't come from us declaring the family is over, or as idiotic anti-communists might assert "The commies are breaking up families", nay, it happens through the very process of socialist transformation and construction, because the family is historically conditioned, the communist seeks to free it from the shackles of property relations and rigid gender rules, it does so by collectivizing the means of production and by doing so transforming the material base from which the family stems and thus transforming the family itself.
The abolition of the nuclear family is not a separate goal but is dialectically linked to the entire communist project. You cannot have the emancipation of women without abolishing the family structure that institutionalizes their oppression. You cannot have the liberation of queer people without abolishing the institution of compulsory heterosexuality. You cannot have a truly united proletariat without dismantling the atomized, privatized units that prevent class-wide solidarity.
5) Okay, this is one hell of a question, let me first assess the conditions of the gazzilion different communist parties here.
CPI-Marxist -> Essentially capitulated to the waves of reaction that came after the recent terrorist attacks on civilians, endorsing the bourgeois state in conducting operations. Although they have back tracked since, I know people CPI-M and CITU (Center of Indian trade unions - the union of the CPI-M) and essentially the cadre was agitated at this capitulation to chauvinistic trends, reformist tendencies dominate the party as of now, and must be corrected eventually, but for now it does not prepare for qualitative rupture only quantitative advancements. The party must be rectified from within essentially.
CPI-Maoist -> Oh well what can I say about our dear cat friends, of course theoretical disagreements on quite a few matters, but they exist because of the sheer oppression the Indian state enforces upon tribal peoples', the problem is that the CPI-Cat is isolated from the masses, in that it is unable to organize the urban revolutionary masses and thus the struggle they wage is utterly futile in advancing the revolution because it relegates the masses to the background of their own struggle. Here is what I have to say, if they were ever successfully organize the masses and build the vanguard of the proletariat capable of overthrowing the bourgeois state apparatus, and not just defend tribal peoples' (which is of course a task of great importance) and fight against state forces, I will literally fall in line with them despite the theoretical disagreements, but will they fall in line if the Marxist-Leninist parties organize the masses? I think not, and that is the fundamental difference between us Marxist-Leninists and our cat friends. We seek to advance the cause, and they seek to play games.
CPI-ML-L -> Great work in Bihar and fighting against Karni Sena and other casteist forces, defending people, and have been successful in organizing sections of the rural peasantry there, I am interested in seeing how they develop, have a few disagreements with them but I remain optimistic.
CPI -> A shell of what they used to be, only play ideological and "comrade" (a brotherhood movement more than the vanguard of the proletariat, think back to the "All workers are brothers"-esque movements before Marxism, came to be, CPI-M is also affected by this) politics, the only relevance they hold is Tamil Nadu and communist regions in the South, and student politics.
SUCI-C -> Supreme Leader Shibdas Ghosh's personality cult, he had valid critiques of CPI and CPI-M back in the day but the party that exists today is basically a personality cult, and also very sexist and homophobic.
There are obviously more, but I am not going through all, these were obviously concise and not a nuanced and detailed analysis of each party.
Now the pressing issues for communists:
I introduce you to my beautiful 3 R's -> Rectification, Rejuvenation and Rupture
These are not seperate linear stages but rather inter-connected and happen simultaneously, the rupture here refers to both the prepration for revolution and the revolution itself which comes from the completion of these 3 R's.
1) Rectification -> This is the most immediate concern of the communist party. Currently I don't see CPM actually having to rectify itself, as in a material necessity forcing CPM to reform, because if you think about it, their tenure in Kerala plus electoralism already satisfies careerists which dominate the party, so why should they go against their material interests? This must be recitified, and the rectification is directly in tandem with the rejuvenation.
The answer to how is through tying the direct and immediate material interests of the revolutionary massess to success of the communist party.
I developed a concept called the primacy of material interests a while ago, let me paste it here
> "So I have been working to develop this concept I call "The primacy of material alignment" and basically I posit that the masses evaluate and accept leadership, ideology, and even cultural defiance primarily through the lens of whether it aligns with and advances their material interests, not based on abstract identity, religious sentiment, or ideological conformity. Cultural affronts, heresies, or symbolic ruptures are rendered secondary or even irrelevant in the face of material upliftment, empowerment, and historical progress. The subjective beliefs of the masses, whether religious, cultural, or national - are historically conditioned and malleable. Revolutionary legitimacy in their eyes is ultimately grounded in whether the revolutionary force delivers, defends, and deepens their material gains and social power. My main point with this is The appeasers within the party demand tolerance in abstract terms (e.g. “don’t offend religion”, "don't hurt nationalistic sentiments during pahalgam" etc.), the primacy of material alignment recognizes that the masses will tolerate offense if the class forces behind that offense liberate them. That is why revolutionary anti-religion is qualitatively different from bourgeois mockery, the former serves emancipation, the latter serves alienation."
What ultimately must be done is not just promise the socialist tomorrow, but the basis for the construction of tomorrow, today. This must remain a central understanding.
Rejuvenation: Okay so just a note, I am going to write on this concept of the highest form of self-interest in great detail in a text but the basic formulation is this. The most selfish person becomes the most selfless by pursuing the highest form of self-interest, class interest. Collective liberation becomes a material pursuit through revolutionary consciousness declaring that the highest form of individuality and self-expression can only be possible through the abolishment of why the struggle is. The most selfish person becomes the most selfless by pursuing the highest form of self-interest. The individual that discovers itself only through the totality, the particular that realizes itself through the universal (Yes, if you're wondering, this is Hegel). This makes it so that the nonsense "become selfless" narratives are crushed and the true material interests of every individual being class inerests is understood. Work must be done among the dehadi laborers (daily wage earners), the slum dwellers and the most alienated sections of society, we must first build a core base of supporters whose social powers are directly tied to the strength of the communist party within bourgeois society, this allows us an operating base so we are never seperated from the masses.
Rupture: The prepration for rupture and revolution is not distant state, it goes with the work among the masses, we must prepare for revolution as we prepare to utilize the facade of bourgeois democracy, simultaneously, in being revolutionary we agitate the masses towards rebellion and revolution, we seek to carry out the contradiction to it's conclusion and not halt it. As Stalin said, so as to not err in policy one must be a revolutionary and not a reformist.
6) Excellent question, the main difference between Marxism and other anti-capitalist movements lies in its scientific, materialist basis and its strategy for achieving liberation. Other movements often analyze capitalism through a moral or idealist lens, Marxism analyzes it through the lens of historical and dialectical materialism. "To make a science of socialism, it first had to placed on a real basis", this is what fundamentally distinguishes us from socialist utopianism as Engels asserted, in that we do not seek to build a material edifice with immaterial bricks (I have written on this in depth when critiquing Tolstoy's idealist voluntarism and moral inner self-transformation as basis for societal transformation, as he articluated in the Kingdom of God is within you). I actually have a great critique of this that I have written, I'll send the file if you all want to see it.
Optional questions
1) Yes, make me the chief interrogator in charge... no jk of course. I would think that active user to user disucssions and assessment would prove better but I realize the logistics of that may be difficult. I would suggest specific questions, for example ask an Indian communist his views on the Kashmir question or about Muslims in India or Bangladeshi muslim refugees in India, that makes the chauvinism come out from the traitors within the movement.
2) I don't, sorry.
Please prolewiki Gods accept this, I want my articles out there, I am tired of writing and writing so much for basically 4-5 people, and I want the work to serve a material utility, rather than just being there, without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary movement and without a revolutionary movement all theory is mere intellectual masturbation. Thanks!