More languages
More actions
Hello! My fake name is Johnnycommie because it sounds silly. I'm an Statesian Marxist-Leninist. I take interest in Multipolar/World Systems studies mostly following Samir Amin, Torkil Lausen, and Immanuel Ness. I also have interest in Marxist economics in practice, particularly the dynamics of socialist reform and market economics, as well as the dynamics of family and spiritual life in actually existing socialism (I maintain that socialism as the liberating force of humanity must liberate and not obliterate family and spirituality). Oh and the developments in the Sahel region! I'll be digitizing various books for the wiki!
Admission Answers
Set One:
1. I've been utilizing the ProleWiki website and became interested in contributing. I saw the discord link and figured i'd make an account there first.
2. I don't believe hypersectarianism is useful. I would broadly describe myself as Marxist-Leninist. As someone in the imperial core I appreciate and agree with the anti-imperialist perspective of supporting all AES and understanding the geopolitical environment to determine which countries and movements are on what side of the primary contradiction of imperialism. That being said, I guess I could also be called an ecosocialist though I think that term is redundant as dialectical materialism requires an understanding of ecology; environmental concerns are likely intertwined with the primary contradiction of imperialism. I began as a democrat interested in the Bernie campaign but quickly came to understand that he didn't really care about the global working class. From there it was a long time of learning about different kinds of alternatives. I began seriously considering Marxism-Leninism after I listened to a reading of an interview of Stalin by a western reporter and realized this person could not have been the monster I thought he was. It has been a while since then, I've read dozens of classical and modern texts, I regularly read contemporary journals like Monthly Review and Tricontinental. After a while, you get tired of reading and want to contribute in some way, so with my conditions it led me here.
3. I agree completely, though perhaps the "ProleWiki strives for criticism and self-criticism" section could use more clarification on correctly done criticism.
4. At the most basic level, the working classes, composing the vast majority of humanity, will be as varied as nature allows it. Therefore it makes no sense to reject a section of the working classes for a view of their personhood which does not harm the class struggle. Besides the operative point, if we are to understand dialectical materialism as the correct understanding of the interplay between reality and the human mind, that matter organized over time to achieve consciousness, then we must take the efforts of humans to understand and grapple with this blessing and curse of consciousness to find inner meaning and peace. At the same time, the forms in which people struggle to achieve their best self must be compatible with wider society: "A healthy collective is made of healthy individuals." In the same way that organized, repressive religion transforms under socialism into opportunities for spiritual emancipation and meaning, self-exploration of material sexuality and socially determined gender roles will transform in ways we cannot know for sure. We do know however that the social roles associated with gender will dissipate with socialized childcare and an equalization of household work (to an extent observable in the Soviet Union). To summarize the long answer, Marxists should support the most oppressed classes who have interest in moving away from capitalism, while perspectives on gender and sex must transform during the construction of socialism (Cuba!). As dialectical materialism is the world-view accurately describing the natural world and natural processes, it must understand sex as a taxonomical category whose definition is a human creation.
5. I think of Stalin as a man with a tremendous burden on his shoulders which was fulfilled as well as he and the Soviet state could handle. I usually think of him as a profoundly human person; his family suffering his absence for his dedication to work, and his incredible shock at discovering Bukharin's betrayal. As far as historical role, he was a manifestation of the duties of the Soviet people to endure capitalist/imperialist/fascist encirclement, and provide as much support to others as possible, in all the glories and failures that came with it. As for critiques, the handling of international decision making between socialist countries I wish could have been handled better, but I would not say such a claim without further knowledge. As for Mao, he clearly applied Marxism-Leninism to the Chinese situation and helped clarify/explain better the tenets of Marxism-Leninism. I tend to characterize some of his ventures in the statebuilding period as "ultraleft" though I dislike loaded terms. The geopolitical line of Mao was always uncomfortable and at times outright detestable (Vietnam invasion, support for UNITA and South Africa), but was necessary for the new economic model in gestation, beginning with Mao's rapprochement with the US. I typically view that era of Chinese foreign policy as a move to break the "Cold" War duopoly in which the socialist side was not strong enough technologically nor open enough with allies against the principal contradiction. The current conditions provide evidence for this view.
6. I believe all of these countries are Transitional Socialist States (in the words of Torkhil Lausen). In the sense that these are states led by socialist governments creatively applying Marxism to the current world for the long-term fight, these are socialist states. In the sense which should be relegated to the backburner for actual action in the world, no state can exhibit all "characteristics of socialism" which are in our heads. Instead, what we find is that each socialist country is able to at different times have varying aspects of what they want their advanced stage of socialism to look like. For instance, China continues to apply market mechanisms and varied ownership types, however these function and have effects in the country that would be impossible for a capitalist state to achieve. So technically these countries have not "achieved socialism" and this is also not a reason to disavow them. The first revolution in political power may have climaxed, but the two other revolutions of the social and technical orders may not have.
7. Settler-colonialism is resultant from the need of capitalist countries to resettle, extract, or both, more than is possible in nation-state confines. For instance, the first and longest existing modern colony, Ireland, was taken by Cromwell to give land to British, Welsh, etc. workers which the economic system could not employ. Both extermination and exploitation was used, as some Irish were kicked off land to farm for British estates (exploitation), which lead to mass deaths like the Great Famine caused by the British-imposed monocropping of potatoes (extermination). Included also was expulsion, both from family land and from the country, as irish would leave to the US and become settlers, but often dually oppressed as migrant laborers (even naturalistically despecified as non-white to justify their mistreatment!) The United States, Ireland, Canada, Western Sahara, South Africa, and much of the tricontinent have unfinished business ridding themselves of settler-colonial legacy. A distinction should be drawn between settler-colonies and colonies which do not as a major feature of their function require imports of humans from the mother country. As for the United States, the indigenous must be included wholeheartedly in revolutionary movements so that a new social order will be created with their input. Even non-indigenous minorities in the United States are settlers insofar as they uphold the settler state, and so all of us in the USA must recognize our place on this land in order to free it.
8. Operation Al Aqsa Flood was undertaken by the Palestinian Resistance factions to gain a bargaining chip with the Israelis against the blockade of Gaza and colonization of Palestine more broadly. Occupied Palestine is a settler-colony which has always had as it's final mission the eradication of all Palestinians (save perhaps the continual conflicting interests of desiring cheap subcitizen labor (the contradiction between settler-colony extermination for land and exploitation for capital). It seeks to become what the US has. The heroic Palestinians stand in the halls of history with the indigenous of the current United States of America, yet there is still time to prevent such a fate of them.
Set Two:
1. Dialectical materialism is the world-view that correctly understands and describes the natural world. Applied to human development, it becomes Historical Materialism. But it can be applied to all fields. Engels famously declared that Darwin did for natural sciences what Marx did for human history. It holds that the only constant is change. Change is delivered via cooperation and contradiction, and within everything there is conflict and unity. It is a world-view which science continually proves to be correct.
3. Anuradha Ghandy's Philosophical Trends of the Feminist Movement was one of the first Marxist texts I ever read, and I find it absolutely enlightening as to the errors and requirements of feminism. It stops short of providing a perfect roadmap for a proletarian or socialist feminism unfortunately, but is nevertheless great. I have learned a lot about Kollontai through experts speaking about her work, particularly the Winged Eros text which is fascinating. Just like "ecosocialism" I dont think "feminist socialism" is a particularly good phrase, though I do know why its used (to distinguish between marxisms with different lines). Dialectical Materialism should bring one to an "ecosocialist" view on nature just as it should bring one to a "feminist socialist" view of gender and sex relations.
5. For the United States of America, the most pressing issue for Communists is the principal contradiction of the Imperial Triad domination of which our country is the head of. The Communist parties here are diverse and mostly small, and still to various degrees inculcated with Browder-type Democratic Party collaborationism, social-democratic and imperialist politics, or ultraleftism. There are promising movements which are dedicated to a correct view on capitalism's relationship to imperialism, and how to defeat imperialism, which requires a correct understanding of friends and enemies in the fight against the principal contradiction. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and it's fellow traveler organizations as far as I have seen usually have correct analyses of imperialism. They do from my limited view lack in initiatives to help people at home which may bring support, such as food pantries and gardens, worker organizing, etc. which some of the ultraleft parties approach with vigour.
6. The main difference between Marxism and non-Marxist anticapitalist movements is that Marxism upholds the Dialectical Materialist world-view, which allows one to become cognizant of reality and approach revolutionary change in a strategic and ultimately successful manner. Often non-Marxist anticapitalist movements seem to hold strange principles or positions based on some agreement about some idea. You will see anticapitalist anarchists decry all state power even while such a state is objectively weakening the strength of capitalism on the world-stage (imperialism). In the end, they become the least able to actually attack capitalism though they may maintain their coveted "ideological purity."
7. Capitalist-Imperialism occurs when a national capitalism requires external inputs and outputs. Capitalism has been imperialist for near its entire being. Monopoly Capitalism (imperialism) is enforced via institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. These institutions are in charge of international credit under UN authority, itself a site of struggle which the Imperial Triad holds on to. Aid has been used as bait, as bribes, and as punishments. These institutions do not give loans to socialist and national liberation governments without harsh requirements (structural adjustments) which reconfigure the national economy to the needs of the institution's benefactor. This reveals the importance of the Belt and Road Initiative (as well as the Soviet Union's crediting programs). In an international system where the only creditor, an institution with capital to put to use somewhere, exists and can make whatever demands it wants for the debtor countries fear of ruin, and one where the monopoly that exists is controlled by the imperialist countries, is one in which socialist and anticolonial revolution is made to fail and suffer (Fanon's "you've got your freedom, take it and starve"). The requirements for global south integration and decoupling from the Imperial Triad is made objectively possible by the BRI. With competitive interest rates and ownership policies, Chinese investment and capital exports are a breath of fresh air for the global south. We should remember that the Bolsheviks hoped a revolution in Germany would bring technology transfer of the highest quality to the Soviet Union. China is now able to effectively play this role, and not only for the socialist countries, but for all global south countries in the fight against the principal contradiction of generalized monopoly capitalism.
Optionals:
Perhaps an optional question about economics so the applicants can demonstrate their knowledge would be useful.