More languages
More actions
"The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defense of bourgeois oppression."
- Vladimir Lenin
Hi! My name is KnifeOrSomething also known as Chiara. I'm a transfem Marxist-Leninist living in the state of Washington in the United States. You can find me on my new Twitter at ChiaraMarxism or talk to me on Discord at knife0294.
Answers to questions
1. Where did you find ProleWiki from? How familiar are you with it? Comment what made you want to join ProleWiki and what areas you are interested in contributing to.
I found ProleWiki through Google searches over time and think it's an amazing project. I've been using it as a reference somewhat regularly. What made me want to move from reader to contributor is wanting to help build a proletarian encyclopedia that pushes back against the bourgeois, liberal framing dominant on platforms like Wikipedia. The areas I'm most interested in contributing to are the history and current state of socialist states, general theory, and info on communist leaders and thinkers.
2. What current of Marxist thought do you uphold? Describe as thoroughly as needed your path towards your current political perspective.
I uphold Marxism-Leninism, which is the ideology systematized by Stalin that codifies Lenin's contributions as a development beyond classical Marxism. Lenin's additions, such as the vanguard party, the theory of imperialism as capitalism's highest stage, and the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessary transitional state, constitute something clearly much more than just Marxism as laid out by Marx and Engels. Stalin systematized these into a unified ideology and applied them in the construction of actually existing socialism in the USSR. I see ML as a living ideology, developed and refined further by subsequent leaders and thinkers in the context of their own socialist construction projects, such as Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Castro. This is why I reject dogmatic or frozen interpretations of ML.
3. Have you read our principles? Comment your agreements or objections to their points.
Yes, I have read the principles and find myself in agreement with them. The core political line of Marxism-Leninism and the upholding of the existing socialist states align with my own views. I agree that China, Cuba, Vietnam, the DPRK, and Laos are dictatorships of the proletariat and deserve our unconditional support. The anti-imperialist section on critically supporting bourgeois states like Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and Palestine is something I also agree with. The anti-oppression section is again something I absolutely agree with. The listing of Zionism alongside fascism and Nazism as reactionary movements is also correct and something I strongly agree with. Overall, I have no objections to the principles as written.
4. Should Marxists in your country support transgender people, if so then how? Explain gender identity and sexual orientation using dialectical materialism.
Yes, absolutely. As a trans person myself, I have an obvious personal stake in this, but beyond that, gender as a rigid binary institution is a social relation that serves the interests of capital. The nuclear family, of which strict gender roles are a cornerstone, was historically constructed and reinforced under capitalism to reproduce labor power at no cost to capital, to concentrate property inheritance, and to discipline sexuality and identity in ways that serve bourgeois order. Gender oppression, including the oppression of trans people, is therefore a tool of the capitalist state and must be opposed on that basis. Dialectical materialism tells us to examine social phenomena as they actually exist, in their historical development and contradictions. Sexual orientation and gender identity, when examined this way, show a ton of diversity across human history and across cultures. Opposition to trans people serves reactionary forces, it divides the working class, strengthens the ideological grip of conservative institutions, and has historically been weaponized by fascists and the right. Marxist-Leninists should therefore actively support trans liberation as part of the broader struggle against capitalist oppression.
5. What is your position on Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong? How would you describe their historical role? Share any comments or critiques you have regarding them.
I hold a strongly positive view of both and consider them among the best communist leaders in history. Stalin led the USSR through industrialization at a pace that no capitalist state had ever achieved, transforming a semi-feudal country into an industrial superpower capable of defeating Nazi Germany, the single most important military victory against fascism in history. He oversaw the systematization of Marxism-Leninism and the construction of a functioning socialist state under conditions of constant imperialist encirclement. Western and Trotskyist critiques of Stalin are largely rooted in bourgeois historiography, Cold War propaganda, or Khrushchev's politically motivated Secret Speech, and should be treated with serious skepticism. This doesn't mean uncritical worship of course, some mistakes were made, but these must be analyzed in their historical context, such as Stalin's social conservatism. Mao led the Chinese revolution to victory in 1949, liberating one of the most populous nations on earth from feudalism, colonialism, and warlordism. The achievements of the Maoist period, such as land reform, mass literacy, dramatic improvements in life expectancy, and the development of Chinese industrial capacity, were absolutely impressive.
6. What are your thoughts on China, Vietnam, Cuba, DPRK and Laos? Do you believe any of these countries is socialist? Why or why not?
I consider all five to be socialist states. I hold Cuba and the DPRK in the highest opinion personally. Cuba has maintained socialism under brutal US blockade for over six decades, with remarkable achievements in healthcare, education, and internationalism. The DPRK is frequently the target of the most intense imperialist propaganda, which is absolutely ridiculous, and I support the concept of Juche as Marxism-Leninism applied to Korea. China, Vietnam, and Laos all operate under the leadership of Marxist-Leninist parties, and they are in a primary stage of socialism, in which market mechanisms are used as tools toward socialist ends. I think that they are practicing State Capitalism as Lenin lined out, however they seem to have abandoned internationalism on ideological grounds, but overall, I think they are Marxist-Leninist, and I absolutely support them.
7. What is settler-colonialism, are there any countries that still fit that description and what should be done regarding them? Further, what is to be done about the decolonization and liberation of indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, and immigrant groups in your country?
Settler-colonialism is a form of colonialism in which the colonizing power does not just extract resources, but instead, permanently displaces the indigenous population and replaces them with a settler population that claims the land as its own. Unlike extractive colonialism, settler-colonialism aims at the complete elimination of the native population both culturally and physically. States that still fit this description include Israel, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, among others. In all of these cases, the original dispossession has never been resolved, rather it has been institutionalized. I think we need to do, at minimum, full recognition of indigenous sovereignty, land back, reparations, and the dismantling of structures that perpetuate colonial domination. In the United States for example, this means taking seriously the national question for indigenous nations, Black Americans (whose oppression is rooted in slavery and internal colonialism), and other colonized peoples within the imperial core. Marxist-Leninists must uphold the right of all oppressed nations to self-determination, including the right to complete separation, while working in solidarity with those struggles. The liberation of immigrants and undocumented workers is also inseparable from this, since imperialism creates the conditions that force migration, and the state's use of immigration enforcement is a tool of labor discipline and national oppression.
8. What is your analysis of the situation in Palestine? What do you think of the 2023 October 7 events and the groups involved from both sides of the conflict?
Palestine is an obvious victim of settler-colonialism, backed and sustained by US imperialism. Israel functions as a bridgehead for American imperial interests in the Middle East, since it is a heavily armed, strategically located client state whose existence depends on continued US military, financial, and diplomatic support. The Zionist project has, from its inception, been a project of displacement and elimination of the Palestinian people, and what we are witnessing today is the continuation of that project. October 7, 2023, must be understood in its proper context, it is a justified military action by an occupied people against an occupying power. The right of an occupied people to resist their occupation by any means necessary should be recognized by any serious Marxist. Hamas is a bourgeois nationalist organization, and Marxists have no obligation to endorse their ideology. However, Hamas is the leading force of armed resistance against a genocidal settler-colonial state, and on that basis deserves solidarity in the same way that Marxists have historically united with non-communist national liberation movements against imperialism. Israel's response, such as the mass killing of civilians, the deliberate destruction of hospitals, food supplies, and civilian infrastructure, constitutes genocide under any serious definition, and must be condemned unconditionally.
1. What is Imperialism and how do institutions and programs like the IMF, Belt and Road Initiative, and the World Bank relate to it?
Imperialism, as Lenin analyzed it, is the highest stage of capitalism, characterized by the dominance of finance capital, the export of capital rather than just commodities, the division of the world among capitalist monopolies, and the territorial division of the world among the great powers. The IMF and World Bank are core instruments of Western imperialism. They function by offering loans to developing nations under conditions that force the privatization of public assets, the opening of markets to foreign capital, and the cutting of social spending, thus subordinating the economies of the Global South to the interests of Western finance capital. The Belt and Road Initiative is a fundamentally different kind of project. It does not demand privatization or market liberalization as a price of participation. It's an alternative to Western-dominated development financing and on that basis should be viewed positively by anti-imperialists.
2. What do you believe to be the main difference between Marxism and other anti-capitalist movements?
The main difference is the question of the state and class power. Anarchists, for example, share a critique of capitalism but reject the necessity of a transitional state and a vanguard party, which are essential tools for defeating the bourgeoisie and building socialism. Without seizing and wielding state power, there is no mechanism to suppress the inevitable counterrevolution, and history has shown repeatedly what happens when the left fails to understand this. Social democracy is an even clearer case, since it accepts the capitalist state as a neutral instrument that can be gradually reformed in the interests of workers, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the state is. The state is not neutral, rather, it is the organized power of one class over another. Marxism is also distinguished by its scientific and materialist method. We do not oppose capitalism on moral grounds alone but analyze it as a specific historical mode of production with specific contradictions that will produce specific outcomes.
3. Do you think abolishing the nuclear family should be a goal of the communist movement? If so, how would it be abolished?
The nuclear family as it exists under capitalism is not a natural institution, thus it should absolutely be a goal of any communist party to destroy it. It was historically constructed to serve capitalist ends, by reproducing labor power at no cost to capital, concentrating property inheritance, and disciplining sexuality and social life in ways that benefit the bourgeois order. Thus, I believe the dissolving of the nuclear family will come naturally with the dissolving of capitalism. When the state provides universal childcare, housing, healthcare, and social support, the economic compulsion that holds the nuclear family together as a unit of survival will dissolve. The transformation of family life will follow from the transformation of the material base.
4. What are your thoughts on national liberation or the concept of land back?
Lenin was clear that the right of nations to self-determination, up to and including complete separation, must be upheld by communists. Land back follows directly from this. The dispossession of indigenous peoples is a foundational act of settler-colonialism, thus one that must be corrected. Marxist-Leninists must stand in solidarity with all national liberation movements while working towards the ultimate goal of a world without national oppression, which can only be achieved through socialism.
5. What is the most pressing issue for communists in your country? What is your opinion of communist parties there?
The most pressing issue for communists in the United States is the liberal and anticommunist dominance of the left. Organizations like the DSA have captured a significant portion of the people who consider themselves socialist, but they operate entirely within the framework of the Democratic Party and bourgeois electoral politics, actively channeling radical energy into dead ends. The result is a left that is largely ineffective at the level of actual organization and mass work. The communist parties that do exist in the US are small and marginal. The CPUSA has long since abandoned any serious revolutionary line. There are smaller ML organizations doing more principled work, but none have yet achieved the kind of mass presence or rootedness in the working class that would make them a serious force. The task is to build that presence and combat the liberal ideological dominance that keeps so much of the potential left trapped within the boundaries of what the bourgeoisie finds acceptable.