FIRST QUESTIONS
1. I was reading a reddit post on the r/deprogram subreddit and stumbled upon the term "AES", which much to my regret, I did not know what it meant. I then searched for the term online and was delighted to find prole wiki. Earlier, I had to swim through the weeds and propaganda of wikipedia trying to decipher the current political alignment and tendencies of Nicaragua, so I am very happy there is a socialist alternative and much delighted by the idea of actually doing something for socialism by hopefully contributing.
2. Raising my head just a bit from my monitor and seeing the picture of Lenin given to me by a friend with similar thoughts and visions about the World, I can confidently and proudly say I am a Marxist-Leninist. My path to this political alignment started when I was a full supporter of capitalism and actually believed our World was constantly getting better and would do so indefinitely. Then, the aforementioned friend of mine who started to become radicalized, engaged with me in our occasional, "more intellectual" discussions about his newer views. I was very skeptical at first but surely enough, I engaged back with open mindedness and also trying my own counter arguments. The more I listened to him, the flimsier my arguments seemed, and at the same time I was forcefully trying to convince myself they were as valid as possible. My friend pointed out my internal conflict and told me I should be more accepting of his approach as I may have been simply scared to accept it. I know now that was true, and realize, as a Romanian citizen, not only the enhanced anti-communist propaganda that surrounds us, but also it being more effective in the context and succession of one of the lesser successful socialist projects of the Eastern Bloc that ended with the nationalist policies of austerity which negatively impacted our population to repay the national debt. These measures were, in my view, wrong and nationalistic in nature, and did not take the socialist ideals of the Romanian state into priority and the well being of its citizens. Nonetheless, this event was unfortunately the latest memory our collective has of the Socialist Romania and together with the other factors mentioned, have concluded into an artificially-induced and retroactively determined collective trauma of which me and so many others are victims of today. Going back to the discussions with my friend, I am proud to have been a calm interlocutor of him, as others were less peaceful, for example this person, he told me, has punched his table and wrongly denounced him as supporting genocide (this person, btw, I'm glad to announce that he's now a socialist as well). However, "peaceful" might not be the right word for my attitude towards my friend, but rather just open to a calm discussion, as I was actually downright suffering from the ideological conflict inside me, feeling often exhausted, finding myself trying different methods to cope with my feelings and even going through states of depression. My Socialist friend has now been talking about Mark Fisher, so I decided to read Capitalist Realism. Meanwhile, Elon Musk has bought twitter and redesigned the blue checkmark policy, now everybody could impersonate everything and everyone else for just a few bucks. It was then when I stumbled upon the viral Eli Lilly tweet that announced "insulin is now free" and I was amazed by the quality and message of this activist joke. Not long after, I found a video from More Perfect Union presented by the very person who made the Eli Lilly insulin free tweet and the thought process, conflicts, abuses and exploitation behind it. It was at this moment, with the grave and destructive effects of the capitalist system laid bare to my eyes, noticing people trying to expose the lies and exploitation, adopting a lens through Mark Fisher's work to see through the ideology and propaganda in which we are stuck, that I found calling myself a Socialist. I began to engage with more Socialist content, like Second Thought, Hakim, Yugopnik and their deprogram podcast; Our Changing Climate youtube channel; videos and podcasts of Richard Wolff; Hegelian and Marxist philosophy; Zizek's analysis on ideology and the psychoanalytical mechanisms in said ideology and consumerism. I have to mention here that I am aware of the current critiques of Zizek's latest articles and I do not condone their message. At the same time, I'm still hoping he's taking on a complex approach that seems reactionary but has a different effect, just like he did in this one interview at his house where the interviewer was surprised to see a picture of Stalin on his hallway wall, upon which Zizek stated "This is to scare people entering the house", which I believe to have been a complete joke that omitted his support for the USSR leader and created a lighthearted and positive association with Stalin as a result of the humor involved. To continue about my political path, I then picked up on reading Slavoj Zizek: A Critical Introduction by Ian Parker and learning important insights into Hegel, Marx and Zizek's or Parker’s interpretations of them; the advancement of history; the material and class contradictions that shaped said history; the retrospective determination of history, tradition and "human nature" discourse; the use of this discourse for advancing whatever the ruling class willed, for example in the philosophy of Heidegger and how it aligned with Hitler and Nazi propaganda; the importance of revolution and its presence in our thoughts, and ideologies that can support such thoughts. Anyway, this has become quite long and I'm going to try and make it short for the rest of it - I started to financially support Socialist projects and engaged more and more with Socialist content and built a hefty reading list on Marxist thought, which I will get to it 'sometime' as I am an avid and notorious slow reader, although with the benefit of excellent comprehension. I continued the discussions with my friend, but now on shared Marxist-Leninist ideas and ideals, and just the past days started taking notes and studying Socialism more in depth.
3. I have read your principles and I fully agree with them.
4. I understand that gender and biological sex are different. I agree with Simone de Beauvoir (I believe it was her), who theorized, in the frameworks of existentialism and marxist materialism, that our existence precedes the essence of gender, which can only emerge after the fact of existence itself in the limits and determinations of our material and social realities. Yes, Marxists should support LGBT, and the rights of the people for freedom of expression (in the limits of not encouraging humanitarian abuses). While there are points of view that see LGBT as taking attention away from class consciousness, I believe the opposite to be true as a supporter of LGBT that puts effort into understanding its foundational philosophies will inevitably also embrace Marxist thought. Rather, the problem is not in the LGBT community, but around it and more precisely in the capitalist structure where companies profess support for the LGBT, in the hopes of seeming socially active and 'good', while turning a blind eye on breeding grounds for reactionary ideas and not engaging in practical support, clear procedures for proliferating LGBT sentiment, or punishing anti-LGBT thought. As Mark Fisher famously adapted Marx's quote, "Everything solid melts into PR".
5. I hold positive views of Stalin, while unfortunately I haven't made much research into Mao. So far, I know Mao was a central and most important figure in the collectivization of China, with great benefits and life satisfaction improvements for its people. I also stumbled upon an advancement of his on materialist dialectics and a very important analysis, it seems to me, on contradictions, their internal and external structuring, and development. Regarding Stalin, he was definitely one of the greatest figures in the historical development, fight and defense of Socialism. Under his leadership, the USSR reached previously unfathomable feats, levels of industrialization, people well being and military prowess. For example, at the beginning of the 1920s, the USSR was exporting around a quarter of a million tons of grain, while in the 30s, under Stalin, they had reached around 5 million tons of the same exports. But it was still not enough, as Stalin mentioned in 1931: "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall go under." 10 years later, the USSR would be invaded by the Nazis marching on the backs of a huge military (funded by heavy privatized industry) and would successfully fend them off as a result of the USSR's and Stalin's dedication. Moreover, the USSR did not sprout in the ending conditions of wealth amassing capitalism (as Marx envisioned) and inheriting said wealth, rather, the USSR had inherited the backward and undeveloped conditions of tsarist Russia. Stalin’s leadership lead to the most impressive feat of leveling the USSR's wealth with the rest of the World and assuring the security of its people, free and admirable universal education and health services and an impressive proliferation of culture, science and technological advancements. There's surely so much more to talk about his impressive role for the betterment of Socialism. There are, of course, critiques as well - after the Nazi invasion, Stalin has indiscriminately deported the Tatars as a great amount of them, whether willingly or unwillingly, have allied with the Nazis. The deportation itself was a good solution, but the indiscriminate deportation of the entire ethnicity, including people that have allied with the Nazis and people that didn't, was not a good approach. Moreover, another critique of Stalin would be the meddling in other socialist nations' regarding their own initiatives to advance their Socialist projects, like the Tito assassination attempts, the meddling in the Prague Spring and the prepared assassination plans had Mao not agreed on the collaboration between them. While I'm sure some of Stalin's interferings can be debated more, it's no secret these actions have gravely eroded diplomatic relations with direct Socialist allies and some where downright wrong. Stalin was aware of and sharing Lenin's vision of sustaining any single event that could bring about and sustain Socialism's movement. For example, in the USSR famine of 1932-33, Stalin feared the natural occurring famine might be viewed as a failure of collectivization by external forces and he was so much more inclined to help the affected areas. However, I do think he strayed from these ideals in some of the relations he held with other Socialist states. In the end, Stalin might have been the most pressured person I can personally imagine, all the meanwhile fighting for his dear Socialist ideals and facing only conflicts, which I imagine could only exacerbate his stress. Even with some shortcomings, his leadership lead to so many more and impressive feats.
6. Cuba - I hold the utmost admiration for this bastion of contemporary Socialism. A measly island, just off the coast of the biggest tyrant of recent history to lay its chimeric destruction upon the World. Cuba has fought against the US parasitic hold of its lands and won by their Marxist-Leninist Revolution and still going strong today; Fidel Castro survived probably the most assassination attempts in history; even as a highly sanctioned economy by their very neighbor and World hegemon; free education and healthcare; a truly inspiring democratic system with impressive progressive policies; and a model COVID response with their own vaccine. Surely, and expectedly so, they're still facing economical issues and decided to open the privatization gates by allowing a certain, highly-regulated form of privatization. I truly hope this risk doesn’t bring their demise and that it works for them. China - I believe China is Socialist. With Mao’s leadership, China was elevated with heavy collectivization above a backward landscape. After Mao, more liberal and right-wing policies made their way into China’s political body and negatively impacted the population, mainly in its huge rural sector. At the same time, these policies, together with a bigger focus on markets and a growth model akin to capitalist and liberal ways, did manage to bring much needed economical development. However, they did prove to do so at the expense of population satisfaction and living quality standards in the beginning and at the expense of democratic power for the rural people. I believe this to have been unnecessary and strayed from Socialist ideals, where a more Socialist approach would have worked out much better. We can see this potentiality in the former collectivization reforms which were working and not needed to be reformed once again, or rather not with liberal policies. Moreover, these liberal policies were pushed on false pretenses and invalid critiques of the collectivization, which actually worked very well for the USSR in similar undeveloped conditions, although certainly in a different context as a whole. On the other hand, a further debate could be made on the function of these liberal policies relative to external relations, freeing China from a vital amount of US and Imperialist attention and practicing a new form of early-stage Socialism, although with big risks of succumbing to US interests. Today, China holds no private land, has made the biggest advancements in eradicating poverty among World nations and seems to get back on track and away from liberal policies to further advance on the path of Socialism. From this perspective, I think China is Socialist. Vietnam - I don't know much about them, but they seem very similar to China and I expect them to be Socialist. DPRK - Definitely Socialist, a planned economy and willingly isolated from any capitalist influence. Once again, I need to do more research into them as well. It seems to me at this point they are maybe the most targeted by imperialist propaganda. Regarding their isolating tendencies, I applaud them for not wanting to do anything with most outside influences and risk to stumble upon a predatory US to manipulate and denature any of the DPRK's moves. Even more so after the US has massacred its people and are constantly trying to provoke them. Laos - I don't know enough to comment on them, sorry.
SECONDARY QUESTIONS
1. Dialectical materialism is an advancement of Hegelian dialectics which is, in very descriptive manner, an idealist philosophy as opposed to Marx's materialist one. Hegel also described the advancement of History which was also influential to Marx's historical materialism. Hegel saw Humanity as an ever evolving structure by way of its prevailing thoughts and ideas for each stage of History. At the heart and motion of this idealist evolution was the dialectical core of viewing any thought, idea, movement or paradigm as structurally defined by both its manifest body and its inherent contradictions. In this perspective, any idea would be defined by a structural conflict of its statement and negation at the same time. Marx famously advanced Hegel's ideas by first applying a materialist view to its idealist foundations and stating that ideas are not the focus of reality, but rather they emerge from the material conditions of reality. Moving forward, Marx adapted Hegelian dialectics to this materialist perspective and stated that all of human society and its mechanisms emerge as a direct consequence of the materialist contradictions in which our society exists. The most famous application of his theory, together with historical materialism, was on describing the entirety of History as class struggle between exploiter and exploited and culminating in the contradiction between the capitalist bourgeoisie and the working proletariat. Marx's theory develops into the hope of Communism, a state-less, money-less and more importantly for the current point, class-less society. This way, Socialism emerges as a transition phase between capitalism and Communism. First of all, the contradictions of capitalist society lead to a deep rupture which explodes into violent Revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat, this being Socialism itself. In such a dictatorship, the principal aspect of the capitalist-worker contradiction shifts from the capitalist to the worker and thus the proletariat becomes the ruling class. This leads to a continued conflict which has to be fought and to incorporate the bourgeoisie into the worker class or completely suppress it by the power of the ruling proletariat and majority. After the successful dissolution and transcending of the exploiter-exploited dialectic, society would be free to advance to a class-less society.
2. I first want to contribute to the Romania page and then find interesting subjects, research them and contribute to their pages or create new ones. My profession is in software development, so I would be very happy to also work on any technical issues and coding. I also noticed the essays section of prole wiki and would like to participate with my own writings and creative works.
6. The most pressing matter for communists in Romania is the revival of right wing extremism. They are campaigning on a foundation of nationalism, monopoly of populist alternative and anti-LGBT sentiment. Moreover, they ride the wave of a powerful anti-communist sentiment in the country and also a wave of pro-legionaries sentiment (also known as the Iron Guard, they were the fascist and nationalistic movement of Romania that supported fascist leader Ion Antonescu). The current right wing extremists of Romania have risen in popularity with extreme speed and are now occupying a good amount of seats in the Romanian parliament. Unfortunately, they are raising in popularity even today and the possibility of them winning the elections and more power in Romania is a grave danger.
7. I think the main difference between other anti-capitalist movements and Marxism is the nature and historical value of Marxist methodologies. These have been tried before and are still being practiced today with great successes (both then and now). Marxist practices hold sound and clear plans for economical development, stability, sustainability, and the betterment of the people. Moreover, its foundations are philosophically sound and have the great benefit of a scientific approach to history.
8. The enactment of Israel is a humanitarian disaster starting from its political roots in Zionism - a paradigm that bastardizes Jewish history and Judaism to argue for the ‘natural’, ‘God-given’ right of the Jews to own the region of Palestine. A grave case of retrospective determination that has once again been politicized with a rhetoric that transfigures history and reality, and which lead to human abuses and massacres. In reality, the Palestinian and Jewish people share a common ancestry. Even if we were to follow the Zionist thought, the Palestinians have just as much right to be there as the Jews. Moreover, I believe the Jews could have still opted a return to the lands of Palestine, but only through peaceful ways akin to the same nomadic movements that brought them to Europe and other regions. Unfortunately, they returned with dangerous propaganda, war and the fitting backing of a colonialist Europe. To this day, they are still being backed by the same forces and the imperialist US. Moreover, the humanitarian disasters of their legacy are still continuing.