This is a topic I really think about

CHAZ/CHOP

And why is revolution outrageous? The reason I'm not treating support of worker revolution as a basic non statement is because you clearly do not support it. The only legitimate protesters in your eyes are the "law abiding ones", a position as conservative in China as it is in any other country. You are laser focused on counter revolutionary protesters yet completely unconcerned with the counter revolutionaries who've been running the country for the past ~40 years. No, they are "great benefit to the possibility of Communism" according to you.

Interesting you think China today is comparable to the USSR, but yes if the workers of the USSR revolted against the USSR I would've voiced my support. If workers are revolting against your workers state you should start questioning what kind of state it actually is.

Are marxists not ruthless criticizers of all that exists? Do you want me to rave about produtivity growth in the Chinese poultry industry instead? I am not unaware any of the developments in China, but Zero Covid is the issue at hand. Sure modern China has better infrastructure, less absolute poverty, more advanced industry, more jobs, etc etc. This can also be said of East Asia and the West during the cold war. Koreans under Park Chung Hee also experienced a net improvement in their living conditions after all. We can all acknowledge the positive effects of Capitalism. But I'm more guided by "Capital: A Critique of Political Economy" than "The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communis4 Manifesto". More Marxist theory than Development Theory. So I can see China's system today is better than it was 100 years ago, yet worse than 40 years ago. Why? There is more inequality, weaker employment protection, worse working conditions, less social benefits, less political power for workers etc. Deng literally did enclosure to the peasantry. They have been, are currently, and will continue to protect CAPITALISM. You yourself admit the Chinese state is capitalist, overseeing a capitalist country. Yet what is your conclusion? "China under the CPC as things are now are a great benefit to the possibility of communism." my god.

You were calling me an idealist now you're emphasizing the importance of Chinese leaders being "influenced by socialism". And what have they done with these ideas? Built monuments to Mao? It will be a reassuring sight to those evicted by real estate developers. Shanghai's homeless gig workers can sleep easy knowing Xi is teaching Marxist-Leninism in school. It would be idealist, reactionary, bourgeois trotskyism to react in any other way.

The Communist Party of China since the 1970s been a "great benefit" to capital accumulation. That has been their political project. "As things are now" it isn't a benefit to communism in China or anywhere else for that matter. It is actively an obstacle. Once again, if your response to this is more Liberal Developmentalist rethoric or how Chinese capital accumulation is more progressive than English capital accumulation, then my response is: let us sit inert and watch as Capital builds the forces of production that smoothly progress us into world communism history is on a linear determined path and we can only watch.

A few countries actually did seem to be progressing towards socialism, but they've done a 180, and you're cheering one of them on. Still I agree, we now live in a time where no country is getting close (china included). Understandably enough maybe this is what has made you lose faith in socialism, but I don't think history has ended.

How bleak would it be if "socialist construction" in the 21st century is just China? If that's all we have to look forward to then idc about politics. I'm taking the grill pill or whatever that fatass chapo host said.

thank you for your work

Also reminder China gives guns to the Philippines to kill actual communists waging revolutionary war with

also CPI (marxist) working with Israel and the fascistic Indian state to kill revolutionaries

Uuuuh you think you know better than Indian Communists about Indias internal affairs?

It’s so funny the number of westerners that stan CPI (Marxist) and completely ignore CPI (Maoist) or have no clue about the utterly horrific pig work the (Marxist) had done against the revolutionaries

brain rot as per usual

ktt2.com/nyc-mayor-pushes-to-hospitalize-mentally-ill-people-involuntarily-32538252/6

i read that maoists have killed a s*** ton of CPI (marxist) members in West Bengal, killing members for running in elections and calling them class collaborators

forget where i read it but its easy to find articles about it, not sure about the validity of them but they cant all be propaganda - most are from around 2010 or so

business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/cpi-maoist-cadres-kill-120-cpi-m-workers-in-bengal-this-year-110121400129_1.html - from the home ministry so pretty sus

reuters.com/article/idINIndia-42810320090930

cpim.org/content/killings-cpim-cadres-west-bengal

btw im not a CPI (Marxist) supporter but Maoist violence against regular cadres seems like a valid critique

also do you have a source on them working with Israel? afaik they dont support Israel?

cpim.org/pressbriefs/resolution-palestine

opindia.com/2019/04/cpim-manifesto-the-communists-want-to-cut-ties-with-usa-and-israel-reverse-all-reforms-in-defence-manufacturing

so much s*** to learn bro how yall did it

Read pirated pdfs on company time

i hate reading pdfs on my computer, i wish i could do it on my e reader but its only good for epubs

i got a bunch of those

I do it almost exclusively on my phone. Probably bad for your eyes but idk

Everything Lenin wrote past 1921 can be summed up as "wow! This is f***ing crazy. What the f***. Why is everything so hard. What the f***."

i should stop reading late at night and try to read earlier in the day

Daily reminder to reject authority and embrace libertarianism, long live Anarchy!

A number of Socialists have latterly launched a regular crusade against what they call the principle of authority. It suffices to tell them that this or that act is authoritarian for it to be condemned. This summary mode of procedure is being abused to such an extent that it has become necessary to look into the matter somewhat more closely.
Authority, in the sense in which the word is used here, means: the imposition of the will of another upon ours; on the other hand, authority presupposes subordination. Now, since these two words sound bad, and the relationship which they represent is disagreeable to the subordinated party, the question is to ascertain whether there is any way of dispensing with it, whether — given the conditions of present-day society — we could not create another social system, in which this authority would be given no scope any longer, and would consequently have to disappear.
On examining the economic, industrial and agricultural conditions which form the basis of present-day bourgeois society, we find that they tend more and more to replace isolated action by combined action of individuals. Modern industry, with its big factories and mills, where hundreds of workers supervise complicated machines driven by steam, has superseded the small workshops of the separate producers; the carriages and wagons of the highways have become substituted by railway trains, just as the small schooners and sailing feluccas have been by steam-boats. Even agriculture falls increasingly under the dominion of the machine and of steam, which slowly but relentlessly put in the place of the small proprietors big capitalists, who with the aid of hired workers cultivate vast stretches of land.
Everywhere combined action, the complication of processes dependent upon each other, displaces independent action by individuals. But whoever mentions combined action speaks of organisation; now, is it possible to have organisation without authority?
Supposing a social revolution dethroned the capitalists, who now exercise their authority over the production and circulation of wealth. Supposing, to adopt entirely the point of view of the anti-authoritarians, that the land and the instruments of labour had become the collective property of the workers who use them. Will authority have disappeared, or will it only have changed its form? Let us see.
Let us take by way of example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate! Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind!
If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.
Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?
But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.
When I submitted arguments like these to the most rabid anti-authoritarians, the only answer they were able to give me was the following: Yes, that's true, but there it is not the case of authority which we confer on our delegates, but of a commission entrusted! These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world.
We have thus seen that, on the one hand, a certain authority, no matter how delegated, and, on the other hand, a certain subordination, are things which, independently of all social organisation, are imposed upon us together with the material conditions under which we produce and make products circulate.
We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

yeah after the Nadigram Incident which was deeply unpopular neoliberal economic reform that was pushed by India and CPI(M), that lead to CPI(M) collaborating with the Indian state with the following protests killing 14 protesters, that is class collaboration. After this supported Operation Lalgarh which can’t be described as anything else than white terror after support for the maoist skyrocketed in west bengal cause of the previous events

As well working with Indian state forces killing Maoist in Kerala who are the only people defending Advasi people from a genocidal indian state, again class collaboration.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandigram_violence

m.timesofindia.com/india/cpm-mob-strips-woman-in-nandigram-probe-on/articleshow/3016798.cms

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Lalgarh

Enlisting help from Israel in west bengal
m.rediff.com/amp/news/report/israel-to-help-west-bengal-tackle-maoists/20100412.htm

reddit is this way sir
reddit.com/subreddits

one thing i noticed in the neoliberal era everyone is really just to the right of they believe they are unconsciously

like when i talk to the soc dems at school they just are neoliberals in everything they actually support, like any time workers want to use the leverage they have for even mild soc dem gains they’re against it

and u have CPI(M) pretending to be a marxist party, when they’re just a glorified socdem party pushing neoliberal economic reforms

The most successful Anarchist project:

✅Lasted 9 days
✅Lynched 2 black teenagers

Incredible work out there Anarchists!

critical support towards socialist Kerensky against the ultra leftist adventurist Bolsheviks