The tragedy is that to achieve gains in living conditions for the Cuban people, capitulating to some extent without resigning power might be the right answer. That's what China did.

can u elaborate on how that applies, who’s doing the capitulating? the cuban people?

Nah not the Cuban people necessarily, the government.

What China did was allow for capital investment, but strictly on their terms, that's a great way to develop your country, but you would have to give up your socialist ideals that's what they did I'm sorry Dengists.

just found out tiktok newscaster Marcus Diapola is employed by Xinhua

vm.tiktok.com/ZMdqUeDbx

random question, do you feel like you gain much from reading articles?

negative ones

do you guys think a luxemburgist movement is possible in the USA versus a leninist one?

basically multiple parties that are dedicated to the revolution which consist of politically active citizens versus a vanguard party representing uninterested or uneducated proletariat

yes

Highly recommend Tribune of the People

It's a revolutionary news organization that puts out 5-10 articles each week on current events but from a Maoist perspective.

tribuneofthepeople.news

trash

Not good but that doesn't mean US intervention shouldn't be condemned

Many libs always make the mistake of assuming that when we condemn imperialist aggression against a country that it's an endorsement of their government. It isn't, but many leftists make the mistake of actually supporting these governments when the US commits acts of aggression, gotta be wise about that.

11:45
As per usual Parenti said it best

Although it's not exactly the same thing since he's talking about the USSR, not a bourgeois govy like Assad's, but the thought behind it still applies: opposition from our enemy does not mean that who they oppose has no imperfections.

But then the next question is when is it really useful to talk about these imperfections when these regimes are under attack, a question libs should understand since they couldn't stop telling us to ignore Biden's flaws during the election lol. I feel like honesty is not only the right thing to do, but also necessary to keep your credibility.

In short support the government's resistance to imperialism but don't glorify them in the process.

...Then the socalled Blanquists in London withdrew from the International and formed a group of their own under the title of "The Revolutionary Commune". Outside of them numerous other groups arose later, which continue in a state of ceaseless transformation and modulation and have not put out anything essential in the way of manifestos. But the Blanquists are just making their program known to the world by a proclamation to the "Communeux".

These Blanquists are not called by this name, because they are a group founded by Blanqui. Only a few of the thirty-three signers of this program have ever spoken personally to Blanqui. They rather wish to express the fact that they intend to be active in his spirit and according to his traditions.

Blanqui is essentially a political revolutionist. He is a socialist only through sentiment, through his sympathy with the sufferings of the people, but he has neither a socialist theory nor any definite practical suggestions for social remedies. In his political activity he was mainly a "man of action", believing that a small and well organized minority, who would attempt a political stroke of force at the opportune moment, could carry the mass of the people with them by a few successes at the start and thus make a victorious revolution. Of course, he could organize such a group under Louis Phillippe's reign only as a secret society. Then the thing, which generally happens in the case of conspiracies, naturally took place. His men, tired of beings held off all the time by the empty promises that the outbreak should soon begin, finally lost all patience, became rebellious, and only the alternative remained of either letting the conspiracy fall to pieces or of breaking loose without any apparent provocation. They made a revolution on May 12th, 1839, and were promptly squelched. By the way, this Blanquist conspiracy was the only one, in which the police could never get a foothold. The blow fell out of a clear sky.

From Blanqui's assumption, that any revolution may be made by the outbreak of a small revolutionary minority, follows of itself the necessity of a dictatorship after the success of the venture. This is, of course, a dictatorship, not of the entire revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small minority that has made the revolution, and who are themselves previously organized under the dictatorship of one or several individuals.

can you elaborate on this passage

it seems to necessitate the dictatorship of a vanguard party to be able to socialize down the line because of uninvolved peoples right?

how would that apply to the US? Basically all americans are somewhat politically informed and expected to be informed and if the revolution did occur in our current conditions (plus some class consciousness and solidarity of course) wouldn’t it end in the formation of multiple leftist parties who work democratically against each other in their application of the revolution ?

It's much more a criticism of (or perhaps more accurately, a caution towards) vanguard revolution for its natural flirtation with self-interest and the sensation of "soon".

The vanguards, particularly concerning Blanqui and similar factions above, assume the responsibility of planning and carrying out the revolution themselves, rather than making genuine effort to build confidance and unity among proles.

I'm not sure what to make of your claim about "all americans" being somewhat politcally informed or expected to be — I'd propose it's closer to the opposite of that.

But America is already in the umpteenth era of multiple leftist — a term I'm using here in a very broad and generous way — groups that work against each other while conspiring (or role-playing) their own revolutions.

Btw here's the full text the excerpt above is taken from. If you read it in context then the intent should be much clearer. The whole piece has more than a few reflections of popular American leftist attitudes today, which is a very unfortunate thing to say.

yeah my big issue with vanguardism is its savior complex where you have people assuming power and responsibility over the whole nation

it’s a very precarious position and something i wish theorists could clarify on so that a strong and dedicated revolutionary base can be created

like i myself am dedicated to the revolution, but how many opportunists created by capitalism are willing to follow along knowing they have a chance for power ?

i’ll make sure to read

"but how many opportunists created by capitalism are willing to follow along knowing they have a chance for power ?"

Impossible to count because they seem to multiply and make headlines on a daily basis.

I don't think I'd say that I'm completely against vanguardism. I think it's success to not only create and carry out a meaningful revolution, but continue progress towards socialization afterwards, is very dependent on who assumes the roles of leaders by the concept's very nature. Lenin might have given us the best model of it to-date, though accusations of elitism (et. al above) were, and still are, used as arguments against his movement by prominent leftists.

But I also don't care for the deranged position Chomsky has taken on vanguardism, equating it with terrorism and inherently aggressively elitist, while also loudly preaching about and participating in lesser-evilism over the past 20-odd years when it comes to voting in American elections.

Who knows, at this point maybe a questionable modern day vanguard actually is the best (only?) chance we have left at escaping the two-party capitalist charade

Classic Parenti especially from 37:00

What exactly do you mean by "caucasian train of thought" bro