RIP KING

i think the factor of the state not being as much in control in the rural countryside as a theoretical factor to the effectiveness of PPW is basically inapplicable when you think about how many rural americans act in total support of the state, regardless of their relation to it.

Half of America is in the rural countryside, and basically 2/3 of that body is republican and would rather die than even think of communism as an answer to anything, let alone support a guerilla campaign. It's just a massively different social dynamic from the class relations we see in India or the Phillippines

And thats because the state has instantaneous access to the rural lands of the US through media. They can also use surveillance across basically all forms of infrastructure in an efficient and resourceful manner. You can't spread every man but you can spread every camera, every satellite, along major arteries

You can't win a PPW. But you can abort one for sure.

I definitely think that it is the best plan of action anywhere where the conditions of it are even remotely possible. I don't think that route exists in the US, or in other parts of the imperial core like Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc

IS THE US A FASCIST STATE?

Nah but it be cool to unlock the Afghanistan Iran thread since those are fascist states and there are protests happening right now.

like i said the surround the countryside is a particular aspect of PPW that is applicable depending on the material conditions, those material conditions don’t apply to america so they remove that particularity but it doesn’t invalidate the generality of PPW, and all the problems you stated about rural america still exists and would still hamper a soviet style insurgency as well.Like the media point still applies to not just rural america but to all go america lol they have instant access to everyone.

i won’t give up on the rural american, the new resurgence of the communist scene in America is still a child trying to figure its way, i don’t think the contradictions in the countryside is fully explored yet to totally give up on rural american or canadians, ( depending on the area more similar than you’d think). Also i think you’re pointing too much in a role to ideology and the superstructure, when the next economic crisis hits you’ll see a lot more of these folks becoming more labour friendly. Even without them going to american marxist who tried to theorize a PPW saw a similar pattern of the cities being surrounded not by the countryside but the suburbs, and on urban guerilla warfare we can learn much from the irish and learn from their mistakes

To continue off the last sentence even if those theorist were wrong on if the suburbs could have the same effect as if it was the countryside, to me the important part is the creative application of marxism, and that’s the only way we can move forward which is of course easier said than done.

Back to the PPW what other revolutionary war strategy would work, a soviet/french style insurrection? ( i often hear from maoist this strategy is outdated never explained why tho, so if anyone knows or disagree would love to hear ur opinion)
Cause the only point ur post covered was the countryside part which i already established that it isn’t seen as a universal, but the other parts of PPW that are universal still remain and apply to america and any imperial core country.

No

No feelings on tito but this made me laugh

What defines a fascist state

Authoritarian reorganization of the state by capital and a reactionary movement at a time of acute social and economic instability

Ah. Good thing that could never happen...

So we only have the “authoritarian reorganization” part left right

If you comrades here already know materialism and dialectics, I would like to advise you to supplement your knowledge by some study of their opposites, that is, idealism and metaphysics. You should read Kant and Hegel and Confucius and Chiang Kai- shek, which are all negative stuff. If you know nothing about idealism and metaphysics, if you have never waged any struggle against them, your materialism and dialectics will not be solid. The shortcoming of some of our Party members and intellectu- als is precisely that they know too little about the negative stuff. Having read a few books by Marx, they just repeat what is in them and sound rather monotonous. Their speeches and articles are not convincing. If you don’t study the negative stuff, you won’t be able to refute it. Neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin was like that. They made great efforts to learn and study all sorts of things, contemporary and past, and taught other people to do likewise. The three component parts of Marxism came into being in the course of their study of, as well as their struggle with, such bourgeois things as German classical philosophy, English classi- cal political economy and French utopian socialism. In this re- spect Stalin was not as good. For instance, in his time, German classical idealist philosophy was described as a reaction on the part of the German aristocracy to the French revolution. This conclusion totally negates German classical idealist philosophy. Stalin negated German military science, alleging that it was no longer of any use and that books by Clausewitz should no longer be read since the Germans had been defeated.

(Mao Zedong, Talks at a conference of secretaries of provin- cial, municipal and autonomous region party committees, part II, January 19571)

Get this guy off twitter he's drunk and s***posting

Well yeah I'm not tryna say that their contributions aren't important, especially those of Lenin, but I think splits based on a different tendency should ideally be restricted because they have practical implications for how you organize, and I think people sometimes get too lost in splitting based on historical questions and whether Cuba or DPRK are revisionist or not, I don't really see how that's productive.

And yeah you'll never really fit entirely in one, but I feel like people often act like they do, or change their positions on something in order to fit better under one tendency. Like is there any underlying theoretical construct that logically explains why you would inevitably regard PPW as universal if you think that a mass line is important?

With regards to putting it in practice, I agree to an extent, and I'm not doing the whole Marxists are cultists because they use names thing lol, I'm not an anarchists. There is importance in theory being put to practice, but if under the leadership of Lenin or Mao there was no successful revolution for reasons outside of the control of their movements, does that now make their contributions less valid?

I just don't see why the contributions of Gramsci should be taken less seriously for example just because Italy never had a successful revolution.

I have no beef with Maoists per se, disagreements on the universality of PPW or the usefulness of electoral participation is not something I would burn bridges over. But Maoists, mostly Gonzaloists, who go around denouncing or even outright taking a hostile position towards Cuba or whatever because they're revisionist on some Mao-Nixon s***... I don't f*** with those I'm sorry

This is a tweet

raising taxes is literally a way to reduce the money supply and tackle inflation

sure corp taxes may not be the best tax to use as a vehicle but thats politics for you

(challenging bezos not you)

what do you do for a living?

having a hard time coping with big corporate world, as are a lot of folks im pretty sure. its literally the only way for me to survive but it does not make it any easier/doesnt make me whine less about it

I do agree with the first paragraph on the current state of affairs.

I don't understand the connection ur trying to do with PPW with mass line but I did go in why I think PPW is universally applicable on the last page and this page in a reply to Americana.

The important part is that their methods were reproducible, the vanguard party strategy for example, if these individuals failed we end up calling ourselves something else, but they didnt and they did succeed and and then their theories were tested multiple times in different circumstances which is what made them universal.
Cuban revolution was also successful but Focoism isnt considered universal due to it not being reproduced anywhere else.

I don't think it should be taken less seriously, just that Lenin and Mao have bigger contributions due to them being able to develop marxism higher cause of being able to participate in a revolution and develop socialist constructions. Gramsci himself was a marxist-leninist he made further contributions to marxist-leninism, and enrich marxist-leninism. Lenin was a marxist however however due to his overall contribution to marxism and after his work was able to be systemised it reached a new development, a qualitative change from Marxism to Marxism Leninism.

we all sell Richard Wolfe and Caleb Maupin pamphlets for cents a day and live in one communal space

You will never find solace in any job you hold because of the inherent contradictions in capitalism. They are so alienating and make you feel like s***

The only way to really escape it is to organize IRL for a better future, that is what gives many people a peace of mind

I mean that's disingenuous, there's a number of jobs that, while they exist under capitalism, are not based around capital and would exist in socialist/communist society as well.
Imagine telling a painter or writer or carpenter they can't find solace in their job

I mean that's disingenuous, there's a number of jobs that, while they exist under capitalism, are not based around capital and would exist in socialist/communist society as well.

Yes and this is what I meant about about contradictions in capitalism. Many aspects of the job are fine but many are caused by capitalism, which is the main alienating aspect.

Imagine telling a painter or writer or carpenter they can't find solace in their job

There's a difference between creative solace and solace because you are passionate about your job. Passion within your job: after learning about marxism and capitalism takes a lot of will power, because you always know you will not get a proportinate amount of your labour given back to you; the capitalist always shaves off the fat and takes most for themselves -- with this, why go 100% and make sure my product is my best work?

Marx talks about this with creative solace too. Your work is no longer creative work made for your enjoyment; it becomes an object seperate from yourself which is shipped up and made to be a commodity.

Reading The State and Revolution for the first time

This man blacked out