It’s easy to tell this person has never read Marx nor Proudhon, aka that racist anti-Semite reactionary trash

I’ll take a read at it, comrade. Thanks for the link

That book is very good so far. The first chapter was very interesting

If you want your national economy to develop, prevent monopolies from reigning the economy is essential. Since monopolies have a control over the flow of certain commodities, they can naturally increase their prices without increasing their value, and therefore extracting juicy super surplus-value. It’s the same thing imperialist bourgeois do with oil

Think of how much we could collectively contribute to society if we didn’t have capitalists to limit the jobs we can be given

Oh, Rainer Shea lives in Eureka, California, the same place where Mr. Bungle was born 😮

I watched it all. Pretty good stuff, I’d highly recommending this to someone who is starting with Marxism. When it comes to tactics, I only saw it mention it, not address it. Recommending Stalin’s book was honestly a surprise coming from the PCUSA, but the comment about his “darker record” genuinely made me laugh lmao

It’s nice for you to be organized in CPUSA, comrade. It’s better to be in an organization than to be alone in mud waters. Our experiences inside a communist party, whether positive or negative in our conception, will help us develop a higher understanding of our surroundings, establish political relationships, ultimately mature ourselves politically.

Just one thing though. Be aware that this “trusting the leadership” is not the best thought to justify our choice of organizations. There are a lot of dogmatic or reformist (self-titled) communist parties who have this rationalization between their members, they “trust their leadership”, and because of that they feel they are following the correct political line.

The only way we can be sure of our organization of choice, is for us to study profoundly the history of working class movements (mainly national working class history and history of socialist states), understand what we got right and what we got wrong, and especially study revolutionary theory. That way we can address the errors of our leadership if we spot them. This is the ultimate test of a revolutionary organization, the way it deals with critiques promoted by their militants.

It isn’t wise to just individually boycott Facebook while not raising awareness about it. Besides, if we wish to do propaganda work, we inevitably need to use bourgeois social media

This kills the dollar

Organizing is always the first step. The process of obtaining class consciousness is not an individual process, only a collective one. There, you will definitely find the resources and tactics to advance class consciousness. Besides that I can only recommend you read What is to be done? by Lenin. The beginning is not an easy read considering there is a lot of historical context involved, but it makes sense eventually.

From the abstract in the link:
“Lenin once defined imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism,since ownership was separated from the function of management, i.e., big capital was divorced from the running of enterprises, which was in the hands of professional managers. Nowadays, neo-imperialism is the final stage of imperialism because big capital is separated from production itself, and relies on its power to appropriate the benefits. Lenin maintained that the imperialist stage of capitalism emerged in Europe around the beginning of the twentieth century; this article holds that the stage of neo-imperialism emerged in the 1970s. In Lenin’s view, the key economic characteristic of imperialism was the export of capital. In this article, the export of paper money is considered the key economic characteristic of neo-imperialism. Since exchanging paper money for gold ceased to be possible following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, this money in essence amounts to IOUs. Furthermore, neo-imperialism utilizes intellectual property rights to exact rents, and charges carbon tributes for excess carbon emissions. Neo-imperialist nations that export IOUs engage in struggles against one another as changes occur in their relative strength. The end of neo-imperialism and the complete demise of capitalism are not only inevitable, but also not particularly distant.”

Haha falling line go brrr

He fits neatly as an agent provocateur

What truth? This anarchist presented an utopian ideal, there is no single concrete thing about what they proposed.

If you read carefully they even describe their genius idea: “a militia that organizes itself when necessary for self-defense”. A defense operation requires a lot of time of mobilization of troops and preparation for combat. There’s no way a militia can be organized in time efficiently after an attack. There can be no surprises for an army, unless they are oblivious to their own surroundings. The Vietnam War combatants prepared themselves for an US invasion, otherwise they’d have a lot of trouble winning.

And the “very flat chain of command” is, in practice, impossible. This anarchist is criticizing “hierarchies” in the abstract, apparently oblivious to their practical use, for the soldiers and officers on a front line may change their position if required by the changing circumstances. The soldiers on the front line should have their focus on the immediate battle, while there are people taking care of administrative aspects of any battle, such as resources, tactics, etc., who can command them to hold a different position in battle.

The quote is fitting because the anarchist is criticizing hierarchy but at the same time acknowledging it as useful, by using different words to describe it. But they seem to specifically mention the abuse of authority that naturally occurs in a bourgeois army. This abuse of authority is not determined by the existence of hierarchies in armies, in contrast with a “very flat chain of command”, but by what use they have for society. In a bourgeois society, they are seen as expendable body bags and treated accordingly, in a socialist society, they are seen as valuable comrades. It’s a reflection of relations of production, in the end, but it has nothing to do with hierarchies themselves.

A TL;DR could be nice

A mix of different theories with no coherence or ties to practical necessities nor experience.

Thanks for letting me know, comrade

Yes, lol

There are no other forms of anarchism, they’re all petty-bourgeois leftists who want to make a change without any studying of history nor science.

Now, a comrade from the Communist Party of Mexico