Is that an example of the readings by “New Leftism”? You’ve just made an example of why this shit should be fought against. You’re echoing ideas which benefit the US empire, which, at all costs, wants China to lose support in public opinion. While seemingly unconscious of it, you’re being an agent of imperialism. Great job on showing the “wonders” of New Leftism.

Feminism and anti-racism was born out of Marxism and the socialist movement, such as Alexandra Kollontai and W.E.B. Du Bois. New Leftism should be fought against at all costs, and the “old ideas” should not be discarded if they all explain the phenomena we see today.

This, of course, does not mean we shouldn’t be open to new ideas, but New Leftism is nothing new, is the same old opportunistic and anti-Marxist ideas that have made their way through the revolutionary movements, every time in the name of “renewal”.

_[cont]

“In 1908 the “Left” Bolsheviks were expelled from our Party for stubbornly refusing to understand the necessity of participating in a most reactionary “parliament”. The “Lefts”—among whom there were many splendid revolutionaries who subsequently were (and still are) commendable members of the Communist Party—based themselves particularly on the successful experience of the 1905 boycott.

When, in August 1905, the tsar proclaimed the convocation of a consultative “parliament”, the Bolsheviks called for its boycott, in the teeth of all the opposition parties and the Mensheviks, and the “parliament” was in fact swept away by the revolution of October 1905. The boycott proved correct at the time, not because nonparticipation in reactionary parliaments is correct in general, but because we accurately appraised the objective situation, which was leading to the rapid development of the mass strikes first into a political strike, then into a revolutionary strike, and finally into an uprising.

Moreover, the struggle centred at that time on the question of whether the convocation of the first representative assembly should be left to the tsar, or an attempt should be made to wrest its convocation from the old regime. When there was not, and could not be, any certainty that the objective situation was of a similar kind, and when there was no certainty of a similar trend and the same rate of development, the boycott was no longer correct.

The Bolsheviks’ boycott of “parliament” in 1905 enriched the revolutionary proletariat with highly valuable political experience and showed that, when legal and illegal parliamentary and non-parliamentary forms of struggle are combined, it is sometimes useful and even essential to reject parliamentary forms.

It would, however, be highly erroneous to apply this experience blindly, imitatively and uncritically to other conditions and other situations. The Bolsheviks’ boycott of the Duma in 1906 was a mistake, although a minor and easily remediable one. The boycott of the Duma in 1907, 1908 and subsequent years was a most serious error and difficult to remedy, because, on the one hand, a very rapid rise of the revolutionary tide and its conversion into an uprising was not to be expected, and, on the other hand, the entire historical situation attendant upon the renovation of the bourgeois monarchy called for legal and illegal activities being combined.

Today, when we look back at this fully completed historical period, whose connection with subsequent periods has now become quite clear, it becomes most obvious that in 1908–14 the Bolsheviks could not have preserved (let alone strengthened and developed) the core of the revolutionary party of the proletariat, had they not upheld, in a most strenuous struggle, the viewpoint that it was obligatory to combine legal and illegal forms of struggle, and that it was obligatory to participate even in a most reactionary parliament and in a number of other institutions hemmed in by reactionary laws (sick benefit societies, etc.).”

(link)

The struggle against opportunism is a constant necessity for the revolutionary movement, and it is therefore necessary to understand the phenomenon of opportunism, both left and right. Right opportunism is much easier to identify and, therefore, to combat, but one cannot ignore that left opportunism is extremely harmful to the revolutionary movement on all fronts, causing political damage that delays and hinders the construction of the Brazilian revolution. This text is a brief contribution on the subject, with the intention of raising the discussions about it.

The problem is that Marxist-Leninists should be sectarian… against Maoists and New Left ideas.

I understand what you’re saying, and I thoroughly agree, but I think sectarian is a wrong term for what you’re describing. It’s fighting left opportunism, it has nothing to do with sectarianism. I have written a text in Portuguese about left opportunism and opportunism in general, unfortunately with references to the revolutionary movements here in Brazil which may be alienating to some, but in any case I’ll quickly translate them and post them here. I’ll link it in this comment once I’m done.

EDIT: Here you go.

Same thing is happening here, and I even thought about that as well. I think lockdowns related to the pandemic have made us “locked-down” on our electronic devices and individual homes, which tends to make our sociability even more damaged. It reminds me of a Marx quote:

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

I see this quote very related to this, and I think the less time we spend talking to friends, hanging out, having conversations, the more we will tend to feel isolated. All things the pandemic have made very difficult to do.

For me personally, it’s been tough, because I love people, I love talking, I love listening. I had more than one breakdown this whole time, and it’s difficult to maintain your mind straight through this. The only things that make me not lose it completely is my comrade-love, my Party comrades, and other comrades I talk to on the internet, including Lemmygrad, and of course my flaming hot hatred for the bourgeoisie.

This is actually one of the reasons I created this sublemmy, so we can have a space to talk to each other, which is one of the things I thought was missing in Lemmygrad. We tend to focus on the political aspects of our struggle, but we sometimes forget that we are all human, we need love, we need friendship and affection for a healthy functioning.

I have no “friends”, besides my Party comrades. I lost all my friendships in 2019, because I was honestly an asshole back then. I have been through a lot in that year; I was persecuted by a mob agitated by an ex-girlfriend whose feelings I hurt, I was hospitalized in a psychiatric clinic and I have been in isolation even before the pandemic.

Besides the study of Marxism-Leninism, one thing that made my “shell” a bit thicker was meditation, where I sit, and do nothing, so that the only thing moving are my thoughts, paying close attention to not feel attached to a particular subject that pops up. After a while, like 30 minutes in the same position (which must obviously be comfortable), thoughts tend to fade more and more, and you start to feel as though there is no distinction between the inside and the outside. It’s a state of mind where your “self” disappears, and it’s quite interesting.

Through meditation I have developed an emotional detachment from things, but not like a nihilistic detachment. It’s a detachment from the self, and you feel a connection with the whole. Of course, your mind accumulates a bit of dust over time, exactly like Mao once said. So for me it’s supposed to be a practice to maintain my own health, but it’s been quite a while since I’ve meditated again because I haven’t felt the urge to do so, but I’ve been thinking of doing it again eventually, because this urge will come eventually.

Another thing I suggest, if you use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube etc., try to limit the time you spend on those networks, or even stop using them for a while. It did good for me.

Also the post content still says “Recent comments on the right”, after one year. Who remembers the “recent comments” section of Lemmy? Hahaha

deleted by creator

Joe Sims calling the dictatorship of the proletariat “probably the worst phrase uttered by a political theorist ever” is probably the best example of right-wing opportunism. He does not understand the concept, yet he pretentiously dismisses it to appease to the petty-bourgeois and labor aristocracy ideological tendencies.

If CPUSA wants to survive (or be reborn) as a revolutionary party, they must internally fight against opportunism inside the party. Otherwise, having a contingent of revolutionaries with an opportunistic leadership who turn their militants into docile task-followers is close to useless.

Do note, however, that this article was written 13 years ago. A lot has changed since then, and this may not be representative of CPUSA’s current leadership’s position.

Anyone else feel that when China punishes billionaires, the media always narrates it in such a way that makes it look like CPC is a bigger threat to us than billionaires?

Yes, and I love it. It’s in moments like these that the media openly reveal their class character. It’s very enlightening.

I think ONE banker went to jail lmao

And he wasn’t even close to the top bankers. He was a supervisor of trading positions and earned at the time around $7 million a year.

I organize in PCB, Brazilian Communist Party, also a member of SolidNet

The burden of proof is on this claim. Where did you get that the WPK tracks all files on flash drives?

The files copied from an USB on Red Star OS do leave a trace of where they came from, with information of the USB drive in them. This was probably designed that way because of how anticommunist propaganda operations were done there in the past, with USB drives full of anticommunist garbage.

i.e.:

A file that leaves information about the USB may help track and fight these kinds of propaganda operations. By the way, while Red Star OS is made in People’s Korea, there are many computers there which use Windows XP. The internet there is not entirely blocked, only sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc. You shouldn’t need an explanation for this, Facebook is also banned in China because it was (and it still is) used in colour revolution and propaganda operations, such as the Arab Spring which killed the noble leader Muammar Gaddafi.

However, internet blocking is less strict for university students, especially Computer Science students.

The internet is not a neutral place. Blocking some websites is a matter of self-defense for socialist nations. Some people think this self-defense tactic is “repressive” but that reasoning is nothing short of pure idealism, which does not take into account the attacks suffered by those nations.

Muito bem colocado, camarada. A corrupção é apenas o sintoma de um problema estrutural, que é o capitalismo. A iniciativa privada raramente tem prejuízos por bancar os agentes de seus interesses, mesmo que fora da própria lei burguesa. Traduzir a corrupção como fenômeno associado ao capitalismo é uma forma de abordar esse debate sob uma perspectiva radical

I don’t know. The Western culture has a fetish for this title. “Mr. President”.

I’d say it’s not wise to base your conceptions on a society based on those details. Every society is a complex one, and should be treated as such. If you study the history of Korea, you will understand a bit better where they come from, and the development of their society.

The people of Korea have a history of fighting for their life and dignity against colonizers and imperialists. They were one of the most bombed countries in the world, by the US military. Yet they have managed to achieve their sovereignty, at least half of it, and up to this they they are striving for self-reliance. Take a look at this article, it’s a brief outlook on the Juche philosophy, the guiding philosophical framework of People’s Korea.

But “Supreme Leader” for the Korean people doesn’t mean obediently serve a monarch as in “absolutism”, it simply means a title of a governing position. For instance, in Brazil, we have an institutional organ called “Supreme Federal Court”, but it’s not supreme at all. The fascist right-wing corporate-military government of Bolsonaro, currently supported by the US, constantly clashes with the supreme court.

How can you know “Supreme Leader” has the same connotation to them as it has to us?

Good idea, I’ll test it out later.

Wifux2

It produced this, but I’m not sure if it’s any better

idk but i found this

Seems like it’s from a video

Ehh, não vale a pena. A última vez que publiquei algo sobre o Lemmygrad, eu só pus um print e disse que pesquisando o nome vc acha no Google