First things first, I had to move away from u/Clean-Difference1771 and return to my previous account due to reddit requiring facial identification to allow me see the discussions here. Anyway I don't think that I will post anything else anymore, not only due to increasing of surveillance against communism but because my commitment to communism and actually putting into practice many of the things that I have learned sinced joined this community for the first time 3 years ago actually had real repercussions in my life, whether you think I'm a "petty bourgoise student" or any other thing as such. Not to deny that I really am, but class suicide and engaging into marxism envolves being vulnerable to things like real life stalking, academic persecution, defamatory claims against you and the spread of false information as bourgoise self-defense which indeed I have been a victim of for the past 3 years and intensified during the past 3 weeks. So I think is time to me to move on from this community as well (though I will continue to observe eventually), as the struggle against communism will continue, digital and social vigilance is intensifying and as long as I live, may I fight for communism until I die. Digital footprint is obviously large for everyone here and if anything is to be taken value from the latest MIM(p) response to the polemics on sex and gender earlier this year it's their recommendation towards taking it seriously late in the article.

Having this resolved, I share with you some notes that I have took following the defeat of Flavio Bolsonaro. First of all, I have to admit that after the result of october 4, my first impulse was compelling to vote for Lula given the consequences of Flavio Bolsonaro becoming Head of State in Brazil and the simbolism and practical consequences of a white supremacist and anti-communist running the country. But my impulses didn't last for much more than 3 days and after participating in some of the street events of Lula campaign in the same week and watching some assemblies in college (which all indeed were only recruiting free work to be given to PT's election), I soon remembered why for years I have been struggling against Lulaism and PT as of now and whether this have led to early isolation, as of now, lulaism (and imperialism) is indeed in decay and this mature on other people, us vanguardists must know how to act on the available circumstances. Not only because Bolsonaro's anti-communist mumbling is closer to Mao's tiger paper, but because if there's a vanguard party into anticommunism in Brazil, the one to be appointed here is the PT itself. We understand PL is a right-wing ultranationalist conservative party as common sense, but communist accountability into the history of PT and Lula's government on the 2000's is overlooked and hypocritical. u/turbovacuumcleaner's criticism over the years here, which we often look forward to, are marginal into brazilian communism and periods like the elections reminds us that some notions we have been discussing here over the past few years are marginal and way too off from communist mainstream. I think this is important to understand that, as I also agree that this community stands out in online antirevisionism, at the same time "mainstream" marxism in Brazil have probably all the opportunist tendencies that have been theorized in the past 200 years going on into the existing parties and the more one study on marxist general theory and brazilian marxism, we can trace this back in time.

My reading suggestions to trace it are Jacob Gorender's Combate nas Trevas, Clovis Moura's Dialética Radical do Brasil Negro, Francisco de Oliveira's O Ornitorrinco (which covers PT's full transition from the reformist party into a imperialist bourgoise's party) and Raquel Rolnik's Guerra dos Lugares which also can give a proper understanding of PT's urban policies and settler populational reagroupment and the land question into the white supremacist garrison into Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo and the ideologies of those communities. But of course, you have to read both Settlers and Imperialism first, to both understand the often subliminar context of brazilian communism and why teoreticians like Ruy Mauro Marini couldn't understand quilombola and indigenous communities as an authentic nations and why communists have failed in Brazil over the past century.

As for the elections, those past 3 weeks were full blown hell with social-fascism from PT and it's supporters. It was clear that as u/turbovacuumcleaner previously appointed, there was not really much of the risk of a coup and despite the panic provided by Lulaism of a potential coup despite the lack of any evidence, by sunday 9:30pm brazilian settler capitalism and it's social democracy were looking, indeed, once again, stronger than ever. And that have been the case for the past 3 weeks as imperialism shows that it can always last for a little longer and the petty bourgoise is always willing to support it. So the social paratisism and decay of the labour aristocracy and the rise of new, young, petty-bourgoise leadership shown that it have more strenght and appeal than one might give them, they didn't need the support of communists, but as we can expect from the mainstream "communists" (which envolves the parasitical media comsumption of content producers as accepted as education) they had to support "democracy" never putting at first sight which "democracy" is that they are indeed defending? The same democracy is the democracy of white supremacists running the congress which just took over and Lula have himself to compromise to "govern within the congress". Now those communists will have to put themselves as we say in Brazil, "entre a cruz e a espada" which whether anyone that avoided supporting the PT will have at least ideological sobriety and leverage which PCB, UP, PCBR and PSTU cannot say for themselves. The only ones that I can say that maintained a line of opposition towards both candidatures are MPR which is one of the many existing trotskist-oriented microfactions that departed from PSTU after a recent period of liquidationism.

I would also like to point out that both AND (P.C.B) and RRC (Novo MEPR) shamelessly sided with Lula and none of them had at least the courage to explain their support and obvious capitulation. AND moved away from their usual "electoral farse" which they repeat all the time and started to campaign "against Bolsonaro" after the first week of october and none were to be said about Lula's candidature. N-MEPR repeated the same thing for a different type of audience as they have themselves departed from AND/P.C.B once they realized that P.C.B is a male supremacist cult under "gonzalo thought" banner but never necessarily appointed that into serious terms and in attempt to not get themselves in trouble with petty bourgoise students as they are a young org and women that they might potentially target into future recruiting, avoided any criticism and their line was to "still struggling after october 25". But they give no proper criticism and commentary into the elections so one may wonder that maoists in Brazil forgot that the elections were happening and did not have anything to say about both candidatures and the whole process or or they actually did as they always do and "critically sided" with PT as they share the same class leadership: people that were born into white communities - whether they are themselves white or not - and progressed into the higher level of formal bougoise education.

The only org that I may suggest that may lead to something positive that I have interacted with in the past weeks is MZT (Movimento Zona Norte) though they are a democratic mass front spontaneously formed to combat fascism but it's proletarian led and it's unclear which line will follow, for now.

So as for the result, I think I share an early draft on the following struggle for the next years and put those for criticism.

For the work of communist organizations, I wouldn't expect much in the coming years due to potential consequences for the petty-bourgeois leadership. The upcoming political violence could be appropriated by communists, but I doubt there is the willingness for such a move right now, given the potential repercussions for the petty bourgeoisie.

The leadership of the movement that orchestrated the victory in the runoff election (academia, electoral party leaderships, and the bureaucratic-union apparatus) needs a "democratic victory" to justify its own existence and internal privileges. Facing the reality of a second term—a government plagued by austerity, conciliation with latifundia, and the maintenance of mass incercaration and increasing pogroms—would mean severing the umbilical cord with funding and bourgeois respectability. Therefore, as we have experienced over the last four years—and as can be observed in the day-to-day routine of modern day schools and universities—the immediate tendency of this leadership is ideological anesthesia and the covering up of contradictions.

I believe the next four years tend to further strengthen social-fascism and national(ist) white supremacy, the persecution of left-wing dissidence (anticommunism), and political dogmatism (the lack of critique), as has been the case in recent years and as intensified during the elections, given that these are inevitable consequences of the strengthening of imperialism. Since the PT government can't break with the boundaries of capitalism and the spending cap/fiscal framework, crisis management will invariably occur through the social containment of poverty. The public rhetoric will be one of inclusion, but state practice will continue to be mass incarceration and the militarized management of new afrikans and indigenous semicolonies—the exact definition of social-fascism.

The narrow electoral victory, obtained without a mandate for real transformations, drastically reduces the margin for internal critique. Any opposition from the left will immediately be labeled as an "auxiliary line of fascism" or "agents of the far-right." And as we have seen this tends to intensify ideological policing to shield the leadership from grassroots questioning.

Organizations will have to understand that they are walking on thin ice, where there will be even less leniency from the hegemonic party due to the fragility of this victory, alongside an even more restricted space for opposition. The leadership will, of course, have to avoid positions that push them into serving as an auxiliary line to the conservative (and fascist) movement—similar to what occurred with Dilma Rousseff, whose impeachment was supported by Trotskyists (PSTU) and Maoists (P.C.B/AND/MEPR) under the guise of "fora todos!" ("out with them all!").

It will be interesting to observe how, just as over the past four years, the momentary euphoria will come to an end, and internal contradictions tend to explode and inevitably turn against the president himself, which tends to make his support base necessarily an increasingly conservative social force. When budget squeezes, cuts to healthcare and education, and the inability to curb inflation take hold, people will begin to feel the deterioration of their living conditions. To sustain governability in the face of lost popular support and pressure from a reactionary Congress, the government will seek refuge in increasingly right-wing sectors. Out of a need for self-preservation, the leadership supporting the president will become an increasingly conservative force, averse to any truly emancipatory agenda.

Under the Roman empire, the labour of an industrious and ingenious people was variously, but incessantly employed, in the service of the rich. In their dress, their table, their houses, and their furniture, the favourites of fortune united every refinement of conveniency, of elegance, and of splendour; whatever could sooth their pride, or gratify their sensuality, Such refinements, under the odious name of luxury, have been severely arraigned by the moralists of every age; and it might perhaps be more conducive to the virtue, as well happiness, of mankind, if all possessed the necessaries, and none the uperfuities, of life - Gibbon Chapter 11, decline and fall of the Roman Empire
I am still going through the book and am interested to see whether there are more hints that the famous classicist held to such esteem by the conservative intellectual establishment was a closet leftie. Don’t have much to add in terms of dissension but thought it was an interesting few paragraphs and Havnt seen them discussed.

Today, the dignity and prestige of our country have reached their highest level.

The Republic’s formidable self-defence capabilities, centred around nuclear weapons, powerfully guarantee the vigorous advancement of the cause of building a strong socialist nation and drive hostile forces, including the US imperialists, into extreme anxiety and fear. However, this does not mean the end of class struggle. On the contrary, the silent confrontation with the enemy is raging even more fiercely.

Respected Comrade Kim Jong Un stated:

As time passes and the revolution advances, the class struggle to decide who conquers whom becomes more intense. The intensification of class struggle is an universal law under socialism, anyone who denies it is a revisionist.

Class struggle is the struggle to oppose the exploiting class, the exploitative system and the reactionary forces, to eliminate the remnants of the old society, and to defend and realize the independence of the masses.

The exploiting class cannot survive even for a moment without exploiting the masses, and the masses cannot achieve social and political independence without liquidating the exploiting class. Reflecting this fateful confrontation, the class struggle becomes the most uncompromising battle of life and death. In 19th-century Paris, a working-class government emerged for the first time in history. Feeling uneasy, the bourgeoisie resorted to violence, bloodily massacring countless working people. This is vivid evidence of the intensity of the class struggle.

The class struggle intensifies as the masses advance their cause for independence. Even in socialist society, the class struggle continues to rage fiercely.

The establishment of a socialist system eliminates the social roots of class conflict. However, as long as imperialism exists on earth, the activities of class enemies will never cease, and leftovers of outdated ideologies are still deeply rooted among workers. Therefore, even in a socialist society, the struggle against external hostile forces and the remnants of the overthrown exploiting class hidden within, as well as the struggle to free the working people from the shackles of obsolete ideas and to revolutionize and working-classize them, continue unabated. Class struggle in a socialist society is conducted by uncompromising violence against hostile elements and through ideological education to counter the vestiges of outmoded ideas lingering in people’s minds and to educate and remould them along revolutionary lines.

Ideological education aimed at eradicating outdated ideological remnants, including individualism and selfishness, that run counter to socialist ideology is of paramount importance. Raising awareness of the anti-socialist maneuvers of imperialist reactionaries is also a vital issue for the advancement of socialism.

The collapse of socialism in some countries in the past clearly demonstrates the viciousness of the imperialists’ anti-socialist offensive. Imperialists used any means necessary to disintegrate and annihilate socialist countries, including military threats, economic blockades and ideological and cultural infiltration. However, some countries not only neglected the work of suppressing imperialism’s anti-socialist offensive and arming the masses with class consciousness, but also paved the way for the enemy’s ideological and cultural infiltration moves. As a result, people’s class consciousness became blurred and, ultimately, the historical tragedy of the collapse of socialism occurred. The confession of a CIA agent that “the collapse of the former Soviet Union was not a gift by God to America, but a consequence of the policies pursued by the Reagan administration” proves that the collapse of socialism was the product of the anti-socialist maneuvers of class enemies.

The imperialist reactionary forces, led by U.S. imperialism, are now more frantic than ever to obliterate our dignified socialist system. Sensing the approach of destruction amid our powerful advance, our enemies are desperately fighting back.

The more the revolution advances, the more intense the ideological and physical confrontation with our enemies becomes. This is an inviolable law of class struggle.

We must sharpen the blade of the anti-imperialist class struggle and solidify our revolutionary and class positions, always and everywhere, to firmly defend and endlessly glorify our socialist motherland.

In the Last week I had a lot of discussions with some comrades about imperialism. Most of them Support the Analysis from the greek communist Party (KKE), from what I understand they think imperialism is Like a Pyramid. Every country is imperialist but Just Not to the Same deegre. USA in top, followed by china and so on. In there Analysis semi colonial countries Like Brasil are Just weaker imperialist powers with somewhat less sovereignty.

What are good responses to These Claims and how are you able to concretly decribe semi colonial countries? Are there some concrete Points which makes a country still semi colonial or already imperialist?

Are there any active communist forums or online communities in Norway?

I’m looking for Norwegian communities where people actively discuss communism, Marxism, socialist theory, politics, current events, etc.

Preferably something with a decent number of active members and actual ongoing discussions. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a traditional forum -Discord servers or other online communities would also be interesting.

I also speak Norwegian, making this post in English just for more outreach.

Any recommendations?

Been thinking a lot lately about how the conditions for an MLM-type revolution seem more open now than they were for a lot of the revolutions in the 20th century. What would it actually take for something like that to happen today? I know there were MLM orgs around in the past, but do any of them still exist, and what happened to the ones that fell apart? Are there successor groups carrying on that work, or has the movement gone in a different direction? Just something I've been wondering about.

On October 22, 1941, in retaliation for the assassination of a German officer, the Vichy puppet government handed over a list consisting primarily of communist prisoners and trade unionists to the occupying forces.

Among the 27 men executed that day was Guy Môquet, only 17 years old. He refused a blindfold and marched to the firing post singing the Marseillaise. His final letter to his family ended with a plea to those who would survive the war.

To live, fight, and remain worthy of their sacrifice.

i think they are wasted potential.

Political Economy (Socialism) is the English edition of the first Albanian comprehensive scientific work of its kind, prepared by a collective of authors of the Institute of Economic Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania and originally published in 1981. Based on Marxist-Leninist economic theory, the documents of the Party of Labour of Albania and the works of Comrade Enver Hoxha, this book deals with the fundamental problems of the establishment, development and consolidation of the socialist economic system, drawing on the historical experience of the construction and defence of socialism in Albania and the international revolutionary movement. An important place is also given to the principled struggle against the anti-Marxist and bourgeois theories and practices of the modern revisionists concerning the construction of socialism.

The book is divided into three main parts. The first deals with the establishment of the socialist relations of production and the socialist social order. The second examines the system of socialist relations of production, the economic laws governing its development and the process of expanded socialist reproduction. The third deals with the fundamental questions of the transition from socialism to communism and the general features of communist society.

This book is prepared under the editorship of Hekuran Mara, Hasan Banja, Fiqiri Islami, Iliaz Fishta and Veniamin Toçi.

Interesting work, the critiques of Maoism are a product of the context, but an interesting analysis of cultural-ideological Revolution and the continuation of class struggle under socialism.

Ceausescu ruled romania for 24 years as a national communist. He done many bad and good things for its people. In my parents and grandparents perspective it was good until the 1980s with the introduction of ration cards. Explanation: he was the first and only leader to pay all debts and because of that,romania became poorer and poorer until people started starving out.food was rarer on the shelves and they had to wait hours in line. Then came the revolution,people were killed by their army until they joined the people.the ceausescu’s fled by helicopter and they were caught and executed. After that,corruption and debt tripled with the coming of capitalism. My opinion for him is that he was okay,but not a real marxist leninist,a revisionist. He had good opinions of corneliu zelea codreanu,the founder of the legionary(fascist)movement in romania. He was pretty nationalistic with many deportations of hungarian,german and roma people. Life was pretty strict with the securitate(translation is security, like the kgb a secret police) my grandparents still whisper when they are talking about the government and its problems. As a marxist leninist myself,i think he was too reactionary and paying all debts at once was a huge disaster.What are your opinions about him? Also sorry for my poor english

After many, MANY hardships, uncertainties and oppositions, the working class made enough noise to reduce the 6x1 working scale (Work 6 days, rest on 1. 44hrs weekly), to 5x2 (36hrs weekly)!!!

No more modern slavery and inhumane conditions

What do people in this subreddit think about the great purges carried out by Stalin? Or how Trotsky and Lenin turned on the Makhnovtchina?

I am wondering with anyone who has had experience with the CPB are they actually TERF, two state solution with Palestine and dengist like I have heard? If so does anyone know any UK communist orginisations I could have a look at that aren’t trotskyites.

hi, my coworker is cuban and I recently found out they are anti-communist and want Cuba to be
"liberated" from communism. I don't know much about Cuba but I know that they are heavily sanctioned and oppressed by the US and it's been that way for decades.

Why would they feel this way and what should I say to them?

Also does anyone have sources about the history of Cuba, the revolution, modern day Cuba, etc? I would love to learn more.

I have just read Marx’s Communist Manifesto or Manifesto of the Communist Party, however the name is said, and my electronic copy had a study guide attached at the end, as it was from the Marxist Internet Archive.

In one of the discussion questions, it is asked:
“Stalin claimed that the 10-point program had been achieved in the Soviet Union by the mid-1930s. Do you think this claim is valid?”

Marx calls them ‘measures’ or ‘means’ (depending on grammatical interpretation.) I would hesitate to call the list a form of program. To me, it is a list of potential avenues to deconstruct power structures, whereas the ‘program’ framing seems to imply its use as a checklist where each item constitutes a goal to be achieved.

Am I missing some context or something here?

P.S: I did read the prefaces and the note to not place much importance on the proposed measures. Perhaps the study guide did not get the memo there either.