Nice, I do follow them but wasn’t aware of this. Thanks comrade.

I have learned over the past 3 years to not argue about stuff like that anymore. It’s tiring for me, it strains my relationships, and frankly I’m more and more convinced that it undermines actual present organising. I read a couple of articles and listened to some podcasts on climate change and leninism (i.e. socialist revolution; professor Kai Heron) and their argument is convincing enough. We have bigger fish to fry than internally fighting over who was better 70 years ago. Like waaaay bigger fish: climate change and neo-fascism. Let’s fry those first and then we can discuss Stalin and Trotsky and Chinese reforms and what have you.

An example from my hometowm. Almost every dedicated Marxist grouping here is Trotskyist. It refrains me from joining them but I also haven’t asked them WHY they’re Trotskyist. And also our dedicated communist party renounced its founder because they defended Stalin. Maybe it’s the classic falsehood of “Stalin bad, Trotsky would have been better” or maybe they actually engage with Trotsky’s ideas of permanent revolution and find them more helpful in the 21st century. I don’t know. But this also means that I am left without a serious means of organising in my home city as I don’t have time nor energy to start my own organisation and even so, the zeitgeist here is not one of pro-Stalin. So I don’t argue it and just look at axtual actions on the ground and while Trotskyist, these are the people organising, fighting, getting out etc. So it’s a dilemma.

I would say unless your GF is a fascist or right-winger, don’t bother straining your relationship with this. Just inform yourself and that’s good. (Unless you want to strain your relationship in which case, have at it.).

In the US, you,ll end up dead.

There is more and more proof that one of our extreme right politicians worked in service of the CCP. I’m extremely disappointed in this.

This is a good answer. Thanks. I am doubtfull of your position that capital is subordinate to the prolitariat in China, as I do not see much examples of that. The prolitariat in China, while getting marginally less poor (yes, I’ve read the UN report), is still mostly the world’s construction basket. So while I believe that capital is regulated, I don’t believe it’s subordinate to the proletariat. That said, currently it’s better to not start implementing huge changes in economic law, i.e. take all billionaires money as it would create unrest and also ammunition for thr US to use against China. However, I would have liked to see this as an initial block back before there where billionaires in China. I still have yet to see a good point for them actually existing.

I’ll look for it. I saw it in a newsarticle from my country’s region, which is pro-western, anti-israel.in theory but sending weapons nonetheless in practice kind of country.

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/03/05/israel-gaza-hamas-seksueel-geweld-vrouw-vn-rapport/

Ok so this is the full link (in Dutch).

The last sentence of this screenshot literally translates to: researchers spoke to Israeli institutions but were not able to speak to victims directly.

That’s a semantic justification of what is, in practice, imperialism or at least, imperialism light.

The Israeli authorities didn’t let the researchers talk to any of the alleged victims personally so, yeah, there’s that.

Israeli state: “These people have been raped and coerced by Hamas!” Investigators: “can we talk to them directly?” Israeli stats: “no.”

This is a justification but still not an explanation for why China allows (or should allow) billionaires. If you take all the money above 1B Yen and transfer it to the state you also have a build up of capital to be used by the state to help the people.

Yes I understand the development of state capitalistism to build up production forces on the road to socialism. It’s still not an answer qs to why billionaires should exist.

It’s an arbitrary number because it’s a number people can latch on to. A billion dollars… or yen… or euro.

Yeah theory, everyone just always assumes someone needs more theory. Assumes the person hasn’t read theory. And it’s a divergence strategy: uh oh, don’t know, more theory!

What are we going to do with billionaires after the revolution comrade?

Just because they seem willing to do more than us, ans I don’t argue that thet do because they do, I can still criticize them for not taking that decision. Billionaires have no need of existing.

What I don’t like about the PRC is that it didn’t make into law that there can’t be billionaires. Whatever you think of China, whether it’s socialist, or state-capitalist, or capitalist in economy with socialist social relations run by a communist party, the fact that there are billionaires, even when they are kept in check by the government and do not control the state apparatus, I think it would have been an amazing precedent to say that billionaires should not exist. Every penny above 1 999.999.999 yen or dollar or euro (already a ridiculous amount but ok) should flow back to the people. It undermines the socialist project that I want to believe China is still building.

I know this has nothing to do with the article. I just wanted to say this.

Really wish we wouldn’t because that money could be used in our country. People duying on the street from cold, malnutrition, homelessness. But we’re sending money to a country that’s doomed to fail its war effort and last year vetod a very generous peace deal that Russia proposed. Screw that.

Okay that’s a good reason to get rid of the ram for sure, if it is a danger to the child. How about keeping one sheep for good luck, cuddles and floofyness? (I’m being stupid. I realize life on the commune is guided by more realistic principles than floof and cuddles)

So can’t you just get rid of the ram, then? Instead of all the sheep?

I agree with your first two paragraphs. I disagree with the third. I do think it is more difficult, especially in European countries and definitely in the US, and definitely to go towards a socialist revolution (which is the one, I think, we fight for). I also think you are underestimating the effects of the red scare.

I do agree that Second thought should not start spouting reformist nonsense like voting will suddenly work or something, but I haven’t heard that from him.

I agree that the theory is not obsolete nor has the danger passed. I am not dismissing it because it was written 100 years ago. But I’m specifically commenting on your saying that we shouldn’t align with those groups and that is true, but we should also recognise the material conditions as they are today and not in 1918: vehemently anti-communist, with social media as an important stepping stone (both fascist and socialist), and an interconnectrd world that seems more complex than ever before (I’ not saying it is, the world has always been comex, but it seems that way because we get i formation from all over). So the theory should also adapt.

Ok don’t shoot me in advance because this is an honest question. I use Safari as a daily browser. Where do theh rank on the pile?

On my android I actually use Opera and like it quite a bit.

I just bought a book called: socialisme, seks en seksualiteit. I think you would like it. It’s essays from 1999 by dutch and Belgian marxists on the topic.