If I didn’t have anything else on my plate I could do a Reddit x Lenin type response to most of the stuff in the book in not too long and format it.

I could crank out a better book in two weeks lol.

Yeah, most “tankies” have heard of the cia thing, the anti-settlers bs, and so on, while the great gatsby and Zeno’s paradox are fairly common knowledge. Its totally unclear what he’s trying to accomplish, even how he thinks this would impress anyone.

I think the point is that they have better analysis or knowledge, but that’s still an absurd way to put it.

It reads more like bourgeois philosophy. Needlessly complicated, expecting you to be familiar with the subject matter before you read the book, and being an exercise in showing the reader just how much the author knows and has read.

Schopenhauer reincarnated but he likes Hegel now. None of the examples are even particularly obscure though.

I haven’t read losurdo either but I’ve heard he’s good.

Class struggle in the Soviet Union or globally? More investigation may be due, but my impression is that he continued many of Khrushchev’s policies and the USSR continued to decline in this era.

As I expected. Khrushchev was not just revisionist for denouncing Stalin. That’s all a lot of people care about, but he declared the end of class struggle and implemented bad “reforms” that led to the rotting of the union from the inside. Brezhnev did nothing to reverse such revisionism.

Lmao checks out.

Didn’t we just get this question?

Idk but I was given this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16bue8TQo-knWAKlkpuNBnePOs7j7KDh11aDoNa_dPO0/edit

I’ve literally read that book and watched his interviews.

Yes this has strayed, but expelling people who support black national liberation is certainly dogmatic and patsoc esque.

The communist movement is largely decolonial unless you’re some silly PatSoc.

Remember those times CPUSA kicked out people who support national liberation and condemned Hamas?

Nepal is not an example of “revisionism.”

What do you know about Nepal? They had an effective revolutionary movement and ended up compromising for “communists” in power of a still capitalist system.

I’m not ending the conversation. I was not attacking your suspicion of potential anti-China content (without actually watching it, mind you), but expanding the conversation into why you might not like when people talk about revisionism in other situations.

Labels are silly. Call me a decolonial Marxist. I am generally pro-China, but am currently delving into other theory to form an all sided view. The point of the quotation is that CPUSA legalist nonsense is revisionist.

I am suggesting that you don’t like when people criticize revisionism because you support revisionism.

Of course you want to be pragmatic. If conditions are too bad to even start waging war you may do other things while imperialist power worsens. Still it is necessary, if difficult. I still need to research the PCP but they faced a significant amount of repression and were relatively successful before ultimately losing. The Peruvian government sterilized thousands of indigenous women with the explicit intent to prevent people who would become guerrillas from being born.

Yes, the Mao informed position is that nationalist alliances against imperialism may be practically necessary.

If someone gets offended seeing the word “revisionist” you know what they are. I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t criticize revisionists. “Revisionism” should not shut down conversation but lead to discussions surrounding what errors were made. Everyone should criticize both dogmatism and improper pragmatism. I know your party falls into much dogmatism itself. You use the same tired electoralist/legalist strategy that supports settler colonialism and accomplishes nothing. You dogmatically cite old CPUSA leaders and continue their failed strategies with minimal critical thought.

Revisionism is a great scourge on socialist history leading to failures from the US to Nepal. Dogmatism sucks too, but they often go hand in hand.

Fellow Traveler makes clear he supports the USSR til the end and is hopeful about China.

Even fucking capitalists admit China is not capitalist…

Last I used that argument I got the response “why tf should I expect people who don’t know what socialism is to tell me what is socialist.” I didn’t know what to say. They’d say the same if China were just a rival capitalist tbh. Republicans and democrats both get slandered as socialists.

That said, I am hopeful about China and no one in their right mind wants war with China. Everyone can agree the rest of the world needs to have it’s revolution before China can dissolve into full communism.

I agree, I just find it useful to understand why people can’t get behind China as socialist even if I disagree with them.