Obviously there are proletarian revolutions, and bourgeois revolutions, but I've never heard of a Feudal revolution.

This is obviously going off of classical histiography of like, Engels's Origin of the Family, so maybe it's changed since then and the feudal-slave society split isnt really a thing.

There's this famous quote from putin that goes something like, "Whoever doesn't miss the soviet union has no heart, whoever wants it back has no brain."

I'll often see statistics of how many people in, for instance, Russia say that the USSR was their greatest/best time in history, or how people in former yugoslavia do miss Tito, or how older people in East Germany have nostalgia for the former DDR, or even how a majority of Romanians think that Nicolae Ceaușescu was one of the best leaders of Romania in the past few decades [which, considering he was probably the worst leader in all of the eastern bloc, discounting Gorbachev, is a stunning indictment of capitalism in the country].

But the thing is, this is all asking about the past. I dont expect results and massive change everywhere, all at once, immediately (although who would complain). But it's been three decades now, and not one former Soviet country (except maybe Belarus, if you are extremely loose with the definition or extremely optimistic) has returned to some form of socialism.

Obviously the organizational capacity of socialist movements were kneecapped at the end of the Warsaw pact and soviet union. If they weren't themselves dismissing socialism the parties were usually banned completely or forced to change to comply with anti-socialist laws.

This isn't me saying there's literally no leninist parties in these countries, or even one's with some popular support. Obviously there's CPRF in Russia (although of course there are...doubts about their authenticity), the recently emperilled Communist Party of Bohemia-Moravia, etc. But if, say, a majority of people think communism was the best time in history for the country, presumably that would mean more than a few would be members of communist parties of some sort, no?

This isn't some "ah ha, gotcha tankie," thing. I think it's just that I wish there was more than these nostalgia polls to indicate the possibility of future socialism, rather than simply nostalgia.

Viv Ansanm (Let’s Live Together), a contested, criticized, feared – but above all misunderstood – entity, extends a generous hand to those who, only yesterday, refused even to acknowledge its “political” existence. This proposal is an invitation to dialectics. Not to compromise, but to the co-construction of reality.

(Note:I am specifically referring to China here, but I'm fine with answers pertainubg to other currently existing or formerly existing socialist states)

I'm not quite sure how to describe what I'm asking really. But anyway, since I dont live in a socialist country with these programs I just want to know what someone majoring in marxism is learning when pursuing a degree in it. What courses do they take? What are they learning? What are the post-graduation goals(this one is probably pretty obvious thinking about it)? Etc.

I hope that's clear. I'll try to elaborate more if need be though. Thank you in advance.

SUMMARY:

1. Although the West will not admit it, China’s “whole-process people's democracy” is not only true democracy at play, but is also a more functional type of democracy than that practised in Western countries.

2. Chinese democracy outclasses Western democratic electoral systems because of the complex processes it has developed which have allowed it “to move closer towards ‘the people being the masters of their own house’.” Unlike in China, procedural rather than substantive democracy best defines what is now practised in the West.

3. Chinese democracy recognises the existence of “the people” in its holistic sense. Only by doing so can one ensure the people’s “overall, long-term and fundamental interests”.

4. Chinese democracy belongs to the majority, not to a minority as in the West. Unlike in America, China is not “owned by the 1%, governed by the 1% and for the benefit of the 1%”. Low voter turnout in election-based political systems is another reason why, unlike in China, electoral democracies are not able to represent the people as a whole.

5. Western elections have become a “talent show”, where people vote for the best performer rather than for those who are best suited to govern.

6. The general population does not have the specialist knowledge nor the long-term perspective required to elect competent representatives who have their nation’s best interests at heart.

7. Chinese leaders are “tested through practice, not through votes”. Democracy in China thus ensures that “political amateurs with no experience or qualifications” cannot become its leaders.

8. Unlike in the West, China’s political system allows democracy to be practised “at both the input and output levels.” It is a system in which people are able to “participate fully” and one in which officials serve the people and actually get things done.

9. Western democracy encourages competition, confrontation and the fragmentation of interests, which leads to constant political bickering and deadlocks. Chinese democracy, in contrast, is a “consensus-finding process” that ensures that policymaking is always moving forwards with the country’s core objectives firmly in sight.

10. Yan concludes: “Let the flower of democracy in China bloom even more colourfully, let the light of Chinese democracy shine even brighter, so that China can help mankind transcend its narrow, superficial and inferior view of democracy and contribute to the building of a better, higher quality [form of] democracy for humanity in the 21st century.”

So, I guess I get the general gist, but I think my main concern is just how many plots (or supposed plots) there were against Stalin and his faction or the USSR in general at the highest order of government.

There were two heads of the nkvd, several generals, the trotskyites, the Bukharin group, Lev Kamenev and Zinoniev (who were both previously aligned with stalin), then later there was Krushchev who had the help of many, including Zhukov. I think Molotov is even cited as saying that Stalin wanted him out of government too around the 1950s.

Am I right in being concerned about this? It's not just the day to day people, but so many people in high government that, even if every single accusation is true, would still leave the soviet system as being insanely unstable under the Stalin government.

Maybe my perspective is off, but I would like an answer to why there was so much of this. Each individual case can be argued, definitely, but it feels like having such a volume is indicative of a bigger issue, no?

I’m currently writing an article for a newspaper and one of the subsections revolves around a societal responsibility towards propaganda; especially racial or ideologically Nazi propaganda as in the example of Jud Suß.

For this, I wanted to discuss the Soviet reaction to Protocols as the book was a product of the Russian Empire and served as a driving justification for Nazi racial propaganda, making the Soviet reaction towards the book potentially very useful to my article.

I’ve found very little information regarding this, and thought it would makes sense to ask if anyone here has any sources as to the Soviet reaction to the book or if it was banned? English or Russian would do as I can read both.

A short set of rules that lays down in a pretty clear fashion some fundamentals of democratic centralism.

A review of Banerjee's "Fighting Imperialism and Authoritarian Regimes: Between the Devil and the Deep Sea" (2003) and Salamey's "Hezbollah, Communitarianism, and Anti-Imperialism" (2019).

Highly recommend reading this one as it addresses a ton of bad faith arguments we still see to this day when it comes to actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. Basically a takedown of the western pseudo-left "anti-authoritarian" argument that leftists shouldn't stand in solidarity with global south anti-imperialist forces because they are insufficiently morally pure in some way or another. They do this same shtick when it comes to Russia, Iran, DPRK, and to a certain extent China as well, always conveniently finding some leftist sounding reason to demonize precisely those forces which happen to be the Empire's greatest foes, whether it's that they're insufficiently advanced in social justice causes, or insufficiently secular, or whatever else they need to say to get naive baby leftists to align themselves with the CIA and the State Department. This "compatible left" is and has been for a long time the greatest obstacle to real revolutionary movements in the West. So long as this chauvinism and this tailing of liberal Empire propaganda infects it, the western left will continue to be, by and large, little more than larpy liberals.

You can read the text on ProleWiki. Post questions/analysis here and/or join our Matrix space

Primarily for those who don't already have a discussion group, but anyone interested in Marxist-Leninist theory is welcome 👍

It won't require intensive reading/listening; it should be doable for anyone who works or studies full time, and we usually have discussions at the end of every other week. We're currently following a study plan from China, but we can add recommended texts (decided by vote). At the time of writing we're reading "Wage Labour and Capital" but I'm not going to remember to update this post

You can join the group at #reading-group:genzedong.xyz (an encrypted room) through the GenZedong Matrix space (see this post). There'll also be a pinned post in this community for the current text, for those who don't want to join the Matrix space.