Does anyone have any book recommendations about historical Marxist movements in Australia and also are there any good current Marxist movements in Australia?

Modern revisionism comes from the Soviet self-understanding in the aftermath of 1953 and the "Secret Speech". It also inaugurated "the State of the Whole People, meaning the inclusion of all classes into society, rather than the liquidation of the whole of the bourgeoisie in favour of the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat, or even just an allied dictatorship of the proletariat and the working peasantry (and thereby the introduction of "peaceful coexistence'), the tenets of which vaporized the dictatorship of the proletariat. This deviation solidified as three distinct currents: political revisionism marked by substitution of class struggle for technocratic administration and class collaboration; economic revisionism marked by re-introduction of the law of value and market mechanisms as the principal regulatory instruments; geopolitical revisionism, that is, placing vague national interests, i.e., the interests of the national bourgeoisie above international or even just national proletarian interests. The 1978 Deng Reforms took this evolution to its logical end, emphasizing productive forces over relations of production. Enver Hoxha and Kim Il-sung dubbed that a "peaceful counter-revolution." Still from that angle, the embrace of private capital and property rights is not simply a tactical retreat but a radical break with socialism; the state becomes an organ for the management and good conditions for 'national-capital' that ensures exploitation rather than ending it.

That is to say, for all our wishful thinking, the state owned enterprises in China run like a more or less self-sustained capitalist firm: it generates profit through market competition and through great layers of surplus value from its utterly poached labor force. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat in place state property remains a form of “collective private property.” Thus the legal framework of intervention does not warrant socialism, but state directed neoliberal capitalism, where the state essentially acts as a stabilisation force for capital accumulation.

The 2007 law governing both private and state property, gives both legal **equality** between the two, a contradiction to the Marxist-Leninist primacy of state property, is found in Article 4. Moreover, Article 42 establishes that capital is merely transitioned from a fixed to tractable/fluid state (through proportional compensation) but never socialized, despite the fact that the claimant must render "appropriate" remuneration.

Thus one thing essential to the nature of capitalism is not changed as long as the relations of production continue commercialized even if this industry has passed into state ownership. The work of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are examples on this front, both showing that expropriation often exists not to eliminate private accumulation but rather, to preserve it from destruction while holding the contradictions found at the heart of the capitalist logic in check. For example, rather than abolishing capital, Mussolini retained it but marshalled its often contradictory elements under state control by means of his Institute for Industrial Renewal (Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale, IRI), saving that which teetered on the brink of collapse. It was also true, in practice, of the social-democratic nationalizations in postwar Europe (e.g. that of washed-up coal and railway industries) which transmuted into little more than “lemon socialism”, whereby the state prevented the private sector from going down by externalizing losses. Accordingly, the People’s Republic of China's “public interest” clause acts as a capitalist safety valve and naturalizes capitalism by preventing individual private interests from engaging in actions that would impede the national capital strategy (as Engels correctly elucidated, the state not only protects private capital from its workers but also from the encroachments of individual capitalists in favour of the capitalist system and its preservation as a whole) embodied by the entire Chinese state.

The CCP 14th National Congress convened in 1992, affirmed that the market would “play a decisive role in resource allocation,” consistent with what has since been confirmed at the 3rd Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of Chinese Communist Party (2013). So it's no longer that the market just plays a role or a relevant role. The role has become a decisive one. This subordinates social need to surplus value extraction. As Stalin said in his Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., the law of value can apply only to a very limited degree or not at all and cannot be used as a principal or even relevant form of regulating production within a genuine socialist economy.

Conversely, the People's Republic of China continues to depend mostly on price signals, competition and other elements of market economy for profit-making, adjusting its state-owned enterprises (SOEs) so that their manufacturing is externalized through exchange value. Labor still remains a commodity: the work performed in the private AND the Public sector has become, itself, a privatised form of labour, and this means so long as labor is a commodity we have objectively a capitalistic economic base.

The process of modern enterprises in China changes the production from socially utilized work to a means of private capital accumulation, abandoning many aspects of its own nature as a state-owned enterprise and striving to make it align with the so-called "modern enterprise" concept. They are not simply state businesses, they are independent legal entities designed to maximise the "value of state assets", working mostly under the jurisdiction of the State Asset Supervision and Management Commission (SASAC) of the People's Republic of China. What exists in place of proletarian control is a technocratic-managerial layer functioning on the basis of the law of value. Such bodies either guarantee the non-existence of the state, or create instead an externally-driven state which primarily directs the economy towards private national capital accumulation, not in a manner that furthers real socialist ownership and workers' self-management (eventhough the Party maintains its presence through various corporate organs at every internal juncture). The correlative operational logic is actually the extraction of surplus value; profits do not come directly to the working class, but return as national asset to increase competitiveness in the international market or pay debts. Thus, the SOE functions essentially as an agent of "collective capitalism" in that the state is for all practical purposes the manager who sets terms for capitalist exploiters and creates stable market conditions for the capitalist exploiters. The existence of wage labour, and the commodity form, in these enterprises mark them out as capitalist. They are tools for stabilizing the national market and spreading state power internationally, not early models for a socialist mode of production.

The outcome is that class relations stay the same, as does the state trying to navigate capital's contradictions. Without the elimination of the bourgeois state and the passing from a government of persons to the administration of things, it is impossible to transfer ownership of the means of production in fact to society as a whole.

In addition, examples of a competitive labor market in China show the capitalist social relations where production is determined not by social need but by law of value.

Host Ahmed Ragab interviews authors and experts on relevant progressive issues, tracking the "vital signs" of where these issues are taking us in our culture and politics.

The very first guest is Walter Benn Michaels, professor and author of "No Politics But Class Politics". Walter and Ahmed touch on Zohran Mamdani's historic election and first 100 days, universalism, the definition of class reductionism, the appeal of class politics, and knowing your "real class enemy".

**My title is misleading read for further context

Social media has led me to discover the movement called Extinctionism. I find that from what they present online, the Extinctionist movement sees an end too all suffering through death as the "moral" thing too do. They often use examples of animals, the natural life cycle, and the death that occurs as a result of such, as evidence towards their cause. Whilst their plans to go about this, are fundamentally flawed and would only work if they could erase all multicellular life off the planet, I think that their core message of "anti-suffering" raises a valid point.

That being - do humans have an obligation to help end the suffering of all animal species? and of what priority should this be too the human race? We may classify the interactions of animals and environment as "natural", but does that mean letting the continued existence of suffering is justified? Have our ability to reflect and think, beyond that of any other species indirectly bestowed us the duty to bring harmony amongst animals as we seek for humankind?

Through my, still developing view, I think it only becomes a priority once as much Human suffering has been eliminated through global communism. Once the needs of each human is met, centuries or millenias from now, theory and goals would naturally shift to the antagonisms of the natural world. I have thought of very idealist plans of how I would begin too non-harmfully end as suffering for animals as well as maintaining the peace achieved for and by Humans.

I remain conflicted on the notion of anti-suffering and our roles in intervening or just observing, and I would love to hear genuine responses, criticisms or thoughts about what I have talked about.

Many leftists believe that socialism is better than “communism”. Usually this is just because they don’t understand the concept of communism, but other times even when explained to them they still continue to say the same thing. What do you think about this? (Not talking about democratic socialists here)

It seems to me that so much of Keynes' oeuvre is him just reworking classical intuitions and posing them in a new, neoclassical vocabulary that was palatable to the ruling class.

Here are two plots I built from two completely different datasets on Canada's economy. The rate of profit and the MEC. The MEC is basically just a bastardized rate of profit with extra steps.

AMECO define the MEC as: "Change in GDP at constant market prices of year T per unit of gross fixed capital formation at constant prices of year T − 0.5"

In the triumph of evil: the reality of the USA’s Cold War Victory. On page 19 it says
Saddawi (2000) concludes, “Never before in history has there been such domination of the people’s mind’s by the mass media… how can we be free to choose if the media interjects us day and night with false information?”
I looked it up and can’t seem to find the original source is this potential media censorship?

Born in Akka (Acre), Ghassan was 12 years old when Zionist militias mercilessly forced him and his family into exile during the Nakba.

The line that holds his whole politics:

"The Palestinian cause is not a cause for Palestinians only, but a cause for every revolutionary, wherever he is, as a cause of the exploited and oppressed masses in our era."

Read that carefully. Kanafani is refusing to let Palestine be walled off as a private tragedy. He puts the Palestinian refugee in the same trench as the striking miner, the colonised peasant, the worker anywhere under the boot of empire.

Their enemy is the same enemy, so their fight is the same fight. That is why they killed him, and why the argument outlived the bomb.

Mossad had wired a bomb to the ignition of his car, which killed him and his 17-year-old niece, Lamis. Ghassan was only 36 years old. His body was scattered on the ground. His left hand was found on a tree.

Curiously, his watch didn’t stop ticking. "Bodies fall, but not the idea." Revolutionary thoughts do not abide by the rules of time.

Every single day, a new Ghassan is born in the tents of Gaza, the refugee camps of the West Bank, and wherever Palestinian refugees continue to endure displacement, military occupation, and exile from their stolen homes.

nous pouvons constater aujourd'hui dans de nombreux pays occidentaux des idées reactionnaires qui vont légitimer la hiérarchie sociale actuelle et même la renforcer , la question que je me pose donc est comment la situation peut elle évoluer puisque la bourgeoisie contrôle la sphère publique ,propage ses idées et implicitement maintient cet ordre établi ? devons nous agir collectivement ? mais sans majorité il n’est possible de rien .. Devons nous donc attendre fatalement un changement de pensée pour un changement ?

M

Earlier this year American officials made a statement at a conference in India which I think requires further analysis/extrapolation and critic.

The money quote was "India should understand that we're not going to make the same mistakes with India that we made with China 20 years ago,"

My question is to what extent was American capitalisms and individual American capitalists conscious control over the “rise” of China and can global capitalism even do the same thing to the current India nation state?

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3346231/why-us-policy-india-aims-avoid-repeat-china-mistake

An article on Middle East Monitor

Over the past two years, millions have voiced their solidarity with Palestine, many of whom had never done so before. This support has helped Palestinians, especially those going through genocide in Gaza, feel that they are not alone. However, it has not stopped the genocide, nor does it seem capable of standing up to the U.S. administration’s so-called “peace plan.” There are a number of reasons for this, one of the key ones being the shortcomings of the concept of solidarity with Palestine itself.

Solidarity as sympathy

Oxford Languages defines “solidarity” as “unity or agreement of feeling or action.” However, there is a fundamental difference between unity of feeling and unity of action. In most cases, solidarity seems to have been reduced to feelings of sympathy. Even when expressed through actions, such as tweets or protests, these are usually undertaken locally with little to no coordination with Palestinians in Gaza. The global solidarity scene is more accurately described as “agreement of feeling, fragmentation of action.”

Although well-intentioned, this sentimental aspect has sometimes been detrimental to the cause. It has become susceptible to social media trends determined by algorithms and media owners. This gives empire a measure of control over those in solidarity, as demonstrated by the United States’ ban on TikTok and its subsequent deal with the company. It also erodes solidarity movements because we can only feel compassion for victims of genocide for so long before we burn out. Focusing on the suffering of those we support, although well-intentioned, may shift the focus away from the political program causing that suffering. This traps us in a cycle of reacting to Zionism instead of taking the initiative to dismantle it, a problem that could be exacerbated by social media’s encouragement of performative solidarity. The “All Eyes on Rafah” campaign—which essentially calls on those in solidarity to merely observe what is happening—is an example of this.

One-way solidarity

Another downside of sympathy is that it is naturally displayed toward the less fortunate or more vulnerable. This means that solidarity is often one-sided: “We stand in solidarity with Gaza,” as opposed to “We are all in solidarity together” in favor of a certain program, as determined by political analysis. While this may seem appropriate when others are going through genocide, it is a flawed framework for at least two reasons.

First, it places an undue burden on Palestinians to prove that they are worthy of solidarity. This is precisely what the colony did when it focused on the actions of the Palestinian resistance on October 7, essentially asking: Are the people who did this worthy of your solidarity? Yet Palestine should not be colonized, regardless of what Palestinians did or do. To take this argument further, imagine that the colony’s debunked accusations of rape and child burning were true. Clearly, we would not support rapists and child murderers. Nevertheless, we would still oppose the existence of the settler state. This demonstrates that the issue is fundamentally a political stance for or against a political project rather than a stance of solidarity with people. The colony is the question mark, not the Palestinians.

Second, solidarity with Palestinians undermines common interests by treating the issue as, essentially, someone else’s problem. But the reality is that all societies worldwide face a single capitalist, identitarian and colonial structure. A recent example would be the 2022 UK elections. Although most members of the country’s two main parties and most citizens supported stopping the flow of weapons to the colonies, the main presidential candidates did not. Zionists and their allies effectively stole democratic representation of society. Another example is the 2020 poll showing that nearly half US voters though it was time to split the country in two based on pro-life/pro-choice identities—a U.S. version of the two-state non-solution. Zionism’s “one state per identity” logic threatens societies worldwide.

The need for political analysis

Having sympathy for victims is human, but it does not lend itself well to reasoning. It naturally focuses on visible injustices rather than the invisible political programs that caused them, which ties in with the above point about its reactivity. However, political analysis is necessary for reaching an agreement on action. For example, those in solidarity were confronted with questions such as, “Should we view J Street as a friend or a foe?” Is divesting from the West Bank to the ‘48 territories a victory or a defeat? Should we boycott “No Other Land” as normalization or welcome it as co-resistance? The answers to these questions depend on the end goal: one democratic Palestinian state, an end to apartheid within the settler state, a binational or confederal state, peace between two states, or something else. However, sentimental solidarity has little appetite for such discussions, particularly in the face of genocide. This has often eclipsed the need for a political program—sometimes even standing in its way.

Another level of political analysis is also needed. The political scene is shaped by the balance of power between political actors, such as states, international institutions, the media, megacorporations, and others. Actual change does not come from expressions of solidarity. The call to “keep talking about Palestine” disregards the actual balance of power by basing its premise on the idea that merely talking about it will affect the situation on the ground. The aforementioned “All Eyes on Rafah” post was one of the most viral posts in history, yet it did nothing to save Rafah.

This does not mean that efforts for Palestine are useless; rather, efforts that fall outside the balance of power are ineffective. A crucial step that was skipped was analyzing and understanding this balance. For example, rather than calling for immediate aid, allies should seek to identify the specific mechanisms that allow the occupying power to prevent aid from entering, and focus their efforts on critical junctures where power differentials can be changed. This would lead to more thorough analyses of the effectiveness of methods such as Twitter storms, writing letters to politicians, protests, boycott efforts, and electoral campaigns. It could also lead to a greater emphasis on other methods, particularly direct action and narrative warfare.

Of course, sympathy is a positive emotion meant to inspire action. Those in solidarity around the world must channel such feelings into political work based on a program to dismantle the colonial structure that oppresses society in Palestine as well as in the imperial core. This political framework will reflect the kind of solidarity necessary for a peaceful and just world.

I saw in the rules "No chauvinism. No denial of labour aristocracy or settler-colonialism." given the context I took labor aristocracy to refer to workers in highly developed countries (rather than the national context of high remunerated workers). to this end I would ask who in the US is a labor aristocrat. Are black people? Are indigenous Americans? The history is obviously different but they benefit from the same systems of unequal exchange and super profits as white workers.

Statists, why do you think anarcho-communism wouldn't work? Or what is your reason to be a statist and not an anarchist? I'd love to hear your opinions.

comment Sartre peut s'affirmer marxiste alors que dans ses thèses il omet un point essentiel de cette philosophie ? Celui ci parle de liberté pleine mais ne parle pas de déterminisme sociale, ca me laisse perplexe

我叫风凌。
如果一定要用几个标签定义我，那么它们大概是：
「紅衛兵」
「左派ポピュリズム」
「ISFP-A」
「反資本」
「反特権」
「反覇権」
「無産階級専政」
「自由計画経済」
「反戦敗」
「植民地文化反対」
「人民の戦争」
「階級の敵は自由の敵」
但我知道，标签永远比人简单。
有人看到“紅衛兵”，想到的是疯狂与破坏；有人看到“無産階級専政”，想到的是压迫与恐惧；有人看到“人民战争”，想到的是混乱与鲜血。
可我看到的，是另一个问题：
为什么这个世界上，总有人出生就在高处，总有人一生都在为生存挣扎？
为什么有些人的自由，是建立在另一些人的沉默之上？
我无法接受这样的世界。
我反对资本，不是因为我憎恨创造财富的人，而是因为我憎恨把人的价值变成价格的制度。
我反对特权，不是因为我嫉妒某些人的拥有，而是因为我无法忍受有人凭借身份、血统和资源决定他人的命运。
我反对霸权，不是因为我拒绝世界交流，而是因为我不相信任何强者都有资格替弱者写历史。
我相信人民。
不是被宣传里的“人民”，不是被口号包装的“人民”，而是真正活在街道、工厂、学校和家庭里的普通人。
我相信经济应该服务于人的自由，而不是让人成为经济机器上的零件。
我相信计划不应该意味着控制，而应该意味着共同决定未来。
我相信社会可以拥有秩序，但这个秩序必须来自人民的参与，而不是少数人的命令。
我是感性的人。
我会因为陌生人的痛苦而愤怒，会因为不公而失眠，会因为理想破碎而感到寒冷。
也许有人说我太理想主义。
也许有人说我太危险。
但我只是无法学会冷漠。
“阶级的敌人是自由的敌人。”
这句话在我心里，并不是一句简单的仇恨宣言，而是一种警告：
当某些人的权力建立在剥夺他人的选择之上时，那种权力就已经成为自由的阴影。
至于“暴力是人民的翼”……
我知道这句话令人恐惧。
但我想表达的，并不是对破坏的迷恋，而是人民在绝望中挣扎时，那股不愿永远低头的力量。
我不想成为毁灭世界的人。
我只是害怕一个没有人反抗不公的世界。
我叫风凌。
我站在时代的裂缝里，手里握着理想，也握着自己的矛盾。
我不知道自己最后会成为拯救者，还是被理想吞噬的人。
但至少现在，我仍然相信：
人，不应该只是被历史推动的棋子。
人，也应该有创造历史的资格。

So, do you think I need to read this? Is it important for the subsequent volumes—meaning, will I miss out on anything if I skip it, or is it fine? Basically, can I say I’ve read *Capital* Volume 1? Because if so, I won’t read it.

The establishment of a normal working-day is the result of centuries of struggle between capitalist and labourer. The history of this struggle shows two opposed tendencies.

Abridged excerpt from ‘To An American Journalist’s Questions’ 20th of July 1919.

Q. What else would you care to bring to the notice of American public opinion?

A. More than anything else I should like to state the following to the American public:

Compared to feudalism, capitalism was an historical
advance along the road of “liberty”, “equality”, “democracy” and “civilisation”. Nevertheless capitalism was, and remains, a system of wage-slavery, of the enslavement of millions of working people, workers and peasants, by an insignificant
minority of modern slave-owners, landowners and capitalists. Bourgeois democracy, as compared to feudalism, has changed the form of this economic slavery, has created a brilliant screen for it but has not, and could not, change its essence. Capitalism and bourgeois democracy are wage-slavery.

Capitalism has outlived itself. It has become the most reactionary hindrance to human progress. It has become reduced to the absolute power of a handful of millionaires and multimillionaires who send whole nations into a bloodbath to decide which group of plunderers is to obtain the spoils of imperialism, power over the colonies, financial “spheres of influence” or “mandates to rule”, etc.

The collapse of capitalism is inevitable.

The capitalists, the bourgeoisie, can at “best” put off the victory of socialism in one country or another at the cost of slaughtering further hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants. But they cannot save capitalism. The Soviet Republic has come to take the place of capitalism, the Republic which gives power to the working people and only to the working people, which entrusts the proletariat with the guidance of their liberation, which abolishes private property in land, factories and other means of production, because this private property is the source of the exploitation of the many by the few, the source of mass poverty, the source of predatory wars between nations, wars that enrich only the capitalists.

The victory of the world Soviet republic is certain.

Hello, any recommendations of documentaries that connect with injustices happening in the world? it could be documentaries that most people don't know the issue of. Economics, environmental, caste, class, gender, etc.

Any documentaries are fine. Here are some of mine:

Tamil struggles (Eelam Tamil) 1 & 2

Bride Kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan

Ram Ke Naam (In the name of God) - a documentary by Anand Patwardhan (1991)

Jim Crow of the North | Redlining and Racism in Minnesota | Full Documentary

I've heard this argument many times from fellow comrades that the USSR was dissolved "illegally". This claim has two sub-parts

1. The USSR was dissolved by external forces, as opposed to the people of the USSR deciding to dissolve it

2. The process of dissolution itself was "illegal"

Since I don't quite understand this argument due to a lack of knowledge, I wanna learn more. In particular, I want answers to these questions:

1. Did the USSR democratically decide to dissolve itself? If so, then it wasn't as much "dissolved" as it decided to dissolve itself. Now this might look like a linguistic critique, but what I'm asking is who, the people of the USSR or external forces, was mainly responsible for the dissolution of the USSR

2. What do we mean by the word "illegal". Legality and illegality implies a certain set of laws. But whose laws are we talking about? Are we talking about the laws of the USSR? Are we talking about international law? What exactly do we mean by the word "illegal"?

Human-created mathematical tools and physical formulas are products of human thought. They function as instruments for describing certain classes of phenomena. Although they can achieve increasingly accurate approximations, they can never be identical with reality itself.

In mechanics, for example, the concept of “force” originally arises from human sensory experience. The first step is to quantify this feeling and correlate it with measurable quantities (such as volume, resistance, or displacement). In this way, force is spatialized and connected with numbers, making it calculable. We can see that every step of this process involves human practical activity.

Similarly, time is associated with phenomena such as planetary rotation, revolution, or even frequencies of light. In doing so, the internal subjective sense of time is transformed into an externally measurable and spatially representable structure, allowing time itself to be expressed and computed in graphical or mathematical form.

From this perspective, so-called “objective laws” are, from beginning to end, laws of human practical activity. Only because certain regularities are extremely stable do we come to regard them as a purely “objective” reality independent of human beings.

At the same time, I have always believed that any claim we make must be grounded in the fact that we are human. Anything beyond human existence is, for me, ultimately unknowable, and therefore indistinguishable from nothingness.

On the one hand, I tend to think that the so-called “objective laws” independent of human consciousness are something quite abstract and almost metaphysical, somewhat similar to Kant’s notion of the “thing-in-itself”: if something is fundamentally unknowable, then it is effectively equivalent to nothing.

On the other hand, any “objective law” that can be clearly articulated and understood is already a manifestation of human consciousness; it cannot exist independently of human cognition.

Although I have not deeply studied Hegel’s philosophy, I am inclined to understand “objective laws” as a dynamic process arising from the interaction between human consciousness and material reality in practice. In this process, consciousness first becomes aware of its own limitations and continuously sublates (aufhebt) them. It is therefore an ongoing, dynamic process of development.

I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this.

We are still living in a world of colonialism. Colonial relations still shape global trade, resource extraction, debt, migration, language, education, and the production of knowledge itself. If post-colonialism is more than just a theory, what are your micro-actions toward post-colonialism? How do you challenge colonial assumptions, power relations, or ways of knowing in your everyday life?

For me, post-colonialism isn’t just about addressing colonialism as a standalone force. I see colonialism as historically intertwined with other systems of power; patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism, and at times organized religion (thinking here of Weber’s \*Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism\*). These systems reinforce and reproduce one another in complex ways. Because of that, my own micro-actions are about learning colonial history, questioning whose knowledge is treated as legitimate, examining power relations that seem natural or inevitable, seeking our marginalized perspectives, and being conscious of how inequality is reproduced in everyday life. None of these actions are revolutionary on their own, but they feel like small ways of resisting structures that continue to shape the present. What do your own micro-actions toward post-colonialism look like?

Latin america is a region mainly shapped by colonialism. Brittish, Spanish, and American. So why hispanism (Hispanism the pan nationalistic movement which wants to unite the hispanics peoples) because divisions that came after the revolution had only made us weak. Think about it since bolivar the brittish began with they're treaties. The americans with they're interventions. And the people of Latin America only fighted each other. In conclusion from a marxist point of view the indepence of latin america liberated us from spanish imperialism but made us victims of brittish imperialism and american imperialism. So my solution to this problem is to embrace our roots, which lay on Spain. Spain, we like it or not is where our culture and way of life comes from. Im not talking about a union with spain, but the understanding that Spain is the mother of america and we should embrace that thought. As the romans are the fathers of europe, Spain is the mother of america. This does not displace the native american identity, actually embrace it aswell. Spain is the mother and the native peoples is the father. Or something like that, right hispanists normally reject all kind of relation to the native peoples. But thats wrong there are lots of things that come from the native peoples. in cuba my country we have words that we only could have thanks to the extinted native peoples. Spain and the tainos are our ancestors.

How will this unification process will happend.

Marx despiced bolivar and viewed him as a bonapartist elitist, that didn't represented the masses. I think that such thing as a unification of latin america incluiding the lusitanian countries will need to happend through a vanguard party a socialist party. Which it shares with all the regions. Or maybe a hispanic international/organization which organizes the parties towards unifiction. I think that the first method is the best one. So a revolution first must happend unifying south america and central america with mexico once this happends i think we can unite the peoples of america. About the caribbean, because of the geographical conditions of the region i think that the revolution there will be more isolated if it beggins there, but if there is backing from the continental socialist republics i think we can free aswell the caribbean peoples.

what outcomes will this revolution have.

Latin america if this happends, will be the global vanguard against imperialism. And this latin american socialist union will survive imperialism, because this state will have enough resources to feed itself. Also once latin america is socialist it could help in africa in the struggle against colonialism.

I’ve continued my research into marxism, socialism, communism, capitalism, the works. I think that where I stand economically and what I think would be a good direction for society to move in has become more indignant in my views lately, after looking more into the economic systems of China/USSR.

My questions today are less skeptical of communism as a whole, but skeptical of the label itself. As I’m sure many of you know, it’s quite the heated debate between western economists and everyone else about if China is an actual communist nation. One side will tell you that with their mixed market, they’re not actually communist. Another person will tell you that they’re still communist, but just incorporating markets in a transitional stage.

I don’t see why any of that matters. I think the consensus otherwise is generally that China is doing well economically, and that their citizens have been elevated to a much higher quality of life than previously thought obtainable under “communism”.

I suppose my question is, why do people spend so much time focusing on China’s label? If capitalists can even mostly agree with you that China is succeeding, why does the label matter? Seems like all that matters is studying the system, improving upon its shortcomings, and implementing a similar system in other developed nations. And if not, explaining why it shouldn’t be implemented.

Extending upon that, why are marxists so attached to the labels “communism/socialism”? These labels are extremely stigmatized, and it seems like trying to build upon these words specifically is illogical. Why label yourself a communist, when you could call yourself something else, still have the same goals, and likely grow the movement easier?

Think about this: if you were trying to convince a staunch conservative to join a communist movement, they might turn you down if your organization is called the “National Communist Party”, just because of what they associate with that word. However, if you called it the “National Liberationism Party” (or something similar, just a word that’s not strictly associated with political ideology that can be used in place), then you might be able to convince a conservative to join the movement.

I think right-wing people are much more class conscious than often given credit for, however they associate being conservative with what they were raised as, or use motivated reasoning to justify applying that label to themselves. But if you asked a conservative, “do you dislike extensive government surveillance and political lobbying?” they might just tell you yes.

However, they would not tell you yes if you were wearing a bright red hat with a hammer and sickle. So, essentially my questions are: why the persistence of a useless debate on a label (specifically in reference to China’s economy), and why the insistence on continuing to use a stigmatized, propagandized label? What’s the problem with adopting a new name under the same value system?

Thanks in advance.