Forward, comrade!

“The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.”

  • 209 Posts
Joined 3 lata temu
Cake day: sty 07, 2020


Jucheguevara has been removed from administrative positions
As of today (Sep. 27 2022), ProleWiki administrator Jucheguevara has been forcibly removed from his functions by unanimous decision, and subsequently banned from ProleWiki and all affiliated accounts and projects. It had come to our attention that Jucheguevara was active in the Infrared community and asked them to create accounts under false pretenses on ProleWiki so as to covertly push their patriotic socialist/"MAGAcommunism" agenda on our pages. Not only is this a petty attempt at sabotage, it also undermines our project and everything we have built thus far. Furthermore, as a fellow administrator, we never expected Jucheguevara would not only entertain the idea of going behind our backs, but actually follow through with it. We regret that it had to come to this, but clearly he has made his friends and enemies known and we cannot trust him any longer. The Infrared community has long been known to try and infiltrate projects so as to sabotage them from the inside. Unable to build their own movement, they would rather hijack others. As of today also, anyone harbouring patsoc (specifically the USA kind) sentiments or sympathies will follow jucheguevara's example and be banned from our project. The ProleWiki administration team.

It is still active, and it took a while to accept because at the moment there has been little movement on the wiki.

I accepted both of your registrations, check your mailboxes

I believe that while this war benefits the Russian bourgeoisie, because they are fighting NATO and their puppets, it also benefits every nation on the planet. But war is always a tragedy to humanity.

What is this 3 methods of governance that you mentioned?

Kim Jong-un, policy speech at the Supreme People's Assembly
>*The higher the stage of socialist construction for achieving the independence of the masses reaches, the greater the challenge and resistance by the imperialists become. \ \ As long as imperialism, whose inherent nature and means of existence is aggression and plunder, exists, the source of war cannot be rooted out, and antagonism and struggle between socialism, which aspires after independence and peace, and imperialism is unavoidable in the development of history. \ \ Therefore, it is a crucial and vital requirement in achieving a steady development and prosperity of socialism that conditions and an environment that allow no aggressive threat be created; to this end, we should possess an absolute strength with which we can definitely overwhelm the enemy. \ \ Our Republic, as a citadel of the anti-imperialist struggle and a fortress of socialism, resolutely promoted the construction of a self-reliant national defence capability according to its own timetable in the face of intervention and pressures by the hostile forces of all hues. By doing so, it put an end to the era when the US imperialists unilaterally imposed nuclear threat.*

No, because Marxism is not only Marx and Engels. Marxism was first developed by them, but was also developed by many other non-European peoples, and just to name a few, Maurice Bishop, Thomas Sankara, Amilcar Cabral, Che Guevara, Raul and Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Luis Carlos Prestes, Clovis Moura, Ruy Mauro Marini, Vânia Bambirra, Theotônio do Santos, Carlos Marighella, all of them non-European Marxists.

So no, Marxism is not euro-centric.

You can’t really be hurt by that kind of thing, but it still hurts me to my core. You can’t be angry, you can’t be upset with the person. You’re just upset. You also have to be understanding. It hurts but they’re hurting, too. It’s been so hard. Over four years.

I understand you, I am in an open relationship as well, for 3 years. It’s a constant exercise to overcome the idea that you “possess” someone as your property, which is ingrained in our minds through years of media bombarding us with romantic comedies which focus on this aspect of relationships. But there’s a catch to this. When your significant other is with someone else, they can’t be with you, unless it’s a romantic triangle of sorts. So you’re constantly “competing” with your partner’s attention. So if it hurts, it can be, but not necessarily, that your partner is spending more time with others than with you. If that’s the case, I think it’s fair that you discuss it with her and share with her how you feel about it

I don’t even know how to get involved in local hobby groups or anything to meet people with similar interests, as most of my interest lies in reading esoteric history and grappling with imperialism lol. It feels in the eyes of the apolitical / less political, Marxism-Leninism has turned me into sort of a theory robot.

I know exactly what you mean. And in my experience, dating with someone new and talking about Marxism-Leninism, revolution, political theory, socialism, or politics in general can be unpleasant and come across as “weird” and “obsessive” like you mention. And at the same time, for others, it can be pleasant and they can spark an interest in it as well. I think it really depends on how it is presented, in what context, and on the person you’re talking to. Some people have no interest on it at all, so there’s simply nothing you can do, you simply are not interested in the same subjects and nothing will come out of it.

The more you spend meeting new people, more odds you have to find someone interested in these subjects, but I recommend “hiding your power level” and focus on establishing a relationship with someone first before you talk about Marxism-Leninism, socialism, etc., because it can be jarring to someone who is not used to these subjects

I began dating my current partner when I had only begun my studies in Marxism. I shared with her my discoveries and perspectives, and we would discuss them together. Fast forward 3 years, she is a militant of a Marxist-Leninist party now (PCB).

In college, I’ve been socializing with my colleagues and none of them are communists, but all of them know that I am. I’ve seen them mention DPRK as an example of an awful dystopian country and one of them mention Stalin as a person who killed millions. I was able to take these perspectives and critically evaluate them to the point all of them agreed that the way the corporate media presents DPRK is pure propaganda. As to my colleague who mentioned Stalin, I couldn’t discuss it further because the discussion happened a few minutes before an exam, so I didn’t have time lol. I usually don’t bring those subjects directly, I bring them in the context of our discussions.

Meeting new people and engaging with them politically is an opportunity to sharpen our dialectical and pedagogical skills in conversations. We need to be very patient because people are bound to reproduce lies since they’ve never had anyone who studies these subjects talk to them. As to a romantic partner, if you are close to each other and love each other, you will definitely influence each other’s views. And since Marxism-Leninism is a very coherent theoretical framework to understand reality, it’s almost inevitable that your partner will take your position as their own given enough time

The Wikipedia citation template is hard to modify and customize, so I developed a replacement for them which currently fits our needs.

Check Template:Web citation for it. Not sure about the Date template, but the Date module is used in some templates around. I’m currently in the process of developing a Template:Age which will hopefully fit all or most of our dating needs

“[…] that’s not [only] propaganda, that’s [atrocity propaganda]. [The US tries] to impose their imperialistic agenda as always, but hey – looks like they aren’t empire anymore :)”

fixed your comment

Enver Hoxha was a great leader who gave power to the Albanian people. His work as a revolutionary anti-fascist and struggle against Italian fascism was heroic and gave lessons the international working class should learn from and study.

However, his leadership also produced massive mistakes, especially in ideological matters, which reflected in concrete mistakes. For instance, the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania preferred to cut ties with the Soviet Union because of Khrushchev and causing massive upheal in the economy than to keep a relationship only while you’re independent enough to cut it. They put the ideological above the material needs of the people in numerous times.

It’s unfortunately why the Party of Labour of Albania could not withstand the bourgeois counter-revolutionary wave of the late 80’s, early 90’s, and China survived the Tiananmen square incident in 1989. The Communist Party of China is still in power up to this day, the Party of Labour of Albania is not.

Do you remember when ADHD was never heard of, then suddenly became a behavioral pattern? Suddenly news came along with the “epidemic of ADHD”, with more and more cases each day.

I don’t claim that ADHD is not a particular set of behavioral patterns. But I think what and others here are pointing to is that perhaps ADHD has something to do with the fact that we spend more time in computers and electronic devices instead of spending time with people? That our low attention span has something to do with the machine learning algorithms behind the content pushed on our social media “feed”?

We should be looking at the historical material reasons behind these behaviors because human behavior is mostly social, and changes constantly over time. The mistakes of the “psychiatry” folks is that they completely individualize all behavior, and ignore the social causes behind these issues. You could say this is a liberal deviation of medicine and science, but liberal wouldn’t be even too far fetched, considering how much the multibillionaire pharmaceutical profits through this ideology.

Psychiatry has some valid discoveries and scientific research. Such is the case of schizophrenia, anxiety disorders and sleep-inducing chemicals. But psychiatry is dominated by bourgeois interest from its core to its form. Anyone who claims otherwise have never read the DSM-V and its history. Homosexuality was considered a genetic disease until the 70’s, and until 2015 being a transgender was considered a mental disorder as well. What was the criteria used to consider these gender expressions as disease, and how come “suddenly” they are not again?

Read about histrionic personality disorder. You can clearly see whoever conceived this as a “disease”, was almost certainly a male chauvinist. It’s basically a continuation of the “female hysteria” lineage. It considers being seductive, dramatic and attention-seeking as behaviors associated with this “disorder.” And the criteria used to determine if one is an exponent of this disease is simply the subjective experiences of the doctor. This is simply a disease which the American Psychiatric Association, which is a bunch of white men discussing about queer people and women as having a disease because they do not fit into their conceived standards of human behavior.

There is no intrinsic human behavior. We are all social consciousness, and you cannot understand human behavior if you ignore social life. This is a massive gap in Psychiatry’s “scientific” methodologies.

Great documentary! Really informative with a great analysis on the Soviet Union and Stalin

A big thanks to comrade [Alice Margatroid]( for the work in translations and editing! If you speak a language which is not included in ProleWiki and you wish to help add one, feel free to contact us anytime!

You should definitely protect yourself against sunburns, so I really recommend you use sunscreen. When I have to go out and take the bus in the sun, I always put sunscreen (this post reminds me I have to buy another one, but I always forget). Not only to avoid the danger of cancer, but because it really bothers us when we get sunburns, especially if you do manual labor in the open.

If by skincare you are talking about beauty products, they’re optional and unrelated to your health, so unless you wish to use it for aesthetic purposes, don’t bother. I don’t use them because my reasoning is that I am getting older each day, and using beauty products is just swimming against the inevitable current of old age

I will basically quote the book Revoluções e regimes marxistas on it.

Mongolia’s history has been conditioned by its position in the heart of Asia and its modern location between China and Russia. It is a vast region of steppes and deserts, with a small population dedicated to herding. In the 13th century, Genghis Khan succeeded in unifying the tribes and creating a vast Eurasian empire, the largest in continuous length in history. However, it was short-lived and its original core fell under Chinese domination in the 17th century, as the western cantons were being subjugated by Russia. Its original territory was divided into two regions: one incorporated by China (Inner Mongolia), now an autonomous region, and the other that was granted autonomy even then, forming what is now the Republic of Mongolia. (p. 85)

After the proclamation of the Chinese republic in 1911, the Buddhist leader took the opportunity to proclaim independence. The disorganization of the state made room for Russian influence (requested by him), and Outer Mongolia became self-governing. Russia, however, only recognized limited autonomy in 1917. Part of the Mongolian population lived in Russian-held territories in Siberia, and many Mongols were in Russian territory as laborers. Thus, inevitably, the Revolution of 1917 had repercussions on these populations and on Mongol territory itself, as the civil war between Reds and Whites affected Eastern Russia. China had sent a military contingent in 1917, but it was expelled by the White Guards, who repressed the Mongols.

On June 25, 1920, the Mongolian People’s Party was formed by merging two distinct groups that defended the Mongolian nation, the interests of the herders (arat), and were inspired by the Soviet October Revolution. During the first congress, it was decided to send two groups to the Soviet Union to ask the Bolshevik party for help - one group led by Choybalsan and the other by Sühbaatar - a meeting that took place in August of that year. From then on, the involvement between the two communist parties grew. In the wake of this process, the country was invaded by the Baron Von Ungern-Sternberg, of the Tsar’s White Guard, with Japanese support. Ungern promised autonomy from China and freedom for the Lamaist cult. A provisional government was established with Bogd Khan on the throne. (pp. 85-86)

In March 1921, the Mongolian Party, divided over the new government, elected a new provisional government and attacked a strong Chinese garrison, taking the settlement on the border with Kyakhta (present-day Altanbulag). The next day, the Party’s central committee and a provisional government were set up. In July, the Red Army and Mongol contingents, in pursuit of the White Guards, entered the country and drove out the counter-revolutionary forces. A popular government, with a monarchy of limited powers, was proclaimed. Bodoo became prime minister and foreign minister, Sühbaatar followed as commander of the armed forces and minister of war, and Choybalsan his deputy.

The period up to the official Second Party Congress (July 1923) was turbulent. There was a conservative nationalist group and a revolutionary nationalist group, causing an oscillation between Peking and Moscow. Gradually, however, the Soviet Union established its influence over the Mongolian Party, and there were several plots in the struggle for power, with important Party leaders involved, including Bodoo. Due to the climate of insecurity, even Sühbaatar’s death from illness in February 1923 was for a time considered a poisoning by order of Dandzan - the Finance Minister.

Following Soviet molds, the predominantly pastoral economy was collectivized, and the Soviets developed mining, among other branches of the economy. In 1922, serfdom was abolished, women were granted equal rights and the privileges of the nobility were eliminated, and collectivization was promoted with violence in 1925, with the purpose of eliminating the feudal nobles and the power of the Buddhist monks. This was done by confiscating the herds and distributing them to the poorest, but the middle owners killed most of the animals in order not to be taxed or confiscated. The poor shepherds did not always have the means to manage the new herds, but the struggle against the temples, which enjoyed popular prestige, was easy.

750 monasteries were destroyed, their lands confiscated, more than a thousand monks executed, and the rest gradually secularized. Collectivization, excessively “leftist,” was later condemned, and the economic model softened. At the same time, Moscow was setting up dairy industries, meat packing plants, and developing the country’s mining and infrastructure. An interesting fact was that the limitation of the number of monks allowed an important demographic growth, which had been stagnant.

The alliance between Ulan Bator and Moscow was well accepted by the Mongolian people, who feared a reincorporation into China, as well as the massive influx of Chinese farmers and the civil war that devastated China. Within the party, in parallel with the purges of the USSR, the remaining right-wing group was eliminated, as well as limiting the policies considered excessive by the left-wing group. At this same time, a kind of civil war was being initiated due to the purges of the potential enemies of the government, which guaranteed the unification of the various ethnic groups dispersed in the territory. This internal threat was soon supplanted by a threat of real war. (p. 87)

The book uses mainly three bibliographical sources:

And the third is a Portuguese book which you may not find useful because of the language barrier.

James Klugmann's story on the anti-communist character of Trotskyism
From James Klugmann's 1951 book *From Trotsky to Tito*, pages 81-82 ([available in Library Genesis]( > *The Trotskyites, too, pretended that they were the true Communists, the real Marxists, whilst the “Stalinites” had “betrayed Marxism- Leninism”. The Trotskyite doctrine, this “real Communism” as the. forerunners of Zilliacus called it, also found favour with the great trusts and monopolies.* \ \ *In Mussolini’s Italy of the nineteen-thirties, when it meant long terms of imprisonment, and perhaps torture or even death, to be in any way connected with the Communist Party, and when not only all the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, but the works of all Italian and foreign democrats and progressives were strictly banned from Italian libraries and bookshops, the works of Trotsky, on the “new kind of Communism” were “freely” and widely translated and distributed. I remember vividly how in 1938, passing through Italy on the way to meet the anti-fascist and Communist students of Belgrade University, and spending a few hours in Mussolini’s Milan, the word “communism” caught my eye on a number of books prominently displayed in a bookshop window. They were newly translated works of Trotsky.* \ \ *In Hitler’s Germany, when to be a Communist or Socialist or militant – trade unionist or liberal or democrat – meant arrest, the concentration camp, and often death and torture, when there was instituted one of the most thoroughgoing “purges” of literature and burning of books that the world has ever known, when Schiller’s Don Carlos, the poems of Heine and the novels of Thomas Mann were banned or burned as “subversive”, the writings of Trotsky were widely translated and distributed.* \ \ *Trotsky’s writings and those of his followers were freely published in the middle and late thirties by the Hearst Press in America. His works on his “new kind of Communism”were published by the - Franco press at Salamanca and Burgos. The secret police of the Polish dictatorship were specially educated in Trotskyism in order to facilitate their work of espionage and disruption inside the Polish working-class movement.*

I am very proud to announce that ProleWiki now has a Russian language version. Thanks to comrade Chayleaf for the effort in translating the site and adding content. Спасибо, товарищ Chayleaf!

The inspiring corporate music on the background is honestly really offensive and extremely insensitive It seems to me like scare propaganda

The most coherent analysis on CPUSA I have seen so far
A comrade (that wished to remain anonymous) made an extraordinary analysis on CPUSA's ideological tendencies. I think this piece of text is extremely important for CPUSA members to begin discussing the future of their organization and strategies to fight against the visibly liquidationist tendency inside the party. We decided to share this article on ProleWiki because of their relevance for Marxists-Leninists inside the USA.

Recently, the YouTube creator Viki1999 published a video called ["Why (I think) the labour theory of value is dead!"]( and exposing her arguments, which you can check by watching the video. I have written a criticism in the comments of her video, and I will adapt them here to publish here. Viki1999's main argument is that the so-called labor theory of value (LTV) may not be useful to agitate workers towards revolution. In the middle of her arguments, she distances herself from her point to bash the LTV altogether, in what sounds like a liberal deviation from Marxism. I argue that she is blinded by imperialism. She claims: > *"Most Western nations have service economies. Huge part of the economy are people who serve people in diners. Quantifying the value of a service job is close to impossible. The same is true for haircuts. The value of a haircut is very hard to quantify."* First of all, this argument ignores that capitalism is a world-market, a service economy (or consumer market) can only function if there is production elsewhere. This argument is from a viewpoint of someone living in the imperialist core, ignoring the reality of the productive sphere of the world-market, mainly restricted to the periphery countries where all the cheap labor is available to be exploited. For a service economy to exist, there needs to be hundreds of millions of workers in poverty producing the goods for the consumers in the "service economy". Still, there is a measure to "quantify" the labor related to service sector: time. Serving people in diners and cutting hair both have this measure. The work someone does needs to earn them enough value so that the worker can reproduce their lives, especially by eating and resting. If a work does not earn them enough value, i.e., if they cannot sustain themselves with their work, they cannot continue working otherwise. The question then becomes, how come big employers have enough value to maintain thousands of service workers? The answer: imperialism. The value extracted from the proletariat in the periphery countries of the Global South is what maintains the the wages of service workers and the international labor aristocracy. By being a worker living in an imperialist country, you are certainly exploited, but not by the degree of exploitation which workers in the South face. Exploitation for a labor aristocrat is much less *apparent*, to the point some of them deny it altogether, like Viki1999. > *"Raising children is not compensated by the economy at all"* It's true. But does that mean raising children is not work? Or, rather, that it does not create value? Raising children creates workers, which create value. It's reproductive work that makes productive work exist in the first place. It follows that we should fight for it to be compensated fairly. Mostly women are exploited by this circumstance, and the LTV actually helps understand this condition so that the inherent exploitation becomes apparent. Later in the video, she gives the old liberal example of "bucket of water in a desert" which supposedly would determine a high price for water based on its need, and that value is therefore subjective, a common liberal argument. But then she contradicts herself mentioning the example of unskilled workers, how the average working time and skill affects the value of the work and the commodities produced by work. The same goes for a bucket of water in a desert. A bucket of water in a desert can be overpriced by someone selling to another in great need, but this would be only an isolated exchange not at all representative of the value of extracting and transporting water, and of water as a commodity. Exploitation exists in the Western imperialist countries including in the productive sphere, especially in the United States where it's more apparent (even on the skin color). One common example is Amazon and the exploitation of workers inside its factories. Another example is the production line of the packaging of many food industries, which harshly exploits cheap and even uncompensated prison labor (quick reminder that slavery in the US is constitutionally permitted in the case of punishment for crimes). And later in the video, Viki1999 even claims "there are plenty of reasons to get rid of capitalists even if they don't take surplus-value," insinuating that capitalists do not exploit surplus-value from workers. This outrageous claim ignores the obvious reality that billionaires continue to enrich themselves while the mass of the workers in the whole world continue to live in poverty conditions more and more extreme (search for the Oxfam studies on global inequality). This enriching of capitalists and impoverishment of workers CANNOT be attributed to anything else except exploitation of workers on a global scale. For a handful of capitalists to be criminally rich, there needs to be hundreds of millions of workers criminally poor. Conclusion: While I respect Viki1999's work, I have noticed that the content of her videos has been tending towards a liberal perspective and sometimes even anti-communist and opportunist tone. The fact that she thinks the LTV is not a good argument to use for workers living in imperialist countries such as herself does not mean that the LTV is false or incorrect. The fact that the LTV, up to this day, still correctly predicts certain phenomena of capitalism means it shouldn't be discarded, only updated to our material conditions, such as explaining how a service economy can maintain itself (e.g.: through imperialism). At some points in the video she even considers that "value is subjective" using a common liberal argument and she even claims that capitalists "don't take surplus-value." One thing is to argue that exploitation is not a good argument to convince workers to organize a revolution in the imperialist core, the other thing is to argue that exploitation does not exist, which is an anti-Marxist, anti-worker claim, coming from someone living in the imperial core. Either her understanding of Marxism is lacking in its theoretical basis, or she is purposefully deceiving her viewers to discard some nonnegotiable principles of Marxism and adopting a liberal worldview. I rather think that it is her lack of study, not an arrogant attempt at falsifying the only theoretical concise explanation for exploitation from the point of view of the working class.

It comes with competent generals and fully planned socialist transition

Mostly a reflection of our [Twitter]( Our most active Twitter editor is from the United States, and so he tends to speak about Statesian trends, events, etc. The fact that we achieved more users by doing that shows that it's an approach that's giving us more readers than doing nothing. **EDIT:** This map is generated from data produced between 16 and 23 June

cross-posted from: > Our viewership is somewhat restricted to the capitalist-imperialist countries, probably because ProleWiki is mostly only offered in the English language Had to post this here as well lmao

Our viewership is somewhat restricted to the capitalist-imperialist countries, probably because ProleWiki is mostly only offered in the English language

G-mail classifies emails sent by ProleWiki as spam
If you use gmail when trying to request an account, please check your spambox for messages and mark our email message as "not spam." Gmail began marking our e-mail messages as spam a few days ago.

Have you ever read Trotsky?
A certainly infamous figure which is dreaded by most Marxists-Leninists, with good reason at least. However, one thing that the dialectical principle teaches us is that to overcome something, its useful, positive, or correct aspects must be preserved. I became less and less against the historical figure of Trotsky, but I remain anti-Trotskyist, because there are a big difference between Trotsky and Trotskyism. What made me change my mind over time was realizing that I have actually never read anything by Trotsky, I still don't know his biography, but it's a fact that he was very relevant in the October Revolution. After reading the first two chapters of *The revolution betrayed*, I noticed how Trotsky's 1936 analysis on the relationship between the peasantry and the state industry under the NEP was correct up to the academic standards of E. H. Carr (1950–1978),[^1] Charles Bettelheim (1978)[^2] and R.W. Davies (1980)[^3], using statistical data available at their time. I don't know about Trotsky's conclusion on the character of the Soviet state because I haven't read his work in full. Much like Stalin, Trotsky is a very contradictory figure, so it's very hard to simplify them by picking a side and denying the usefulness of the other. It's a dogmatic mentality that we should strive to avoid at all costs, because the truth is *the whole*, not the single perspective we pick. The intention of this post is a call for us to overcome these barriers that hamper our understanding of the past, and therefore, the present. I have noticed how many Marxists-Leninists are able to read works produced by bourgeois academics, yet preserve a hatred for certain figures (such as Trotsky, Bukharin, Khrushchev, etc.) so big that they cannot understand the historical place of them. [^1]: 14 volumes of *A history of Soviet Russia*, published between the years of 1950 and 1978. [^2]: Charles Bettelheim (1978). *Class struggles in the USSR, second period: 1923–1930*. New York: Monthly Review Press. [^3]: R. W. Davies (1980). *The socialist offensive: the collectivisation of Soviet agriculture, 1929–1930*. The industrialisation of Soviet Russia, vol.1. Palgrave Macmillan