#the cadre leninist

[elparra]

-

[jovialbasementbouquetblr]

1957: VII Criticizing Party Leadership During "Hundred Flowers" Speak Frankly Campaign

More critiques of the Party and biting insights about its leadership of Chinese society during the “Hundred Flowers” compulsory speak out months before the big crackdown. Topics include criticism of the relationship between the Party and the masses; slandering the Party, defending counter-revolutionaries and criticism of the Party leadership over trade unions and other organizations in Chinese…

[metamatar]

i switched off reblogs on that post but the reason i said 'so called communist parties' in india is bc they do have power and they are not meaningfully communist. trying for electoral political power means opportunism, not merely the reformist failure state. have we forgotten nandigram? these party cadres literally beat up peasants and workers who didn't want to be displaced by a tata car factory. in kerala they announce how much they love public private partnerships. i forgot i was talking to people who don't know about india, but i was not bragging about how there's communist movements in the global south i was comparing what leftist activation looks like in its defanged, retrenched state under threat of local fascisms in both the us and india and how it doesn't really have much to do with ideology.

also someone asked me to source the claim that most left energy in india goes through the marxist leninist and maoist parties and not anarchists and like... this is very obvious ok? its like saying there's more democrats in the united states than psl members. anyways i still sourced it.

so cpim has 1 million members, cpi has about 650k, cpiml about the same on their wikipedia page. they also have various million plus affiliated trade unions like aicctu, aituc and citu. this is also obviously excluding the various deeply illegal naxalite maoists waging war in bastar.

there's a few famous indian writers who get claimed for anarchism - gandhi (a trad conservative), bhagat singh (an admirer of lenin) and mpt acharya and har deen dayal. since independence though, there aren't any with cultural cachet esp given india's non hostile relationship with the soviet union, not a lot of communist energy happened outside of communist parties.

here's jean dreze analysing why he thinks anarchism has little cachet in india.

[buttonsgoblin]

Always very funny to me when leninists criticize anarchist organizations for having cliques and interpersonal drama. Like yeah, that is a criticism I also have of a lot of anarchist groups. But also, there are dozens of leninist vanguard parties active in the US at any given time, and they all seem to spend quite a lot of time arguing with each other about trivial bullshit. Not to mention all the drama that happens within the party cadre itself, which is very much also a thing despite the image they like to project. I’d absolutely love to tackle these sorts of problems in leftist spaces but I really don’t think leninists represent the gold standard there lol

[dailyanarchistposts]

Differences Between Anarchism and Authoritarian Leftism (Marxist-Leninist-Maoism)

A significant difference between anarchism and Marxist-Leninist-Maoism is hierarchy. MLMs depend on cadres (leadership) to make the ultimate decisions, which is why they often stick to a central message handed down from the top. Anarchism is horizontal, which means having a lot of intentional discussions around consensus and each person’s needs. MLM organizing tends to be more oriented towards building critical mass and numbers because they believe that the solution is to displace the current state with a “people’s state” — a point that anarchists fundamentally disagree with because we believe that states in any form simply replicate the existing hierarchies of violence and systems of oppression.

The tensions between anarchist and authoritarian leftist organizing also often come down to questions of capacity, scale, structure, and urgency.

It’s often the case that authoritarian leftist organizing (in its many variations) is willing to sidestep conversations on internal conflict and will readily engage in disposability politics for the sake of scaling up rapidly, at an unsustainable pace. Which is something I’m not down with — because I am definitely one of the people (among many who make up my community) who gets left behind over and over again due to chronic illness, precariousness, limited access to resources, etc. But it’s tougher to build a large group with anarchism because of decentralization — with the intent that the focus is on meaningful relationships and not burn out or exclusion.

What is a “movement” between billions of people who don’t know or have any deep investment in each other? Another frustrating part of focusing on mass movements is that the more that people push for critical mass, the less considerate they are of pace — and the less attention they pay to who they leave behind in the process of growing, growing, growing.

I believe that small and committed groups of people can do big things if they want to. I don’t think we need to change everyone’s mind. I think that change happens all the time, on the ground, in relationship, at a scale that people don’t/won’t take notice of because they are too busy looking elsewhere.

I believe that small and committed groups of people can do big things if they want to. I don’t think we need to change everyone’s mind. I think that change happens all the time, on the ground, in relationship, at a scale that people don’t/won’t take notice of because they are too busy looking elsewhere.

At the same time, we are still working on how to organize autonomously in ways that are resilient and lasting. It seems like anarchist organizing, while more forgiving and flexible, is also far more susceptible to disintegration when hard-line demand for consistency isn’t made. And yet autonomous spaces are the ones where I have felt the most whole, and where my needs and limitations have been taken seriously.

[mesetacadre]

In view of this, the Party considered it necessary to help the regenerated nations of our country to rise to their feet and attain their full stature, to revive and develop their national cultures, widely to develop schools, theatres and other cultural institutions functioning in the native languages, to nationalise—that is, to staff with members of the given nation—the Party, trade-union, co-operative, state and economic apparatuses, to train their own, national, Party and Soviet cadres, and to curb all elements—who are, indeed, few in number—that try to hinder this policy of the Party.

This means that the Party supports, and will continue to support, the development and flourishing of the national cultures of the peoples of our country, that it will encourage the strengthening of our new, socialist nations, that it takes this matter under its protection and guardianship against anti-Leninist elements of any kind.

It is apparent from your letters that you do not approve this policy of our Party. That is because, firstly, you confuse the new, socialist nations with the old, bourgeois nations and do not understand that the national cultures of our new, Soviet nations are in content socialist cultures. Secondly, it is because—you will excuse my bluntness—you have a very poor grasp of Leninism and are badly at sea on the national question.

Consider, by way of example, the following elementary matter. We all say that a cultural revolution is needed in our country. If we mean this seriously and are not merely indulging in idle chatter, then we must take at least the first step in this direction: namely, we must make primary education, and later secondary education, compulsory for all citizens of the country, irrespective of their nationality. It is obvious that without this no cultural development whatever, let alone the so-called cultural revolution, will be possible in our country. More, without this there will be neither any real progress of our industry and agriculture, nor any reliable defence of our country.

But how is this to be done, bearing in mind that the percentage of illiteracy in our country is still very high, that in a number of nations of our country there are 80-90 per cent of illiterates?

What is needed is to cover the country with an extensive network of schools functioning in the native languages, and to supply them with staffs of teachers who know the native languages.

What is needed is to nationalise—that is, to staff with members of the given nation—all the administrative apparatus, from Party and trade-union to state and economic.

What is needed is widely to develop the press, the theatre, the cinema and other cultural institutions functioning in the native languages.

Why in the native languages?—it may be asked. Because only in their native, national languages can the vast masses of the people be successful in cultural, political and economic development.

In view of all that has been said, I think it should not he so difficult to understand that Leninists cannot pursue any other policy on the national question than the one which is now being pursued in our country— provided, of course, they want to remain Leninists.

Is not that so?

Well, then let us leave it at that. I think I have answered all your questions and doubts.

With communist greetings,

J. Stalin

The National Question and Leninism. J. V. Stalin, 1929

[little-red-book-daily]

Class struggle, the struggle for production and scientific experiment are the three great revolutionary movements for building a mighty socialist country. These movements are a sure guarantee that Communists will be free from bureaucracy and immune against revisionism and dogmatism, and will forever remain invincible. They are a reliable guarantee that the proletariat will be able to unite with the broad working masses and realize a democratic dictatorship. If, in the absence of these movements, the landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements and monsters were all allowed to crawl out, while our cadres were to shut their eyes to all this and in many cases fail even to differentiate between the enemy and ourselves but were to collaborate with the enemy and were corrupted, divided and demoralized by him, if our cadres were thus pulled out or the enemy were able to sneak in, and if many of our workers, peasants, and intellectuals were left defenseless against both the soft and the hard tactics of the enemy, then it would not take long, perhaps only several years or a decade, or several decades at most, before a counterrevolutionary restoration on a national scale inevitably occurred, the Marxist-Leninist party would undoubtedly become a revisionist party or a fascist party, and the whole of China would change its color.

Note on "The Seven Well-Written Documents of Chekiang Province Concerning Cadres' Participation in Physical Labour" (May 9, 1963), quoted in On Khrushchov's Phony Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World, pp. 7l-72.

[beguines]

Although the phenomenon of economism has traditionally been understood as a failure to bridge the gap between trade-union and revolutionary consciousness (according to the doctrinaire Leninist formula), this is not enough to understand the particular power it exerts at the centres of global capitalism. For if economism was only the result of an inability to move from trade-union to revolutionary consciousness, then the traditional answer to this impasse is as simple as the definition: use the already existing structures of the trade unions to build party cadre by sending dedicated militants into these spaces and directing an already organized proletariat towards the consummation of their working-class experience: the revolutionary party. Here, as aforementioned, the traditional Leninist solution is well known: the strategy of insurrection wherein a general strike will produce an uprising; the party militants already operating amongst the unions—having built up the germinal form of their organization—will be recognized as the advanced guard of this insurrection and be able to lead the civil war against the state.

The problem, however, is that this solution to the impasse has failed to manifest since the October Revolution in 1917. Moreover, as discussed in the previous chapter, the practice of sending militants into union spaces, at least within the imperialist metropoles, has largely failed to shift trade-union consciousness to revolutionary consciousness. More often the opposite sequence takes place: those who possessed revolutionary consciousness end up being shifted into a trade unionist frame of mind, i.e., economism. The result is accommodation or liquidation.

J. Moufawad-Paul, Politics in Command: A Taxonomy of Economism

[connorthemaoist]

Communist Party of the Philippines | December 16, 2023

We mark today the first anniversary of the passing away of our ever dearest comrade Jose Maria Sison, founding chair of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines, and great communist leader of the Philippine revolution.

We celebrate his revolutionary life and great contributions to the theory of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism through its practical application on the concrete conditions of Philippine society and in waging national democratic revolution.

We will forever treasure the legacy of theoretical and practical work that Ka Joma bequeathed the Party to help guide the new generation of revolutionary proletarian cadres and Party members and Filipino revolutionary fighters, as they wage life and death class struggle to overthrow the reign of those who exploit and oppress the broad masses of the Filipino people.

Through his body of work, Ka Joma defined the revolutionary landscape in the Philippines for over five decades. Several generations of Party cadres and leaders, Red commanders and fighters of the New People’s Army and revolutionaries and activists looked up to Ka Joma’s leadership and sought guidance from his insightful Marxist-Leninist-Maoist analysis.

The program for a people’s democratic revolution or national democracy, which Ka Joma first elaborated, represents a complete break from the now 77 year history of semicolonial and semifeudal system in the Philippines. It seeks to realize the Filipino people’s aspiration for national and social liberation which have inspired thousands of uprisings throughout three centuries of colonial and semicolonial subjugation.

Ka Joma’s work remains ever relevant, modern and future-proof, in contrast to the official bourgeois liberal, neoliberal, and anti-communist ideas promoted by the reactionary state that represents the moribund system that is way beyond its time. His sharp analysis of the backward feudal and semifeudal, agrarian and non-industrial conditions of the semicolonial and semifeudal system remains key in understanding the necessity of waging a people’s democratic revolution.

Since his death, a campaign to study the works of Ka Joma has been carried out within the Party and among the organizations and movements which has has inspired. Key works of the Ka Joma, including Struggle for National Democracy, Philippine Society and Revolution, Rectify Errors and Rebuild the Party, Specific Characteristics of Our People’s War, Our Urgent Tasks, Reaffirm our Basic Principles, Stand for Socialism against Modern Revisionism and many others, are being circulated in print and digital form. Ka Joma’s Five Volume set of books are being promoted and translated to local languages.

The work of Ka Joma continues to serve as guide to the Party and Philippine revolution. His theoretical writings remain ever crucial in the ideological, political and organizational building of the Party, waging armed struggle through extensive and intensive guerrilla warfare, carrying forward the revolutionary mass movement in both the cities and countryside, as well as in conducting peace negotiations with the co-belligerent Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP).

His legacy continues to serve as source of inspiration and guidance for the Central Committee and all leading committees of the CPP. Proletarian revolutionary cadres continue to lead the New People’s Army in waging mass struggles and continue to strike deep and wide roots among the masses to lead their struggles. Presently, the Party is at the core of the broad united front that is being built against the US-Marcos regime.

The revolutionary work of Ka Joma will continue to inspire future generations of Filipino youth. The resounding call to wage national democratic revolution touches on their deep longing for a society that is free from oppression and exploitation.

[collapsedsquid]

Existential risk guys gotta move beyond their present of utopian polycules to organize their activism and move to a leninist cadre model.

[redstarnotebooks]

Historic Eight Documents, Charu Mazumdar

A selection of eight important documents issued by a left faction in the Communist Part of India (Marxist) which split to become the CPI (Marxist-Leninist). The split was broadly over the passivity and reformism of the CPI (M) in the face of fierce but spontaneous uprisings by peasants, and the refusal of armed struggle or even illegal work by the CPI (M) leadership.

The documents form the basis of the Naxalbari uprising and the subsequent Maoist insurgency in India. They've had their ups and downs over the years, between infighting and Operation Green Hunt, but unified a few years ago as CPI (Maoist) and have survived massive counterinsurgency campaigns and urban repression. This is due in large part to the people's war being fueled by objective conditions faced by small peasants and Indigenous Peoples in India.

There's a lot of interesting stuff in the book, like the building of underground Activist Groups to train new party cadre pending a broader central organization of the new party. Or the "gun-collection" campaign, or the role of the Soviet Union in propping up the Indian bourgeoisie alongside the Americans. There's some interesting discussion of class ideology in India at the time. One thing near the end got my attention.

"...there is amongst us a group of revolutionary comrades who accept the Chinese party and the Thought of the great Mao Zedong and also accept that as the only path. But they view the book 'How to be a Good Communist' as the only road to self-cultivation and are consequently led into a serious deviation. The only road to Marxist self-cultivation taught by Lenin and Chairman Mao is the path of class struggle... the main point of of party education is application of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism in class struggle, arriving at general principles on the basis of that experience and taking back to the people the principles summed up from experience. That is what is called 'from the people to the people.'... Self-cultivation is possible only in the process of changing the existing conditions through revolutionary struggle."

Lots more interesting things, and it's just under 80 pages. I read it on the ride to work this morning.

[oreganosbaby]

struggle session in the marxist leninist maoist cadre/polycule for being a romangirl

[milkboydotnet]

"Comrade Mao brought to a new and higher stage, the third stage, in the development of theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism, by putting forward the theory and practice of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship through cultural revolution (starting with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution) to combat revisionism, prevent the restoration of capitalism, and consolidate socialism. The GPCR brought to the peak Comrade Mao’s theoretical and practical achievements along the Marxist-Leninist line. It is the most important component of Mao Zedong Thought, on top of its other components. It serves to underscore the series of major contributions Comrade Mao made in philosophy, political economy, social science, rectification movement in party building, and protracted people’s war in the new democratic revolution. The CPP has sought to learn the principles and lessons involved in the theory and practice of the GPCR and in the earlier components of Mao Zedong Thought. In philosophy, Mao elaborated on and developed Lenin’s identification of the unity of opposites (divide into two) as the most fundamental law of materialist dialectics. He applied materialist dialectics in the process of gaining higher knowledge from the dialectics of theory and practice, in carrying out the new democratic revolution through people’s war, and undertaking socialist revolution and construction. In political economy, Mao had the advantage of learning positive and negative lessons from Stalin’s policy of socialist industrialization and agricultural collectivization. He criticized the revisionist reversal of socialist revolution and construction, and he put forward the line of self-reliant socialist construction by using the basic and heavy industries as the leading factor, agriculture as the base of the economy, and light industry as the bridging factor under conditions of imperialist blockade, revisionist betrayal, and natural calamity during the Great Leap Forward.

In social science, Mao developed further the theory and practice of the new democratic and socialist stages of the Chinese revolution. But his most important achievement in social science was recognizing the problem of modern revisionism and the continuing fact of classes and class struggle in socialist society and in adopting solutions. He put forward a series of campaigns to uphold, defend, and advance socialism, such as the anti-Rightist campaign, the Great Leap Forward, the socialist education movement, and ultimately the Cultural Revolution as he faced greater resistance from the revisionists and capitalist roaders within his party. In party building, Mao adopted and developed further the Leninist teaching on building the proletarian vanguard party. He excelled at developing the rectification movement as the campaign for educating the Party cadres and members in Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, as the method for identifying the errors and weaknesses and for saving the patient from the disease, and as the way for the Party to better serve the masses, mobilize them, let them acquire power, and come under their supervision. In people’s war, Mao had already demonstrated how the toiling masses of workers and peasants could defeat an enemy that was superior in military equipment and trained personnel through the strategic line of protracted people’s war by encircling the cities from the countryside in semicolonial and semifeudal countries. By winning the new democratic revolution through people’s war, the revolutionary proletariat and the people obtain the state power to proceed to socialist revolution. The theory and practice of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship through the GPCR was regarded as the greatest epoch-making contribution of Mao. It was aimed at combatting modern revisionism, preventing capitalist restoration, and consolidating socialism. Even as the GPCR would be defeated by the Dengist counterrevolution, it still confirms and explains how socialism can be subverted and destroyed from within. Such a lesson will guide the forthcoming socialist revolutions. We, the Filipino proletarian revolutionaries, have studied the GPCR as the answer to the problem of modern revisionism arising in socialist society in view of the degeneration of the bureaucrats and intelligentsia in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. At the same time, we benefited from its underscoring of the proletarian revolutionary line of Comrade Mao in the new democratic and socialist stages of the Chinese revolution. Like the Paris Commune of 1871 being defeated by the bourgeoisie, the GPCR was defeated by the Dengist counter-revolution and capitalist restoration, but it laid down the basic principles and methods for future adoption and further development in confronting the problem of revisionism and degeneration in future socialist societies." Jose Maria Sison

[usrofficial]

Leninist Cadre System

The All-Union Communist Party has announced the formation of the Leninist Cadre System.The Leninist Cadre System is a system based off Leninist values such as democratic centralism. We aim to transform the AUCP into a Vanguard/Cadre Party. Cadres now recieve extremely privileged positions, permissions in all server, and access to departmental leadership. Along with this, all Cadres recieve free…

[zvaigzdelasas]

where does stuff like onlyfans fit into anti-porn and anti-sexwork in ML? Like aren’t they self employed porn stars so they’re not being exploited? So why would sex work still not exist under socialism?? can’t people freely choose to do it?

You know the USSR collapsed 30 years ago right, there is no Official ML Party Line on anything past that point

[warsofasoiaf]

In your thing about Communism, while acknowledging your point "Much of the same brutality seen in those systems were seen (elsewhere)" and choosing to set aside comparisons of degree or scale, has there ever been a Communist regime that did NOT feature brutality and mass murder? Or endemic & systemic corruption, the usual vice used to justify allowing a regime to fall to Communist takeover?

To my knowledge, no. It depends on your definition of mass murder though. Benjamin Valentino concluded that smaller states did not commit mass killings but he defines such an event as 50,000 or more dead, whose smaller populations and potential shortness of reign may contribute to not qualifying for that mark. Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr stated that most Marxist-Leninist regimes committed politicides, stating: "Their enemies usually are defined by variants of Marxist-Leninist ideology: initially their victims include the officials and most prominent supporters of the old regime and landowners and wealthy peasants. Later they may include-as they did in Kampuchea and in China during the Cultural Revolution-cadres who lack revolutionary zeal. In Laos and Ethiopia they have included ordinary peasants in regions which actively or passively resisted revolutionary policies."

There have been Communist ministers elected to democratic governments which did not participate in purges - perhaps most famously with the Historic Compromise in Italy between the centrist Democrazia Cristiana and the Partito Comunista Italiano which was torpedoed by the Brigate Rosse, a different communist movement opposed to the Compromise as it was believed to have been an unacceptable compromise in the face of a future war against capitalism, when they assassinated Aldo Moro, the Prime Minister of Italy. This wasn't universal though, plenty of democratically-elected Communist ministers have supported the full overthrow and dissolution of democratic and/or parliamentary governments as bourgeoise conceptions of power according to the Leninist theory, such as the 1948 Czechoslovak coup. Even in countries where significant tangible gains were made after negligent rule, such as Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara which saw significant strides in women's rights, famine reduction, public health, and education, depended on revolutionary terror - convening drumhead show trials at revolutionary tribunals, brutalizing dissenters and strikers, and extrajudicial assassinations, to maintain power and the one-party state.

In practice, most that did not usually belonged to socialist or social democratic parties, the distinction of which can be academic at times when comparing rhetoric versus policy. Plenty of self-described socialist parties, particularly in Europe, maintained private property/enterprise and focused largely on social democratic principles - expansion of welfare states, progressive taxation, strengthening of labor unions, partial nationalization of strategic sectors, particularly after the Cold War began and communism and socialism became more politically toxic in Europe outside of the Iron Curtain.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King