🧵PROVING that Ingsoc were the good guys in 1984

A Thread ⤵️ of communist principles in the face of counter-revolutionary threats.

🧵 What was the Holodomor? What caused it? Was it intentional?

A thread ⤵️ In the early 1930s, a severe famine known as the Holodomor unfolded in the Soviet Union, primarily Ukraine, causing immense suffering and the tragic loss of millions of innocent lives.

How America Helped Steal Ukraine

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, much effort has been made to rehabilitate the image of the current Ukrainian state- formerly seen as a corrupt government with dubious legitimacy and somewhat of a Nazi problem, it is now hailed as an outpost of the “free world” against the “Asiatic hordes”. Much question has been called in to these claims. Further still, the question regarding the 2014 ousting of Yanukovych has become muddied. Some see it as a legitimate democratic revolution deposing a dictator, while others view it as a US backed color revolution that utilized far right ultranationalist groups to install a puppet government. As with all accusations of color revolution, providing evidence for these claims is exceedingly difficult. Rarely does the US come out and admit to their involvement in the overthrow of a government, and when they do, it is decades later. Because of this, one must investigate the actions taken by various US agencies. These include USAID, USAGM, and the NED. A shocking amount of information can be gleaned about American operations in countries all over the world by simply reading publicly available documents from these countries: budget statements, budget requests, program announcements, NGO contracts and more are incredibly revealing.
Maidan Revolution: The Timeline

Before American involvement in Ukraine can be discussed, we must first establish the uncontroversial facts of the Maidan Revolution, otherwise known as the 2014 Revolution of Dignity.

·        March 30th, 2012: EU and Ukrainian officials begin discussing and drafting an association agreement between Ukraine and the European Union. Some EU representatives were hesitant about this, as they wanted to “avoid giving a political present to Yanukovich, helping his party’s prospects in the forthcoming parliamentary elections”. Others wanted to rush to ratify the agreement as soon as possible to “lock Ukraine in with treaty level commitments” and “avoid giving Putin the time and opportunity in which to exploit Ukraine’s evident vulnerabilities, in order more precisely to get Yanukovich to agree to join the Russian led customs union, which would mean torpedoing the AA and DCFTA with the EU.” (The Ukraine Question, 2012)

·        December 10th, 2012: The EU issues a statement reaffirming their commitment to further cooperation with Ukraine, but with conditions. They stated that Ukraine must first make progress regarding democracy, transparency, and political persecution. In addition to this, the EU expected Ukraine to “refrain from introducing protectionist measures, such as recycling fees on vehicles, which are potentially in breach of its WTO commitments.” (3209th Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, 2012)

·        November 2013: The Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) fails to pass laws releasing opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, one of the EU’s demands. The Ukrainian government proposes a three-way trade deal between Russia, the EU, and Ukraine. This same month, the Euromaidan protests begin. (Ukraine Drops EU Plans and Looks to Russia, 2013)

·        November 29th, 2013: Yanukovych reiterates his proposal of a trilateral trade agreement. He also asked for help “softening the terms of an IMF loan.” The EU refused this, stating “Yanukovich must give a commitment to sign the agreement that he refused to give.” (Ukraine 'still wants to sign EU deal', 2013)

·        December 17th, 2013: Yanukovych signs a deal with Russia whereby Russia would “invest $15 billion in Ukraine’s government debt and reduce by about a third the price that Naftogaz, Ukraine’s national energy company, pays for Russian gas.” This contrasts with the $839 million promised by the EU. (Piper, 2013)

·        February 17th, 2014: The Right Sector announces a “peaceful offensive” and called on all members to engage in a “peaceful attack” against the government. (Pravda, 2014) The Right Sector is an ultranationalist coalition of fascist organizations. Their flag features the Ukrainian tryzub over the red and black flag of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationals, the infamous Holocaust collaborators. On February 18th, demonstrators breached the police barricade surrounding the parliament building at 9:45 am. (Barabanov, 2014)

·        February 20th, 2014: Authorization is given to use live ammunition against insurrectionists. (Zakharchenko officially allowed security forces firearms, 2014) Ukrainian security forces kill around 80 people in the next few days.

·        February 21st, 2014: Yanukovych and opposition leaders sign an agreement attempting to end the uprising. This is a sign that Yanukovych is willing to collaborate with his opposition. Right Sector rejects this, announcing they will “continue their revolution”. (RBC, 2014)

·        February 22nd, 2014: Yanukovich claims his car was shot at. (Reuters, 2014) Following this, he fled to Crimea. Later that day, the Rada votes to remove Yanukovych from office. Out of the 450 members, 328 voted yes, 6 did not vote, and 116 were absent. (Rada, 2014)

And with that, Yanukovych had been ousted from government. Later, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics declared independence from Ukraine, and Crimea was annexed by Russia. I will not be discussing the legitimacy of these actions, as they are beyond the scope of this article. However, when examining American involvement, one must keep in mind that Ukraine was essentially in a civil war at this time- the western Ukrainian state on one side, the DPR and LPR on another.

Has China Abandoned Socialism?
By Earl Robson of the Pseudonymous Left and GojiraTheWuMao of Prolewiki

I. Introduction

Following Chairman Mao's death, Deng oversaw the Reform and Opening Up. This resulted in significant economic liberalization in China, and is frequently described as rote capitalist restoration by thinkers from various backgrounds. Everyone from liberals to various Ultra-Leftists has claimed that China has abandoned its socialist project. Although we do not think China is currently socialist, we find it inaccurate to say that they have abandoned socialist construction.

While China has not yet achieved socialism (the lower stage of communism described by Marx and Lenin), it continues to adhere to socialist construction and Marxism-Leninism principles. Contemporary China is governed by an economic system that Lenin deemed "State Capitalist"; in Lenin's formulation, this manifested as the NEP, which he implemented in the USSR. In China, this is known as the Socialist Market Economy (or SME for short).
II. The State Capitalist Model

When people say “state capitalism” in the modern era, it is usually a sign that they have a poor understanding of capitalism, let alone socialism. I myself have argued that it is a virtually meaningless phrase in contemporary discussions, considering how often it is applied to the USSR and other genuinely socialist projects.

However, when we describe China as state capitalist, we mean something very specific. The advancement of society from one mode of production to another is a scientific process, and it is not possible to simply skip from feudalism directly to communism. Ultras hear the phrase “productive forces” and immediately cease to take the discussion seriously, considering this to be Dengite jibber-jabber. This is completely untrue and reveals their lack of understanding of the Marxist dogma that they claim to cling to.

Marx makes this clear in “The German Ideology, Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook A. Idealism and Materialism [5. Development of the Productive Forces as a Material Premise of Communism]”

In order to achieve the highest stage of communism, the productive forces of society must be sufficiently developed. If a country were not to do this, the only form of communism they could form would be local, or primitive communism. As Marx explains:

“...this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the “propertyless” mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism.”

To insist on neglecting the development of the productive forces, on the forgoing of the full evolution of the capitalist mode of production, is pure utopian thought. This is unscientific idealism, a rejection of the teachings of dialectical materialism.

Capitalism is historically progressive compared to feudalism. China never fully developed the capitalist mode of production before attempting to establish communism under Mao. As such, it is absolutely necessary for China to fully and completely develop capitalism before they are able to advance to a higher mode of production. “What an outrage!” those who do not understand historical materialism will say, “How can a communist advocate for the creation and nurturing of capitalism?” A proper understanding of historical materialism will remedy this misunderstanding. The historical development of society is a process of incremental quantitative change leading to large qualitative change. Stalin explains historical progression succinctly in “Dialectical and Historical Materialism”:

“The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system, the slave system is a quite understandable and natural phenomenon, since it represents an advance on the primitive communal system

The demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic when tsardom and bourgeois society existed, as, let us say, in Russia in 1905, was a quite understandable, proper and revolutionary demand; for at that time a bourgeois republic would have meant a step forward. But now, under the conditions of the U.S.S.R., the demand for a bourgeois-democratic republic would be a senseless and counterrevolutionary demand; for a bourgeois republic would be a retrograde step compared with the Soviet republic.

Everything depends on the conditions, time and place.

It is clear that without such a historical approach to social phenomena, the existence and development of the science of history is impossible; for only such an approach saves the science of history from becoming a jumble of accidents and an agglomeration of most absurd mistakes.”

With the understanding that in order to develop communism, a society must first develop capitalism, a new question arises: What differentiates state capitalism from liberal capitalism or corporatism, and why is it a useful tool of the communist movement?

State capitalism is not class collaboration—quite the opposite. This is another common misconception, with some Ultras going as far as to label state capitalism as akin to the corporatism of Mussolini. This is wholly inaccurate. In “The Tax in Kind,” Lenin explains how state capitalism is not a contradiction of socialism but rather represents a contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the worker’s state:

“It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state-capitalist or state-socialist. This is an unquestionable fact of reality whose misunderstanding lies at the root of many economic mistakes. The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of the Soviet power.”

State capitalism, under the material conditions of the USSR and China at the time of Deng’s reforms, was a progressive force for the working class. It is not the proletariat but the bourgeoisie that opposes interference from the worker’s state. While state capitalism is still capitalism (wage labor and money have yet to be abolished), it is not identical to the capitalism of the bourgeoisie. As a side note, money was never abolished under Mao’s China, nor was wage labor.

Lenin illustrates the key differences as follows:

“The workers hold state power and have every legal opportunity of “taking” the whole thousand, without giving up a single kopek, except for socialist purposes. This legal opportunity, which rests upon the actual transition of power to the workers, is an element of socialism. But in many ways, the small-proprietary and private-capitalist element undermines this legal position, drags in profiteering and hinders the execution of Soviet decrees. State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward [...] because it is useful for the workers, because victory over disorder, economic ruin and laxity is the most important thing, because the continuation of the anarchy of small ownership is the greatest, the most serious danger, and it will certainly be our ruin (unless we overcome it), whereas not only will the payment of a heavier tribute to state capitalism not ruin us, it will lead us to socialism by the surest road. When the working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy of small ownership, when it has learned to organize large-scale production on a national scale along state-capitalist lines, it will hold, if I may use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism will be assured.”

Class conflict still exists under state capitalism, yes, but the workers still hold ultimate political power. State capitalism must be pursued to further the consolidation of capitalism in order to come near the abolition of productive anarchy before the proletariat can assert itself fully and establish the lower stage of communism.

No, leftists should not vote for Joe Biden.

A thread ⤵️ I feel it is necessary to clarify who I am speaking to. When I write this, I speak not to liberals, not to social democrats but to the broad coalition of anti-capitalists who believe a better world is possible.

🧵Anarcho-Nihilism: An ideology that doesn’t know what it is for people who don’t know who they are

A thread ⤵️ “The anarcho-nihilist position is essentially that we are fucked. That the current manifestation of human society (civilization, leviathan, industrial society, global capitalism, whatever) is beyond salvation, and so our response to it should be one of unmitigated hostility.

🧵Has China Abandoned Socialism?

By Earl Robson of the Pseudonymous Left and GojiraTheWuMao of @prolewiki.

A thread ⤵️ Stalin explains historical progression succinctly in “Dialectical and Historical Materialism”:

“The slave system would be senseless, stupid and unnatural under modern conditions. But under the conditions of a disintegrating primitive communal system,

🧵The Case for Gender Abolition: A Marxist Perspective⬇️ I. Introduction
Gender is one of the most divisive subjects of our time. Those who are otherwise apolitical have become single-issue activists about the gender question. For this reason, I find it necessary to make my position clear.

No, you cannot be a communist or a socialist and be "pro-sex work."

A thread: Another important piece of information I didn't know:

https://twitter.com/hannahberrelli/status/1681740809853366272

East Timor: A genocide perpetrated by Indonesia and funded by the U.S

A thread: Timor is a small island off the coast of Australia. It was under Portuguese rule for about 400 years. In 1859, the Dutch claimed the western half of Timor, creating East and West Timor. East Timor remained under the control of Portugal.

Chinese democracy explained

A thread: China is often labeled a dictatorship by Westerners. This could not be further from the case and is an accusation often levied by those who could not name a single organ of the Chinese state. I hope to rectify this misconception here.

Joe Biden is a fascist.

A thread: [2/22] As with all discussions of fascism, I must first define my terms. Fascism is the unholy marriage of class collaboration and chauvinistic ultranationalism. Or, as Georgi Dimitrov puts it: [1]

No, the Holodomor was not a genocide.

A thread: There was a famine that primarily impacted Ukraine in the early 1930s. Around 3.5-4 million people died [1]. This was a truly horrific tragedy, and I do not deny its existence or that the Soviet authorities were partially responsible.

🪡 What does it mean to be "historically progressive"?

A thread: Oftentimes people will hear the phrase "historically progressive" being tossed around with regards to some things to some morally repugnant things within Marxist circles and be confused. How can something bad be progressive? Progressive does have a positive connotation after all.