Geoffrey Klien
Some guy was on about communism failing and stuff about thriving, so I basically said "what does this vague language mean?" and he tweaked out. He wrote this huge thing asking me to say why communism was better and how it was "thriving" in the modern day. This is parts of my essay, which took like two hours or more to wrtite.
Communism took poor countries, often battered by colonialism and imperialism, and modernized them. Communism brought housing, and the standard of housing, up, increased education and literacy, made people more politically educated and informed, gave actual power to the masses, increased women's and minority's rights, and industrialized.
People living in feudal, thatched-roof huts under the Tsar, farming, and being sent off to war were thrusted into
industrialization and progress. Within decades Russia gained mass, communal housing, free education that boosted women into higher education and
industry, industries that valued women's contributions, and a more egalitarian society. They were putting objects and people into space a mere 30+
years after leaving their feudal state. People had more control over politics and business, even if you're counting Soviet Russia as supremely corrupt,
than they ever had under the Tsar.
China found a way to house their half a billion people, industrialize, give women more power, give the people more power, equalize society, and become
economically significant on the world stage.
The DPRK doing similar and even after being destroyed by UN bombs.
Not to mention, these countries did all this while fighting wars. Russia against Germany, China against both the KMT and Japan, and the DPRK against the US. To get to their positions under the duress of war and economic isolation from the dominant West is no easy feat.
[Here's where he's like "these communist states have privatized economies," but he says it like they're capitalist]
I see what you mean.
I’m no communism-literalist, I don’t really care if these countries change parts of their economy to be able to make more money; no one experiment
is the same and they all must change to fit their needs. I don’t see the privatization of certain sectors as “bastardizing” communism or deviating
from their goal. Capitalism and Western countries have a stranglehold on the global market and control minute things they shouldn’t be able to. The
reason these countries feel the need to privatize and change is because capitalism doesn’t like competition or alternate systems. Privatization brings
in lots of money simply because that’s how they operate, so, instead of working with just communist industry, they branch out and bring in the big
bucks that can be put into public works and systems.
Privatizing is not capitalism and is not the failure of the communist mode, it is simply countries working with the global system instead of sitting
there and wondering why it’s so hard to make money.
The DPRK only “follows” the model because the West has so severely segregated it from global trade and industry; there are constant
talks of privatized sectors becoming more common there (there are already economic zones).
Again, Cuba is an example of a country understanding that it’s better to work with the times instead of fading away by being staunchly set in their ways.
China liberalized under Deng and has allowed its privatized sector to flourish. Capitalism is not part of it, privatizing is. The reason it’s so dominant
is because privatizing makes lots of money.
Acting like these countries can’t step out of an arbitrary standard that is not placed on capitalist ones is foolish and disingenuous. Communist states can do whatever the hell they want with their economy; Marx never said “You must stay steadfast in the communist ideals and sink with the ship punctured by capitalist bullets.” Each experiment must work to suit its own needs.
[Here he says that the USSR fell "spectacularly" and asked why no Soviet states tried to reform the Union]
After years of the US infiltrating the USSR through well-meaning leaders and a Westaboo, the US had supplanted Soviet influence in many
areas. Boris Yeltsin was set on a mission to dissolve the USSR and he did. Afterwards the West came in and did what it does best: replacing leaders, tearing
down government structures, and ripping power away from the people. There were probably millions that preferred the USSR to the slop that replaced it.
The cheap/free, public housing evicting people and replacing it with high rent, people losing their jobs and being rehired on lower wages, education and
literacy going down, losing control over the workplace to capitalists, and public services that helped many being defunded. These countries couldn’t do anything
while under Western occupation other than be replaced and misrepresented by corrupt fools.
[Then he wants me to say how communism is thriving in the modern day]
Look back at what I said about housing, education, control, rights, etc and you will still see that in modern communist states. The
collective means of production, women’s rights, government structure, housing, etc.
Communism isn’t a monolith, no experiment is the same, so, deviations in what these countries choose to do means nothing; they don’t care about what some
dude says, they’re thriving by continuing forward by their own self-determination.
[Then he goes off about the G20 and trying to bait me into being like "well there's no communist countries in the G20, durr." Even though China is there. This is the rest and my conclusion.]
What are the principles of communism? I’ve read The Principles of Communism and it says nothing about how you should follow everything
it says to a tee or how everything needs to be the same. It is the basics of communist theory, which are subject to interpretation and change through branching
ideologies or further understandings of economy. All of these countries have egalicized society, given control of the means of production to workers in one
way or another, and operate on the understanding of the capitalist mode.
The principles say nothing of how to govern except that one should strive for a society without the need for money, state, or class. All things communist
countries are working towards.
I didn’t know what the G20 was, it just seems like a big circlejerk that gets nothing done, but China is a part of it. Now, I’m willing to bet that your point earlier of saying that “capitalism is the dominant force of China’s economy” would make it not count, so, by your definitions, you’re right I guess.
Even without your caveat, China is a major governmental and economic powerhouse that continues to do what it does. Countries like the DPRK, Vietnam, Cuba, and past experiments simply did not hold the leverage that China does; they were shot down by Western powers through choking sanctions and devastating wars.
To reiterate, your opinions, caveats, and statements mean nothing to communism or the future of communist states around the world and they
will continue to advance and grow while the West seethes and withers in hatred.
Each experiment will work on their own needs and further develop the global revolution without fretting over the invisible sanctity of a purely communist mode
while capitalism and the power of the West remains. Maybe when communism isn’t shot down, instigated, and tampered with each time it arises, we can see a more
“true” representation of whatever you’re basing your ideas on. Leninists don’t fret over not following Rosa Luxemburg's ideas of communism, and communists in
general don’t fret over following some guy’s idea of what communism is.
Geoffrey Klien
The US uniquely follows a mantra of aggressive individualism. It's something that economically and
politically conservative people use quite often. This idea that they're alone and it's every man for themselves. I see
it used in reference to welfare and social systems—the idea that someone might benefit off of some system because they
themselves are less fortunate is insane to them. People I've talked with have this idea that those people are mooching
off their hard work and they're getting free stuff. That's something they really don't like.
They view themselves as some kind of god of working; they put in the hours and then some schmuck gets to survive without
putting in work like them. It's often people in blue-collar work, more often conservative, who think like this and it's
understandable.
Reagan seems to be the originator of this in the modern day, built through his attacking of low-income, black, and less fortunate areas that hold the paragon of evil: the welfare queen. This boogyman was set up so that Reagan could lead people toward his racist agenda. It tricked hard-working people into hating those poor who needed assistance because of the faulty system. They don't like that this strawman is laughing as it takes their hard-earned money. It diverts attention away from the actual problem—the system keeping people down, more specifically black people and minorities in general—and forces them to direct their hate at a group of people. It's creating an in-group and an out-group which makes it so much easier to hate.
Through that othering it creates an even deeper, subliminal mindset about how society should be. The messaging about welfare theifs puts those hard-working people at the top, which makes them feel good, all while still screwing them over. It makes those people hate the idea of being equal and on equal standing with others, despite how they might have gotten there.
Capitalism, through the individualism, creates this programmed sociopathy that makes neo-liberals unable
to have empathy and understand poor people's situation. It puts them further and further into a space separate from reality
and away from the horrors. That's why they'll complain about poor people getting welfare and BS about participation trophies:
they got what they have through work, sure, and they don't understand anything about poverty; that you can't really just do work
and move up, you have a preset place.
They won't realize how bad things are until they are hit by reality and have no idea how to get back. Tons of examples showing up
right now of people getting screwed over by laissez-faire policy.
Geoffrey Klien
I have been moved out of my free block which is where I've written 90% of these. I simply do not have the time nor motivation
to consistantly write these outside of that time which basically means it's dead. If I do write something here it's because I'm really passionate
about it and I want to put it here, but, I simply won't be writing stuff that much.
I could find some way to try and make a schedule that would allow me to, but I just don't have the energy for it. I really wrote a lot and had a lot
of energy, and that has been ripped away by the school system where I have been placed in a class with an open conservative teacher who announces
their political views to the class (probably illegal). It really bums me out and removes even more motivation.
I will not be writing a mere fraction of what I was writing before unless some kind of miracle schedule appears.
Geoffrey Klien
The Black Panther Party was a socialist black-power movement started in 1966; it began in Oakland, California under Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. It was made to challenge
the segregation, subjugation, exploitation, and racism against African-Americans that was still so prominent in American society. They carried weapons to intimidate police against picking on
innocent black people just trying to get by. This led to a few shootouts and deaths. They educated themselves on Marxist literature: Lenin, Marx, Mao, and even Kim Il Sung. They had required
reading for new members that made sure each person was educated and informed. The party worked, not just on the basis of being for black liberation, but, for international proletarian freedom.
They held themselves as the vanguard within the US, something Lenin brings up in his writings.
Past the tough exterior, the Black Panthers set up tons of welfare operations throughout the US: free breakfast for children, community health clinics, and many other things that guaranteed
communal health. The party started out as a masculine-based group that championed traditional gender roles, but, years later that would be reverted and feminism and women focused on black
women's experiences through womanism.
Being a leftist, black-power movement struck fear into the hearts of those at the top. A group that would not only question capitalism and bourgeois control, but the vice grip of white supremacist values and thought in the US. This was double trouble for the FBI and CIA and meant they'd be on overtime to fight this. They invented COINTELPRO to fight not only the Black Panthers, but the rise of leftism and anti-government sentiment arising. They would infiltrate these groups and sew discontent between members, gain intel, and use all this to publically propagandize anti-government groups. They'd end up assassinating people, harming people, threatening people, and lie. All of this being illegal and (the evil word) authoritarian (to quote a lib). The fact that a single group scared the administration so bad it had to resort to insane, risky missions to do anything in their power against them is crazy and commendable.
The Black Panthers exemplify exactly what we are missing right now in the US: a staunchly anti-government, anti-system group putting in the work to change their community and the nation.
None of these bullshit non-profits that flounder around saying pretty words and tricking people into wasting their time. Leftists have been split apart by the government for much too long; regardless
if the general people support it, leftists need to take control of the government, rally the people, tear things down, and build a true egalitarian society. Decade after decade, the government institutes another
law or act that goes after left thought and actions, as that's the only kind that threatens the power structure, and every time it works and we are pushed back, people gain new dislike for leftist values
even though it would fight for them. That's the true power of the US hegemony and power.
Housing prices are shooting up, groceries are getting more expensive, wages are stagnant like before, conflicts rage in and outside the US, people are divided like never before. We have all this free,
yummy agit-prop just out there that can be used. Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani was just elected in New York City; he pledges rent freezes, free public transport, government run grocery stores,
and a rework on the NYPD to be more ready for mental illness and non-criminal situations. This shows a need for leftist change by the people of the biggest city in the US. This could very well be a catalyst
for future public sentiment and socialist change.
Long live the fight against racism and long live the proletarian fight for freedom.
To Top
Black Panther Party | Wikipedia
COINTELPRO | Wikipedia
Geoffrey Klien
Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani was just elected in New York City, leading with (currently, I guess they're still counting them) 8.8% over Andrew Cuomo. This comes after
the landslide win for Zohran in the previous election (I don't remember what it's called). Between then and now things had really ramped up: Cuomo was posting racists and Islamophobic things and
making ads, Curtis Sliwa rose into public view and attracted some people with his out-of-it style, Cuomo spent the whole race talking about Israel and Hasan Piker while Zohran spoke of policy and
planning. Sliwa sadly only got around 7% of the vote, I wish he got more, but all that matters is that Cuomo did not win.
This is a huge thing: NY's first Muslim mayor, the youngest one in like a century, an open democratic socialist who will push social policy and public welfare, it's a big win for leftism in general
too. I am really excited about this and it brings me hope that things are changing for the better, that a people are becoming more open to these things and are getting closer to potentially having
these social systems in place while living in the least developed developed country. Highest GDP, yet, on a given day, over 700,000 people are without a home.
Hurrah for Mamdani and good luck to him and New Yorkers in the coming future, things are looking up.
~ This campaign is for every person who believes in the dignity of their neighbors and that the government's job is to actually make our lives better.
Geoffrey Klien
I will never blame the victims of oppression, exploitation, abuse, subjugation, genocide, war, economic bullying, etc. When the people who have been kept down by colonial and imperial
power rise up and the oppressors face blowback, I will not feel bad for them—I will celebrate their karma.
These colonial powers take due care to paint those they hurt as evil, different, and unqualified for pity or freedom. The people are subliminally torn between knowing what's wrong and siding with their
colonial power, because they're different and hard to have empathy for; I mean, you remember that event where they did something against us? Or how backwards their culture and way of life is?
How they aren't really 'compatible?' They still feel bad for them, but there's always something there stopping them. You must always preface your talking points with condemnation and efforts to show that
you know what you're talking about—because no sane, intelligent person would genuinely side with them after all that stuff they do and did.
Pro-Israel western countries require that you must "condemn Hamas" before you can even think of criticizing Israeli action. This leaves people who aren't open to the capitulation of evil criticized and shunned while those on Israel's payroll walk free. This fact remains for all other things the West supports and propagandizes. You must be against apartheid subjects retaliating against their colonizers, you must be against Koreans retaliating against their colonizers, you must be against a people in a war-torn country who were used and left to rot when they make a major strike against you, so, you must always be against victim retaliation.
This enlightened-abuser mentality must end and acknowledgement of the horrors delt upon the people of the world must be known and owned. You cannot speak of the wrongs and mistakes of the West while thinking positively of them, you cannot make any concessions to evil: "We totally destabilized the Middle-East and killed a lot of innocent people, but, we were just spreading democracy and making things better." You must reject this neo-liberal painting of things and walk away from every defending the West before things can change and be made better; you cannot help a country ruined by the US and capitalism by still employing capitalism and being under the banner of the US, you have to move away and fully understand things.
I will never blame the victims put under the West's boot when they fight back, and, to ever dream of making things better, you must eliminate the problem starter: the colonial west, the imperial core, and the neo-liberal mentality of foreign policy and action.