r/communism • u/MajesticTree954 • 6d ago
Commentaries on the Programme of the Communist Party of Canada (Red Fraction)
https://communistworkers.wordpress.com/2024/12/03/commentaries-on-the-programme-of-the-communist-party-of-canada-red-fraction/11
u/MajesticTree954 6d ago
Just read through the programme of a new pre-party formation in Canada. Had a few questions going through it.
In applying Maoism to the conditions of Peru, the Communist Party of Peru produced Gonzalo Thought, which has further developed Maoism. Among its most important contributions have been the relation between the analysis (looking at the components of a thing in isolation) and the synthesis of a thing (how the components interact as a whole), the economics of bureaucrat capitalism, developments to the construction of the proletariat’s weapons in the fight to seize power (the party, the army, and the united front), as well as developments to people’s war. Gonzalo Thought emerged in the two-line struggle with various opportunist lines in Peru and internationally in the struggle against Avakianism, Prachandism, and today against the revisionism of the “Communist Party of the Philippines”.
- This group has written a 5+ part series on Gonzalo thought https://communistworkers.wordpress.com/2024/08/20/gonzalo-thought-communist-party-of-canada-red-fraction/ but just want to ask here - before I read it - if anyone has something more brief to say regarding what is Gonzalo thought, why has it been adopted in North America?
- Is there anything more substantive to the charge of revisionism against CPP other than that they have engaged in peace talks? https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/18ggp0w/cpp_expose_afp_ploy_to_use_talks_of_peace_talks/
Some points about the programme:
They regard “farmers” and urban petit-bourgeoisie as a progressive class.
the Communist Party of Canada (Red Fraction) understands it to be the unity of the progressive classes of Canada (the proletariat, the semi-proletariat, the farmers, and the urban petite-bourgeoisie) against imperialism.
Where private property will remain for a long period is among the petite-bourgeoisie, mainly the farmers. This class can be won over to the socialist revolution, but they oppose outright nationalisation of their capital as it is against their class interests. The socialist revolution will preserve and strengthen the worker-farmer alliance. It will not develop antagonism between these two classes through the forced seizure of the farmers’ property.
The chauvinism is pretty boring and predictable.
However, over the course of the 1800s, British colonialism was abolished and an independent Canada was established. This was accomplished by a combination of military and legal-democratic struggles against British colonialism. Since 1867, there has been no legitimacy to claim the main fight of the Canadian people is for the development of the democratic revolution. While this process led to the liberation of the Quebecois nation and the Canadian nation, the bourgeoisie of these nations have taken up the reigns of colonialism from the British over the Acadians, Metis, Inuit, and the many nations regulated by the Indian Act.
In Canada today, the main contradiction is with imperialism, principally Canadian imperialism. Quebecois imperialism is the most important secondary form of imperialism and is principal in Quebec. This contradiction manifests mainly in between the workers and the bourgeoisie and secondarily as the struggle between the oppressed nations within Canada against imperialism. Both of these struggles can only be resolved through a socialist people’s war led by the reconstituted Communist Party of Canada
….
Under Canada today, several nations are oppressed by imperialism. These nations include those regulated by the Indian Act, the Metis, the Inuit, the Acadians, with potentially some others. Unlike the Canadian and the Quebecois nations, these oppressed nations have been prevented from developing capitalism. What they have instead is a deformed capitalism born in the era of imperialism – bureaucrat capitalism. The imperialists have entered into an alliance with the ruling class of these nations to maintain bureaucrat capitalism and prevent a national capitalism from being developed. The bureaucrat capitalist nations are run by a big bourgeoisie made up of a faction based on state-monopolies (the dominant one among the nations regulated by the Indian Act) and a faction based on non-state monopolies (dominant among nations such as the Acadians). Bureaucrat capitalism exploits the proletariat and semi-proletariat, oppresses the farmers and petite-bourgeoisie, and restricts the middle capitalists.
20
u/dovhthered 5d ago
the Communist Party of Canada (Red Fraction) understands it to be the unity of the progressive classes of Canada (the proletariat, the semi-proletariat, the farmers, and the urban petite-bourgeoisie) against imperialism.
Where private property will remain for a long period is among the petite-bourgeoisie, mainly the farmers. This class can be won over to the socialist revolution, but they oppose outright nationalisation of their capital as it is against their class interests. The socialist revolution will preserve and strengthen the worker-farmer alliance. It will not develop antagonism between these two classes through the forced seizure of the farmers’ property.
It's blind dogmatism, following theory without analyzing the conditions of their own country and its relation to imperialism.
The terms "semi-proletariat" and "farmers" are hilarious in this context.
19
u/DashtheRed Maoist 5d ago edited 5d ago
Have these people ever met Canadian farmers? I was on Highway 2 recently, and within 50km of each other there were the following farmer billboards: "Thank you Truckers" (the anti-vaccination labour aristocratic protests), "Axe the Tax" (boring anti-Trudeau anti-Carbon Tax slogan), "Google Flat Earth Canada!" (sincere), and like at least three different "fetuses are people" anti-abortion billboards. I can safely say Canadian farmers are one of the most reactionary formations on the continent (if you want to talk about exploited South Asian workers brought in to labour on many of the farms, great, but that's a different equation and needs to be expressed on those terms) -- the word socialist exists in hostile antagonism to these people. They are as far from possible from being a progressive force to be won over.
edit:
I didn't realize that this was the CWF(OC)'s own attempt at a party. It's a shame, because I thought a few of their members lurked here, and had hoped they had a better line on the labour aristocracy than the (N)CPC but instead all of these Canadian Maoist groups seem to carry with them the legacy of the RCP-PCR and all of them seem to be trying to re-create that organization over again, rather than taking a meaningfully different position on settler-colonialism and labour aristocracy, or even attempting to arrive at distinct new politics.
6
u/urbaseddad Cyprus🇨🇾 5d ago
CWF(OC)
I'm guessing this stands for Communist Workers' Front (Organising Committee)? Could you give us a rundown of who they are? Hard to keep up with all the little groups in kanada and amerika
6
u/DashtheRed Maoist 5d ago edited 5d ago
My knowledge is pretty limited as well; I haven't encountered them offline. Their blog only came my way during the Jay Watts sex-pest scandal way back when I was leaving the old, revisionist CPC, and so I had followed posts from their blog for a few years, and their articles get shared here frequently (less so as of late, and I have been poor at keeping up with them). I was never a member of the RCP-PCR, so I really don't have much to offer there either (edit: Majestic gave a pretty good rundown in this thread). Also, it might be my own lack of investigation to be blamed for my naive and optimistic outlook on the CWF(OC). I went digging a bit to see if I could find something on the split in the RCP, and this article came up: https://communistworkers.wordpress.com/2021/05/29/criticize-jd-criticize-jmp/
JMP has made a career out of presenting himself as a champion of the oppressed nations in Canada. This Canadian Avakian has led impotent cancel culture campaigns in Toronto against reactionary historians working from a colonial ideology, and he has tried to take credit for the realization of settler-colonialism as one of the fundamental contradictions in Canada. To this end, he has even taken to writing apologia on his blog for Settlers and other “Third Worldist” garbage published by Kersplebedeb.
Not to defend Jay Moufwad-Paul, but the problems being brought out with the Red Fraction/CWF(OC) in this thread seem to have been there from the start. (edit: they had another article specifically arguing for heightened struggle against settler-colonialism, but I think at this point it's safe to say, at least in the Canadian context, that "against settler-colonialism" as a phrase is hollow and basically all revisionist orgs now claim to do it, and what is meant by that must be made concrete and evaluated).
11
u/MajesticTree954 5d ago
I felt the same.. much of their articles seem to be very loaded with terminology but without the concrete application that would make those terms meaningful. Even if they included the concrete application in Peru, I think it'd be better than where they're at here with just empty words.
In MIM's work on the semi-proletariat, they quoted the Comintern and Lenin - that the semi-proletariat can either be a deteriorating urban petty-bourgeoise being drawn into the revolutionary movement (that requires em to prove that the class is facing deteriorating economic conditions and that they are being drawn into the revolutionary movement as a result - neither of which has happened to Canadian settlers as of yet), or part-time peasants/part-time industrial workers which don't exist in Canada. At best, I'm thinking of Inuit who meet their needs partially by hunting?
15
u/red_star_erika 5d ago
Is there anything more substantive to the charge of revisionism against CPP other than that they have engaged in peace talks?
there are plenty of valid criticisms of the CPP but not on the basis of acceptance or rejection of "Gonzalo Thought" being elevated as the principal left-right struggle in the international communist movement, which is typically the main basis of the revisionism accusations from Principally Maoists. since Gonzalo Thought applied within Turtle Island more often than not just reproduces bad and chauvinist lines, I am unconvinced that it is anything but a secondary matter. while there are some positives in this org's line such as firm recognition of quebec as an oppressor nation, it still falters on this basis:
This contradiction manifests mainly in between the workers and the bourgeoisie and secondarily as the struggle between the oppressed nations within Canada against imperialism.
their criticism of (n)cpc's confused line on the petty-bourgeoisie (which I pointed out here) is interesting because their view falls on the opposite mistake of saying we should unite with the petite-bourgeoisie both white and First Nations. trying to unite the "popular classes" while holding the anti-colonial struggle as secondary makes zero sense. complete misunderstanding of Mao.
8
u/Particular-Hunter586 5d ago
since Gonzalo Thought applied within Turtle Island more often than not just reproduces bad and chauvinist lines, I am unconvinced that it is anything but a secondary matter
I have no love for the various racially and gender-wise chauvinistic groups on OTI claiming the mantle of "MLMPM with the eternal contributions of Chairman Gonzalo" (for the record, as these groups will rush to clarify if I don't, "Gonzalo Thought" specifically refers to its application in Peru, whereas "Principally Maoism" is the "eternally and universally applicable" components of it). But is it really fair to say that MLMPM (what you're calling Gonzalo Thought) is what's reproducing these bad, chauvinistic lines?
There are plenty of purportedly Marxist-Leninist groups with racially chauvinistic lines, Maoist groups with trans/misogynistic lines, etc. And yet the blame can't fall on ML or MLM, but rather on (a) the class and national composition of these groups and (b) the underdevelopment of principled communist lines on gender and sex(uality). I think it's fair to say the same thing about MLMPM groups; yes, the Amerikan and German examples provide astonishingly bad examples of racial and gender chauvinism, but (unless we delve into liberal pseudo-psychoanalysis about the "machismo of armed struggle" or whatever, or we believe wreckers and CIA agents about Sendero murdering gays or whatever) I don't think that has much to do with Principally Maoism. If it's correct and universally valid (which, to be clear, I don't believe, since I think that any party proclaiming the universality of armed struggle must at least be able to analyze how the labor-aristocratic nature of the majority of first-world workers impacts the armed struggle) then it's correct and universally valid; if it's wrong, it's wrong for theoretical reasons rather than because of the behavior of the cadre of its parties or the lines they uphold.
Or is your claim that it is the contributions of Chairman Gonzalo (the "application of Gonzalo Thought") that lead to things like ignoring the national question, workerism, and trans/misogyny? If so, you'd need to explain that.
8
u/red_star_erika 5d ago
you are correct in pointing out my conflation of Gonzalo Thought and MLMPM, which is an error on my part. this post wasn't meant to criticize the tendency in particular but to say that it isn't principally determinant of what is "left" and "right" internationally given that it has failed to go beyond settlerism even though Maoism has shown itself as able to without MLMPM. of course, criticizing this tendency's claim to universality is criticizing the tendency itself and I do not believe it is universal for other reasons but also including what I said.
And yet the blame can't fall on ML or MLM, but rather on (a) the class and national composition of these groups and (b) the underdevelopment of principled communist lines on gender and sex(uality).
these are not the reasons for such errors. "class and national composition" can be a factor but it is possible for a group of petty-boug white people to be more correct than a group of people who face national and class oppression assuming the former takes up a line that entails national and class suicide. if they instead surrender to their white and petty-boug interests, it becomes revisionism and from here, we can interrogate their claims to Maoism or "Marxism-Leninism". this might seem like splitting hairs but it is an important distinction to avoid the error of putting personality over line.
I find it odd you keep bringing up queerness and gender and questioning if I think the Peruvian revolution was heterosexist or cissexist (which I haven't seen good evidence for) when I didn't bring that up at all. it implies that having a bad gender line is an equivalent error to being wrong on the national question. a person or group of persons can be revolutionary while having an incorrect gender line (though it is still necessary to criticize this) but the same cannot be true for thinking that nations are secondary or unimportant when that is the principal contradiction. also, "underdevelopment of principled communist lines on gender and sex(uality)" doesn't make sense as a reason when there are communist orgs with good gender lines.
6
u/Particular-Hunter586 5d ago edited 5d ago
this might seem like splitting hairs but it is an important distinction to avoid the error of putting personality over line
Point taken, but I didn't mean it in the sense of "these orgs have no Black people in them" or anything - I think it's fair to say (as I was trying to say, though I think I worded it poorly) that it's to be expected that in the First World, communist groups of any tendency will tend towards revisionism and chauvinism unless they deliberately integrate themselves with the proletarian and oppressed-nation masses, and that's a fault of the class standpoint of the org (and its members), rather than of the specifics of the ideology. As we on here know full well, it's far more likely that a proletarian or person from an oppressed nation will fight for their class interests than that a petit-bourgeois white person will commit class suicide.
I find it odd you keep bringing up queerness and gender when I didn't bring that up at all
You didn't bring up the national question either, though, with regards to MLMPM revisionism. I wasn't sure which form of "chauvinism" you meant, and I assumed you might've been talking about gender chauvinism due to the fact that MLMPM groups are far from unique in dismissing the national question but their treatment of women (specifically but not exclusively trans women) is a departure from the rest of the left. Though maybe I'm mistaken about terminology and should've understood "chauvinism" to refer to national chauvinism specifically.
I think that the main point of my comment still stands, and it wasn't a criticism of your conflation of MLMPM with Gonzalo Thought. You said that MLMPM's correctness is a secondary matter because it "reproduces bad and chauvinist lines"; I don't think that the specifics of Principally Maoism are what are reproducing those lines. Concepts such as jefatura, PPW's universality, and the concentric construction of the party are not what directly led the CR-CPUSA or the ICL to ignore the principality of the national question, nor are they irreconcilable with a correct line on the labor aristocracy and the liberation of oppressed nations. You could say that being attached to the universality of PPW inspired such incorrect analyses, but you could say the same thing about Marx and Lenin believing that a proletarian revolution was possible in the first world.
6
u/red_star_erika 5d ago edited 5d ago
You didn't bring up the national question either, though, with regards to MLMPM revisionism.
I brought up how this org failed to present itself as anything but another chauvinist org because they state the national question is secondary like most orgs on Turtle Island. I was not saying every MLMPM group is chauvinist on the national question and that is why I specified Turtle Island.
You said that MLMPM's correctness is a secondary matter because it "reproduces bad and chauvinist lines"
once again, I was saying that MLMPM cannot be used to determine who is or isn't revisionist (though like I said, this is also a critique of MLMPM itself since it cannot map an international left-right divide by claiming itself as a higher stage) since there are no shortage of MLMPM groups that are rightist and groups that are leftist without being MLMPM. I was not foreclosing on the possibility of a group applying Gonzalo Thought and also being correct on the labor aristocracy and the national question (though I have yet to see this). this is why I said whether a group follows MLMPM or not is a secondary matter.
5
u/Autrevml1936 Stal-Mao-enkoist🌱🚩 5d ago edited 5d ago
You could say that being attached to the universality of PPW inspired such incorrect analyses
I don't think that "being attached to" the Universality of People's War itself inspired the incorrect analysis but that taking a dogmatic position of People's War to be Universal Irrespective of the National Contradiction so Amerikkkans, Germans, Switz, Australians, etc as likely to initiate People's War within 'their own' country as New Afrikans, First Nations, and other third world Nations despite their Status as Oppressor Nations benefiting from Imperialism.
E: Also, I recalled this quote from MIM that I think gives a Critique(indirectly) of MIMPM that conceives People's War as being universal and that either the city or countryside can lead.
When Chiang Kai-shek massacred thousands of urban Chinese communists in 1927, the communists had a choice. They could realize that they were on a losing terrain in the cities or they could shift to the countryside and Mao's strategy of protracted People's War. To be sure, there were (and still are today) people advocating continuing the urban-centered strategy--especially the Trotskyists. They essentially asked for communists to lie to themselves about political conditions in order to be consistent with previous Marxist analysis of the city leading the countryside.
https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/countries/germany/imperialismoverthrown.html
4
u/MajesticTree954 6d ago
In a different article https://communistworkers.wordpress.com/2024/12/02/questions-regarding-the-ncpcs-programme/ they comment on the NCPC’s programme:
"The middle bourgeoisie as a whole is not included in the united front the “(N)CPC” aims to build, but the door is explicitly held open to the Indigenous middle bourgeoisie. This raises many questions. Why the isolation of the Indigenous national bourgeoisie? If their opposition to colonialism is the deciding factor as it is presented by the “(N)CPC”, then why not the Acadian middle bourgeoisie? More importantly, is the revolution socialist or not? There are splits between the Indigenous national bourgeoisie with the big bourgeoisie that we can take advantage of, however this is distinct from an alliance with them. National liberation in these nations is no longer tied up with the democratic revolution as it was in the past or still is in oppressed nations overseas. It requires socialist revolution in the oppressed nations as in the rest of the country.
The development of Canadian and Quebecois imperialism and bureaucrat capitalism among the oppressed nations of Canada has led to a situation where the majority of Indigenous people today live off of the reserves. When we add to this number those who live on reserve, but where the reserve is urban such as the Tsawwassen, the Tsuut’ina, and the Kanesatake reserves, then the number of Indigenous masses being principally exploited as workers in Canadian and Quebecois companies rises significantly. These workers are not fighting colonialism principally, they are fighting capitalist exploitation. To propose an alliance with the national bourgeoisie of these nations is detached from the reality of the situation and only serves to hold back the participation of the Indigenous workers in the fight for socialism. The “(N)CPC’s” support for the formation of “revolutionary representative associations of Indigenous peoples” would mean the prevention of the Squamish workers in Vancouver from participating in workers’ councils and socialism only to participate in the bourgeois councils of their nations. This approach to the oppressed nations in the midst of a socialist revolution was criticised by Stalin as follows:
“As to the other regions, their labouring elements have proved to be rather inert in the matter of the national movement. But the greater their inertia the greater was the activity displayed by the bourgeoisie. Nearly everywhere, in all the regions, bourgeois autonomous groups were formed which set up ‘National Councils,’ split their regions into separate national curiae, with national regiments, national budgets, etc., and thus turned their countries into arenas of national conflict and chauvinism. These autonomous groups (I am referring to the Tatar, Bashkir, Kirghiz, Georgian, Armenian and other “National Councils”)—all these ‘National Councils’ were out for one thing only, namely, to secure autonomy so that the central government should not interfere in their affairs and not control them. ‘Give us autonomy and we shall recognize the central Soviet power, but we cannot recognize the local Soviets and they must not interfere in our affairs; we shall organize ourselves as we wish and can, and shall treat our national workers and peasants as we please.’ That is the sort of autonomy—essentially bourgeois in character—aimed at by the bourgeoisie who demand full power over ‘their’ working people within the framework of autonomy.”
Can there be any doubt that the relation between a federal socialist state and “revolutionary representative associations of Indigenous peoples” would not follow the same path as the “national councils” described by Stalin?
9
u/rhinestonesthrow 5d ago
From their background page:
Our organization was born out of a split in the Revolutionary Student Movement (RSM). In late April of this year, a long internal crisis within the RSM culminated in a revisionist coup carried out by the RSM’s national Coordinating Committee (CoCo) on behalf of their handlers, the “Revolutionary Communist Party” (RCP). This marked the exhaustion of any possibility of internal struggle within the RSM against the Right-Opportunist Line
I hate to use the term "LARP", but there is no other way to describe this. I cannot in good faith take this seriously.
Americans, perhaps you should be grateful for the DSA, because without an equivalent organization, this is the type of stuff young petty bourgeois chauvinists start doing.
6
u/urbaseddad Cyprus🇨🇾 5d ago
Can you elaborate on how this is an unserious LARP and why it's petty bourgeois chauvinism?
7
u/rhinestonesthrow 5d ago
Perhaps I'm too jaded from my experience with Canadian communist orgs. The major orgs here are very small in terms of members. When I first started getting involved in communist orgs, membership was generally a mix of older, retired folks who had been in the org for decades and very young students, but the share of younger students/new communists was growing very quickly.
There's obviously nothing wrong with that, but many of the students were disillusioned social democrats who were drawn in by the fact that the major orgs were basically "democratic socialist" orgs (even if they were ostensibly Marxist-Leninist). Of course, the tendency of these younger members was to "do things" and social media meant a lot of these inexperienced communists had surface level understandings of the history of communist politics but not the theoretical understanding of it. Now, this obviously is antagonistic to the tenured party bureaucrats who are basically social democratic labour organizers, so it creates discord in the orgs and people get kicked out and angrily start their own "fractions" or join other orgs because, of course, they need to "do something". And as a result, you have people talking about "revisionist coups" but in reality it's just a handful of 20-something former NDP staffers who are fantasizing about being martyrs in a country where there is basically 0 political pressure on communists. And then once the conservative party wins the next election they'll be back knocking on doors for some left-liberal advocacy group.
And it's petty bourgeois chauvinism because, well:
With respect to the united front, the Communist Party of Canada (Red Fraction) understands it to be the unity of the progressive classes of Canada (the proletariat, the semi-proletariat, the farmers, and the urban petite-bourgeoisie) against imperialism. Over the course of the seizure of power, the united front will transform itself into a workers’ republic. The centre of the united front is the unity of the workers. This united front of the working-class is the basis for the creation of a worker-farmer alliance and unity with the urban petite-bourgeoisie.
4
u/MajesticTree954 5d ago edited 5d ago
I gave it a shot translating so anyone else who searches “RSM”, “PCR-RCP”, “CWF” doesn't have to read it.
https://communistworkers.wordpress.com/polemics/
This organization came out of a split in a student org called RSM, the CoCo is kind of the organizational link between the RSM and its parent communist party PCR-RCP (now defunct).
- The CoCo didn’t put up posters or arrange parades for May Day or to support Third World communists.
- The CoCo didn’t call for integration of students with workers but rather had them focus on campus work.
- The CoCo engaged in coverup of sexual abuse
That’s what I got from the first 5 articles!
The last article is where there’s some meat https://communistworkers.wordpress.com/2021/07/28/political-critique-of-party-leadership/
- The RCP itself wasn’t a clandestine party, members got identified easily.
- The Vancouver group of the RCP said joining unions to push them leftwards doesn’t work, but the CWF wants to join unions to “form red party fractions to conquer leadership”.
- The RCP pushed off PPW into the future where “sufficient forces have been developed”, these folks say it should occur before this indeterminate point.
- The RCP leadership didn’t confirm receiving paperwork, didn’t reply to messages, there’s only one connect between the regional committee and the leadership.
- RSM students joined a York University strike, joined the existing unions to turn them red. This didn’t work. Instead they should have “propagandized” to the workers, held their own strikes and protests.
- Some RCP supporters and members (but not the RCP itself in any of its documents, and in the document they quoted the RCP opposed this) believed sex-worker unions should be organized, believed prostitution should be legalized.
- RCP changed the name of International working women’s day to Gender oppressed workers day, this is wrong because “it would be an error to think we can centre multiple genders as a leading force in smashing patriarchy when obvious contradictions and differences exist across genders.”
- The RCP believed PPW is initiated when the state represses the party and defense grows in response to that, not the party taking the initiative to anticipate that in advance.
There is so so much bombast and rhetoric, so forgive me if something essential was lost in the dumpster fire. If anyone was actually familiar with the events and wants to correct me, let me know.
5
u/Majestic_Magi 5d ago
i don’t understand why you’re acting like this series of events is impossible or absurd - it’s neither, falls into revisionism have happened to the great majority of communists organizations and movements around the world over time
1
u/No_Management_6387 5d ago
This is a blueprint rather than a actual plan. The essential question, as well as what Lenin had written, is What Is To Be Done? Of course we gonna overthrow capitalist society, of course we need to liberate all mankind in the world, but how? How should we do? This is the most common obstacle that we see in today's movement.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Moderating takes time. You can help us out by reporting any comments or submissions that don't follow these rules:
No non-marxists - This subreddit isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism. Try r/DebateCommunism for that. If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.
No oppressive language - Speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned. TERF is not a slur.
No low quality or off-topic posts - Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed. This includes linking to posts on other subreddits. This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on reddit or anywhere else. This includes memes and circlejerking. This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found. We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.
No basic questions about Marxism - Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed. Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum. We ask that posters please submit these questions to /r/communism101.
No sectarianism - Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here. Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable. If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis. The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.
No trolling - Report trolls and do not engage with them. We've mistakenly banned users due to this. If you wish to argue with fascists, you can may readily find them in every other subreddit on this website.
No chauvinism or settler apologism - Non-negotiable: https://readsettlers.org/
No tone-policing - https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/comments/12sblev/an_amendment_to_the_rules_of_rcommunism101/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.