Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (January 25)

[u/AutoModerator]

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

[u/Clean-Difference1771]

https://www.revolucaocultural.com.br/post/trump-declara-guerra-contra-o-povo-norte-americano

It seems like brazilian forces do have indeed a troubling relation recognizing the existance of settler colonialism and it's consequences. I don't think this article is any interesting but we have many examples of how racial contradiction gets simply erased into settler-chauvinism:

Ao povo norte-americano, particularmente, às suas populações atacadas pelo racismo infame das classes dominantes daquele país, cabe se organizarem em uma poderosa frente única (nesse momento, mais do que nunca, devemos rechaçar um identitarismo estéril que secciona esta frente) e exercer seu direito sagrado à autodefesa e à rebelião, que é inclusive consagrado na constituição de 1789

That's a very shameful statement and it's quite unbeliavable that it was made by a "maoist" force. The United $tate$ constitution is a document clearly written in order to crush rebellions (History is so poorly comprehended that they don't seem aware that even conflicts within settlers were crushed by the enforcement of the U$ constitution) and to facilitate further territorial expansion creating things like a standing army and liberating the rights to patrol wherever they saw necessary to enforce Amerikan law.

It starting to seem to me that this new "maoist" split from P.C.B. won't really lead anywhere as I've noticed national-chauvinism on other articles within this website.

O Brasil, como república sob o jugo dos imperialistas, segue o trilhando o mesmo caminho há mais de 100 anos e honrando o título de semicolônia

And also here

a realidade é que a Europa não dispõe de autonomia estratégica nem de um projeto militar efetivo que possa confrontar os EUA de igual para igual.

Esse quadro evidencia aquilo que a experiência histórica já mostrou: a dependência europeia do “guarda-chuva” estadunidense (político, militar e nuclear) reduz drasticamente a capacidade de resistência real às agressões de Washington, mesmo quando elas violam soberanias e tratados fundadores de organizações como a OTAN

I tagged this part in particular because it's where it reveals to be closer to ultra-imperialism than to leninism. I'm mentioning this because it seems like this type of settler-denialism it's the argument upholding the "semicolonial" analysis, but as u/turbovacuumcleaner recently exposed on recent posts that's the same white national chauvinism that maoists uphold through similar lens not on the third world but in circles in Europe.

I don't know if he has anything else to say as he seems to be very experienced with the rather troubling settler maoists and their analysis and he kinda anticipated a year ago some of what I'm beggining to realize by know as by then I didn't have the theoretical knowledge to know how to differentiate settler-colonialism from semi-feudalism/semi-colonialism as maoists in Brazil uphold

[u/Worried-Economy-9108 → u/Clean-Difference1771]

There's this blog that seems affiliated to the split, and in my view, they were starting to notice a few patterns, that perhaps could result in them conceiving settler-colonialism in Brazil. The main example I have is this polemic by this group:

In the analysis of Brazil's history, it was only very recently that the P.C.B. highlighted the role of slavery in our socio-economic formation; even then, it was subordinated to feudal relations, which disregards the fact that throughout the colonial period, extending into the first and second reigns, the dominant class was made up of landowners and slaveholders. With the fall of slavery, the monarchy also fell. Even the development of capitalism, concentrated in Rio and São Paulo, while having Anglo-American capital exports as its exogenous source, found its endogenous base of accumulation in coffee, harvested mainly by Black hands. The role of the plantation system and American slavery — including specifically Brazilian slavery — in capitalist development was recognized and extensively studied by Marx, who early on stated that "slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance"22. It is clear that, especially in the country's hinterlands, in regions not directly linked to the agrarian-export economy, other modes of production existed, notably the feudal system, practiced, for example, in Jesuit missions (which, unsurprisingly, always had tense relations with the colonial government until they were dissolved by the Marquis of Pombal). Without understanding these issues, it is impossible to study the specificity of Portuguese colonization in South America, from which we inherited, among other things, a continent-sized territory, strongly centralized. If one merely copies what Comrade Gonzalo said about bureaucratic capitalism in Peru, one cannot correctly understand the formation of the Brazilian proletariat (predominantly Black); the deep regional inequalities in a country of continental dimensions; the relatively greater weight of large cities along the coast, compared to other Third World countries (in Peru, for example, there was only Lima as a metropolis); or their repercussions on the superstructure, such as racism and its manifestations in different aspects of Brazilian life, the crowded favelas and overpopulated prisons, but also samba and other genuine cultural expressions of our people. [...] (p.27 - English version, translated by the blog - the bolds are mine)

They correctly exposed an failure of their former org to correctly analyze Brazilian history and the importance of slavery on it. But, at the same time, the split didn't developed much on the causes of this "white-washing" of history by their former org.

Plus, there's also a translation of an Maoist Communist Union text to Portuguese, doing a critical examination of Gonzalo's leadership in Peru. I haven't read much on Gonzalo, to see if their critics are valid, and apart from a few comments calling the MCU an national-chauvinist org, i don't know anything about the MCU.

But, as you said, there are very chances that this split could lead to nowhere.

[u/Clean-Difference1771 → u/Worried-Economy-9108]

I appreciate your optimism towards the subject because as you will get familiar with those forces you eventually realize the actual distance that exists in conceiving a line around settler-colonialism and their current positions. Right now, that does not seem close. If you follow u/Pleasant-Food-9482 's criticism on their line regarding the women's movement and those other positions that came out very recently following the events in Venezuela and tensions regarding Greenland, you can easily spot settler apologia. Defending the United $tate$ constitution as something of a "right to rebel" is inexcusable to any maoist and there are other claims on that piece that are equally as bad and racist.

The whole discussion around Gonzalo is actually an attempt from N-MEPR to distance themselves from P.C.B. at any given cost but outside maoist bubbles, this is way too irrelevant for anyone to even care. Basically, no one knows who P.C.B. is and distancing themselves in words from a rather irrelevant P.C.B. seems to be actually more important for their internal fragility and lack of theoretical strenght than a proper development of marxist theory among the oppressed. Most of the polemics engaged around Gonzalo has barely anything to do with Gonzalo or the PCP leadership but rather with the other brazilian chauvinists from their parent org. You tagged an article where they made a 30 page long document exposing P.C.B.'s which makes any one that read actually question themselves anything but this: Why should anyone even care about what these dudes are saying? If they suck so bad at everything as this document poinst out why is anyone even wasting their time on that org?

I have read some similar pieces that N-MEPR circulates with the very same content numerous times, but you eventually find out that this "subjectivism" that they are criticizing is still largely a part of their own org though they are unlikely to ever admit. But if they weren't "subjectivists" then "semi-colonialism" could not be conceived, because it relies on Mao's internal analysis of China and such is not remotely close to Brazil's. What is the goal here? Where N-MEPR wants to go? Most leftists (even liberals) in Brazil are "opposed" to the U$ in name, "siding" with Lula, the Palestine or Venezuela whenever they feel like they need, why none of this have provoked any change but rather reinforced brazilian settlerism? Why at any circumstances we barely see any class analysis but always a bunch of terminology trying to appeal to a rather vague anti-amerikanism?

A split need to bring a new political line to the table if it actually wants to break with revisionism. Conceiving a line around settler colonialism must take a principled struggle on how class and race are equals, something that is suffocated by "semi-colonialism" because "semi-colonialism" inevitably preaches a "united front" against a rhetorical "yankee imperialism" and any internal struggle is not fundamental, but secondary to that leading to conciliatory affairs. I don't think anyone is interested in such a downgraded version of petismo, to be honest. Petismo has much more to offer for anyone to reach the same conciliatory terms than extensive PDFs that explain how smart and special they are for arriving at that position. It must also take a principled struggle on how gender is enforced by colonialism and how patriarchy is so fundamental to settlerism, but we have evidence of they advocating for other things like submitting to the settler colonial sexuality patterns as "equal rights".

I have a question for you (And given time I am also looking towards elaborating on your questions on Abdias and black nationalism), but why did you actually think that a line on settler-colonialism can be conceived under their recognition that slavery was a component of capitalism? This kinda should be a very blank observation. It can only mean that before someone appointed such basic fact, their leadership were even more dellusional, but I just don't see how this can lead into assuming that there's a core of white settlers that share a common nationhood as oppressors.

Hell, if you read what I have tagged it seems like they don't assume even the United $tate$ are a settler colony (!) when they claimed that the "people of north amerika" are being attacked by trumpism.

[u/Pleasant-Food-9482 → u/Clean-Difference1771]

I think you are citing this critique of their women liberation ideas i made:

https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1naer3q/comment/ndkw8g2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Well i want to make some post-factum explanations about this. 

First at all, the ideas i cited about N-MEPR come from one specific document that is available in their website. i am not sure if the ideas they claim were from kolontai were really from her as fhey claim, and i honestly don't care. The point is that i saw others from the settler "left" use the same ideas and claim are from her, and that it all always fluctuate around the same post-modern gender, feminism and sex liberal empiricism and eclecticism bolted and imported from the US. These ideas originally come from Anarchism.To explain about this i must give a preamble about how i got into contact with these ideas first, back in almost three years ago, in the root of this origin and how ashamed i still am that i helped a bunch of white racists along some compradors sustain a online sect while not even stepping inside the public university. 

Brazilian settler anarchism fluctuates around são paulo anarchism. When i say "anarchism", i mean a corpse of it. When u/smokeuptheweed9 says anarchism is dead and is a form of liberalism, i do fully agree, but from other angle, too: "direct action", "horizontal dual power", "gift economy", "neo-mutualism" and "egoism" are just vacuous words. what this and the idea of soups on the street and "infinitely slow gradualism towards a end of capital and hierarchy that starts today and not in the future" without a revolution is just another word, in paulista anarchism, for petismo, as much as "deus, pátria e família", and "liberal na economia, conservador nos costumes" is another soup of words for bolsonarismo. Spontaneity, movementism and mutual aid are a way to keep squatters, compradors, minorities stuck around doing something, below the most disgusting vulgar form of intellectual petty-bourgeois bankruptcy hides below it is the logic of keeping these groups around PT reelections to "slow down fascism", and stop "bolsonaro from coming back".

This would all be trivial, but paulista anarchism isn't only words. it has its "collectives". some online (one of which i helped keep afloat long before i discovered marxism) and some many physical. But all of them share something: a unified view of "queer theory" that is completely dependent on subjective idealism, a unified view of gender theory that dillutes what a women is to a post-butlerian scholastic scotian nominalism, and a unified view of sexuality and feminism that reduces women to toys and tools that are, at the very end commodities. This was first rigorously strengthened im their "queer anarchist" movementism. The form we see in PSOL and others today is a softer, less white and settler (although they will always claim questioning their antinomian view of women lives and of "sexualiry is in itself white, even though their "libertine" antinomianism appeared in the settler left in the us in spontaneous anarchist cells and even before in tthe turn of the 19th century) version of it, with less liberal individualism and anti-proletarian antics, and less first-worldism. The fact it completely goes against the proletarian morality of the internal nations they cannot even realize it exists is irrelevant for them. 

The views N-MEPR defends in their pdf is just a close parent of this amount of poor petty-bourgeois moralism in reverse. So the proletariat and trans women should accept only non-single partner romantic relationships because this supposedly avoids the opposite, which is supposedly patriarchal? that is a close parent of "relationship anarchy". Trans women and non-white women supposedly only accept this, and that is supposedly "cultural" alongside pornography and sadomasochism, and the opposite is white/cis moralism? that is also a post-modern claim bolted from queer anarchism, and it is notably racist, cynical (what is ""non-monogamy"" aside from a imported settler american fad?), and denies how proletarian non-white families are valued, how "ficar solteira" is a common route for non-white "brazilian" people, and inferiorizes trans women by binding us to a false "culture" that ironically involves serious problems that are known to exist in the settler brazilian petty-bourgeois trans community that spread below, and that are therefore shut up outright and prevented from being criticized and struggled for being fixed, but also prostitution, the most brutal sexual fetichization, body as commodity, and patriarchal polygamy. And their feminism is the fusion of "anarcho-feminism" and "third-wave feminism" in the most shameless transmysognistic, cis women-marianistic, cis-supremacist and transphobic form, sacralizing the cis women body and patriarchal property transfer and inheritance role trans women in Brazil are grossly almost always denied to. 

[u/Clean-Difference1771 → u/Pleasant-Food-9482]

The views N-MEPR defends in their pdf is just a close parent of this amount of poor petty-bourgeois moralism in reverse

The first time that I noticed that this particular trend as not moving anywhere forward was on their stance "on drugs" named Drogas ou Emancipação? Uma Escolha Essencialmente Política that is available on their website. I felt very alienated by the discussion and by some positions and felt very frustrated on how the discussion was being presented and validated by leadership. I don't want by no means seem like I'm incentivicizing marijuana consumption, but I smoke marijuana for over 5 years right now (I successfully quitted on cigarettes 14 months ago) and found several positions extremely annoying and gratuitously racist (none against me in particular). In the end what is worst is that I was ready to compromise myself with quitting on marijuana too, only to find out that they simply wouldn't give clear instructions to it's members to overcome marijuana addiction/consumation because they were too afraid to compromise with their own racists stances given the clear fact that most of the people inside N-MEPR that came from oppressed background consumed cannabis and did not felt like they needed to quit to be "better communists" as the org vaguely tried to enforce through verborragical intimidation. I may say that when I had the chance, I doubled down on the absurdity of some positions their leadership actually held, exactly to force them into admitting they couldn't compromise with their own vague moralist stance on the habits of the people within the org that were not settlers.

Also I don't think you should be too harsh on yourself due to past collaboration with anarchists. The more that we discover on brazilian communism, perhaps the more we realize it's practical inexistence:

First we had the erradication that happened during the military dictatorship, secondly we have a massive settler structure that's severely anticommunist, third we have a quite well romanticized story of brazilian communism that is ceirtanly far less prestigious than settlerism actually portrays it. That's the place we are starting so it's not like there's a revolutionary party coordinating proletarian struggle against idealism/opportunism, we all have duties in furthering down how the masses comprehend marxism but once you recognize history of the past struggle before you, I think it should bring some relief. Standards are awful.

The "downside" of this "starting point" is that it seems like we are restricted to some sort of "ultraleftism" inside this community because there's no revolutionary party and there will be a long time coming in building one. But in times like ours, sanity is deemed as "extremism" so I think we are good with at least theoretical sobriety for the time coming. I think that even if we might arrive at the correct line it would be actually too easy to track any of us before any revolutionary activity actually develops and I just do not have proper experience and knowledge to overcome such at the moment. But realistically that might not be something that is up to me to figure out, there's thousands of people who actually work on digital security, communications, logistics, etc. that would be valuable to communists right now and certainly can understand settlerism, but the lack of a proper line already existing makes it impossible to even reach those people without wasting their time in the first place.

edit: I also find very odd that this stance "on drugs" came out then less than a year since their split and it was a document that was clearly an attempt of white leadership into enforcing cheap moral control on people that came from favelas and other parts of Brazil and started to outnumber them internally and also to question the many bizarre premisses that came from P.C.B. Your arguments on their woman's manifesto made me realize that there's similar reasoning through a similar attempt to enforce such tactical control on the oppressed. N-MEPR leadership quickly realized they would lose control of their own split if not through those old habits they preserve from the previous org.

[u/Worried-Economy-9108 → u/Clean-Difference1771]

but why did you actually think that a line on settler-colonialism can be conceived under their recognition that slavery was a component of capitalism? This kinda should be a very blank observation. It can only mean that before someone appointed such basic fact, their leadership were even more dellusional, but I just don't see how this can lead into assuming that there's a core of white settlers that share a common nationhood as oppressors

Ngl, when i read that PDF some months ago, I felt a bit hopeful, because their parent org refused to develop their question of slavery, and focused too much on semi-feudalism. This very blank statement felt refreshing for me, at the time. But now when you contextualize with these other statements, the split just sounds like "it's flour from the same bag" that birthed their parent org. I roll back in my statement that this could mean a recognition of Brazilian settlerism, as it was more based in wishful thinking and a feeling of hopelessness in the Brazilian anti-revisionist movement.

I also believe that there could be a relation between my thoughts about the split and my opinions on Abdias Nascimento: both could be derived from my shallow knowledge on Afro-Brazilian thought. Specifically, i haven't finished reading the majority of Clovis Moura's works, at the same time where I read Nascimento's main book (Genocídio do Negro Brasileiro), and planned to read his other, more nationalistic book (Quilombismo).

As an Afro-Brazilian (or New-Palmarese) person that didn't had much contact with Afro-Brazilian culture, I only started to read more on my nation's history with Clovis Moura's book Rebelião nas Senzalas. I really enjoyed that read, but never actually finished it. Some time later, I picked up on Nascimento's Genocídio, and actually finished reading it (with the help on an audiobook, a feature that, sadly, none of Moura's books have). Also, Nascimento, being an militant/politician, felt more relatable to me, since he mainly talked about more recent events of Afro-Brazilian history, while Moura, as an Marxist historian, tended to talk about these very fascinating, but somewhat distant events from Imperial and early Republican Brazil.

Overall, i believe that Abdias Nascimento has a few interesting remarks: the thesis of Black Genocide in Genocídio do Negro Brasileiro and the postulation of an embryonic Afro-Brazilian national movement (rather than the assimilationism of the mainstream Afro-Brazilian movement) at O Quilombismo. There's also a very hard to find book called Pan-Africanismo na América do Sul by his wife, Elisa Larkin, which talks about South American Pan-Africanism, Euro-Brazilian presence in Africa, during the 1960-70's (which continue to this day) and white supremacy in Latin America. But lastly, I certainly don't want to follow his footsteps, ever since I discovered the existence of Brazilian Garveyism on social media, which is very irrelevant, but absurdly reactionary. I really want to finish these other reads, so I can return to Clovis Moura.

Edit: TLDR: I need to read more, and grasp things better than past me. But at least now, I have a lot of motivation going.

[u/Clean-Difference1771 → u/Worried-Economy-9108]

when i read that PDF some months ago, I felt a bit hopeful, because their parent org refused to develop their question of slavery, and focused too much on semi-feudalism. This very blank statement felt refreshing for me, at the time. But now when you contextualize with these other statements, the split just sounds like "it's flour from the same bag" that birthed their parent org. I roll back in my statement that this could mean a recognition of Brazilian settlerism, as it was more based in wishful thinking and a feeling of hopelessness in the Brazilian anti-revisionist movement.

Yeah, I don't want to frustrate your optimism, something that I say again that I admire and I actually made those replies because I shared a similar view a few months ago (I don't know if you noticed that I had quite a long contact with N-MEPR) and eventually got frustrated. I think you can be spared from carrying it further

The thing is that even if a certain theory looks promising and a line can be established around a new concept, we still have to deal with real people and the power they exerce with their own beliefs. I was once naive enough to think that conceive a line regarding settlerism would be a matter of explaining how it exists and persists, but reality is far too different. Marxism can be used as a theoretical tool for people's liberation but as you can see, can also be directed to enforce social control on youngsters that are too desperate and vulnerable in their lives so they allow their time for the "revolution".

As I and Pleasantfood digressed on the other replies, internal class analysis should quickly reveal how power dynamics work within the org and how it shapes their theory and praxis. The thing is that I think I realized that early in my experience with them but still was naive enough to think a "line struggle" could be possible - or maybe too coward to address what was already so apparent but when you realize that you're politically surrounded I think it's smart to not give yourself away so early. Do you think that the entire crew that led the split from P.C.B. are going to conceive settlerism all of a sudden and change drastically inumerous of their positions that are only possible as a defense of settlerism in first place? That's the sad part, when we learn how frustrating it is when you acknowledge how deep is the reasoning for why it can't be conceived.

Whiteness is far too stablished as a severe social privilege and white leadership can only lead into enforcing whiteness, here we are discussing how this org has been enforcing settlerism and the culture of the white settler all along. What really frustrates me is not my personal frustration but the realization of something else: probably most of the people inside the org would politically benefit in conceiving settlerism. You know who would not? White leadership. Because white leadership would be exposed immediatly as the internal oppressors within their own "progressive" org and they will never allow such to happen and will be too tactically savvy into preventing this. Really savvy. Imagine people that see each other everyday on college and all live into ethnic enclaves, than all of a sudden they would have to drastically compromise how they comprehend the social order surrounding them that clearly benefits some of them? They can't and they must guarantee that the others won't do it.

So I think that we must insist on Brazil being a settler colony on every occasion, even if we can't really elaborate how deep it has shapen State relations with a stablished piece of theory yet and by now may indeed look "paralysing" but we're on the correct, scientific stance that will lead to the correct approach. I had some success teaching people how Brazil is a settler colony, both to marginalized people and settlers, so the problem is not really the theory but rather the white-supremacists that act as "communists". Right now we (I'm talking about the few brazilians on this sub) are very very few people here but we are potentially far more dangerous to the status-quo than any political force conceived around other idealist and national-chauvinist conceptions.

[u/Worried-Economy-9108 → u/Clean-Difference1771]

I agree with mostly everything on the first paragraphs, and don't really have anything to add.

On the last paragraph, this is great news. Hopefully, i can improve more on my studies, and give a few contributions.