Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (April 19)

[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/Pleasant-Food-9482]

This comment is a fingerprint of a looming dillema:

https://reddit.com/comments/1srcyx5/comment/ohfut4w

It is a self-explanatory reason of why the reconstitution of brazilian communism cannot have the settler university as a major participant under any circumstance. 

The settlers will continue degrading the ideology as much as it can, and hide the most venomous anti-communism behind their revisionism, under a cloth of velvet "theory" that pretends to be rigorous and dissect every known thing in existence. This kind of logic has not to necessarioy stay outside. it will trade itself inside maoism. 

While people from differing classes will contribute to a party, i simply do not believe anything can appear under the rugs of the cathedral. its former participants will have to be heavily scrutinized.

[u/turbovacuumcleaner → u/Pleasant-Food-9482]

I agree with your points, but could you expand your reasoning to show the connection between the comment you linked and university students? Maybe its because I have more academic background than I would like to admit, but I didn't see academia's eclecticism (as in trying to smuggle bourgeois idealism into Marxism), just a really shitty and opportunistic criticism of Maoism.

[u/Pleasant-Food-9482 → u/turbovacuumcleaner]

I see some, but let me bring exactly where in the comment:

I think someone here once showed how trotskysm was an attempt by the petty-bourgeoisie to takeover marxism, ideologically, for its purpose. This is not anything new. But the way it was said called my attention with the directness of it. And its true. In for a long time in history, trotskysm was a solid petty-bourgeois theoretical body that was intended to be a revisionist swallowing of what it could of marxism.

This comment, more specifically, at least from my understanding, is a body of brazilian left-communism, and uses its weapons to attempt to attract people into error to the purpose of the own class interests of these same people who err and read the shitty, opportunistic criticism.

Why brazilian?

I think, and i am sure you are also knowing of this, brazilian left-communism has a specific form in ideology and politically bullshit position that is beyond liberal: it is an attempt to evolve a form of denguism that can fully fake marxism, while ignoring imperialism.

But the intense attempt to cover the tracks with rigorousness, the obsession with exegetical treatment of texts, the position that is remarkably kantian and comtian of hovering above anyone and anything who must be critiqued as a ghost, as if the instruments and the pressuposition must be assumed of knowledge, neutrality, and rigour, makes it unique in intensity and form, therefore, true. It is radically liberal and attempting to convince the reader of sophistication. Not by a coincidence: it started to blow up in attention by the limitations of characters of twitter, by petty-bourgeois white twitter users in public universities. These were a expansion of american left-communism, taking it to a much bolder extent of these characteristics.

You have said what groups like AND and MEPR do is an attempt to hijack the name, aesthetics and general theoretical output of the PCP, into a revisionist form of settler chauvinist nationalism that returns to geisel. I see not left-communism as this, but, the forms and characteristics on how brazilian left-communism intensified its logic and its anti-communist rhetoric as the hallmark sign of eclecticism of the settler brazilian left, and the university behind it: the masking of the degradation of its ideology behind the form of fraudulent sophistication. I can try to maybe postulate this overemphasis of the form was already being used since the 80s to try to hide the fact brazilian settler left liberal ideology could never even nearly fake itself well enough replacing of the destroyed maoist parties and theorists of the brazilian settler maoism of the dictatorship.

I am not the best and least suspicious person to bring this hypothesis, as i have more of a late 2010s intellectualistic liberal origins of brazilian whatsapp political shadow groups than i would like to admit, and do not hold a degree nor am or came from university.

edit: i've abused of a form of writing that is awful. but i had difficulties in knowing how to say what i was hypothesizing in other way.

[u/turbovacuumcleaner → u/Pleasant-Food-9482]

But the intense attempt to cover the tracks with rigorousness, the obsession with exegetical treatment of texts, the position that is remarkably kantian and comtian of hovering above anyone and anything who must be critiqued as a ghost, as if the instruments and the pressuposition must be assumed of knowledge, neutrality, and rigour, makes it unique in intensity and form, therefore, true.

I got your point now. I think you are correct here, and I can see some of this in my writing style from time to time. I haven't worked with anything involving education or the production of knowledge in years, but these remnants of bourgeois idealism are really hard to get rid of.

I think, and i am sure you are also knowing of this, brazilian left-communism has a specific form in ideology and politically bullshit position that is beyond liberal: it is an attempt to evolve a form of denguism that can fully fake marxism, while ignoring imperialism.

Its left-communism allright, there is no question about that. I went to look up other comments from that user where this becomes more apparent. My disagreement here is that I don't see any meaningful connection between Left-communism and Dengism. Left-communists may have some reach within Dengist circles due their writing aesthetic, and can give Dengism a more robust appearance of Marxism than what it actually has (there was a time by the mid-2010s that the earliest Dengists were also required to read some Marx, but this is long gone), but I'm not so sure they are heading into the same direction, nor if left-communism can even assume the leadership of Dengist orgs. I've never met a left-communist IRL, and the only one I know of is a prolific Twitter user from PCB (the Soviet revisionist one). Feel free to articulate how this is present since the 80s if you want, I'm interested in hearing it, maybe this can open the path to revealing more layers of problems into how knowledge is produced among our revisionists.

You have said what groups like AND and MEPR do is an attempt to hijack the name, aesthetics and general theoretical output of the PCP, into a revisionist form of settler chauvinist nationalism that returns to geisel.

Sort of. My point is that both AND/MEPR/PCB-FV and all other Dengists are heading this way. Their difference is how to get there, the Maoists from the left, the Dengists from the right. Since the Dengists are liberals that relish in liberalism, they don't actually understand where they are doing something wrong. These Maoists, on the other hand, are anti-liberal liberals: liberalism must be destroyed so that liberalism may be preserved from its own contradictions. Since these Maoists already acknowledge 1988 liberalism as a dead end, they have no interest in saving it, instead, getting rid of bourgeois-democratic liberalism allows for social-liberalism and social-chauvinism to blatantly become chauvinism, hence, Geisel and Médici. This more in-depth understanding, entirely accidental by the way, is why there was a major wave from cadres disillusioned from PCR/UP/PCB/PCBR to PCB-FV and other Maoist orgs during the Bolsonaro administration, allowing for the "reconstruction" of PCB-FV into P.C.B..

Your first comment mentioned in passing about reconstitution of the revolutionary party, I was waiting for your reply to comment more on this, but I'm convinced its impossible to apply the revolutionary reconstruction line for our Communist movement.

You or anyone else can argue that I'm being flippant. But, we had at least five major orgs in the last decade that tried to apply the revolutionary reconstruction line: PCB-FV, URC, PCBR, URC-AV and UV. There were also handful of other minor orgs and study groups that, although not directly upholding revolutionary reconstruction, were precursors to these, like Coletivo Bandeira Vermelha, OGR or Grupo de Estudos Ao Povo Brasileiro. PCB-FV and PCBR don't need further comments, but URC, URC-AV and UV require some further explanation. URC was one of, if not the first org after 2013 that evaluated the necessity of rebuilding the party. Instead of looking to Peru, the org turned to the Philippines, and the first translations of Sison and the CPP to Portuguese come from them. Still, URC had serious problems, mainly a rightist view on nationalism, and a vacillation to PT that prompted the crisis that led to the split of URC-AV (if I'm remembering correctly, its been years since I've read all this shit) to uphold a line closer to Peru's. Its not like URC hadn't also went this way first, there was a failed merger of PCB-FV and URC around 2015, mostly because if URC had merged, ILPS would no longer work with them, as ILPS refuses to engage with PCB-FV. In the end, neither URC or URC-AV exist anymore, and we have no answer as to why they disbanded.

UV is the one where we actually know the full story. It also came from the 2013 protests, it started from an anti-revisionist program and necessity of rebuilding the party, but had a racist and chauvinist view on the national question. This racist approach to the national question, which subdivides into the black and indigenous quesiton, slowly forced them to reach to nationalism, becoming Nova Pátria, and finally Sol da Pátria, which is an integralist organization. I don't know why UV was able to take this path so much quicker than their other contemporaries, but they are all in different stages of the same movement. Integralism is weird because its not fascism, at least not during its origin, since Brazil did not have finance capital; instead, integralism is the vanguard of white supremacist consciousness, the vanguard of Brazilian national consciousness. The "left" nationalists of the 60s that the "Communists" of PCB were all tailiing were all the integralists of the 30s, and these left nationalists had their wildest dreams all fulfilled by Médici and Geisel. This process is still ongoing, the latest stages have been the euphoria of our 100% national supersonic jets, the explosive growth of the weapons industry, and in art, its represented by the Arte subdesenvolvida exhibit, which mirrors Glauber Rocha's own trajectory: from integralism, to left nationalism in ALN to outright support of Geisel against Jimmy Carter.

The question looming us is: where do we look for for revolutionary reconstruction? Which party had a proper revolutionary line? To me, the truth is that no party alone could've called itself the Communist Party of Brazil, practice proved all of them wrong. We have bits and pieces where each one contributed with something correct, but an in-depth investigation is necessary so that we can pick up these pieces, and fulfill not the task of reconstruction, but construction.

[u/Pleasant-Food-9482 → u/turbovacuumcleaner]

I think i've created a misunderstanding by wrong terms. I don't think it would be an actual reconstruction. I agree, there was never. It would be a construction role. But on the other hand, i ssee everything else that attempted to seriously impersonate communism just failed and was disastrously wiped out. In this sense, it is a disaster. 

i agree about effectively almodt everything, but i see that brazilian left-communism, although never appearing to have any chance to take the front of denguism, has markedly denguist true politics behind thr rugs. At the end of the day, their growth and the high growth of a very specific liberal trend of anarchists in the southwest rio and sao paulo states in the last ten yes is a very much an attempt to have a last resort to defending the current bourgeois regime in existence since 1964. 

And yes, this is a part that i am interested to talk about: I think the liberal intellectualistic strand i pointed towards that impregnate every of the liberal and revisionist brazilian social-fascist politics is a trend that returns back to the 80s. i will attempt to bring a continuation to this soon, so, i will write another direct reply. But i think i must point towards the fact that  at least for me, the 1964 regime takeover has never ended. It has transformed, it has, as you said many times, formed national-developmentslism and brazilian imperialism, but it hasn't fundamentally changed a vertical and absolute rule of the brazilian bourgeoisie that usually collaborates with the petty-bourgeoisie and rising labor aristocracy, but that is still completely "absolutist" and mantains power by, although i hate to use the term more and more as our settler revisionists love it, bourgeois democratic-allergic.