GucciMane

joined 2 years ago
[–] GucciMane@hexbear.net 19 points 6 months ago

Kind of interesting that the name works though, considering that the jacobins were bourgeois liberal revolutionaries.

[–] GucciMane@hexbear.net 38 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

He condemned Hamas and Oct 7th when it happened lol. For me the dividing line would be recognizing the Al Aqsa Flood as genuine expression of colonized people under military dictatorship fighting for liberation, rather than an act of "terrorism" against "innocent civillians" (which is what Lula characterised it as in his condemnation).

Though it's a different context, I think in State and Revolution, Lenin says something similar, that the real mark of a revolutionary (or something along those lines) is not just in recognizing the class struggle, but embracing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[–] GucciMane@hexbear.net 37 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I don't have books that disprove your idea besides general Marxist and Maoist works, but approaching from a Maoist perspective, I would critique the first part of your thoughts because I think it falls way to deeply into great man theory.

If the communist movement faltered because of the death of people like Fred Hampton, then the movement was weak to begin with and probably would have faltered anyway had those people stayed alive/true to the cause. Successful communist movements do not rely on strong role models, as you put it. You can have all the strong role models you want but it really means nothing if: a) the internal strength of the vanguard party is weak, b) the relationship between the vanguard party and the oppressed masses is weak, c) the unity of the united front is weak, d) the conditions necessary for revolution simply aren't present (crises, specifically)

  • As formulated by Huey Newton with his theory of "revolutionary suicide", but also just by intuition, the death of a great number of people, civilians and revolutionaries alike, is inevitable in revolutionary war. Any revolutionaries like Hampton that were killed by the state may have been killed later on when the movement shifted to people's war. How many "great, strong" revolutionaries do you think were killed during the Long March? A proper vanguard party and united front should be prepared for this inevitability by maintaining strong internal unity, linking themselves firmly with the masses, political education etc. Or do you think the solution would have been to wheel Fred Hampton in like a bulletproof steel vessel or something, lest he be destroyed?
  • There were plenty of great revolutionaries who existed contemporaneously to Fred Hampton -- he certainly wasn't the only "great revolutionary" of his time. Many of them either a) fell to revisionism (Angela Davis, Eldridge Cleaver) b) were killed, imprisoned, or exiled for life by the state (Imam Jamil al Amin, Mumia Abu Jamal, Assata Shakur) c) or just died of natural causes after a life of being a successful revolutionary (Kwame Ture).
  • The New Left of the 60's, and their organizations and revolutionaries, were plagued by a great number of internal issues (misogyny, improper political education, splits/lack of unity, lacking security measures, adventurism), and these issues led them to be especially susceptible to being vanquished by the state powers. IMO this is what actually led to the downfall of the BPP and the other 60's orgs, not so much Fred Hampton's death.

and in a formal sense, by pushing parents and teachers that would pass those revolutionary behaviors and lifestyles down to their students to the periphery of livelihood and often killing them through social murder.

Don't know what you mean by this, you could either elaborate using more accessible/clear language, or I can accept it if the question isn't meant for me lol.

 

It’s just the same thing as “I have a Black friend” lmao

Obama is Black, does that mean America doesn’t have a Nazi problem?

[–] GucciMane@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago

It helps, but does not determine the success of communist movements, nor should it be the primary factor in appraising whether a communist movement is near success. What should be analyzed, discussed, and improved, is the internal strength of the vanguard and its relationship to the masses. Because that is really what will determine whether a revolution happens, whether a party/movement can weather the storm of fascism, etc. Not the internal strength of BRICS…

[–] GucciMane@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The masses are the drivers of history, not the polarity of the world. Your faith should be in the masses, instead of Russia, BRICS, and geopolitics.

[–] GucciMane@hexbear.net -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Federating was a mistake lmaooo

 
 

I'm researching the Iraq war rn and could use some books that clearly place the Iraq war as an imperialist war of plunder and discuss it and its effects from that perspective.

[–] GucciMane@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

Given this place is so heavily ML, how do you tolerate sticking around here? I’m just curious because pretty much everything political that’s posted here would contradict your worldview

[–] GucciMane@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

First time I’ve seen a leftcom on this site lol.