Just to be clear, I was being ironic. My uncle is always harping about the good old days, when they had pickled squirrel.

You haven’t lived until you’ve had pickled squirrel

Preservation and torturing children

This is vanilla stuff. We have pig’s ears and hooves in jelly.

You are right. Corrected!

Read the date. This is 4 years after the liberal government withdrew to Taiwan. At this stage, the main issue was not establishing socialism at full speed, but recovering from nearly a decade of civil war, brutal Japanese occupation, widespread famines and epidemics, warlords ruling the countryside, and already being 3 years into the Korean War.

The CPC had to make a lot of concessions to create a semblance of governance over such a vast country as China. At this point, Mao needed the capitalists to build him an industry, while he focused on establishing control over the country, and land redistribution among farmers.

5 years after this (1958), the Great Leap Forward plan was implemented which finally created an adequate industrial base in China to support the transition to socialism.

Then 13 years after this (1966), the Cultural Revolution began, whose aim was exactly to get rid of the last vestiges of capitalism and feudalism in the country. We can talk about how successful or damaging the Cultural Revolution was for China, but it certainly proves Mao never aimed to leave China as a “state capitalist” society.

This is the better written sequel.

Thanks for taking the time to write this! It does help! I will figure out how to read it comrade.

If you have the time, do read Thucidides account of the Peloponnesian war. It’s a short read, and it accurately portrays what happens when a superpower tries to bully everybody else. It’s considered one of the first applications of modern historical analysis. Thucidides disregards propaganda from one side or the other and follows the chain of events, the actions, and the reasoning of either side, which made war inevitable.

https://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html

I’m not convinced that the current Venezuelan administration betrayed Maduro and gave him up to the US, but we have to recognize that weird things happened that night.

The ease by which American helicopters passed over the capital, and most populated, city of Venezuela completely unopposed and supposingly undetected. Then offloaded a small force of soldiers on the presidential grounds, who were only opposed by the Cuban contingent of Maduro’s guard, and supposingly other Venezuelan soldiers were not around or prepared to fight. Then they exited, flying over nearly all of Caracas again, and again no opposition to meet them. And one has to acknowledge the reasoning that Maduro must have mistrusted at least part of his government to surround himself with Cuban bodyguards (and not having Venezuelan forces supplementing the Cubans).

On the other hand, we have tangible evidence that the Bolivarian revolution is still proceeding strongly in Venezuela. The concessions that Rodriguez has given the Americans were concessions that reportedly Maduro was willing to give anyway, and they are a realistic and reasonable diplomatic outcome considering the proximity of the US to Venezuela, and then comparing that with the proximity of Venezuela and its major allies (Russia, China) that could have conceivably prevented a military intervention. And of course Trump’s words about the subservience of Rodriguez can not be trusted at all. It is a possibility, but then there’s also the very likely possibility that Rodriguez has chosen to save Chavez’s legacy by playing along with Trump, until conditions are less dangerous for the country’s existence and survival. And these concessions are basically that Venezuela will allow private American corporations to come in and extract oil, while simultaneously Venezuela will stop selling oil to China. These concessions can be undone as easily as they have been imposed, particularly in the short-term (before American oil companies invest heavily and start influencing Venezuelan politics), and they are not compromising the leftist movement in Venezuela yet.

One way or another, we have to accept that, at least for now, Venezuela has been knocked out of the anti-imperialist axis. But that doesn’t mean forever. It is hopeful that Venezuelans still continue practicing Chavismo en masse, and that’s something we need to safeguard, if possible. But also, we need to be vigilant and ensure that indeed Venezuela’s government has not been compromised, and if it has, we need to work towards reversing this as soon as possible. In other words, being suspicious is not an unfounded position, and supporting Venezuela is the right thing to do. We can’t lose focus on that, and consume ourselves in endless discussions about Rodriguez’s integrity, particularly if we are on the outside looking in. It all depends on the Venezuelan people as a whole, and not the one person that happens to be the head of government right now.

Not the OP, and these are not Marxist sources, but:

Simplicious the Thinker, on Substack has done an excellent job breaking down what is going on in Ukraine, both on the battlefields, but more critically in the political arena of both Ukraine and Russia.

History Legends on Youtube has also been doing an excellent job breaking down events on the battlefield, usually debunking Ukrainian and Western lies about the war. The best part is that he is definitely not pro-Russian, and actually started out as a pro-Ukrainian.

UN special rappartoire on Palestine.

Very outspoken against israeli war crimes. Find her and listen to her talk.

That is an excellent remark.

Well, the important bit to focus on is that lumpenproletariats lack any sort of class conscioussness, and they can’t acquire it due to their experiences and character. That doesn’t mean all criminals are lumpenproletariats.

Like another person said, the Black Panthers showed that people typically considered lumpenproletariats by Marx and Engels, could be reformed and made revolutionary. But that’s a topic that requires study and discussion.

Yes, but don’t focus on who is in the group. It doesn’t matter. The main characteristic is that a lumpenproletariat lacks any sort of class conscioussness.

You are correct. I can’t speak much for Mao’s writings, but Marx and Engels consider them useless and even dangerous to the revolution, based on their own experiences at the time.

As the name suggests, they are proletarians. However, they lack any sort of class consciousness, and for various reasons, they argue that it would be extremely hard to reform them. Furthermore, they are very susceptible to becoming tools for reactionaries. Marx and Engels had observed this first and third hand in many occasions.

They’ve kept the term very vague, but they do define it somewhat sometimes

The lumpenproletariat is passive decaying matter of the lowest layers of the old society, is here and there thrust into the [progressive] movement by a proletarian revolution; [however,] in accordance with its whole way of life, it is more likely to sell out to reactionary intrigues.

The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

Alongside ruined roués with questionable means of support and of dubious origin, degenerate and adventurous scions of the bourgeoisie, there were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged convicts, runaway galley slaves, swindlers, charlatans, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, procurers, brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, rag-pickers, knife-grinders, tinkers, beggars; in short, the entirely undefined, disintegrating mass, thrown hither and yon, which the French call la bohème.

The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, Marx

So these are the main groups of lumpenproletariat, and why they can’t be trusted:

1. The criminals: They are self-serving and greedy to the extreme, and their activities usually involve exploiting other proletarians through threats, violence or deception. If placed inside a movement, they would have no qualms about betraying it by acting as spies, informants or sabboteurs.

2. Prostitutes, drunkards, beggars, addicts: Poverty or addiction has turned these extremely desperate. Their desperation can be exploited and made to also turn into informants.

3. On-and-off workers: Meaning workers who work here and there at various jobs without having a steady salary. Very common thing in the 19th century, where people would gather at a particular street, and then bosses would come by, shout they need these many workers for this work and this pay, and then these people would rush to sign up. Extremely exploited, as they would outcompete each other over who will do the most work for the least pay. Due to their desperation, they are often utilized as strikebreakers.

4. Other people: Who for whatever reason will always be loyal to reactionary forces. In today’s terms, that would mean for example an anti-gay Christian conservative in the US, who is dirt poor, but will always support someone like Lindsay Graham, because of his devotion to being anti-gay. If I recall correctly, Marx in a letter referred to retired German soldiers who are conditioned into protecting the upper classes at all costs.

Now, this is a controversial issue, and it’s great that you stumbled upon it because, one has to understand that:

a) Marx and Engels lived 200 years ago. Some of their ideas conform more to that time period than to today.

b) You don’t have to agree on everything with Marx, as long as you agree with the basics.

Mao, on the other hand, even if he did agree with Marx mostly, he believed it’s possible to reform lumpenproletariat, or at least manipulate them, into serving the purposes of the revolution without betraying it.

The important bit:

As you yourself experienced, discussions on the lumpenproletariat usually devolve into arguments about whether or not one should empathize with the lumpenproletariat. This makes people tend to forget whether they should heed Marx’s and Engels’ warning. I believe 20th century history is rife with examples of why the Lumpenproletariat should not be trusted. Notably:

• All fascists had a base core of supporters from the lumpenproletariat, who became the most devoted foot soldiers for those regimes.

• During the cold war, the most anti-communist segment of the western populace was the lumpenproletariat. To the extend where criminal gangs openly colluded with government organizations like the CIA to destroy socialist movements (e.g. The Mafia collaborating with the CIA in Italy and the US).

• The lumpenproletariat was used extensively to infiltrate leftist parties and break them apart from within. They’ve also been used as the primary strikebreaking force.

Oh, I’m not trying to argue with them. It’s great when I meet comrades ofcourse, but that’s not the purpose. Just find it interesting to see what they think about it and hear what they/their families experienced. Even if they are throwing lies/propaganda at me, it’s still useful to know what the lies are. It provides perspective beyond what one reads in books or sees in documentaries.

I try to engage people whenever I get the chance. I find the best approach is to just talk about things in general, then broach the subject in a neutral or negative (for you) way. E.g. “So what do you think about communism in your country?”, “How did your parents experience communism? Is it as bad as they say?”. Make it a natural part of the dialogue, and they’ll be a lot less defensive, and a lot more willing to engage with you.

Depending on the country, feelings vary from being very sensitive to being supportive.

I’ve visited Moscow in the late 90s, and 8 out of 10 people we got to talking to in the metro, they’d pine for the old days. Perhaps it was how bad shock therapy was for them. But if I meet Russians and talk with them, even to this day they are at worst neutral about communism.

I’ve attended some conferences due to my work where I’ve met some people from former Warsaw pact countries. Where I live there’s also a lot of first and second generation immigrants from Eastern Europe. It is encouraging to see that second generation Russian immigrants are almost all fond of communism, but they have a similar sentiment as you, in that they are really shy to discuss it with other people, and mostly keep it to themselves.

I’ve met a Khazakh who was not a communist but who though communism did a lot of right things compared to capitalism in Khazakhstan.

I’ve met an Uzbek who wasn’t as based as the Khazakh, but who thought that propaganda against communism was exaggerated.

However, if you go west (where I have had a lot more contact to be honest), you start finding the people who get triggered just by mentioning you are a leftist. We have a football team in my country whose fans sport hammer and sickles in the stands. When that team started playing in Europe, and got matched up against Polish teams, the Polish hooligans became enraged and started causing trouble every time they’d come here. And every time there’s a match with Poles, Polish sports press will talk endlessly about how insensitive the other team’s fans are to the horrors inflicted by the Soviets on the Poles. Almost every Pole I’ve talked to is like talking to a brick wall. I’ve talked with about 20-30 Poles. Maybe 5 were neutral or sympathetic to communism.

Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians are a mixed bag. You get the kind of reactions that the Poles have, but you also get the kind of reactions the Russians have. I’ve noticed that people who grew up in rural areas are a lot more open to communism. And people whose ancestors fought in the Red Army during WW2 might not be communists, but they are extremely reminiscent of communism usually. I’ve met about 8 Estonians, and another 10 Latvians and Lithuanians added together (can’t really remember the right numbers now)

With Ukrainians, I don’t really know. I’ve only met one and they were already a communist, and it was before the war. But they told me the political division between East and West Ukraine is very real. He advised that one should first figure out which side the person is from before engaging in further questions.

I’ve met a lot of Romanians (around 10-15), Moldovans (around 15-20) and Bulgarians (around 30-40).

Moldovans seem really bitter. Most I’ve met are really angry about the Transnistria situation. They blame the fall of communism on it, as well as Russia. And from what I understood, this sentiment was used by ultranationalists to stoke support or them. But if you get them talking about the communist days, most will admit that the country was better ran under communism than now.

With Romanians and Bulgarians you see a similar sentiment. Most seem to prefer communism had stuck around, but only at least because there was less corruption and incompetence. In general, expect pessimism.

With former Yugoslavs I have had very few dealings, except for Serbs (due to work) and Croats (due to holidays). Serbs in particular, are reminiscent of the old days. Perhaps their tribulations at the hands of NATO plays a role here. Croats seem to be mostly Nazis or willing to spout extreme right rhetoric at every chance. With the other Yugoslavs, I don’t know, except for 1 Slovene who told me communism is a horrible ideology and just stopped discussing it further.

I’ve met a lot of East Germans due to holidays, as well as learning the language at an institute stuffed by mostly teachers who grew up in former East Germany. East Germans seem to be the most extreme. Either they really hate communism, or they really wish it was back. Every single one of them though had admitted that the Stasi were never really the boogeymen that Western propaganda portrays them us. As far as they knew the Stasi never bothered or surveilled anyone they personally knew.

Overall, out of all these people, I’d say there’s a 40% that supports or is neutral/warm towards communism. However, I’ve found only a tenth of those who are against communism would voice legitimate concerns or grievances. The rest were just parroting very basic propaganda.

If you want to challenge the propaganda, don’t try to get into heated arguments. Most people engage in that kind of thing emotionally, not logically. A good tactic to keep the conversation toned down is to keep asking them clarifying questions. That way, maybe they’ll reconsider in the future.

In 2033 Germany will be having federal elections (parliament + chancellor).

Fake probably.

1. Too good to be true

2. Security would be surrounding him on all sides, not open up for a photo op, particularly leaving a clean shot on the whole face and body.

3. Security would try to protect him from the embarassment.

4. A photographer getting this close, in the middle of their escape path, and then aiming his camera at him would probably get shot or arrested after an event like this. At the very least, the photos would be immediately confiscated and deleted.

5. People in the background would be on the ground or rushing to the exits. Not just stand there looking shocked.

6. Trump was positioned on a dais, and was evacuated from the backstage, not through the crowds. Even if we didn’t have that footage, it doesn’t make sense that security would evacuate him through the whole ballroom, and not from the nearest exit to his position.

7. Melania is supposed to be with him as they evacuate, according to footage.

8. There are supposed to be multiple militarized police with body armor and assault rifles separating him from the crowd, according to footage. Also there were way more than just 4 suit agents. More like 6-8.

9. Trump is too stupid to pee his pants.