I got this from Socialist Roaders

Just making some light of it to the international community.

The PCB is currently under fire for housing an academiscist, revisionist and "enfortressed" Central Committe. They're ignoring their own proceedures, are hostile to the party's democratic centralism and are removing more radical members of the party (specially those with a large online presence that have more agency over boots-on-the-ground organizing, like Jones Manuel).

This comes at a weird point as the party (and other ML parties) seem to be growing due to effective online presence of Marxist-Leninists in the brazilian internet.

After reading some discussion on lemmygrad about veganism, I felt the need to share my thoughts in a separate thread, as comments weren't appropriate for the wall of text I'm about to throw.

Before we start, very important precision. This is not about environmental veganism, only about animal-liberation veganism. Consuming less animal products will be a lifestyle change we must anticipate to limit environmental destruction. This is about the moral philosophy of veganism and its contradictions with materialism. 

Intro

Veganism is often rationalised under the form of a syllogism : it is immortal to kill and exploit humans, and non-human animals are equal to humans, therefore, it is immoral to kill and exploit non-human animals.

Now, I must say, if one is to contest the validity of this syllogism as a basis for veganism I encourage them to provide one since it could drastically change my point of view.

Like many syllogisms, there is appeal and validity to it until you question the premises. Let's review them under a materialistic lens. 

Morality and materialism

The first premise is that it is immortal to kill and exploit humans. As leftists, we tend to wholeheartedly agree with such a statement, as it encapsulates our ambitions and dreams, however this cannot be pursued for a political manifest beyond utopian wishful thinking. Historically, killing has been justified as a high moral act whenever the one being killed was deemed worthy of death. The reason it is generally considered immoral to interrupt one's life is because humans simply have to collaborate to survive, therefore every society has developed a social construct that allows us to live as a social productive species. But whenever a war enemy, criminal, or dissident person is being killed under certain circumstances, the killing becomes justified, morally right. 

As materialists, we don't base our interpretation of morality on a notion of some metaphysical, reality-transcending rule, and even less in relation to an afterlife. Morality is a human construct that evolves with material conditions. In that case, the relationship of human morality with non-human animals becomes more complicated than it seems. Humans do have empathy for other species but are also able to consume their flesh and products, a contradiction that has defined the construction of morality around non-human animals through history. This explains why it seems desirable for a lot of people to stop unnecessary animal cruelty while still wanting to consume their flesh, there is an act of balancing between empathy and appetite.

Equality of species and violence

Now you might have noticed that this framework is definitely human-centric. That brings us to the second premise, which is the equality of all species. By all means, it is absolutely outdated to maintain the idea of "human superiority" on all non-human species in the current times. As materialists, we should realise that humans evolved at the same time as other species, are dependent on the ecosystem, and that there is no fundamental variable that we have to consider as a criteria for ranking in an abstract "order of things".

That said, the equality of all species doesn't automatically mean the disappearance of inter-species violence. Firstly, we cannot stop unnecessary violence between fellow living beings that don't share our means of communication (unless we exerce physical control over them, but that's even worse). Secondly, there is an assumption that only humans possess the ability to choose to follow a vegan diet, which is extremely strange considering that it makes humans the only specie to have the capacity to be moral. Either non-human animals are excused for their chauvinistic violence against other species because they are seen as too limited, determined by their instinct, but it makes humans actually morally superior to other species. Or the animals must be held accountable for inter-species violence, which no vegan upholds, thankfully. Last option would be to consider that inter-species violence is part of life, which I agree with and think is the materialistic approach, but that means there is no reason to adopt a vegan diet.

Conclusion

So what does that let us with? Morality being a social construct with a material use in a human society, and humans being fundamentally empathetic, it is completely understandable that society will be progressing towards diminishing meat consumption to allow the minimization of animal suffering. But the exploitation of animals as means of food production doesn't have a materialistic reason to go away (unless we're talking about climate change, of course). The inter-species violence of humans against cattle and prey is part of nature, because we simply are a productive omnivorous specie just like any other. 

This is mostly why I would discourage pushing people to abandon all animal products in the name of ethics. What should be encouraged is acceptance of every specific diet, be it religious diets, or animal-liberation diets. Strict vegetarianism must be a choice of heart that is based on profound empathy, not a superior moral choice or, worse, a moral imperative.

Spicy question maybe, but I'm interested in your takes.

Personally, I think there's some major issues with at least the terminology of the 2 phase model of lower/higher stage communism or socialism/communism as the terms are used in classical theory. Specifically the 'lower stage' or 'socialism' term is problematic.

In the age of revision and after the success of counterrevolution it has become clear that there is in fact a transitional phase leading up to the classical transitional phase. Societies did not jump from developed capitalism to socialism immediately and even the states that arguably did were forced to roll back some of the core tenets of 'socialism' as it is described in Marx, Engels and Lenin. Namely no private ownership of the means of production and no exploitation of man by man.

To ultras this just means countries following this path aren't socialist. So then China isn't, Cuba isn't, no country still is really and those of us claiming they are then have to be revisionists. And to be fair, if you're dogmatic you can make that point going from the source material. China itself recognizes this inconsistency, thus not seeing itself at the stage of socialism. Yet it's a socialist state. But then what do we actually mean by 'socialism' when we use the term like this? Just a dictatorship of the proletariat? Any country in the process of building socialism?

That question comes up all the time and confuses the fuck out of people, because the term is either not applied consistently or as it's defined is lacking. I think discourse in the communist movement and about AES would profit immensely if we had a more consistent definition or usage of the term or a better defined concept of what that transition to socialism is and how we should call it.

For context purple thinks Cornel West should be supported, and they imply my “purity fetishism” is why communists haven’t had electoral success.

Yes, 1991. And it was forced to grant it

So, I'm not cool with genocide. Not cool with that at all. Even if they are landlords. I'm much more in favor of reeducation centers, personally. I'm against the death penalty on moral grounds. I believe that everyone deserves a second and third chance.

With that said, economically, I consider myself to be anarcho-communist or communalist or "left-communist" or whatever the fuck you want to call it.

But apparently all of that makes me a lib, and not welcome on the left? Is that correct?

This will probably be one of Rainer's most controversial articles to date.

I'm seeing a bunch of controversy surrounding which socialist organizations to join and I've heard the best things/least bad things about the PSL. Is this true?

In a recent call on the national question someone asked about how some people say the United States is not a legitimate nation because of settler colonialism and he said he knew it was obviously wrong but was wondering what their mistake is. Someone claimed that “landback” people never have a clear policy proposal. And I was shocked and hoping it could be rectified. Next was said in response that it’s true as Stalin said that the US became a nation when it left Britain because it was a specific group of settlers, but it expanded through brutal means and that should be rectified. After a while into the call eventually the issue was returned to. The fact that there are still many indigenous tribes within the US and therefore should be given their original land and sovereignty was said. In response people said that it would make them to isolated from the union and they have the option to have that sovereignty from their reservations, but obviously choose not to, which is absurd because these states should also get lots of aid and solidarity from other socialist areas (as this would be after the revolution and it would be different to now). I thought it was bad enough but after it was said that primarily settler colonial nations need their histories rectified they said that they don’t even oppose the existence of Israel anymore. Then the gensec said that people are ignoring “dialectics” that things change. People move in and out of territory- (though usually not by genocide)- and therefore the US is no different and we should not try to change that. “All the slaves are dead.”-Though people are still affected by that history, native Americans are still under special oppression by the state, and in the case of Palestine people are still alive that can remember having their land stolen and have physical evidence that it belonged to them- according to another “some Marxists read Marx and Lenin and come to the opposite conclusions” suggesting those bad Marxists are the “land-back” people.

Whoever warned me that they were PatSocs are right. What should I do? Is there hope of convincing them? Should I leave ASAP? Should I wait? It’s been mentioned here that we should follow the leadership of BIPOC people, does anyone know the modern equivalent of the White Panthers or AIM I should join?

Edit: I forget to mention the made the point that refugees are coming here now and if we do landback there would be refugees from here-like, sure people’d have to move but we’ve got space, and aren’t our birth rates declining anyway? It’s not like there’ll be an anti-white trail of tears. With socialist central planning we can allocate resources to support evicted settlers. Also, there’s a whole lotta land that’s privately owned that could easily be expropriated for indigenous people along with national parks which they’d manage far better. I think they also suggested that we need to integrate Native Americans as much as possible because their sovereignty won’t help. Finally, apparently they would’ve supported the new Afrikan struggle in the 30’s, but since I guess they don’t think you can fight fascism and racism and colonialism at the same time.

Communist Party of ~~TERF Island~~ Britain released a statement which includes the following questionable (and downright transphobic) statements:

States that the Gender Recognition Bill is a failure, and does not support it in any way, essentially siding with England because of their antagonism.

States that the bill will only bring confusion and legal chaos, because Scotland doesn't align with the UK

Claims that you need gender dysphoria to be trans, essentially falling into the transmedicalist ideology

Opposes both Scotland and Wales decision to allow people to change their gender regardless of gender dysphoria, utilising a TERF argument of "men" being predators in women-only and children spaces

Believes in Gender Ideology, and claims that "Gender Ideology" suits the capitalist class despite transphobic media being rampant especially in the UK

Anyways, if anyone supports CPTI (CPB), I hope you realise that they're no longer a good party.

Update: CPB has released a post saying that they won't be silenced. It just shows transphobic they are.

https://www.codepink.org/march18

Nationwide protests shot off on the 18th and 19th. Did you see any coverage?

The revolution will not be televised. RATWM is a fascist maneuvering and nothing more, attempting to recoup some of the brewing anti-war sentiment back into supporting capitalism and by extension imperialism. Libertarians, pedo "communists", and outright fascists? We don't fucking need them and I find it frustrating when people seem to think we do.

RATWM was televised because it was backed by money. Dirty, bloody money coming from the likes of the Paul political dynasty. Their pathetic little gathering was not the revolutionary moment some people seemed to imply it was. It was a farce. The people will rise up and they won't need ghoulish demagogues to pay them to.

This might be controversial but i'd trust an ultra who had done work irl and done their reading than someone who is ideologically correct but most of their activism is just reading posts and arguing other people online. Like, at least those people, with the proper guidance, and their own experience will come to the right conclusion eventually or make way for a new generation of comrades more equipped to deal with the current situation after their failures become apparent.

I was an online activists too for a couple of years when i was teenager and my ideological development stuck for the longest time until I join an org and went from anarchist to marxist leninist in just a few months. And I was literally in a trot org back then!

It's just, the material conditions im in is pretty bad and my country's decades long history of exterminating leftist sympathizers made it hard to find other comrades yknow. I have some, but we have to work overtime just to keep up and we couldnt be that choosy of who we're working with sometimes. We cant just pick a readymade marxist who already agreed with all of our basic tenets, we have to do the work on educating them and that means talking to them one on one or in a group setting for months just to completely clean off the red scare and internalized racism. I had to sacrifice a lot of time and energy, and being targeted by hate groups when there's not many ppl who could help you is scary.

So sometimes I look at some posters and news online on twitter, and instagram, and see these so called indonesian communists who labeled themselves a comrade but spent almost everyday online doing leftist infighting more than praxis, posting completely irrelevant memes or even make agitprop not for our own heavily propagandized country but for the western left. Shit like that makes me want to kill with hammers! I would bet theyre not a part of any org because no one I know (irl and online) whose already a part of an org can dedicate that much time for online frivolities. No left tendency is exempt from this, even if youre an ML. The cause is a combination of slacktivism coupled with a terminal case of social media turning you to a USian and a sprinkle of sectarianism. This isn't a team sports or a chance to own people you dork! aren't you a communist because you want better things for humanity? to help people? Then where are you if youre not in the streets?

It's very clear that TikTok causes brain rot:

• hours upon hours of scrolling;
• damaged attention spans;
• boring lip sync "memes";
• whatever the fuck my little brother is watching;
• KKKringy song over equally KKKringe footage;
• TWs for almost literally anything. I've seen [TW: Aesthetic];
• iPad kids

You know? This applies to YT shorts. Now my attention span is so short I can't even read theory for 5 minutes without thinking "What's on TikTok?"

Let's not even forget the KKKringe-ass use of 733tspeak, wtf man.

If I ever have kids, I'd waste my entire bank account just to stop them from getting in this hellhole of a site.

Not that I like the guy, I'm curious as to our thoughts on him.

What is this hexbear rule? We are becoming the strawman fascists are making of us Edit: furthermore I think this does not help federation at all, I think we should follow the same principle that is used in extradition: it must be illegal in both states in order for the person to be extradite, or it needs to be illegal on both platforms to be removed, but again, that might lead to problems if a community deems racist jokes, for example, not illegal so we can't do much about it, it's an headache. Edit 2: i think I could be misunderstood easily, Im not attacking the platform, just saying that that's a generally stupid rule.