Was going well til he attacked Donchin. Donchin was completely correct that Browder was not the only source of revisionism, they were all guilty. It still does seem that domestically Foster seems to still be taking an economistic approach.
Yeah, claiming Donchin was trying to undertake a "factional fight" - I call BS. I can't be *completely* certain, but it sounds like that characterization [against Donchin] is nonsense.
Great reading Comrade. ✊ The more people actually read just what the various members of the then re-established CPUSA (especially the ones from Foster) wrote during and after this period, the more quickly will they realize that their positions weren’t really all that better, in some cases were just as bad as Browder’s, and that the CPUSA continued to be (to some extent) the same party as it was under Browder. Can’t wait to hear the readings from the leg of this playlist of the Hardline Anti-Revisionist critiques of the Crypto-Browderist and Revisionist leadership of the re-constituted CPUSA (especially critiques of Foster, due to the fact that I’ve been developing an even more of a disliking of him the more that I’ve been reading about his Revisionist positions during and after the re-constitution of the CPUSA, to the point where it is more than definitely fair to say that both Browder & Foster are the fathers of Modern US Revisionism in the US Communist Movement). Take care & solidarity Comrade. ✊
Listening to this now as an ex-party member….. holy shit they never ever fucking recovered. If there’s ever a death certificate for the party, it should read: Collaboration Party, USA: Death by Browderite revisionism.
@@atrainradio929 ~10:24, for example. "Abrogate" means to abolish, revoke, cancel, etc. I think there was something else in another recent Foster thing, too.
Thanks for reading this text S4A. Another thing that concerns me is the forming of cliques within the Party's leadership. I know it is natural to have clique of friends and so forth but within a political party the objective of democratic centralism is lost in favor of the clique.
~10:24 In case anyone is wondering, "abrogate" basically means to abolish, cancel, revoke, etc. Ngl, while I thought that was likely what it meant, I had to look it up to be sure. And thanks for explaining/adding that context, S4A! ~12:39 "various classes" As Flashy (and you, I think) basically said, it seems to me that the characterization of Donchin's actions here was very dishonest. Great work as always, S4A
Sorry if you have talked about this before, but do you think 3rd worldism is the continuation of Marxist Leninism? The Finnish Bolshevik thinks so, but the overwhelming majority of the comments disagree with him. My thoughts are that the first world proletariat, even the most exploited ones, can not be helped due to the propaganda they are all forced to go through. I am not using this as an excuse to be lazy however, I think communists are needed to at least talk sense into some people, and even attempt an overthrow of the bourgeois. I would love to hear your thoughts.
I'm not S4A obviously, but I think "third-worldism" is overall revisionist. While I agree that there's a labor aristocracy in the Global North, and Global North workers receive more of the fruits of their labor and experience better working conditions than the proletariat of the Global South, this idea that the Global North is completely incapable of revolution is revisionist because it doesn't take into account the oppressed nationalities, who I see as having the most revolutionary potential. I mean, the Paris Commune was a workers' revolution in the Global North, so I think that's pretty definitive proof that it's not impossible.
I used to be friends with major third worldists and they frequently do double speak. One time if you push them on it they will say they don't believe revolution is impossible in the first world and then down the line when they aren't being pushed on it they will continually say it is impossible. The problem with this is it is economistic, accelerationist, and commandist. It liquidates the necessity of a vanguard party by complaining about the first world proletariat not being sufficiently class conscious without acknowledging that even in Russia, Lenin pointed out that this trade unionist economistic approach to things was a thing no matter what and that there needs to an active vanguard party to organize the proletariat towards revolution over reform. A common saying among third worldists is "revolution in the third world, resistance in the first world" which in essence is merely a "Left" deviation twin of the openly Right deviation position in the sense that neither are advocating revolution in the first world. The reality is the best way to assist revolutions in the third world is to do your job organizing a vanguard party in the first world for revolution and bringing about a large Socialist state that can assist those third world revolutions and defend them against enemy imperialist countries. Some (but not all) third worldists also borrow a trouble aspect of Three Worlds Theory where they don't make class distinctions within countries of the third world and end up supporting national bourgeois who oppress their own people in the third world. I do not view third worldism as an extension of Marxism-Leninism but a rejection of it.
Third worldism is dengist revisionism. Where did Finbol say that? I've been watching his videos for years and I've never heard him say that he agrees with third worldism and that it's somehow a higher stage of Marxism Leninsm.
@dpm12 not to mention the lowering quality of working conditions and general quality of life in the imperial core for the proletariat. Miniscule as it may seem now, it's going to continously increase until an inevitable breaking point. It's just a matter of when.
@@gwynbleidd1917Haha, yeah, exactly - where did he say that?? In fact, if anything, I think he's *kind of* said the opposite. Not specifically, but it's sort of implied. "Third Worldism," especially in the way it's presented in the OP, tends to mean Maoism Third Worldism, right? It is several, several years old, but in FinnBol's video on Maoism, he noted that he *does not* view it as a third, higher stage of Marxism. I completely agree with this, and think his reasoning was completely solid. I haven't heard him ever amend that view, for what it's worth. I'd respond more to the idea that no one - yeah, apparently no one* - in the first world can be helped, haha, but there's already some good comments here. *I guess I, S4A, you, FinnBol, OP if they're also in the first world, perhaps everyone in this thread, and beyond, simply don't exist. Haha, no, I get what OP meant, but that still definitely isn't true. Yes, the first world proletariat has very different conditions, etc. - but going to such extremes with that is just silly, imo. Also, S4A has definitely expressed that he rejects three worlds theory, and I *think* Third Worldism, too? Apologies if I'm mistaken, but I don't think I am.
I know these sorts of speeches are supposed to be aspirational in some respect, but you cant list 50 tasks, some of which you admit would take up all of your party's resources by themselves, then basically admit at the end that youre still in the rebuilding phases after Browder. There seemed to be no sober look at what theparty could realistically do at the time or reqsonable aspirations for how they could grow. Which, like you mentioned near the end, can quickly just devolve into a cult or cult-like entity.
Was going well til he attacked Donchin. Donchin was completely correct that Browder was not the only source of revisionism, they were all guilty. It still does seem that domestically Foster seems to still be taking an economistic approach.
Yeah, claiming Donchin was trying to undertake a "factional fight" - I call BS. I can't be *completely* certain, but it sounds like that characterization [against Donchin] is nonsense.
Shared to X and thank you and the patrons for making this possible. ☭
Great reading Comrade. ✊
The more people actually read just what the various members of the then re-established CPUSA (especially the ones from Foster) wrote during and after this period, the more quickly will they realize that their positions weren’t really all that better, in some cases were just as bad as Browder’s, and that the CPUSA continued to be (to some extent) the same party as it was under Browder.
Can’t wait to hear the readings from the leg of this playlist of the Hardline Anti-Revisionist critiques of the Crypto-Browderist and Revisionist leadership of the re-constituted CPUSA (especially critiques of Foster, due to the fact that I’ve been developing an even more of a disliking of him the more that I’ve been reading about his Revisionist positions during and after the re-constitution of the CPUSA, to the point where it is more than definitely fair to say that both Browder & Foster are the fathers of Modern US Revisionism in the US Communist Movement).
Take care & solidarity Comrade. ✊
"Are you building a firmly united and disciplined party that is doing the right thing or are you just building a cult?" ♥️
Good listen and informative. I'll give this another listen again. Always good to revisit stuff like this. Thanks for the upload, as always comrade ✊
Listening to this now as an ex-party member….. holy shit they never ever fucking recovered. If there’s ever a death certificate for the party, it should read:
Collaboration Party, USA:
Death by Browderite revisionism.
Haha! Love it
Will Z(ionist) Foster
I had no idea Foster was a Zionist. Is this true? If so, huge L on the part of Foster. Devastated to hear of this.
@@atrainradio929 ~10:24, for example. "Abrogate" means to abolish, revoke, cancel, etc. I think there was something else in another recent Foster thing, too.
So Dennis wrote most of the report huh? What substance was his tower made of I wonder?
Thanks for reading this text S4A. Another thing that concerns me is the forming of cliques within the Party's leadership. I know it is natural to have clique of friends and so forth but within a political party the objective of democratic centralism is lost in favor of the clique.
thank you for everything
Thank you.
Excellent listen 👍
Indeed Browderism without Browder. Thanks for this and looking forward to the rest of the series!
~10:24 In case anyone is wondering, "abrogate" basically means to abolish, cancel, revoke, etc. Ngl, while I thought that was likely what it meant, I had to look it up to be sure. And thanks for explaining/adding that context, S4A!
~12:39 "various classes"
As Flashy (and you, I think) basically said, it seems to me that the characterization of Donchin's actions here was very dishonest.
Great work as always, S4A
Sorry if you have talked about this before, but do you think 3rd worldism is the continuation of Marxist Leninism?
The Finnish Bolshevik thinks so, but the overwhelming majority of the comments disagree with him.
My thoughts are that the first world proletariat, even the most exploited ones, can not be helped due to the propaganda they are all forced to go through. I am not using this as an excuse to be lazy however, I think communists are needed to at least talk sense into some people, and even attempt an overthrow of the bourgeois.
I would love to hear your thoughts.
I'm not S4A obviously, but I think "third-worldism" is overall revisionist.
While I agree that there's a labor aristocracy in the Global North, and Global North workers receive more of the fruits of their labor and experience better working conditions than the proletariat of the Global South, this idea that the Global North is completely incapable of revolution is revisionist because it doesn't take into account the oppressed nationalities, who I see as having the most revolutionary potential.
I mean, the Paris Commune was a workers' revolution in the Global North, so I think that's pretty definitive proof that it's not impossible.
I used to be friends with major third worldists and they frequently do double speak. One time if you push them on it they will say they don't believe revolution is impossible in the first world and then down the line when they aren't being pushed on it they will continually say it is impossible. The problem with this is it is economistic, accelerationist, and commandist. It liquidates the necessity of a vanguard party by complaining about the first world proletariat not being sufficiently class conscious without acknowledging that even in Russia, Lenin pointed out that this trade unionist economistic approach to things was a thing no matter what and that there needs to an active vanguard party to organize the proletariat towards revolution over reform.
A common saying among third worldists is "revolution in the third world, resistance in the first world" which in essence is merely a "Left" deviation twin of the openly Right deviation position in the sense that neither are advocating revolution in the first world. The reality is the best way to assist revolutions in the third world is to do your job organizing a vanguard party in the first world for revolution and bringing about a large Socialist state that can assist those third world revolutions and defend them against enemy imperialist countries. Some (but not all) third worldists also borrow a trouble aspect of Three Worlds Theory where they don't make class distinctions within countries of the third world and end up supporting national bourgeois who oppress their own people in the third world. I do not view third worldism as an extension of Marxism-Leninism but a rejection of it.
Third worldism is dengist revisionism. Where did Finbol say that? I've been watching his videos for years and I've never heard him say that he agrees with third worldism and that it's somehow a higher stage of Marxism Leninsm.
@dpm12 not to mention the lowering quality of working conditions and general quality of life in the imperial core for the proletariat. Miniscule as it may seem now, it's going to continously increase until an inevitable breaking point. It's just a matter of when.
@@gwynbleidd1917Haha, yeah, exactly - where did he say that?? In fact, if anything, I think he's *kind of* said the opposite. Not specifically, but it's sort of implied. "Third Worldism," especially in the way it's presented in the OP, tends to mean Maoism Third Worldism, right?
It is several, several years old, but in FinnBol's video on Maoism, he noted that he *does not* view it as a third, higher stage of Marxism. I completely agree with this, and think his reasoning was completely solid. I haven't heard him ever amend that view, for what it's worth.
I'd respond more to the idea that no one - yeah, apparently no one* - in the first world can be helped, haha, but there's already some good comments here.
*I guess I, S4A, you, FinnBol, OP if they're also in the first world, perhaps everyone in this thread, and beyond, simply don't exist. Haha, no, I get what OP meant, but that still definitely isn't true. Yes, the first world proletariat has very different conditions, etc. - but going to such extremes with that is just silly, imo.
Also, S4A has definitely expressed that he rejects three worlds theory, and I *think* Third Worldism, too? Apologies if I'm mistaken, but I don't think I am.
I know these sorts of speeches are supposed to be aspirational in some respect, but you cant list 50 tasks, some of which you admit would take up all of your party's resources by themselves, then basically admit at the end that youre still in the rebuilding phases after Browder. There seemed to be no sober look at what theparty could realistically do at the time or reqsonable aspirations for how they could grow. Which, like you mentioned near the end, can quickly just devolve into a cult or cult-like entity.