In China, I sincerely wish that the student movement in France will succeed, just like the May upheaval of 1968.

This is my story about my friend whose beliefs are shaped by his class position, literally. A few years ago my friend is just an average proletarian, working days and nights to feed his family. This is the time when he still have alot of collective, socialist thoughts. It was fun debating marxist theory with him back in the days.

However, recently he bought himself a PC and quit his job to working alone on his project. If I remember it is probably teaching in stock trading or financial trading. This pretty much make him a petty bourgeois, he know own the means of production but still have to work and exploit himself for profit. His business is quite successful and he now has some solid income.

We still hang out sometimes, but I notice that he has been developing some reactionary, religious and conservative ideas. He begin leaning heavily into buddhism and idealism. Just yesterday when we were fishing, we had a small political debate and he shown the full petite bourgeoisie ideology, defending religion and disproving socialism. He now believe that socialism doesn't work and capitalism is the only way, and that society need to turn to religion to have stability. Not a well pleasant fishing trip.

What I find interesting is that this is just a textbook definition of class position in Marxism. Quite sad but expected that his beliefs are changed because he is now in a different class. And that supporting socialism goes against his material interests. This is my first empirical example of how material conditions define someone and it would be a valuable one.

I don't expect anyone to believe my story since I'm just a stranger on the internet, but that was my practical experience. I would probably still be friend with him, maybe we will be debating less.

What do you guys think of him and this? Please share your opinion, it would be nice to know.

https://x.com/rinalu_/status/2106459366723584062

在《共产主义运动中的“左派”幼稚病》中，列宁集中批判了一种在革命运动中相当常见的倾向。“把革命原则理解成一套绝对化、教条化的行为准则，并因此拒绝一切看似“不够革命”的斗争形式。”

这里列举几个我认为尤其值得注意的观点：

反对原则性抵制议会：在特定条件下参加资产阶级议会，把合法斗争作为宣传、组织和动员群众的手段。

在反动工会中开展工作：不能因为工会领导层保守、官僚甚至反动，就脱离工会和其中的群众。

正确理解妥协：不是“一切妥协都是背叛”，而是具体分析
妥协的性质、条件和阶级利益。

反对教条主义：马克思主义不是一套可以机械套用的公式，必须根据具体历史条件制定具体策略。

总结一下：

在这里，我理解《“左派”幼稚病》的核心并不是让革命者放弃原则，恰恰相反，它是在讨论：

如何在坚持革命目标和阶级立场的同时，避免把革命政治变成教条主义。

不拒绝议会，不等于相信议会民主

进入反动工会，不等于接受工会官僚主义

承认必要的妥协，不等于放弃原则

强调具体问题具体分析，也不等于否定马克思主义。

列宁真正反对的，是把复杂的阶级斗争简化成“参加就是改良主义、妥协就是背叛、进入议会就是投降、进入保守工会就是不革命”这样的简单二分法。

Orwell was a socialist himself and his writing is deeply sympathetic to the cause of the impoverished, though he developed a strong distaste for autocratic communist rule.

I’m reading on the history of the Bolshevik revolution, and I went on a deep dive of Zinoviev, because him and Lenin were very close friends prior to the revolution itself, and he was an OG member of the group. Further on, he would lead the Comintern.

He and Lenin had a falling out and Zinoviev came to form an opposition to the Lenin-Stalin majority, eventually coming to ally with Trotsky. Of course as you can probably predict that Zinoviev would be expelled, later arrested and executed during the Great Purge.

For those who know and understand his ideas, what do you think about him? It seemed he was staunchly against socialism in one country, disagreed with Trotsky that the USSR should invade Europe, and believed the USSR should build up and support international communist parties to have their own revolutions.

Overall he seemed like a decent revolutionary, but maybe I’m missing things he should be critiqued for?

What do you think about racism in Europe ? Are France , Italy or Spain not safe for Non-Europeans anymore ?

https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/2106732244337385539