Get involved with ProleWiki! https://prolewiki.org/

  • 25 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 24th, 2022

help-circle
  • Remember there is c/documentaries! You might find something good there too.

    Taken for a Ride - The U.S. History of the Assault on Public Transport in the Last Century - This documentary takes a look at the old public transport system of Los Angeles and follows the step-by-step process by which it was dismantled by General Motors. IMO it’s a good one for seeing a concrete example of the actual steps that privatization can take – GM bought the streetcars after a campaign calling them inefficient/run down etc., then after buying them, let them degrade in quality and service, then replaced them with a supposedly superior bus system. Then they allowed the buses to give poor service, ultimately promoting individual cars over buses and highway expansions as the solution to traffic congestion.

    Former CIA Agent John Stockwell Talks about How the CIA Worked in Vietnam and Elsewhere - This interview clip is only 15 minutes long but gives a very concise and specific example of how the CIA manipulates the media by having contacts with reporters and passing them a mixture of true and false stories, basically coming up with bullshit and fake photos that will go viral and spread CIA talking points while the “source” of the information becomes more and more obscured as the story is passed around different news agencies, as well as how the CIA have funded the production of countless books, whose authors were allowed to write whatever they wished as long as they included this or that specific point, and that these authors have gone on to have solid and respected careers in academia.

    Cybersocialism: Project Cybersyn & The CIA Coup in Chile - From what I recall it gives a good overview of what happened in Chile. In my opinion, due to Chile’s case being so well-documented, it’s a case which people without a lot of background knowledge can start to learn about the process of CIA coups from and how it relates to protecting the interests of the bourgeoisie. A viewer of this documentary can then start applying that knowledge to many other cases where a similar pattern comes up (country tries to nationalize industries/resources which are in foreign imperialist hands => economic loan denial/asset freezes/sanctions are implemented by the imperialists & opposition groups and terrorists in the country are funded & coups are orchestrated by the imperialist power.)

    The Human Face of Russia - Simply, lots of footage of everyday life in 1980s USSR. As I recall, it was a foreign group going there to film and fact-check about the living standards and learn about various political and social activities of the people. IIRC it was a pretty calm and positive documentary, a good one if you need some time away from more heavy and upsetting topics.

    The Weight of Chains - About the breakup of Yugoslavia.

    The U.S. School That Trains Dictators & Death Squads - About the School of the Americas.

    Gaza Fights For Freedom - About the Great March of Return.

    The Lobby - Four-part undercover investigation into Israel’s covert influence campaign in the United States.











  • I am also learning details about this so I will just share what I’ve been looking at. Some of these I haven’t fully read yet, so keep in mind I am just showing you the same things I am learning from in the moment.

    How Palestine Became Colonized - Video/documentary overview by Empire Files

    Palestine, Israel, and the U.S. Empire - Audiobook released by Liberation School, looks like episodes 3-9 probably deal with what you’re asking; I haven’t listened to it yet

    Palestine 101 - Series of history articles by Decolonize Palestine

    Historical details/quotes from "Palestine 101"

    The [Ottoman] empire would eventually collapse after its defeat in the first World War […] It was during the final few decades of this dramatic collapse that a certain Austro-Hungarian thinker, Theodor Herzl, was planting the seeds of a new political movement that would change Palestinian history forever.

    Convened in the Swiss city of Basel in 1897, the first Zionist congress included over 200 delegates from all over Europe. […] While there were other Zionist and proto-Zionist movements preceding this which had settled in Palestine, such as Hibbat Zion, the Zionist congress was the first to organize and marshal the colonization efforts in a centralized and effective way.

    In the wake of its defeat in WW1, the Ottoman empire was dissolved and its regions carved up and divided among various European colonial powers. In the Levant, Palestine and Jordan fell under the mandate of the British, while Syria and Lebanon to that of the French. The British entered Jerusalem in 1917, and Palestine officially became a mandate in 1922.

    The mandate of Palestine provided a golden opportunity for the Zionist movement to achieve its aims. The British were far more responsive to Zionist goals than the Ottomans were, and had earlier produced the Balfour Declaration promising the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine […] The British had no genuine sympathy for the plight of the historically oppressed Jewish people; Rather, they saw in the Zionist movement a mechanism through which British interests in the Levant and Suez could be realized.

    Emboldened by the Balfour Declaration and supportive British governors, the Zionist movement ramped up its colonization efforts and established a provisional proto-state within a state in Palestine, called the Yishuv. While the Yishuv’s relationship with the British had its ups and downs, the British provided the Zionists with explicit as well as tacit sponsorship which would allow them to thrive. Meanwhile, they would harshly repress any Palestinian movement or organization while turning a blind eye to Zionist expansion, which by the end of the mandate enabled the conquest and mass destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages and neighborhoods.


    Deconstructing and debunking Zionism - Another article; I haven’t read it all yet, I just skipped to the section “What are the origins of Zionism?”

    Historical details/quotes from "Deconstructing and debunking Zionism"

    Herzl’s WZO was created in 1897, and identified Palestine as the site of the future Jewish state. With its support, Zionist settlers began to migrate to Palestine. The WZO attempted to gain support for their project from the Ottoman Empire, but their efforts were in vain […] With the outbreak of WWI, […] Zionists found official support for their project from the British Empire. The British, then fighting the Ottomans, sought to colonize whatever territories they could seize from the evidently decaying empire.

    In 1917, near the close of the war, the British issued the Balfour Declaration. Supporting the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was clearly a component of the aim of claiming the formerly Ottoman-held territories, and would have world-historic consequences. Much of the supplementary support behind the Declaration from British gentiles was motivated by Evangelical Protestantism, which viewed it as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, and, significantly, an antisemitic desire to solve the so-called “Jewish Question” by encouraging Jewish people to leave Europe. Settler migration into Palestine grew significantly following WWI, and Israel as a settler-colonial nation began to emerge.

    Under British rule in Mandatory Palestine, native Palestinians began to be displaced by the settlers, being excluded from the labor force and the purchase of land and property, which Zionist settlers confined to other settlers […] From 1936 to 1939, Arabs revolted against British rule and Zionist settler-colonialism.

    The British then issued the 1939 White Paper, restricting further Jewish immigration into Palestine. After WWII and the devastation of the Holocaust, Europe was convinced that their “Jewish Question” could only be answered by pushing Jewish people out of Europe and into a colonial outpost. And significant sections of the Jewish population were convinced the same

    Zionists began to migrate into the settlements in even higher numbers, in defiance of the White Paper. Zionists even began to revolt against British rule, seeking to establish Israel as a state. By 1947, the UN created a plan to partition Palestine into two independent states and a neutral Jerusalem, though it failed to implement it. In response to the passage of the plan, the 1947–1948 civil war broke out between Zionists and Palestinians. By 1948, the state of Israel was established.

















  • I don’t know much about the subject specifically in Gaza or in Palestine in general, aside from this academic paper which is about the use of pinkwashing as a colonizer tactic. Regarding advocacy groups it mentions the group alQaws. Here is an article by alQaws: Queer Liberation & Palestine. Quote from article in which they warn about the weaponization of LGBTQ issues to further colonial agendas:

    Israeli settler colonialism, and tactics such as “pinkwashing” weaponize our queer experiences to place us in opposition to our own society and communities. Pinkwashing is a form of colonial violence. It promotes harmful narratives and policies that alienate queer Palestinians from our own communities. Our answer to pinkwashing is to say that liberation is indivisible, and that there will be a place for all of us at the rendezvous of victory. The Israeli criminal government and Zionist LGBTQ movement manipulate and exploit queer Palestinians’ lived realities to advance a colonial agenda. The standards for solidarity and action cannot be set by the colonizer.

    Another article from them: No Queer “Co-Resistance” with Colonizers: Confronting Normalization and Pinkwashing

    In alliance with anti-colonial coalitions, alQaws developed and popularized the concept of “pinkwashing” to expose how Israel and its defenders use the language of LGBTQ rights to distract from the oppression of Palestinians. Over the years, Palestinian activists came to recognize that pinkwashing is not simply an outward-facing propaganda machine—it is a direct form of colonial violence, one that pushes Palestinians to view ourselves and our communities through the lens of colonial prejudice.

    Pinkwashing relies on exploiting progressive rhetoric about “tolerance” and “gay rights,” to conceal the violent nature of the occupation and settler-colonialism in Palestine. Normalization, similarly, draws on liberal ideals of “dialogue” and “partnership.”

    5 Way to Support Palestinian Queers

    Perpetuating tiresome tropes of presenting Palestinians as inherently oppressive and Israel as a liberal state that protects LGBTQ rights is counter-productive and factually baseless. Israel is a settler-colonial state that offers no rights to Palestinians, queer or otherwise. Our struggle as queer Palestinians is against Israeli colonialism as much as it is against homophobia and patriarchy in Palestine. Israel uses pinkwashing tactics to lie about “saving” LGBTQ Palestinians from their society. We ask that you steer away from these lies that are intentionally used to justify their colonization of Palestine. alQaws and our allies in Palestine will continue to amplify our message as well as provide protection and a political home for LGBTQ Palestinians. Israeli LGBTQ groups do not have a say in the work that should be done to fight patriarchy and homophobia in Palestine, including the incitements led by the Palestinian police.

    As I said, I don’t know much about it beyond the above, which I have not looked deeply into, so take this information with a grain of salt.


  • The “patsoc” ideas which promote patriotism in the imperial core and reject decolonization are much different from the socialist patriotism which is anti-imperialist and decolonial. DPRK does uphold socialist patriotism, which is regarded as part of its internationalist duty of completing the Korean revolution by focusing the majority of its attention on Korea, to make sure their revolution is successfully carried out, and which is specifically against promoting national chauvinism, and rejects racism.

    DPRK’s emphasis on looking inward for solving its problems and on self-reliance come from Korea’s specific conditions. Specifically, Korea has been a battleground for world powers for much of its existence and historically had strong ideological currents of subservience to larger powers influencing its politics, which posed obstacles for progressive/revolutionary movements in Korea since feudal times and into the modern era. After DPRK was formed, it also had to deal with the issue of different influential strains of thought among socialist countries, including its powerful neighbors, Russia and China, during the Sino-Soviet split. The opening of China and the fall of the Soviet Union led to further inner debates. DPRK’s emphasis on focusing on its own conditions is a necessity for it to avoid dogmatically following other states’ lines and thus committing errors in its own revolution, not a blanket rejection of foreign ideas.

    I am still learning about Songun, but from what I have read so far, it seems to have its roots in the Cuban missile crisis where US aggressions were ramping up, and finally came to the fore as policy during the Arduous March, when the US was trying to use the economic upheavals after the fall of the Soviet Union, with the US attempting to end DPRK by intentionally starving its people to death. It was determined that in order for Korea to complete its revolution and defend socialism, it would be necessary to heavily prioritize defense due to DPRK being under constant mortal threat from imperialism. Edit: Also, with DPRK’s more recent nuclear developments, I believe the policy of Byungjin (parallel development of military and economy) has returned to the fore, though I may be wrong about that. I’d appreciate being corrected if someone knows.

    Kim Il Sung on socialist patriotism, preventing chauvinism, and rejecting isolationism

    In educating the working people in socialist patriotism, care should be taken to prevent the growth of tendencies to national chauvinism and restorationism. One may be apt to head for chauvinism on the plea of building an independent national economy by one’s own efforts and promoting national pride. If we steer in the direction of chauvinism as Regent Taewongun pursued a policy of national isolation, we will come to reject international exchange and advanced science and technology from other countries and, accordingly, hinder the development of our country. Likewise, it is wrong for us to dislike reading foreign books and feel disinclined to learn foreign languages on the grounds of building an independent national economy and establishing Juche in science. It does not always follow that one is infected with revisionism because one reads foreign technical books and that one becomes pro-Japanese or pro-American because one learns Japanese or English. When learning foreign languages we must not lay stress on any one of them but study Russian, Chinese, English, French and other languages. The point is to learn them for the good of the people and for contributing to the rapid development of the socialist motherland, without engaging in flunkeyism. Besides inspiring the working people with national pride, we should educate them better in the spirit of internationalism. Thus, we will fight resolutely against the imperialists and Right and “Left” opportunists, in unity with the peoples of the socialist countries, and in close unity with many other peoples of the world.


    quote about preventing dogmatism in solving problems in the revolution without mechanically copying others

    From the work “Modern Korea” by Kim Byong Sik

    For countries such as Korea, where the working class has conquered power and established a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is vital to the success of the revolution to work out correct theoretical propositions concerning the transitional period: How to understand the significance and nature of the transitional period, how to set the various tasks of the transitional period according to its different stages, and how to analyze inter-relationships between the transitional period and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Despite the importance of these questions to the revolution, there has been insufficient clarification and various deviations have been committed, with the result that immeasurable damage has been done to the practical struggles for socialist and communist construction. This urgent problem – the task of solving correctly, theoretically, the question of the transitional period and the dictatorship of the proletariat- was accomplished by Kim Il Sung, in detail, on the basis of the revolutionary principles of Marxism-Leninism.

    His ideas and theory were developed in his work, Questions of the Transitional Period from Capitalism to Socialism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In this work, he said:

    As with all other scientific and theoretical questions, questions of the transitional period should be solved on the basis of the Juche idea of our Party. We should never try to solve these questions dogmatically by becoming slaves to the classical propositions on this question, nor should we be influenced by subservient ideas and follow others in the solution these questions.

    In the interpretation of classical propositions it is essential to understand the historical circumstances and the premise on which the classical works were based. Only on this basis is possible to understand the content of classical propositions and to grasp their revolutionary meaning. If the historical circumstances are ignored, it will lead inevitably to a one sided and dogmatic interpretation or to a revisionist interpretation that seriously distorts the revolutionary content.

    Specifically, if a classical proposition is applied mechanically to a changed situation, without considering the historical circumstances and theoretical premises related to the proposition, not only will a fundamental error be committed in the theoretical solution of the question but a decisive error in practice will also result. Thus, to solve the problems of the transitional period and the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is necessary to base ourselves firmly on the revolutionary propositions of Marxism-Leninism and, at the same time, to uphold the Juche idea of applying them creatively to suit the constantly changing and developing actual conditions of the revolution.


    I recommend this essay on ProleWiki, The Cleanest Farce: How “Experts” Distort the DPRK, and the page about Juche which has sections about Juche’s relationship to dialectical materialism and to Marxism-Leninism specifically. Tl;dr is that ML is seen as a correct revolutionary idea but that it, being very old by now and being formulated in the world’s first successful socialist revolution, it lacks certain concrete details about socialist construction in the present day and also (naturally) has a different context than Korea’s revolution. Therefore it is regarded as a basically correct idea for revolutionaries to follow, but that following it dogmatically is an insufficient application of it, and all countries will need to forge their own path to suit their own conditions as they are confronted with the task of socialist construction and defending the revolution in the present conditions. Juche takes the dialectical materialist view of the world, and it is just dealing more with how people can have a certain attitude and point of view to successfully carry out revolution.






  • Knowing how the wheel of history spins now has given us the ability to predict it and therefore the power to take our destiny into our own hands and shape history after our desire.

    I’m not an expert and still in the process of learning about this, but I would say your understanding of it here more or less lines up with my understanding from what I have read so far.

    As I understand, Juche dismisses the idealist world outlook as groundless and also rejects mechanical materialism, and holds that the dialectical materialist view is the scientific view of the world. However, it is considered that merely holding a dialectical materialist view does not automatically cause people to start using it as a tool to change the world to humanity’s benefit, which is the question that the Juche idea is mainly concerned with: defining and promoting humanity’s role in changing the world, and increasing peoples’ consciousness of this role. As I understand it, Juche promotes the concept that humans (as a collective whole) not only can but should center themselves in changing the world to benefit them, within the real scientific limits of the world, i.e. with the knowledge of the laws of nature and society which operate independent of human’s will. This is seen as a necessary attitude in humanity’s emancipation from oppression, as simply having a dialectical materialist view does not necessarily cause people to start acting on humanity’s behalf even if it does give them an accurate scientific view of reality’s motion.

    Texts about Juche seem to primarily focus on asserting that it is correct for humans to center their own needs in how they shape the world, and also focus on discussing humanity’s historical pursuit for independence and methods of preserving that independence when it is achieved through progressive revolutions, with the primary focus now being the struggle to end imperialism and capitalism and to defend and evolve socialism, in order to remove exploitation from society and continue on humanity’s path to pursuing independence from all restrictions, both natural and social, overcoming them with a methodical and scientific understanding combined with an attitude of intentionally centering human needs and desires in the way humanity consciously shapes the world.

    If someone sees something wrong with my understanding, please let me know. I am still in the process of learning about this.





  • Regarding your announcement–thank you OP for starting up this project, I looked forward to it each week that it went on, and appreciated seeing everyone’s reflections on the texts. I also liked the simple format and gradual pace. I hope everything works out well with your IRL needs and commitments. Take care!


    My study response–As last week I found myself unable to answer the study questions quickly enough, I am going to go with a bit more of a free-form response this time so I don’t end up taking too long to participate. And since I barely participated last thread, I’m just going to make my reply this time be about the text as a whole.

    If anyone sees errors in my response, please let me know. I’m not trying to write authoritatively but rather to check my understanding and see whether I can summarize a few of the major points.

    Response

    I think a quote from early on in this work seems to summarize one of the major points Marx is making throughout the text. He writes: “If the silk-worm’s object in spinning were to prolong its existence as caterpillar, it would be a perfect example of a wage-worker.” (Ch. 2)

    In other words, it’s as if a silk-worm is spinning not to become a moth, but to just keep spinning and spinning, generating silk indefinitely to remain a caterpillar indefinitely. I believe Marx is likening this to the process of the wage-worker surrendering their value-creating labor-power to the capitalist class, whose interest it is to make this relationship become only more deeply entrenched and prolonged, and therefore uses the value generated by the worker’s surrendered labor-power to deepen and expand the system of wage-labor under bourgeois dictatorship. As the silk-worm metaphor implies, this is not the most sensible way of doing things from a worker’s perspective. Normally, the silk worm would spin its silk to then use it to eventually undergo transformation into a moth. Likewise, it’s implied that a worker would use their labor-power to create value the worker themself can actually access and benefit from, bringing a transformation in the mode of production, bringing society to a new stage.

    In Chapter 8, Marx talks about the implications of the worker’s real wages versus the worker’s relative wages. Speaking of rises in real wages over time, Marx writes: “the more speedily the worker augments the wealth of the capitalist, the larger will be the crumbs which fall to him”–however, even if real wages are rising with profits, when we look at relative wages, we see “a widening of the social chasm that divides the worker from the capitalist, and increase in the power of capital over labour, a greater dependence of labour upon capital.” (Ch. 8) As usual, Marx is calling our attention to the relationships between things. Rather than just look at a line representing real wages go up, we need to pay attention to the growing gap between wages and profits and the implication that this has for the relative social positions of workers and capitalists:

    If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of capital rises disproportionately faster. The material position of the worker has improved, but at the cost of his social position. The social chasm that separates him from the capitalist has widened. (Ch. 8)

    Toward the end of this work, in the end of Chapter 8 and throughout Chapter 9, Marx turns his attention to explaining the overall effects that the growth of productive capital has on wages, the need for expanded markets, and on causing the competition between workers to intensify:

    This war [of capitalists among themselves] has the peculiarity that the battles in it are won less by recruiting than by discharging the army of workers. The generals [the capitalists] vie with one another as to who can discharge the greatest number of industrial soldiers.

    […] The more productive capital grows, the more it extends the division of labour and the application of machinery; the more the division of labour and the application of machinery extend, the more does competition extend among the workers, the more do their wages shrink together. […]  the forest of outstretched arms, begging for work, grows ever thicker, while the arms themselves grow ever leaner.

    …I have spent more time on this than I originally meant to, and so I need to end here. As I mentioned above, please point out any errors in my understanding, as this is just me writing to try and see whether I understood the text well or not and whether I could identify (some) of the text’s main points.


    Thanks again OP, I’m glad you started this study group.


  • Watch the 2016 film “Donbass” by Anne-Laure Bonnel, to see the things people are referring to about the violence there over the past several years. Warning that if you look into what was going on in Donbass during those years, you are going to see a lot of footage of people dead/dying in the street with their limbs blown off. This film shows a bit less of that than others do.

    Also here is a clip from the documentary, with footage of the 2014 burning of the trade union building in Odessa, where Ukranian nationalists burned the building down and beat and shot the people who jumped out of the windows to avoid burning. The people in the building were Russian speakers who were protesting a ban on Russian language, and took refuge in the trade union building when the right-wing nationalists showed up. The person being interviewed is a former Ukranian soldier from Donestk, who left the military because he didn’t want to join in the violence enacted on the region. Warning that you will briefly see bodies of people who burned to death.


    1. What is the difference between “Labour” and “Labour Power”?

    I believe the distinction here is that labor is the action of laboring/working itself, while labor power is what Marx explains as a commodity that the laborer sells to the capitalist, which I think is the laborer’s potential/capacity for labor. The unique quality of labor power that makes it different from other commodities is that it is able to generate more value than it possesses on its own. I still feel uncertain about how to fully describe the difference between the concepts of labor and labor power, however.

    And…Once again, I’m short on time, so I will have to try answering more later!