The reality of what is occurring here is that Maduro was willing to die for keeping socialism and Delcy is not.
Strange statement. Neither is dead in the first place. Maduro was kidnapped and according to how the story goes (including from a lefty source I recall reading) the rest of the leadership essentially had a gun to their head. Suppose they had said “fuck diplomacy, here is my gun,” what would this have accomplished? The US could have continued blockading while patiently planning more decapitation operations of leadership, if need be (like even if the US threat was part bluff in that moment, they could still plan and plot to do more). Venezuela is not in a position like Iran is to make the US hurt for hurting them. They could defend themselves if invaded by making it very painful and not really worth it to occupy them, but this would still involve massive loss of life and sacrifice for a desperate cause.
If you consider it as:
The US really doesn’t want another Vietnam but does want to look like they’re still powerful and in control
Venezuela really doesn’t want their leadership annihilated or their people starved and has limited options for sovereignty through the sword
Then it starts to make sense, the dealing, the posturing, the placating. It starts to make sense why the outcome isn’t as simple as a coup and a dramatic change in Venezuelan policy, nor a principled stand against the empire. Neither side wants to pay the price of what could get them their idea of an ideal outcome, so there’s an element of kayfabe going on. The tension itself is real, the threats are real, but the appearances are (in this view) something of a diplomatic overlay to protect both from harsher realities underneath.
Neither side would benefit from a protracted war involving invasion and resistance. But if Trump can look like he’s good at dealing and make some capitalists happy, he’s happy.
The fact that Maduro is alive doesn’t change the fact that he was willing to die. That he was willing to stand by protecting socialism even if it meant the US doing what it has done.
The only difference between now and before his kidnapping is who is in charge.
Maduro was willing to be attacked by the US. Delcy is not willing to be attacked by the US and is giving up the country to avoid that happening.
That’s it. That’s really all there is to it. The will to fight.
If you’re calling me bad for supporting that then you must have also thought the same about him before then? Did you ever criticise him and say that he should give away Venezuelan oil and open up the country to bourgeois democracy in order to avoid war before the kidnapping happened? Even a single time?
You may be confusing me with the other poster. Pretty sure I have not called you anything. Though I do understand the perspective of the other poster because from the outside looking in, it can look like, “You are not willing to sacrifice [said from a position of not having sacrificed for any revolution anywhere].” The thrust of the argument there, as I see it, is not that the you in that scenario is “bad” but that it can come off like “why aren’t [people I have never met nor fought alongside] not risking their lives for something that I have not even risked my life for,” i.e. it can come off like armchair quarterback revolutionary takes, where the litmus test of someone being a “true revolutionary” is whether they are willing to do something that the person using that litmus test has never even done themself.
It’s possible this is invalid in your case. Perhaps you have risked death in a revolutionary context and we don’t know it. But it is not uncommon for people in the western english-speaking internet to have takes like this while not ever having done much in a revolutionary context.
Depending on how one looks at it, it might seem like this is beside the point. The principle-focused view might argue that it doesn’t matter who is making the argument, but that the principle was not followed and this is the problem. But that view would tend to see Lenin as a betrayer for the Brest-Litovsk treaty instead of a revolutionary making a difficult strategy call under threat. And the USSR went on to transform from struggling feudal conditions to a major industrial and economic powerhouse, including in its ability to defeat Nazi Germany and after, in its ability to become the primary bulwark against the western/white empire having global hegemony. Though it ultimately fell, it may have fallen far sooner had the prevailing view been principle over practicality of the moment. This is not to say the USSR of old is identical to Venezuela, but simply that some decisions are only proven through time and are hard to understand or agree with in the moment. It’s not like everybody loved Lenin’s decision there at the time.
The crux of it for me, and this is where I agree with others who have voiced the litmus test for them being the commune project staying intact, is whether the revolution as a whole is being supported. Whether the policies are allowing it to live on or threatening to destroy it. Decisions that are not ideal for its immediate advancement can sometimes be explained as a strategic retreat.
i.e. it can come off like armchair quarterback revolutionary takes, where the litmus test of someone being a “true revolutionary” is whether they are willing to do something that the person using that litmus test has never even done themself.
I could write you a list of the crimes I’ve committed for Palestine but I don’t think it would be very wise to do so. Like, this is an unrefutable position for anyone in an online conversation really. I can’t prove to you what kind of person I am, what I’ve done, what I’m willing to do etc etc. Best I can do is say that I agree with most of Sergey Nechayev’s Revolutionary Catechism, not all of it, but most.
The crux of it for me, and this is where I agree with others who have voiced the litmus test for them being the commune project staying intact, is whether the revolution as a whole is being supported. Whether the policies are allowing it to live on or threatening to destroy it. Decisions that are not ideal for its immediate advancement can sometimes be explained as a strategic retreat.
What do you think happens when the PSUV are no longer in charge though? That’s coming once they lay the groundwork for this “freedom” she speaks of. For now we’re just salami slicing through things so as not to cause a significant explosive backlash that threatens the current ruling faction to be removed and replaced by a more hardline one closer to Maduro’s own position that was previously untenable to the US.
I’m not gonna lie, Revolutionary Catechism reads like cult shit. Lines like this are especially unhinged:
The revolutionary can have no friendship or attachment, except for those who have proved by their actions that they, like him, are dedicated to revolution. The degree of friendship, devotion and obligation toward such a comrade is determined solely by the degree of his usefulness to the cause of total revolutionary destruction.
Or:
The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property, and no name. Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution.
Basically dehumanizing one’s self.
But if that’s the kind of philosophy you go by, it’s no wonder we don’t see eye to eye. I can imagine the kind of material conditions where thinking like Revolutionary Catechism could derive from; very desperate, heavily repressed conditions (without any intent to be cult-like) and Czarist Russia was no spring picnic, but that doesn’t mean it’s effective organizing strategy that is proven to attain and maintain political power, especially through the complexities of running a country. Personally, I would much rather reread Liu Shaoqi’s How to Be a Good Communist or Mao’s Combat Liberalism, which cover some similar concepts without sounding like a cult manifesto.
What do you think happens when the PSUV are no longer in charge though? That’s coming once they lay the groundwork for this “freedom” she speaks of. For now we’re just salami slicing through things so as not to cause a significant explosive backlash that threatens the current ruling faction to be removed and replaced by a more hardline one closer to Maduro’s own position that was previously untenable to the US.
That’s a big if, not a when. So far, as far as I’m aware, not that much has changed beyond lip service and diplomacy appearances. That could still change, but so far it looks to me less like salami slicing and more like walking a tightrope from the moment the empire kidnapped Maduro and threatened the rest of the leadership.
It’s possible history will vindicate you (I don’t claim to know the future or be right about everything), but whichever way it goes, the best we can do is aid the anti-imperialist cause. In my view, it borders on falling for a psyop how much energy people are expending on whether Venezuela is compromised or held hostage. Versus energy spent on “how can we help with their sovereignty? with keeping the empire’s claws from digging in?” Thinking it all comes down to Delcy Rodriguez would be great man theory.
I’m not gonna lie, Revolutionary Catechism reads like cult shit. Lines like this are especially unhinged:
Oh it absolutely has unhinged parts. But pursuing revolution itself is slightly unhinged anyway.
But if that’s the kind of philosophy you go by, it’s no wonder we don’t see eye to eye.
It’s not just been an influence on me, we have it on good authority from Bonch-Bruyevich that Lenin liked Nechayev very much and insisted on making sure his complete works were published. Unless you think he was lying, which I see no reason to do so.
Che Guevara also referenced Nechayev and regularly read the Catechism.
Eldridge Cleaver, an early leader in the Black Panthers called it “his bible”.
Huey P. Newton’s Revolutionary Suicide explicitly references Revolutionary Catechism.
Bobby Seale and George Jackson also cited it.
but that doesn’t mean it’s effective organizing strategy that is proven to attain and maintain political power
I don’t think the above crowd is the wrong crowd to be in. I think many in the left today ignoring these works are ignoring what a significant influence they have been on previous movements and - importantly - just how much commitment and self sacrifice is necessary to win. Are all of these people also unhinged? Yes, they probably were to some extent, I think it’s probably a necessary trait.
It’s possible history will vindicate you (I don’t claim to know the future or be right about everything), but whichever way it goes, the best we can do is aid the anti-imperialist cause. In my view, it borders on falling for a psyop how much energy people are expending on whether Venezuela is compromised or held hostage. Versus energy spent on “how can we help with their sovereignty? With keeping the empire’s claws from digging in?”
A fair point. Unfortunately from where I am there is little I can do materially. Hence my efforts focus on things closer to home, like Elbit.
Thinking it all comes down to Delcy Rodriguez would be great man theory.
No. This is an error. The levers of power are real and exist. It doesn’t matter whether it is Delcy or some other traitor, she’s not exceptional, but she is the traitor currently in the position.
The only difference between the conditions under her and the conditions under Maduro is who is occupying that role. The difference does lie with her. Under Maduro this would not be happening, he was willing to fight and sacrifice himself whereas she is not. That is fundamental to my entire point. She is a lesser committed person than he was and a more committed person would not be taking her actions.
Nah, I disagree. Revolution is not unhinged and those who embrace it as unhinged are usually what we’d call “adventurist”. It’s more that what looks unhinged in one context looks sensible in another. That’s why I say that in the desperate times of Czarist Russia, the Revolutionary Catechism makes more sense as deriving from those material conditions. You can point to specific revolutionaries who embraced those works after the fact, but many of the ones you named died/failed to succeed in revolutionary goals. Might sound harsh, and I’m not saying they didn’t contribute to the struggle (hell, Blood in My Eye was one of the first reads for me when I was getting introduced to marxism and it’s a good book); the Panthers were up against a hell of a lot in the belly of the beast and did the best they could. I believe that. But we have to grapple with the realities of what has succeeded and what hasn’t.
I’m not saying this to throw any revolutionary under the bus. It’s very possible that your claim of Lenin liking Nechayev was precisely because he wanted to honor and uplift his dedication to the cause. And to be clear, I don’t mean it as judgment of those who “go too far” or something. It’s more that I don’t think it is a solid tactical ground on a broad organizational level and has not been proven as such; and I would not expect it to be considering the parts of it that will put a person in a position where they are essentially closing themself off to normal human traits.
Which is fundamentally part of what this Delcy Rodriguez stuff loops back to, along with the argument about Lenin and Brest-Litovsk. From what I remember reading, somebody literally tried to assassinate Lenin over Brest-Litovsk (and not a counter-revolutionary). That’s how controversial it was. Now imagine with all this hatred being stirred up toward Rodriguez. What if someone with good intentions assassinates her? Where does that leave the Bolivarian revolution? Unless there are hardliners ready to take over and be ready for US invasion and occupation, what are they gonna do with the power vacuum? The US could seize on it to insert a straightforward puppet.
This is part of why I criticize it as great man theory. It’s not that she has no power. It’s that focusing in on one individual and branding them traitor like that can be very dangerous to revolutionary thinking and organization if the judgment call is wrong. You can tell yourself that under Maduro, this would not be happening, but you don’t know that. The forces of liberation need to win. I for one am sick of how many times they’ve lost and lost good people to the fight. There are people who doubted China’s Reform and Opening Up as a betrayal of the cause for the longest time, some who probably still do, and yet China is now the primary bulwark of anti-imperialism in the world while also being run still by a communist vanguard.
So, it’s fair to doubt and question. But when it comes to branding people as traitor, well… look at what happened with the USSR and Stalin’s legacy. Dirt thrown on it, the USSR’s identity put into crisis, the USSR ultimately came apart. The empire loves to exploit and foment these kind of sincere concerns into frenzied rejection, until people can’t see straight on what is difference of tactics and what is an outright traitor.
I read through it yesterday. My impression was, this is the line that matters:
The Venezuelan government’s reorientation cannot be placed at their feet alone. The ultimate responsibility of revolutionaries in the US is not to condemn the Venezuelan government and the Bolivarian Revolution but rather to struggle to defeat the imperialist government that imposes these conditions on Venezuela.
The rest, while not without value especially for those who are out of the loop on the situation, is largely re-litigating things people have debating for months and I don’t feel it is doing so with sufficient evidence to conclude something drastically different than previous reads of the situation. It’s not a bad analysis or anything, I just don’t think it’s elucidating anything all that meaningful that others haven’t already been saying. It’s another analysis in the ongoing debate of what the situation actually is and a fair counterweight to analyses arguing the “strategic retreat” angle, but not in my view, a debate ender.
For the time being, I hold to the line that if the PSUV “quietly gives up on” the communes (or loudly, for that matter), then I will have to admit the situation is far worse than I had hoped.
What about you? What do you make of the PSL article?
Nah, I disagree. Revolution is not unhinged and those who embrace it as unhinged are usually what we’d call “adventurist”. It’s more that what looks unhinged in one context looks sensible in another. That’s why I say that in the desperate times of Czarist Russia, the Revolutionary Catechism makes more sense as deriving from those material conditions. You can point to specific revolutionaries who embraced those works after the fact, but many of the ones you named died/failed to succeed in revolutionary goals. Might sound harsh, and I’m not saying they didn’t contribute to the struggle (hell, Blood in My Eye was one of the first reads for me when I was getting introduced to marxism and it’s a good book); the Panthers were up against a hell of a lot in the belly of the beast and did the best they could. I believe that. But we have to grapple with the realities of what has succeeded and what hasn’t.
I just think ultimately it’s the level of commitment necessary to win. And it is totally and completely self-sacrificing. Everyone that has won did so in some shape or manner, whether among the leadership or among the rest of the party. Many many thousands willingly self sacrificed. Revolutionary conditions are simply like that, whether it’s in Russia, Cuba, China or anywhere else that revolution succeeded, the Catechism comes up again and again among the inner-circles of the fully committed revolutionaries, the people spending every waking minute of every single day committed to achieving revolution with full commitment.
I see no problem with seeing it as unhinged because it frankly is. Lenin died for it. Che died for it. The Panthers died for it. I see no problem in that though. We can be under no delusion that there will be no sacrifice for revolution.
Anyway I don’t really have much more to argue with you about per se. We still disagree, but I understand why you feel the way you do and I think I’ve gotten across my position as well. Ultimately neither of us have any impact one what is going to happen, it’s spectator squabbling.
Strange statement. Neither is dead in the first place. Maduro was kidnapped and according to how the story goes (including from a lefty source I recall reading) the rest of the leadership essentially had a gun to their head. Suppose they had said “fuck diplomacy, here is my gun,” what would this have accomplished? The US could have continued blockading while patiently planning more decapitation operations of leadership, if need be (like even if the US threat was part bluff in that moment, they could still plan and plot to do more). Venezuela is not in a position like Iran is to make the US hurt for hurting them. They could defend themselves if invaded by making it very painful and not really worth it to occupy them, but this would still involve massive loss of life and sacrifice for a desperate cause.
If you consider it as:
The US really doesn’t want another Vietnam but does want to look like they’re still powerful and in control
Venezuela really doesn’t want their leadership annihilated or their people starved and has limited options for sovereignty through the sword
Then it starts to make sense, the dealing, the posturing, the placating. It starts to make sense why the outcome isn’t as simple as a coup and a dramatic change in Venezuelan policy, nor a principled stand against the empire. Neither side wants to pay the price of what could get them their idea of an ideal outcome, so there’s an element of kayfabe going on. The tension itself is real, the threats are real, but the appearances are (in this view) something of a diplomatic overlay to protect both from harsher realities underneath.
Neither side would benefit from a protracted war involving invasion and resistance. But if Trump can look like he’s good at dealing and make some capitalists happy, he’s happy.
It’s not that strange.
The fact that Maduro is alive doesn’t change the fact that he was willing to die. That he was willing to stand by protecting socialism even if it meant the US doing what it has done.
The only difference between now and before his kidnapping is who is in charge.
Maduro was willing to be attacked by the US. Delcy is not willing to be attacked by the US and is giving up the country to avoid that happening.
That’s it. That’s really all there is to it. The will to fight.
If you’re calling me bad for supporting that then you must have also thought the same about him before then? Did you ever criticise him and say that he should give away Venezuelan oil and open up the country to bourgeois democracy in order to avoid war before the kidnapping happened? Even a single time?
You may be confusing me with the other poster. Pretty sure I have not called you anything. Though I do understand the perspective of the other poster because from the outside looking in, it can look like, “You are not willing to sacrifice [said from a position of not having sacrificed for any revolution anywhere].” The thrust of the argument there, as I see it, is not that the you in that scenario is “bad” but that it can come off like “why aren’t [people I have never met nor fought alongside] not risking their lives for something that I have not even risked my life for,” i.e. it can come off like armchair quarterback revolutionary takes, where the litmus test of someone being a “true revolutionary” is whether they are willing to do something that the person using that litmus test has never even done themself.
It’s possible this is invalid in your case. Perhaps you have risked death in a revolutionary context and we don’t know it. But it is not uncommon for people in the western english-speaking internet to have takes like this while not ever having done much in a revolutionary context.
Depending on how one looks at it, it might seem like this is beside the point. The principle-focused view might argue that it doesn’t matter who is making the argument, but that the principle was not followed and this is the problem. But that view would tend to see Lenin as a betrayer for the Brest-Litovsk treaty instead of a revolutionary making a difficult strategy call under threat. And the USSR went on to transform from struggling feudal conditions to a major industrial and economic powerhouse, including in its ability to defeat Nazi Germany and after, in its ability to become the primary bulwark against the western/white empire having global hegemony. Though it ultimately fell, it may have fallen far sooner had the prevailing view been principle over practicality of the moment. This is not to say the USSR of old is identical to Venezuela, but simply that some decisions are only proven through time and are hard to understand or agree with in the moment. It’s not like everybody loved Lenin’s decision there at the time.
The crux of it for me, and this is where I agree with others who have voiced the litmus test for them being the commune project staying intact, is whether the revolution as a whole is being supported. Whether the policies are allowing it to live on or threatening to destroy it. Decisions that are not ideal for its immediate advancement can sometimes be explained as a strategic retreat.
I could write you a list of the crimes I’ve committed for Palestine but I don’t think it would be very wise to do so. Like, this is an unrefutable position for anyone in an online conversation really. I can’t prove to you what kind of person I am, what I’ve done, what I’m willing to do etc etc. Best I can do is say that I agree with most of Sergey Nechayev’s Revolutionary Catechism, not all of it, but most.
What do you think happens when the PSUV are no longer in charge though? That’s coming once they lay the groundwork for this “freedom” she speaks of. For now we’re just salami slicing through things so as not to cause a significant explosive backlash that threatens the current ruling faction to be removed and replaced by a more hardline one closer to Maduro’s own position that was previously untenable to the US.
I’m not gonna lie, Revolutionary Catechism reads like cult shit. Lines like this are especially unhinged:
Or:
Basically dehumanizing one’s self.
But if that’s the kind of philosophy you go by, it’s no wonder we don’t see eye to eye. I can imagine the kind of material conditions where thinking like Revolutionary Catechism could derive from; very desperate, heavily repressed conditions (without any intent to be cult-like) and Czarist Russia was no spring picnic, but that doesn’t mean it’s effective organizing strategy that is proven to attain and maintain political power, especially through the complexities of running a country. Personally, I would much rather reread Liu Shaoqi’s How to Be a Good Communist or Mao’s Combat Liberalism, which cover some similar concepts without sounding like a cult manifesto.
That’s a big if, not a when. So far, as far as I’m aware, not that much has changed beyond lip service and diplomacy appearances. That could still change, but so far it looks to me less like salami slicing and more like walking a tightrope from the moment the empire kidnapped Maduro and threatened the rest of the leadership.
It’s possible history will vindicate you (I don’t claim to know the future or be right about everything), but whichever way it goes, the best we can do is aid the anti-imperialist cause. In my view, it borders on falling for a psyop how much energy people are expending on whether Venezuela is compromised or held hostage. Versus energy spent on “how can we help with their sovereignty? with keeping the empire’s claws from digging in?” Thinking it all comes down to Delcy Rodriguez would be great man theory.
Oh it absolutely has unhinged parts. But pursuing revolution itself is slightly unhinged anyway.
It’s not just been an influence on me, we have it on good authority from Bonch-Bruyevich that Lenin liked Nechayev very much and insisted on making sure his complete works were published. Unless you think he was lying, which I see no reason to do so.
Che Guevara also referenced Nechayev and regularly read the Catechism.
Eldridge Cleaver, an early leader in the Black Panthers called it “his bible”.
Huey P. Newton’s Revolutionary Suicide explicitly references Revolutionary Catechism.
Bobby Seale and George Jackson also cited it.
I don’t think the above crowd is the wrong crowd to be in. I think many in the left today ignoring these works are ignoring what a significant influence they have been on previous movements and - importantly - just how much commitment and self sacrifice is necessary to win. Are all of these people also unhinged? Yes, they probably were to some extent, I think it’s probably a necessary trait.
A fair point. Unfortunately from where I am there is little I can do materially. Hence my efforts focus on things closer to home, like Elbit.
No. This is an error. The levers of power are real and exist. It doesn’t matter whether it is Delcy or some other traitor, she’s not exceptional, but she is the traitor currently in the position.
The only difference between the conditions under her and the conditions under Maduro is who is occupying that role. The difference does lie with her. Under Maduro this would not be happening, he was willing to fight and sacrifice himself whereas she is not. That is fundamental to my entire point. She is a lesser committed person than he was and a more committed person would not be taking her actions.
Nah, I disagree. Revolution is not unhinged and those who embrace it as unhinged are usually what we’d call “adventurist”. It’s more that what looks unhinged in one context looks sensible in another. That’s why I say that in the desperate times of Czarist Russia, the Revolutionary Catechism makes more sense as deriving from those material conditions. You can point to specific revolutionaries who embraced those works after the fact, but many of the ones you named died/failed to succeed in revolutionary goals. Might sound harsh, and I’m not saying they didn’t contribute to the struggle (hell, Blood in My Eye was one of the first reads for me when I was getting introduced to marxism and it’s a good book); the Panthers were up against a hell of a lot in the belly of the beast and did the best they could. I believe that. But we have to grapple with the realities of what has succeeded and what hasn’t.
I’m not saying this to throw any revolutionary under the bus. It’s very possible that your claim of Lenin liking Nechayev was precisely because he wanted to honor and uplift his dedication to the cause. And to be clear, I don’t mean it as judgment of those who “go too far” or something. It’s more that I don’t think it is a solid tactical ground on a broad organizational level and has not been proven as such; and I would not expect it to be considering the parts of it that will put a person in a position where they are essentially closing themself off to normal human traits.
Which is fundamentally part of what this Delcy Rodriguez stuff loops back to, along with the argument about Lenin and Brest-Litovsk. From what I remember reading, somebody literally tried to assassinate Lenin over Brest-Litovsk (and not a counter-revolutionary). That’s how controversial it was. Now imagine with all this hatred being stirred up toward Rodriguez. What if someone with good intentions assassinates her? Where does that leave the Bolivarian revolution? Unless there are hardliners ready to take over and be ready for US invasion and occupation, what are they gonna do with the power vacuum? The US could seize on it to insert a straightforward puppet.
This is part of why I criticize it as great man theory. It’s not that she has no power. It’s that focusing in on one individual and branding them traitor like that can be very dangerous to revolutionary thinking and organization if the judgment call is wrong. You can tell yourself that under Maduro, this would not be happening, but you don’t know that. The forces of liberation need to win. I for one am sick of how many times they’ve lost and lost good people to the fight. There are people who doubted China’s Reform and Opening Up as a betrayal of the cause for the longest time, some who probably still do, and yet China is now the primary bulwark of anti-imperialism in the world while also being run still by a communist vanguard.
So, it’s fair to doubt and question. But when it comes to branding people as traitor, well… look at what happened with the USSR and Stalin’s legacy. Dirt thrown on it, the USSR’s identity put into crisis, the USSR ultimately came apart. The empire loves to exploit and foment these kind of sincere concerns into frenzied rejection, until people can’t see straight on what is difference of tactics and what is an outright traitor.
Hey I’m back. What do you make of PSL’s new line?
https://liberationnews.org/venezuelas-reorientation-to-imperialism-imperils-the-gains-of-its-revolution/
I read through it yesterday. My impression was, this is the line that matters:
The rest, while not without value especially for those who are out of the loop on the situation, is largely re-litigating things people have debating for months and I don’t feel it is doing so with sufficient evidence to conclude something drastically different than previous reads of the situation. It’s not a bad analysis or anything, I just don’t think it’s elucidating anything all that meaningful that others haven’t already been saying. It’s another analysis in the ongoing debate of what the situation actually is and a fair counterweight to analyses arguing the “strategic retreat” angle, but not in my view, a debate ender.
For the time being, I hold to the line that if the PSUV “quietly gives up on” the communes (or loudly, for that matter), then I will have to admit the situation is far worse than I had hoped.
What about you? What do you make of the PSL article?
I just think ultimately it’s the level of commitment necessary to win. And it is totally and completely self-sacrificing. Everyone that has won did so in some shape or manner, whether among the leadership or among the rest of the party. Many many thousands willingly self sacrificed. Revolutionary conditions are simply like that, whether it’s in Russia, Cuba, China or anywhere else that revolution succeeded, the Catechism comes up again and again among the inner-circles of the fully committed revolutionaries, the people spending every waking minute of every single day committed to achieving revolution with full commitment.
I see no problem with seeing it as unhinged because it frankly is. Lenin died for it. Che died for it. The Panthers died for it. I see no problem in that though. We can be under no delusion that there will be no sacrifice for revolution.
Anyway I don’t really have much more to argue with you about per se. We still disagree, but I understand why you feel the way you do and I think I’ve gotten across my position as well. Ultimately neither of us have any impact one what is going to happen, it’s spectator squabbling.