German government coalition collapsed (because a third of the coalition wanted more austerity) and Scholz immediately went to call Putin, if you want more evidence of low discipline.

Moreno was a trot, he was part of the fourth international. They also call themselves Trotskyists. You were the one saying they were not trots.

Boulos was one of the leaders of the movement for freeing Lula. Other than that he’s indeed a constitutional social-democrat who has finally given up the revolutionary aesthetic in this last election, an useful tactical ally at best. You mistake critical support on common goals for uncritical allyship when it comes to the other major Trotskyist parties.

You don’t need to look very far for evidence of Boulos being against the coup. I suppose you refer to this article referring to the movement against the world cup, due to the harm it caused to the working class that had to be displaced or explored for the creation of the stadiums to entertain a gringo audience. It was also during an ascension of the PSOL as the left opposition right after the Luciana Genro campaign. Boulos has now become an avid defender of the PT, which is an abandonment of whatever leftwing commitment he had back then.

That was not a pro-coup movement, and the fact that what was supposed to be a class conciliation government couldn’t reconcile the tensions there is a failure of the PT. Claiming moral superiority by abstaining from another battleground for class struggle and letting it get taken over by the right is not a good look for the PCO.

Tendencies in the PSOL range from mildly pro imperialist to rabidly pro imperialist.

At least put an effort in your critique to discern how they are pro-imperialist. Most range from social-democratic to Trotskyist which, I agree, often side with imperialism.

A fair number are what patsocs would call “identitarian”, which means that they focus on racial, gender, and ethnic class issues and oppressions. Some are even left-liberal with a focus on minority entrepreneurship. The first has revolutionary potential, the second indeed co-opt important struggles for the sake of maintaining imperialism.

pstu is not trotskyist, they are morenists

The only true Trotskyists are Trotsky himself and Mercader’s ice axe. \s

I’m not going to defend Trotskyists again, with their obsession for splitting and calling themselves the only Marxists for “ideological purity”, rather than doing any actual praxis in a revolutionary direction. That’s just fighting over the title of “reactionary pseudo-revolutionaries with a newspaper”, and if the PSTU and Moreno don’t fit the bill, good for them. It is a confused and moribund dead-end ideology, and the fact that the PSTU often falls into a somewhat more effective anarcho-sindicalist strategy is good enough evidence for that.

As for the last point, both the Revolutions of 1905 and February 1917 had broad support from liberals, reformists, nationalists, Mensheviks, revisionists and even foreign bourgeois observers. It doesn’t mean those weren’t fights worth fighting for.

PSOL has tendencies that range from social-liberal, to “orthodox” Marxist, to Trotskyist to Marxist-Leninist. They even have tendencies that are inspired by the “Arab Spring”. It’s not advisable to be reductionist against them, specially since their broad range of tendencies is usually why they excel electorally but have a hard time getting anything done. (As opposed to parties that follow democratic centralism). They did not side against Dilma in the coup, and in fact voted unanimously in her defense and were even more dedicated in the “Fora Temer” campaigns than the PT itself.

PSTU is Trotskyist so I won’t defend them too much, they tend to fall into left-communism a lot, but they at least have a strong presence in workers unions and are usually the first on the ground for, for example, primary and secondary school teachers’ strikes. They did go against Dilma, in their typical ultra left fashion, demanding that the entire government be toppled. Not that any Marxist should be surprised when bourgeois democracy is undemocratic, though.

I suppose it should go without saying on a primarily Marxist-Leninist instance that Trotskyist or Trotskyist-adjacent parties like these two or the PCO aren’t going to receive much uncritical support, though at least they make themselves present and join forces in critical struggles like this one.

I didn’t link to a Portuguese source because this thread was for the gringo friends, but this movement has been growing for too long for one to confuse their ignorance for it “coming out of the blue”. Now let me attempt to correct the record in English for the sake of the internationals.

Here’s a short article from PCBR talking about the historical construction of this movement.

Summing the history up “shortly” in English, one of the strongest demands from both the PCB (pre-split Brazilian Communist Party, Marxist-Leninist) and the PSTU (United Socialist Worker’s Party, Trotskyist) since at least the June Protests in 2013. Due to the first having some serious organisational problems with their leadership (which led to the split) and the second being fairly small (and Trotskyist, I guess), neither managed to fully oppose the government from the left and materialise this demand.

After the pandemic, with work/life balance dynamics being brought into question, given both the absurd rise of informal work (more than half the “employed” population is informal) and the indignation from workers in the “service” economy from bearing the brunt of the pandemic without any perspective of increase in quality of life from the new “leftist” government, wildcat labour movements started forming from the workers themselves. This includes the fight for better legislation regarding delivery and “rideshare” app workers’ pay and benefits, and for the reduction of the maximum legal workweek.

For some context for the foreigners, the maximum legally allowed weekly workload is 44 hours in Brazil, which can be divided in 6 days of work with 1 mandatory rest day (hence, 6x1, usually split into five days of 8 work hours and one day of 4). We are paid monthly, not hourly, so an employer is legally allowed to demand all 44 hours paying only the minimum wage, though not allowed to pay less than the minimum wage for less hours.

This Rick Azevedo guy accidentally went viral on TikTok for criticising this horribly outdated work scheme and decided to create a single-issue movement (“Life Beyond Work”, VAT) for an increase in mandatory rest days, which grew a lot organically with some support after the fact from leftist parties. The party linked above, PCBR (Revolutionary PCB), is what came out of the PCB split, in strong support for this demand among others but it is still in its restructuring phase.

Last election Rick ran with PSOL (Partido Socialismo e Liberdade, “multiple tendencies” leftist party) for a municipal legislature as a single-issue candidate and got elected with significant voteshare despite almost no party support. Considering the horrible defeat by the electoralist left (including Lula’s party, the PT) this last election which abandoned labour issues in defense of an “united front against fascism” again, this was a major win for the movement.

Now, a federal deputy (as in congresswoman) who is also from the PSOL, Erika Hilton, wrote a constitutional amendment that would reduce the work week to 4 days with 3 mandatory rest days, and maximum of 36 weekly hours. (Yes, this doesn’t make sense numerically and is probably so that parliamentary negotions they can back down to 5 work days and 2 rest days.)

After this was announced, both the VAT movement and the radical left parties coalesced around this amendment, calling for national protests, broad agitprop activities and naming and shaming deputies and parties who go against the proposal. Every radical left party with the bare minimum of material analysis is taking this as the pressure point to attack against the right in the government and for building broad support, but obviously each in their own framework for praxis.

And to finally respond to your comment, this is sadly a conquest by the working class despite the leftist organisations, who are mostly hopping in at the last second. There are right wingers being forced to support this because 1) there are lots of working class right wingers who are aware of their exploitation at some level, and 2) in order to mobilise the bases, rightwing politicians often co-op class struggles aesthetically (fascists in general, Bolsonaro as an example), and some leftist orgd are intentionally abusing this to force their hand into supporting the cause or risk being shown as a farce. The same applies for corporate media conglomerates. And of course, 3) it’s an opportunity to weaken the Lula government if they don’t also support the amendment, which is an okay sacrifice from the left as they intend to position themselves as left opposition.

So I wouldn’t say this is strange, in fact it’s been fairly predictable so far.

Edit to add: I forgot to mention the PCR/UP, a different Marxist-Leninist party with a strong base in the urban periphery, was also involved in getting the VAT movement viral and is going into this struggle with full force.

I was also positively surprised how a lot of Reddit users on r/politics were way less deluded on election night and the day after, openly criticising the Dem party on class issues and Gaza.

It got back to “normal” now, but I think they might have a second “genzedong situation” in the near future with dissatisfied users, though now there’s literal alternative websites like here and hexbear (and raddle I guess?) so they could just leave with greater ease.

Looks like it’s time to reread the eighteenth of Brumaire of Louis Napoleon!

Adding to all other comments, a lot of the suspicious Bush administration’s immediate reaction (i.e. PATRIOT act) can be understood as them being always ready for whatever calamity in order to justify either invasion or neoliberal “reforms”.

Naomi Klein (liberal) goes into detail in her book (Shock Doctrine) about what she calls “Disaster Capitalism” and how a lot of effort is put into laying down the groundwork, both legally and ideologically, for whenever crises make them possible, besides constantly agitating for chaos which can lead to said crises.

She has a documentary which summarises her book, if you want a peek. You can easily draw parallels between the events she describes and what’s happening now in Argentina, Ukraine and Ecuador, among others.

Now, with regards to what motivates this conspiracy theory: it’s a patriotic distraction. As US citizen lives are treated by US society as inherently more important, portraying Bush as a traitor is an attractive pitfall to fall into, whitewashing the constant crimes of the US, internally and abroad, as the acts of “a bad president”. Even if Bush had personally pushed a button to launch missiles at the WTC, it would not be even remotely close to the social murder caused by his administration, or any other admin before or after.

meter aí

Tava chamando esse Meta AI de Merda AI até agora, mas Meta Aí parece uma boa alternativa kkkkkkkk

Eu preciso dele pra trabalho ;-;

Whatsapp até alguns meses atrás ainda funcionava como um sistema de gente. Depois começaram a fazer uma remodelagem sem sentido e agora que realmente chutaram o pau da barraca com esse trem de IA.

Quando eu usava Signal ele era cheio de bugs e bem ruim de usar (também não considero “seguro” assim como os outros 2, mas isso é outro rolê). Mas a realidade é que eu não uso whatsapp pra conversar com amigos, uso pra trabalho que envolve estar disponível pra atender umas 900 pessoas em qualquer momento. Convencer esse tanto de gente pra mudar pra outra coisa seria um inferno, então telegram pelo menos tem o benéfico de já ter gente lá.

Gotta remember to come back in 8 hours lol. This might be a fun experiment, since basically every corporate social media wants to be tiktok already.

You’ll probably have better luck regarding history and theory of communes on hexbear’s anarchism communities.

There have been many attempts at something like networks of self-organised communes, even before Marxism and Anarchism were coined.

In colonial Brazil, self-sustaining and self-governed communities called Quilombos were created as an alternative to the Atlantic trade slave-society imposed by the Europeans. As far as I’ve read they often organised themselves in federations with regards to war but were self-contained with regards to their own economy. Not sure what’s a good English source, but Clovis Moura is the best Portuguese one.

Over time, with the consolidation of colonial (and eventually Brazilian) authority, the settlements were either wiped out or relegated to the margins of society. The few that remain today are constantly under judicial and criminal attack.

Other two more recent examples of federated autonomous communities would be the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities in Mexico, which recently got dissolved and the Shining Path (and following splinter groups) occupation of Peruvian territories.

Do note that all of the provided examples had to deal with the constant threat of organised violence, be it from the state or from organised crime.

Going back to Brazil, two other examples of communes would be some of the communities defended by the Landless’s Workers Movements (which is less militant and more legalist) or the armed League of Poor Peasants (which, surprise surprise, was created as a reaction to brutal state suppression).

Given all that, I don’t believe communes can be seen as “safer” or “more peaceful” ways of building towards socialism or fighting imperialism. They have a role to play (even under capitalism) and are objectively good in many cases, but they’re still going to be in the crosshairs of imperialism.

Wherever alternatives to imperialism (and therefore capitalism) present themselves, they must be brutally destroyed and made an example of. This is probably paraphrasing a few dozen Marxists and also a couple Secretaries of State.

In all its bloody triumphs over the self-sacrificing champions of a new and better society, that nefarious civilization, based upon the enslavement of labor, drowns the moans of its victims in a hue-and-cry of calumny, reverberated by a world-wide echo. The serene working men’s Paris of the Commune is suddenly changed into a pandemonium by the bloodhounds of “order.”

And what does this tremendous change prove to the bourgeois mind of all countries? Why, that the Commune has conspired against civilization! The Paris people die enthusiastically for the Commune in numbers unequally in any battle known to history. What does that prove? Why, that the Commune was not the people’s own government but the usurpation of a handful of criminals! The women of Paris joyfully give up their lives at the barricades and on the place of execution. What does this prove? Why, that the demon of the Commune has changed them into Megaera and Hecates!

The Civil War in France

It’s very low effort and low reward praxis. Kinda like reposting stuff about rallies or from organisations to your friends, it is useful and probably not detrimental, but be careful not to fall into “consumer praxis” pitfall of liking, sharing and subscribing to Second Thought and being satisfied with only that.

If you have some green areas near you try climbing trees. It’s a pretty weird hobby and you can start with what feels like humiliating small steps (climbing a hip-height branch). But it’s a great way for getting a different and closer appreciation for nature and also of exercising balance and body control rather than just the muscle growth you’d get at the gym.

I also second martial arts, specially more cultural ones like Capoeira, Kung Fu or Karate rather than competition-focused ones like Boxing.

The OECD has some good sources for data and viz on trade, as well as many other topics related to global economics.

https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/trade.html

Just be aware that it’s a liberal institution.

Academic Marxism is the tendency to study Marxism solely as an economic theory without little to no organizative theory or practice, rendering it toothless.

This means that the beginning and end of the organisation’s work is confined to universities, particularly economics and social science departments, bringing with that all the petty bourgeois and elitist trends in academia. In short, it’s “people who only read Marx in German, but never went to a picket line”.

This is extremely common in bourgeois democracies as a way of institutionalising critique, and therefore making it harmless. Rather than making communism illegal, the ruling class makes effective party work illegal, but “tolerates” intellectual Marxists with high pay, healthcare and good benefits.

For further reading, here’s an (academic) article critiquing academic Marxists and warning of how actual militant workers movements are in danger of being co-opted by liberal ideology in 1977. Ronald Reagan was elected in 1978.

This is an age-old debate (see Luxembourg’s “reform or revolution”).

The Marxist-Leninist line holds that protecting or enhancing the material conditions of the proletariat before the revolution can both increase the number of prospective party-members or militants (i.e. you can’t organise rallies if you’re starving) and gain the confidence of the working class by representing their immediate interests (i.e. protecting workers rights) unlike bourgeois parties.

Smaller more tangible reform fights are also ripe ground for recruitment of militants, as inexperienced comrades can get a lot of first hand experience organising for, for example, solutions for food security (Black Panther Party’s free breakfasts).

However those reforms are means to an end, and that end is revolution. So reforms should not be a one-and-done thing (see the UK’s NHS) but rather a front in heightening class war and highlighting capital as the enemy and their resistance to reform as evidence. I once saw a comment in another Lemmy instance that said something like “we tried to implement public healthcare, but capital resisted too hard so there’s no hope”. That is due to social-democrat and reformist monopoly over the discourse about public healthcare, which needs to be challenged by communists.

The term “class war” is not hyperbole. In a war, you should settle only for defeating your opponent, hopefully forcing them to capitulate or maybe even eradicating them. You don’t take your single victory in a battlefield and pack your bags to go home, that’s the reformist line represented by Jeremy Corbyn and in a more aesthetic sense, Bernie Sanders. But you also don’t wait while your enemy marches into your territory hoping that their cruelty will materialise an uprising to defeat your opponent in a single blow, that is the spontaneists line held by every other Trotskyist splinter party or academicist communists.