If you want to find out more (altho that’s the long and the short of it) the search term you want is “carry trade”.

Their website lists the Austin Texas Branch of the CPUSA as a signatory?
The ones who were just the “current thing” because their branch was liquidated?

I’m sorry for the confusion, but my definition is not whether the government does something. There are nationalized industries which are still governed entirely by exchange value and not at all by use value.

You are absolutely correct that markets != capitalism. I was not trying to make that argument.

I’m glad you like it! I have another one on my profile for the USSR.

That being said, I do agree that economic systems can co-exist with each other, but in a struggle for dominance that is

That’s what I’m saying and what Marx is saying in the first volume of Capital. Societies can have one mode that predominates but they still have multiple modes.

Regarding the UK, the NHS was almost fully de-commodified at its height. Public schools in many countries operate entirely de-commodified as well (with obvious expections). In modern Cuba the healthcare still works this way, as does the entire education system. This is a sector of the economy that is communist. Many FLOSS software projects are also part of the communist sector as well. Almost no society has a single mode of production. They are, for clear reasons as you pointed out, under attack. The dialectic will be in motion until its resolved. And I call that period of transition “socialism”. I know some take issue with this term.

Thanks for your reply.

All good points!
I think that in many socialist sectors there is a focus on use value for sure, but exchange value is still there in many ways. The USSR had plans but they were monetary plans, for example. At its height, Gosplan only planned around 10k goods in an economy of almost 2 million. Clearly it’s not purely capitalist, but there are still exchange value determinations there (it’s in transition) because these firms were producing things to be sold (though not ALL of what they did was for this).

Maybe this is just semantics over the term “socialism”. It did, afterall, change definitions after the first successful revolution (the USSR). I hope my definition made clear what I meant by this. I don’t think the exact definition of socialism effects the idea that there are industries where production and distribution are not entirely determined by exchange value but in a dialectic with use value.

I am of course simplifying but I just wanted to share a nice synthesis that helped us avoid infighting. Thanks for your reply.

Thanks!

Also the image is a wallpaper I made of Cuba. I hope you all enjoy.

I’m not too familiar with Deng. Could you explain more of his geo-politics? Thanks in advance comrade.

Is Resolution 5 really about voting for Biden?
Is there somewhere CPUSA defines their “broad front”?

I live outside the US so I’m not up to date on American politics?

That claim was made by Comrade Stalin in 1924, a decade before the rise of fascism in Germany. The assessment turned out to be unhelpful and Stalin himself abandoned this theory. In 1935 the Comintern changed from the “social fascism” to the “popular front” theory.

Did the social democrats not fight against fascism hard enough? Yes. Are they our political enemy because they support capitalism? In the grand narrative yes, but for specific goals in the near future inside bourgeois states, likely not. Does that make them fascists? No. If supporting capitalism makes them fascists, any other ideology besides communism would be fascist and the word would lose its meaning.

Pontificating about the true nature of one group or another is idealism. Look at the material goal you have at hand, the concrete thing your org is trying to accomplish right now, and see who will be for or against you. It is idealism to do otherwise. Just because social democrats in general don’t want to kill landlords does not mean specific people who call themselves socdems won’t join a tenants union. You judge people individually, you assess their motives and resolve individually, you do the same for specific organiztions, and you see how they fall in terms of power and alignment for the specific goal you have.

There have been gains made by anarchist movements. Much of the major retreats the IMF took in the early 2000s were the direct result of the Direct Action Network, for example. Anarchists were majorly involved in Occupy (a radical mass moment that, i.m.o. because of the lack of a vanguard party, petered out). Long-term sustainability and viability is what they lack. They have had lasting gains in capitalist states (the 8 hour day, etc.), they have had revolutions, but after the revolution starts they can’t seem to stick it out.

The important thing about being a communist is about not pontificating on the true spirit of this person or that group. You look at material things you aim to do and see who is against you and for you on an issue by issue basis as you build worker power. Spending time wondering what the true nature of an ideology’s followers is is idealism.

This news is actually a little hard to interpret.
To quote the article: " The amount will now be diversified into corporate assets "
Japan’s central bank does bailouts of the capitalist class by purchasing stock. It owns 4.7% of all public stock in all of Japan.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-06/boj-becomes-biggest-japan-stock-owner-with-434-billion-hoard
So this may not be them moving toward abandoning the dollar (the watcher.guru article mentions that they are selling US and EU bonds but no percentages).