Thoughts on chapter seven:

For example, some comrades of peasant background used to think that communism meant "expropriation of local tyrants and distribution of the land".

I have noticed that many rural leftists tend to put a bigger emphasis on fair land distribution. Which makes sense given the histories of many rural areas, speculators hoarding good land, peasantry relegated to the scraps.

A few even join because they count on the Party to get their taxes reduced

That statement would make many a chud’s brain seize up and not compute. Which is an irony, in that income tax is negligible to nonexistent in most Marxist-Leninist economies.

Indeed, for most people it is impossible to have a proufound understanding of communism and the Partys Programme and Constitution before joining the Party. That is why we can only prescribe acceptance, and not a thorough understanding of the Partys Programme and Constitution as a condition for admission.

Gatekeeping is incompatible with socialism. Encountering ignorance in a potential comrade is a sign to communicate, not patronize or show off.

Some people habitually place their personal interests above those of the Party when it comes to practical matters; they are preoccupied with personal gain and loss and always calculate in terms of personal interests; they abuse the public trust, turning their Party work to private advantage of one kind or another; or they attack comrades they dislike and wreak private vengeance, on high-sounding pretexts of principle or Party interests

It’s interesting, because while the notion of serving the great good of the proletariat over self-centered scheming fits well into socialist organizing, it also mirror a lot of Eastern philosophy: abolishing clinging to the idea of the self, readjusting worldviews to around what is best for someone to do in this situation rather than what is best for the self.

This type of self-seeking individualism often manifests itself inside the Party in unprincipled quarrelling, factional struggle, sectarianism and departmentalism; it manifests itself in disrespect for and wilful violation of Party discipline.

No infighting, people.

Departmentalism within the Party arises chiefly because some comrades only see the interest of the part, i.e., the work of their own department of locality, and fail to see the interests of the whole, i.e., the interests of the entire Party and the work of other departments and localities. Politically and ideologically, this resembles the guild outlook. Not all comrades who make the mistake of departmentalism are necessarily prompted by individualism, but people with an individualist ideology usually make the mistake of departmentalism.

I work in the public sector and you see this shit all the time. Even if two units are in the same department there’ll be elbowing for resources and undermining each other even though they’re working towards the same goal.

What is there in personal position for a Communist to bother about? No one's position is higher than an emperor's, and yet what is an emperor compared with a fighter in the cause of communism? Is he not just "a drop in the ocean" as Comrade Stalin put it? So what is there in personal position worth bothering or bragging about?

Modesty in achievement is fitting for a socialist, as the goal is the collective achievement.

Therefore, while we are opposed to individualistic heroism and ostentatiousness , we are certainly not opposed to a spirit of enterprise in the Party members. The desire to make progress in the interests of the people is the most precious quality in a Communist. But the communist, proletarian spirit of enterprise is entirely different from the individualist "spirit of enterprise". The former means seeking truth, upholding it and fighting for it with the greatest effectiveness. It is progressive and opens up unlimited prospects of development, while the latter offers no prospects even for the individual, for people with an individualist ideology are usually driven by their personal interest into deliberately brushing aside, covering up or distorting the truth.

This is a clever turning of the liberal critique back on itself. Leftism is not opposed to being enterprising, quite the opposite, it just applies the enterprising spirit to the greater hood rather than personal gain.

Naturally we should try our best to do more, but if we cannot and can only do a little, that is also useful and just as honourable.

It’s very easy to feel that one is never doing enough for the movement, so I appreciate this line amongst the “work hard for the party” rhetoric.

Comrades who are unwilling to undertake technical work think that it stifles their talents, that it prevents them from becoming famous (actually it does not, as witness the technical worker Stakhanov)

I feel like I’d much rather do that technical work than elbow for leadership.