Who would've thought in 1945 that a Nazi government would support a Jewish supremacist government somewhere in history
(cool fact: the Nazis had a friendly relationship with Zionists, look for "Haavara Agreement")
To me, this sounds like a problem in the relationship with your students. Maybe you can back off a little bit and instead of presenting content from your classes directly, you could spend a class or two forging a better relationship with your students, like asking what they like, what could make the classes interesting, anything that would make them have an active participation in the class. You could research and bring fun activities to do to make their learning more interesting. Try to establish a closer relationship with your students, a personal and affective connection
If you spend a class bringing them suggestions that you can do and they collectively decide what they would do in the next class, I'm almost certain they would be more active then. If not, maybe it's the location? You mentioned you are giving classes in the canteen, maybe they get distracted easily there, as it's not a classroom, etc.
In Brazil I recognized one by listening to a rap song by Racionais MC's about Marighella and he complimented me lol
I'd say this, from the thread the comrade linked here. Also, there is not a "Marxist-Leninist take" on everything, it's not the scope of Marxism-Leninism to "have an opinion" on everything, Marxism-Leninism is a theoretical framework which guides revolutionary praxis
My personal take on this is that death penalties should have a democratic process behind it, it's the safest path. No one is irredeemable, but some deaths are warranted, for symbolic, political, social reasons. Once the facts have been established and their crimes fully investigated, the death of a serial killer may bring comfort to several families affected, for instance. Or the leader of a genocidal fascist movement may be politically and/or symbolically warranted
It can come from various sources. The Party asks for contributions from all members, and a part of the collective funds can be directed towards supporting a few professional revolutionaries. There were other ways the Party could gather funds for that, even bank robbing like Stalin famously did. But a Party can sell stuff, organize raffles, etc., I see this as the main basis behind supporting professional revolutionaries.
Lenin had a few "gigs" to earn money. After he received his law diploma, he practiced law in Samara Regional Court for a while, but he also gave private lessons to people. He advertised this work in newspapers at the time.
In principle, a professional revolutionary doesn't need money at all. They only need a place to live and food. Party members could have spare rooms in their houses which any professional revolutionary could stay for a while, meanwhile their food is guaranteed by any peasant, cook, etc. from the party willing to share and prepare food. You could have professional revolutionaries solely dependent on class solidarity, money doesn't necessarily have to be a concern when your party is organized enough.
I understand CIA deeply studied LSD and its potential use in interrogations, but that CIA supplied LSD to hippies is new to me
Not sure how hippies live in other countries, but the hippies here usually don't have a house, have nomadic lifestyles and usually sell their arts and crafts. The fact that they live vulnerable lives could place them as lumpenproletariat, though the fact that they produce things to sell and sell it themselves, could place them as a petty-bourgeois. The hippie ideas you describe, "free love", "non-violence" is perfectly in line with a petty-bourgeois mentality too.
Well, to be fair, the only difference between your "definitions" and my descriptions is the fact that you emphasize marriage in polygamy, while I argue this is not necessary. Marriage is an institution which is restricted in our society, only allowing two partners to be married at once. Hence why the emphasis on marriage may be insufficient to describe how these relationships "survive" in a monogamous marriage institution.
The polygamous relationships I've seen didn't have marriage in common, but coexistence, that is, all partners shared a relationship with each other, usually by living together or hanging out together. This is the major difference between other forms of non-monogamous relationships.
@felipeforte
@lemmygrad.ml