On Unfiltered Thinking, The Miracle of The Psychedelic Experience and Human Genius

When you think, focus on thinking with the part of your brain that forms thoughts, not the part that says them aloud in your head. When that filter is removed in times of extreme meditation, psychedelic experiences, etc. you will find that thoughts can flow like a turbulent river, whereas before it was only a trickle. But such a skill can be cultivated in the sober mind as well. This, I believe, is a key to human genius. It exists in all of us, regardless of if we know it or not. 
In normal times of sober reflection, we notice that we think in 2 stages, first we know what we are going to say in our mind, and then we say it aloud in our head. Focus on that part that spontaneously brings thoughts into being. Listen to it, and it alone when you need inspiration, or to think quickly.
Thoughts arise naturally, independent of language. This is the realization that comes from such thinking. We imagine first the essence of what we want to think, then the words. The essence forms in our minds 50x quicker than it takes to say the thought aloud. If we focus on the essence, and not the time consuming process of putting it into words, we will find the genius of the human mind, regardless of who is thinking.
I believe such thinking can only be fully unleashed during spiritual and psychedelic experiences, when the filter between the essence of our thoughts coming into being, and it’s translation, is removed. In such a state we think of 50 thoughts per second. Incredible realizations about life, language, ordinary phenomena, inventions, being, etc. These experiences of completely unfiltered thinking under the influence of psychedelics have led to incredible innovations and discovery. I will give you several examples.
The shape of DNA was discovered on LSD. A group of scientists had been working for many months on trying to figure out the shape of DNA. They all dropped acid one day, and within several hours had discovered that the double helix was the best shape to bring the molecules of life together in a functioning pattern. Steve Jobs and Bill Gated both attribute LSD to their success. And most of the music on your phone without doubt came from someone on some form of psychedelic. 
I too have experienced the profound realizations that come under psilocybin, I speak from experience alone. Unfiltered thinking can be cultivated, I believe, in a mind that has not had such an experience. Unfiltered thinking is natural thinking, divorced entirely from language. I believe it, along with psychedelic drugs, to be keys of human genius.

20th Century Marxism-Leninism: Not a failure of “socialism” but of skipping over capitalism to reach socialism

Initially I wrote something longer and much more complex, but I will keep this short and simple. 
According to the official Marxist-Leninist ideology in Albania, the purpose of the communist movement was “leading it (the country) from its backward semi-feudal state to socialism, bypassing the phase of advanced capitalism” -History of The Party of Labor of Albania, 1st edition (p.6-7). 

Indeed this was the ideology of practically every Marxist-Leninist state of the 20th Century. But what did Marx believe? Precisely the opposite, that socialism would likely only be achieved by building off of the progress made by the advanced capitalist phase of development, in the most advanced countries first as a result of the internal contradictions of the capitalist system and not the external contradictions of imperialism. 

It must be said that Marx did have high hopes that Russia in particular could go through a new phase of development, bypassing capitalism. But he never based such a view on any evidence, purely speculation, as he stressed. All of Marx’s works support the notion that socialism can only be achieved in the most advanced capitalist countries first. This view is supported by the overwhelming majority of Marx’s writings on capitalism.
Thus the failure of the 20th Century was not by any means a failure of ‘socialism’, but of the attempt to ‘skip over’ an advanced capitalist stage of development, to reach socialism in semi-feudal countries without the help of revolution in advanced capitalist countries. Thus we go back to the theory of ‘socialism in one country’, and its failure.

On that annoying Margret Thatcher quote, and others

“Under socialism we’d all be equally poor” Yeah, in one of the poorest countries on earth if you just immediately transferred to socialism, you’d all be equally poor. That’s why rapid industrialization was a thing. Shall I even mention the fact that every single socialist revolution took place in the poorest countries on earth? You honestly think ALL the wealth in our bourgeois society would simple vanish into thin air?

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money” This statement results from a complete and total lack of knowledge as to what socialism even IS. Socialism is NOT just taking money from the rich, it’s taking the MEANS OF CREATING WEALTH (means of production) from the property owning class that “owns” them, placing them under public ownership and democratic control by the workers and the general public.

Let’s Clear Up Some Misconceptions About What Socialism and Communism ARE and ARE NOT, Once and For All

What is socialism?

 Social Welfare Programs

 State-Run Enterprises (UPS, Fire Department, etc.)

 Full State Ownership Of The Economy

 Full State Control of The Economy

 When The Government Does Stuff

✔️ State Owned Economy With Workplace Democracy by The Working Class and General Public Under The Dictatorship of The Proletariat

✔️ Social Ownership of The Means of Production With Democratic Control over The Means of Production

✔️ Industrial Democracy W/ some form of Common Ownership of Enterprise

✔️ “From each according to their ability, to each according to their work”

✔️ A system where no one who is able bodied (especially capitalists) can live off of, or make a fortune off of the labor of another.

What is Communism?

 A one-party state

 Authoritarianism

 Dictatorship

 Totalitarianism, Some Orwellian Dystopia

 Any Form of State

A society where no one owns personal possessions (Laptops, houses, cars, etc.)

✔️ A society which abolishes private property (Private ownership of enterprise, in a word, the abolition of the entitlement to what one does not produce)

✔️ A society that deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

✔️ A stateless, classless, moneyless society embodying the principle of “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”

✔️ A society where there is no exploitation by economic means, nor oppression by a state

✔️ The doctrine for the liberation of the proletariat

✔️ Inevitable

What did Karl Marx study and write most about?

 Communism

 Socialism

 The State

 Poetry

✔️ Capitalist Economics

✔️ Human Society and History (including, mind you, human nature)

*If you search all 50 volumes of Marx’s works, you will find less than 7 pages describing what a communist society would look like, when asked, he would always say, “I don’t have a crystal ball” The overwhelming majority of his works are a detailed study and critique of how capitalism works.*

When and where did Karl Marx believe the first successful socialist revolutions would take place?

 The most backward countries on earth (Russia, China, Albania, Cuba, etc.)

 At the beginning of capitalist development and at the end of feudalism (Russia, China, etc.)

✔️ In the most advanced capitalist countries in the world

✔️ At the end of capitalist development, building off of capitalism as capitalism built off of feudalism (the modern era, not 1917)

Why then, was Marx wrong?

 He did not understand the inner contradictions of the capitalist system

✔️ He lived before the time of imperialism, whose conditions brought the first socialist revolution in the world to Russia, and subsequent revolutions

(Now from a Trotskyist perspective)

What, then, was the USSR?

 An ideal example of socialism

 A socialist economy in the proper sense

 A purely state-capitalist economy (technically in some ways, but not really)

 A failure of socialism, or communism

✔️ A failure of Stalinism

✔️ A degenerated workers state where democratic control of the economy was replaced by that of a small bureaucratic elite (Stalinism)

✔️ A betrayal of the original democratic ideals and gains of the October Revolution

Why was this?

 Human Nature

✔️ An almost inevitability due to 1.) The backwardness of Russia 2.) The fact that international revolution (which Lenin and Trotsky both believed to be the sole hope of the RSFSR) 3.) The failure of ‘Socialism in one Country’ (Stalinism).

Why has every socialist revolution not attained favorable results?

 Human Nature

 The superiority of Capitalism

✔️ Every single socialist revolution since October has been based, not on the early October revolution or the Paris Commune, but on the Stalinist example of a one-party state, and the theory of ‘socialism in one country’. We live in a global, integrated economy. Revolution must be international in scope, or at least in several advanced countries. The completion of the socialist revolution in one country alone is unthinkable.

✔️ Revolution in an advanced capitalist country has yet to take place, we are only just recently finding ourselves in the conditions Marx wrote about in which the internal contradictions of capitalism bring us to proletarian revolution in said countries. Without aid from an advanced country, revolution in a poor country will be mercilessly crushed by U.S. imperialism, even given its already dim prospects

✔️ Every single socialist revolution has happened in the most backward countries in the world, (and not the most advanced as Marx and Engels believed necessary) attaining remarkable yet still not desired results

✔️ We are only now entering the era of late stage capitalism, of the end of capitalism

Feel free to comment and share, I am tired of having to explain this to liberals.

Briefly, On the accusations of the (God forbid) “atheism” of Marx and Lenin by the right- From a Christian and a Communist

Yes, Marx and Lenin were atheists! Do you know what else? Buddha was a Buddhist. Martin Luther King was a Christian. Malcom X was a Muslim. Great men are great regardless of their religious convictions. Your attempts to slenderize Marx and Lenin for being atheists are wholly baseless. Were they wrong for being atheists? I believe so, but their criticism of religion was not unfounded.

What has “christian charity” done to lift broadly, the toiling masses out of extreme poverty? What has mindfulness done to improve the material conditions of the poor? They are not wrong in their criticism, if anything, they were atheists out of love for working people, out of their desire for the complete freedom of working people. And yes, I say that as both a Christian and a communist. That is your first mistake.

Your second is the ignorant accusation that atheism implies immorality and malevolence. I am friends with many atheists, some of the best, most loving, most dedicated, most compassionate and inspiring people I know happen to be atheists. Religious belief is absolutely no indication whatsoever of a persons ability to feel empathy and to be a decent person and an implication of such indicates a lack of empathy, something that is, to put it bluntly, inhuman.

Reasons For The Coming Socialist Revolution

The rapidly increasing technological boom of the productive forces can but only constitute an increase in the contradictions between the two antagonistic social classes in our society: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In the past 30 years we have witnessed the most rapid increase in the revolutionizing process of the productive forces on account of the bourgeoisie. We know that, according to Marx, that “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.” The period in time where these antagonisms become most apparent in the most advanced capitalistic countries (not the backward countries which made revolution in the 20th century due specifically to the conditions of imperialism) came far later than Marx predicted, indeed we are living in the era Marx spoke of. It must be said that Marx was no mystical prophet, all he did was analyze the workings and inner mechanisms of the capitalist system scientifically and come to a conclusion. But there can be no doubt that we are in the era of the coming socialist revolution. Not because these social antagonisms increase and flux as they always do, but for several key reasons (and I’m sure I am leaving some out):
 
1.) Capitalism has revolutionized society (just as Marx knew it would), but in doing so it has raped the earth or more specifically; the prospects of future human development on the earth. If capitalism continues (even with regulations) it will bring an end to all human life on earth.
 
2.) In the past it could always be said by bourgeois economists that one key benefit of capitalism was that, even after 25 years or so of dictatorship, it always led to the development of a liberal democratic republic (bourgeois democracy). But now even bourgeois economists are admitting that the most efficient capitalistic countries today are ‘not’ democratic countries, but in the most authoritarian countries, take China for instance. This so-called Capitalism with Asian Values (no relation to race but to region) is far exceeding the productive capacity of the (now dying) Social-Democratic countries in Europe, Neoliberal capitalism of the United States, and Latin American capitalism. If capitalism continues, it will continue to gradually become divorced from democracy altogether.
 
3.) The aforesaid rapid increase in technological (and general commodity) innovation is the only way the bourgeoisie can exist. This rapid increase is bound to bring with it a rapid increase in the contradiction between the two social classes of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. (For example: Wages have not increased with productivity -as they always have- since the early 1970’s, income inequality is higher than it has ever been, minimum wage is not enough to survive if living alone.) This will inevitably lead to socialism (a broad term) in one form or another.

Where are we coming from? The vestiges of Stalinism

I am a Trotskyist to the core when it comes to the issue of the past. It’s complete bullshit to claim that the working class was in power in the late Eastern Bloc. There was nothing left in those states but the raw, negative vestiges of Stalinism, a vestige which will (seemingly) forever form the blackest reaction of all time over the communist movement.

I am reading a book called ‘The Stalinist Legacy’ which criticizes practically all of the 20th century Marxist-Leninist legacy from a Marxist perspective. No, the working class was not in power, a Stalinist bureaucracy was. No, it cannot be called a socialist system without there being democracy in the workplace, without there being political democracy as well. As Luxemburg said, “Democracy is indispensable to socialism and socialism indispensable to democracy.”

The one-party system did not reign because it ‘maintained the will of the entire working class’ all at once, such a view is utopian. It formed as a necessity of the Russian revolution- a condition that by absolutely no indications by Lenin or Trotsky was to be permanent. Go ahead and search all 50 volumes of Marx and Engels, and all 45 volumes of Lenin for the mention of a one-party system, I have. You will find not one mention of such a thing by Lenin, Marx or Engels, it is entirely a vestige of Stalinism to assert that the ideal socialist state (and not only one that just had a revolution, and also was barred from participation by the bourgeois parties) is a one-party state.

In fact, in the ‘people’s democracies’ the necessary prerequisites for full democracy did not exist. Had they though, the overwhelming majority would have likely supported some kind of liberal democratic reforms. This is not to say that this was the case everywhere, it most certainly was not. Eisenhower himself (I believe it was) said that he suppressed elections in Vietnam because if he had allowed them, “80% of the population would have supported Ho Chi Minh”. The same was true for Cuba.

To adequately critique 20th Century Marxism-Leninism I do not believe Trotskyism is enough. We have to go back to Marx himself who asserted the belief that advanced capitalism was a necessary prerequisite to socialist construction. Just as you cannot go from a feudal monarch to a democratic republic without a zero level of Jacobinism, you cannot go from feudalism to socialism without a zero level of advanced capitalism. Was this not the assertion of Marx himself?

The conditions of imperialism put Russia in an impossible situation: a proletarian revolution in a backwards country without international revolution. Lenin himself said the country was doomed in a decade without international revolution. It was doomed from the start. We also have to analyze the nature of the economic system itself. Was it socialist? Certainly not. Was it state-capitalist? Technically, but it was also technically under the dictatorship of the proletariat. I think the assertion of it being a ‘deformed workers state’ is adequate. From a surplus analysis it was anything but socialist.

And yes! It lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty, doubled life expectancy rates, abolished illiteracy, etc. but overall I would classify it as a complete and total disaster. If you read some of Lenin’s later writings it gets even more depressing as even Lenin himself expressed doubts as to the ability of such a backward nation building socialism. He says something along the lines of “yes we’re probably fucked but at least we should try right? Perhaps if we are, the best thing would be more economic development and some bourgeois culture.” Not one year after he died did Stalin propose the treacherous theory of ‘socialism in one country’.A theory that, along with Stalinism generally, has been the sole basis of every single socialist/ communistic revolution since October.

The idea of rapid industrialization (as introduced by Trotsky) was the great triumph of the 20th century Marxist-Leninist movement. The five year plans brought hundreds of millions of people out of the most extreme poverty. But economically it was technically state-capitalist due to its lack of economic democracy and state control. Had it allowed full democratic participation and innovation, I have little doubt that the economic stagnation of the Brezhnev era would have never taken place. Overall I just have to look back and say, “What the actual fuck? I mean seriously. Fuck. This whole thing is fucked. The word communism (the goal) is now and (seemingly) forever will be equated with Stalinism (the totalitarian means of reaching said goal).

Where are we coming from? Where are we now? Where are we going? I hope that I have sufficiently, even if briefly, addressed the question of where we are coming from- the complete betrayal of the original ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin, the vestiges of Stalinism and its effects on world politics today. Without addressing this issue with the utmost vigor and confidence- rooted in a firm and concise Marxist analysis, we will go nowhere at all. Or worse still- will repeat the mistakes and atrocities of the past.