I don’t have it in front of me but I remember a Stalin quote saying something quite different in the case of supporting anti-imperialism in West Asia despite the social conservatism. I haven’t suggested supporting conservatives as you claim, just that the MAGA communists trying to appeal to conservatives to bring them to the left (their stated goals) doesn’t seem like the building of a reactionary army or adding momentum to fascism. It is at worse changing nothing about the current political landscape and at best introducing otherwise politically undeveloped workers who default into an inherited ideology to some new ideas which aren’t all bad on their surface.
Then why support them to begin with? Do you not care for trans people (as I am), or feminists (as I am), or black people? All of whom are oppressed because Conservatives don’t want us to have rights? I ask again, do you not want us to have rights?
I’ve never suggested supporting these groups, but you respond as if I have and then question my character which has nothing to do with an analysis of the topic at hand. Surely you aren’t suggesting that marginalized people don’t have rights because MAGA communists are trying to appeal to settler workers, and I haven’t in my cursory overview of them seen anyone calling for such things. Accusing other people of wanting to deny marginalized people rights for trying to have a discussion around the characteristics of a fringe political movement is inflammatory at best and unhinged at worst. The other person in this thread communicates without all the hubris while still having the exact same positions you have, I’d recommend looking to their writing for some examples of how to communicate in a way that is actually effective at getting your points across.
What identity should communists appeal to? The US identity is born out of a white settler identity. That is a fact which most settlers refuse to understand. Just making white settlers support Russia or China isn’t enough to rid themselves of their reactionary nature. Conservatives (and Liberals too) need to understand that they live on Stolen land and thus they need to support decolonisation in full. For a US communist working for a decade, this is shocking to hear. Instead of paralleling communist ideas, convincing the masses that socialism is superior to them, you instead compromise your position with conservatives. There shouldn’t be any compromises when your own ideology is at risk with such compromise.
You are editorializing what I said in order to fit in into your already predesignated conceptions of what this topic contains and what people who are participating in it without unquestionably adopting your view points must believe. I didn’t claim that conservatives will suddenly be cleansed of their reactionary nature by adopting stances that don’t promote war against China or Russia. I’m asking why some MLs here are so scared of what they claim is an irrelevant fringe group for trying to appeal to people that have the same identities as they do to take anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist positions. Wouldn’t that be better than them having imperialist and capitalist positions? Would it be any worse for the US political landscape for them to try?
I’ve made it clear that I don’t believe anyone at our stage of political development should spend time organizing with or for those positions, groups or people, I’m just confused about why you all seem to be so afraid of them to the point that you say they are nobodies but also put a lot of energy into making sure everyone knows how much you hate them. In a country full of actual volunteer feds in every workplace and community regardless of demographic, I don’t see why these guys are getting you all riled up. It’s not MAGA communists spreading anti-China propaganda from the left, its Anarchists and Maoists and DemSocs. It’s not MAGA communists calling to kill “tankies,” and bar them from organizing spaces it’s Anarchists and Maoists and DemSocs. I’ve never met a MAGA communist but I’ve seen a lot of Anarchist and Maoist and DemSoc wreckers co-opt movements and struggles and turn them into popularity contests, social clubs and cults of personality. I don’t think MAGA communists are the most correct group in the US left, but as far as incorrect left groups go, they are certainly not doing nearly the amount of harm I see Anarchists, Maoists, and DemSocs doing to the political landscape and conversations in the US. They barely seem to be relevant to the left or organizing spaces at all, and instead are just spreading positions that mostly align with our positions to people who we would never take the time to try and educate or political develop.
Conservatives and Liberals already understand that they live on stolen land, and they also know that the people they stole it from make up less than 3% of the population, so they already have accepted that it makes no sense to turn over control of the state to such a minority of people, even if they are the victims of settler colonialism. You are saying that you think a bunch of settler labor aristocracy must be convinced by communists to become supporters of decolonialism which really shows an idealist take, “the people MUST be convinced to believe what I believe because it is correct,” which flatly ignores the material conditions of those very people. Just because it is the right position doesn’t mean it will ever take hold in this country, and while I still organize in groups that promote it, I don’t see any clear way that these groups are going to gain traction amongst a population of people who already think the concept is totally illogical nonsense. I personally promote the sovereignty of Indigenous people and New Afrikans but that doesn’t mean I see any way we will ever get there at this point, nor have I seen anyone suggest doing anything except what we’ve already been doing which hasn’t really proven to be effective. The best avenue I can imagine is that if Indgenous and New Afrikan groups are incredibly organized and well armed when the inevitable collapse in the US happens, they might be able to carve out some small enclaves to wage a protracted war from, but that has nothing to do with convincing settlers to get behind decolonialism at all.
Next I see you wallow in your defeatism with: “It’s not like we are actually going to organize revolution in the next few years”, “honestly I don’t see anything else really working very well in this country yet”. What is it are you doing then? You see the troubles within your very country yet you don’t fight back? What have you been doing for a whole decade to let yourself wallow in this?
there is a LARPy privilege in your tone which I see some online leftists do and I just don’t get it. feels like they are trying to channel Lenin or something, real weird to me.
purporting that a sincere communist who has spent thousands of hours organizing in streets and workplaces with the masses is somehow wrong for having a sober analysis of the conditions of this nation, and that instead we must blindly commit ourselves to the idea that somehow the non-existent left in the settler-colonial labor aristocracy of the imperial core is going to manufacture a revolution before the process of dedollarization and shift towards a multi-polar world forces a collapse of the US economy which results in some sort of fascist take over and/or civil war scenario can only come from a place of privilege that I have never had and can not relate to. I am a materialist, and if you think acknowledging in the reality of the conditions I live in is somehow wrong, I would say that is a form of liberalism that needs to be thoroughly investigated.
It seems as if you are suggesting that somehow me and others like me not “fighting back” hard enough is the reason why the left is failing in the US as if there are any examples of capitalist or colonial nations having a successful workers revolution. I think it is really foolish to assert that fighting back in and of itself means success is assured. If the conditions are not ripe for these ideas to spread, there needs to be another phase of development first. The CPC did not have a socialist revolution before they led a New Democratic revolution, for example. Meeting people where they are at and guiding them towards socialism is different than standing at the end of the road screaming “THIS IS WHERE YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE” to a bunch of people so far away that they don’t even recognize your existence.
Are they truly going to blame the billionaires? No they will blame the so-called woke left which is what we are. They argue that ideas like transgenderism are bourgeois, and yet you seem totally quiet about this. With anti-LGBT and racist sentiment, you don’t care as long as it is “progressive”.
they do blame the billionaires from what I have seen. I haven’t seen any of the other things you’ve claimed here and have acknowledged this is new content to me but again will point out that your consistent editorializing and knee-jerk presumptions about my positions “you don’t care about this, you want that, etc” just undermine your entire argument and present as anti-social. No one wants to be spoken to like that and if you are actually a sincere communist I don’t know why your default stance is to be inflammatory and vitriolic instead of being amicable and pleasant to interact with. Saying “you, you, you,” especially when making up really outlandish positions that you are projecting onto the other person is just not it.
I don’t have it in front of me but I remember a Stalin quote saying something quite different in the case of supporting anti-imperialism in West Asia despite the social conservatism.
And that somehow applies to the United States as well? Two different regions with two different material conditions. Why do you insist on downplaying MAGA Communism and its potential effects? It does bring people toward Fascism by introducing a “Socialist” mask, not unlike the Nazis or more close in representation the Strasserists. Also it’s interesting you didn’t address the Lenin quote. You just said there exists a quote which Stalin said it debunks that. Both quotes can be true simultaneously as they are not mutually exclusive. You still haven’t considered that quote. Again, just because they claim to be “anti-imperialist” does not mean we should support them.
I’ve never suggested supporting these groups, but you respond as if I have and then question my character which has nothing to do with an analysis of the topic at hand.
I accuse you because you seem to downplay these groups rather than uphold them. You forgot the “critical” part of “Critical Support”. Also I never said that marginalised peoples don’t have rights. I said this: “I ask again, do you not want us to have rights?” I address you directly because you seem to want to downplay marginalised groups in the name of “Anti-imperialism”. You claim it to be a “discussion” around the characteristics of fringe political movements, which is incorrect. What you are advocating for is downplaying the fascistic nature of Patsocism even if that is not your very intention.
The other person in this thread communicates without all the hubris while still having the exact same positions you have, I’d recommend looking to their writing for some examples of how to communicate in a way that is actually effective at getting your points across.
I write in a different way from him. That’s perfectly fine. I do tend to accuse you a lot but that’s because I tend to read between the lines more often and tell you what is wrong. I don’t want to become him. Nor will I ever. I don’t understand how that is relevant to our discussion.
I didn’t claim that conservatives will suddenly be cleansed of their reactionary nature by adopting stances that don’t promote war against China or Russia.
Maybe you didn’t, but you did claim that introducing Conservatives to supporting China and Russia would suddenly make them more “anti-imperialist”: “As far as the social conservatism goes, they are appealing to people who already have those sentiments but bringing them into a frame of reference that is anti-imperialist.” Why did I call this removing reactionary sentiment? Because anti-imperialism is inherently progressive (i.e. progresses towards socialism). Yet their reactionary nature still remains.
I’m asking why some MLs here are so scared of what they claim is an irrelevant fringe group for trying to appeal to people that have the same identities as they do to take anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist positions. Wouldn’t that be better than them having imperialist and capitalist positions? Would it be any worse for the US political landscape for them to try?
Let’s just say Conservatives (for some unknown reason) are willing to support China and Russia. Why do they do this? Because they do it for their own benefit. They support China and Russia only, and only because it’s contrarian to the Democrat position of opposing China and Russia. Is it truly anti-imperialist if they do not actually care for the support of a nation? Furthermore, would these positions further cement their conservative positions? It most likely will. Conservatives rarely change their stance, if ever, because they benefit the most from the capitalist system, or they believe in fundamental ideas because they are usually petit-bourgeois or live in rural regions. Of course this is all hypothetical. Most Conservatives don’t even support Communism, and MAGA Communism isn’t a popular trend with Conservatives.
I’m just confused about why you all seem to be so afraid of them to the point that you say they are nobodies but also put a lot of energy into making sure everyone knows how much you hate them.
I’m willing to concede that, yes, the Patsocs (at least in this discussion) are an extremist group. But just because they do little damage doesn’t mean they don’t do damage at all. Overall in the grand scheme of things, they are just a rehash of what Lenin called ‘social-chauvinists’ in Russia. If Lenin needed to tackle the social-chauvinists of the Great Russians, then we must tackle the fascistic nature of the White Settlers. Both are similar (in fact they are the same, with only the difference being location), so we must tackle the latter.
I’ve never met a MAGA communist but I’ve seen a lot of Anarchist and Maoist and DemSoc wreckers co-opt movements and struggles and turn them into popularity contests, social clubs and cults of personality.
Yes. We can tackle both. We must put efforts on both sides as they are left and right deviations (of the extreme kind). Unfortunately you fall into the right deviationist bracket by assuming that Patsocs don’t do as much damage. They can, and often do. Again, struggle against both sides. You forget to understand that MAGA Communists tail behind the masses, following their every word even if it is not right. That is not what marxists do. Marxists must convince the masses of socialism. Tailing behind them won’t work.
Conservatives and Liberals already understand that they live on stolen land
You’d be surprised how even ‘socialists’ make mistakes of people not apparently being settlers just because they were born it. Many Americans think they are not settlers. In fact, they deserve to live on the land they have because they were born in it. For the minority that do think they live on stolen land, they think Settler Colonialism is long gone or something along those lines.
“the people MUST be convinced to believe what I believe because it is correct,” which flatly ignores the material conditions of those very people.
I never said that. I said we must convince the masses that socialism would be more advantageous for them and thus they would be able to support socialism. However with those very people, we must convince them of their settler mindset, and make them understand that they live on stolen land. It is a fact that they live on Stolen Land, yet if they ever feel that their safety is threatened, they are settlers which do not want to support socialism. It is not only I who believe it is correct, but Lenin too. Indigenous people have a right to self-determination.
Just because it is the right position doesn’t mean it will ever take hold in this country
If it won’t ever take hold in this country then the United States would remain a settler nation even under “socialism”. There is no socialism where the oppressor nation continues to exist and oppress the oppressed nations. You’re being defeatist again. In fact you are supporting settlers with this argument. Decolonialism must be supported by all settlers, full stop. If that cannot be achieved, then we will not have socialism. It is not optional to skip Decolonialism. By skipping it, we do not have socialism.
feels like they are trying to channel Lenin
I am just asking you questions regarding your defeatist mindset. Is that a fair question to ask? If not, why?
Whatever is channeling within your post is doomerism. Do you not have a sense of revolutionary optimism? I am not saying we will manufacture a revolution quickly, rather that we need revolutionary optimism such that we can see work being done. Just because you claim to be a materialist, does that mean you must channel your doomerist attitude?
I think it is really foolish to assert that fighting back in and of itself means success is assured.
I never said this. I also never said anything in that paragraph.
I haven’t seen any of the other things you’ve claimed here and have acknowledged this is new content to me
Patsocs tend to poke fun at “wokeists” i.e. LGBT people because they think transgenderism is bourgeois. It has plagued the patsoc movement which we must consider. Again you seem to downplay this. Is it because you do not know? Or is it because you have underlying intentions? I don’t know either way but you are downplaying. I address you directly because that is the purpose of your argument. You seem to downplay marginalised people and downplay Patsocs as well for the name of “anti-imperialism”. If you don’t know anything about Patsocs, read this Prolewiki article as a first basis.
I don’t have it in front of me but I remember a Stalin quote saying something quite different in the case of supporting anti-imperialism in West Asia despite the social conservatism. I haven’t suggested supporting conservatives as you claim, just that the MAGA communists trying to appeal to conservatives to bring them to the left (their stated goals) doesn’t seem like the building of a reactionary army or adding momentum to fascism. It is at worse changing nothing about the current political landscape and at best introducing otherwise politically undeveloped workers who default into an inherited ideology to some new ideas which aren’t all bad on their surface.
I’ve never suggested supporting these groups, but you respond as if I have and then question my character which has nothing to do with an analysis of the topic at hand. Surely you aren’t suggesting that marginalized people don’t have rights because MAGA communists are trying to appeal to settler workers, and I haven’t in my cursory overview of them seen anyone calling for such things. Accusing other people of wanting to deny marginalized people rights for trying to have a discussion around the characteristics of a fringe political movement is inflammatory at best and unhinged at worst. The other person in this thread communicates without all the hubris while still having the exact same positions you have, I’d recommend looking to their writing for some examples of how to communicate in a way that is actually effective at getting your points across.
You are editorializing what I said in order to fit in into your already predesignated conceptions of what this topic contains and what people who are participating in it without unquestionably adopting your view points must believe. I didn’t claim that conservatives will suddenly be cleansed of their reactionary nature by adopting stances that don’t promote war against China or Russia. I’m asking why some MLs here are so scared of what they claim is an irrelevant fringe group for trying to appeal to people that have the same identities as they do to take anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist positions. Wouldn’t that be better than them having imperialist and capitalist positions? Would it be any worse for the US political landscape for them to try?
I’ve made it clear that I don’t believe anyone at our stage of political development should spend time organizing with or for those positions, groups or people, I’m just confused about why you all seem to be so afraid of them to the point that you say they are nobodies but also put a lot of energy into making sure everyone knows how much you hate them. In a country full of actual volunteer feds in every workplace and community regardless of demographic, I don’t see why these guys are getting you all riled up. It’s not MAGA communists spreading anti-China propaganda from the left, its Anarchists and Maoists and DemSocs. It’s not MAGA communists calling to kill “tankies,” and bar them from organizing spaces it’s Anarchists and Maoists and DemSocs. I’ve never met a MAGA communist but I’ve seen a lot of Anarchist and Maoist and DemSoc wreckers co-opt movements and struggles and turn them into popularity contests, social clubs and cults of personality. I don’t think MAGA communists are the most correct group in the US left, but as far as incorrect left groups go, they are certainly not doing nearly the amount of harm I see Anarchists, Maoists, and DemSocs doing to the political landscape and conversations in the US. They barely seem to be relevant to the left or organizing spaces at all, and instead are just spreading positions that mostly align with our positions to people who we would never take the time to try and educate or political develop.
Conservatives and Liberals already understand that they live on stolen land, and they also know that the people they stole it from make up less than 3% of the population, so they already have accepted that it makes no sense to turn over control of the state to such a minority of people, even if they are the victims of settler colonialism. You are saying that you think a bunch of settler labor aristocracy must be convinced by communists to become supporters of decolonialism which really shows an idealist take, “the people MUST be convinced to believe what I believe because it is correct,” which flatly ignores the material conditions of those very people. Just because it is the right position doesn’t mean it will ever take hold in this country, and while I still organize in groups that promote it, I don’t see any clear way that these groups are going to gain traction amongst a population of people who already think the concept is totally illogical nonsense. I personally promote the sovereignty of Indigenous people and New Afrikans but that doesn’t mean I see any way we will ever get there at this point, nor have I seen anyone suggest doing anything except what we’ve already been doing which hasn’t really proven to be effective. The best avenue I can imagine is that if Indgenous and New Afrikan groups are incredibly organized and well armed when the inevitable collapse in the US happens, they might be able to carve out some small enclaves to wage a protracted war from, but that has nothing to do with convincing settlers to get behind decolonialism at all.
there is a LARPy privilege in your tone which I see some online leftists do and I just don’t get it. feels like they are trying to channel Lenin or something, real weird to me.
purporting that a sincere communist who has spent thousands of hours organizing in streets and workplaces with the masses is somehow wrong for having a sober analysis of the conditions of this nation, and that instead we must blindly commit ourselves to the idea that somehow the non-existent left in the settler-colonial labor aristocracy of the imperial core is going to manufacture a revolution before the process of dedollarization and shift towards a multi-polar world forces a collapse of the US economy which results in some sort of fascist take over and/or civil war scenario can only come from a place of privilege that I have never had and can not relate to. I am a materialist, and if you think acknowledging in the reality of the conditions I live in is somehow wrong, I would say that is a form of liberalism that needs to be thoroughly investigated.
It seems as if you are suggesting that somehow me and others like me not “fighting back” hard enough is the reason why the left is failing in the US as if there are any examples of capitalist or colonial nations having a successful workers revolution. I think it is really foolish to assert that fighting back in and of itself means success is assured. If the conditions are not ripe for these ideas to spread, there needs to be another phase of development first. The CPC did not have a socialist revolution before they led a New Democratic revolution, for example. Meeting people where they are at and guiding them towards socialism is different than standing at the end of the road screaming “THIS IS WHERE YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE” to a bunch of people so far away that they don’t even recognize your existence.
they do blame the billionaires from what I have seen. I haven’t seen any of the other things you’ve claimed here and have acknowledged this is new content to me but again will point out that your consistent editorializing and knee-jerk presumptions about my positions “you don’t care about this, you want that, etc” just undermine your entire argument and present as anti-social. No one wants to be spoken to like that and if you are actually a sincere communist I don’t know why your default stance is to be inflammatory and vitriolic instead of being amicable and pleasant to interact with. Saying “you, you, you,” especially when making up really outlandish positions that you are projecting onto the other person is just not it.
And that somehow applies to the United States as well? Two different regions with two different material conditions. Why do you insist on downplaying MAGA Communism and its potential effects? It does bring people toward Fascism by introducing a “Socialist” mask, not unlike the Nazis or more close in representation the Strasserists. Also it’s interesting you didn’t address the Lenin quote. You just said there exists a quote which Stalin said it debunks that. Both quotes can be true simultaneously as they are not mutually exclusive. You still haven’t considered that quote. Again, just because they claim to be “anti-imperialist” does not mean we should support them.
I accuse you because you seem to downplay these groups rather than uphold them. You forgot the “critical” part of “Critical Support”. Also I never said that marginalised peoples don’t have rights. I said this: “I ask again, do you not want us to have rights?” I address you directly because you seem to want to downplay marginalised groups in the name of “Anti-imperialism”. You claim it to be a “discussion” around the characteristics of fringe political movements, which is incorrect. What you are advocating for is downplaying the fascistic nature of Patsocism even if that is not your very intention.
I write in a different way from him. That’s perfectly fine. I do tend to accuse you a lot but that’s because I tend to read between the lines more often and tell you what is wrong. I don’t want to become him. Nor will I ever. I don’t understand how that is relevant to our discussion.
Maybe you didn’t, but you did claim that introducing Conservatives to supporting China and Russia would suddenly make them more “anti-imperialist”: “As far as the social conservatism goes, they are appealing to people who already have those sentiments but bringing them into a frame of reference that is anti-imperialist.” Why did I call this removing reactionary sentiment? Because anti-imperialism is inherently progressive (i.e. progresses towards socialism). Yet their reactionary nature still remains.
Let’s just say Conservatives (for some unknown reason) are willing to support China and Russia. Why do they do this? Because they do it for their own benefit. They support China and Russia only, and only because it’s contrarian to the Democrat position of opposing China and Russia. Is it truly anti-imperialist if they do not actually care for the support of a nation? Furthermore, would these positions further cement their conservative positions? It most likely will. Conservatives rarely change their stance, if ever, because they benefit the most from the capitalist system, or they believe in fundamental ideas because they are usually petit-bourgeois or live in rural regions. Of course this is all hypothetical. Most Conservatives don’t even support Communism, and MAGA Communism isn’t a popular trend with Conservatives.
I’m willing to concede that, yes, the Patsocs (at least in this discussion) are an extremist group. But just because they do little damage doesn’t mean they don’t do damage at all. Overall in the grand scheme of things, they are just a rehash of what Lenin called ‘social-chauvinists’ in Russia. If Lenin needed to tackle the social-chauvinists of the Great Russians, then we must tackle the fascistic nature of the White Settlers. Both are similar (in fact they are the same, with only the difference being location), so we must tackle the latter.
Yes. We can tackle both. We must put efforts on both sides as they are left and right deviations (of the extreme kind). Unfortunately you fall into the right deviationist bracket by assuming that Patsocs don’t do as much damage. They can, and often do. Again, struggle against both sides. You forget to understand that MAGA Communists tail behind the masses, following their every word even if it is not right. That is not what marxists do. Marxists must convince the masses of socialism. Tailing behind them won’t work.
You’d be surprised how even ‘socialists’ make mistakes of people not apparently being settlers just because they were born it. Many Americans think they are not settlers. In fact, they deserve to live on the land they have because they were born in it. For the minority that do think they live on stolen land, they think Settler Colonialism is long gone or something along those lines.
I never said that. I said we must convince the masses that socialism would be more advantageous for them and thus they would be able to support socialism. However with those very people, we must convince them of their settler mindset, and make them understand that they live on stolen land. It is a fact that they live on Stolen Land, yet if they ever feel that their safety is threatened, they are settlers which do not want to support socialism. It is not only I who believe it is correct, but Lenin too. Indigenous people have a right to self-determination.
If it won’t ever take hold in this country then the United States would remain a settler nation even under “socialism”. There is no socialism where the oppressor nation continues to exist and oppress the oppressed nations. You’re being defeatist again. In fact you are supporting settlers with this argument. Decolonialism must be supported by all settlers, full stop. If that cannot be achieved, then we will not have socialism. It is not optional to skip Decolonialism. By skipping it, we do not have socialism.
I am just asking you questions regarding your defeatist mindset. Is that a fair question to ask? If not, why?
Whatever is channeling within your post is doomerism. Do you not have a sense of revolutionary optimism? I am not saying we will manufacture a revolution quickly, rather that we need revolutionary optimism such that we can see work being done. Just because you claim to be a materialist, does that mean you must channel your doomerist attitude?
I never said this. I also never said anything in that paragraph.
Patsocs tend to poke fun at “wokeists” i.e. LGBT people because they think transgenderism is bourgeois. It has plagued the patsoc movement which we must consider. Again you seem to downplay this. Is it because you do not know? Or is it because you have underlying intentions? I don’t know either way but you are downplaying. I address you directly because that is the purpose of your argument. You seem to downplay marginalised people and downplay Patsocs as well for the name of “anti-imperialism”. If you don’t know anything about Patsocs, read this Prolewiki article as a first basis.