Understood com and I will try to be more agreeable.

But realise you are doing the same thing in regard to "fascist jacketing" people like Maupin purely because they met with Dugin (who in no real way can be called a fascist).

There is simply no way you can accuse Maupin of being a fascist and you can only really accuse Dugin of being a fascist if you think rejecting liberalism is fascistic. Which would be a ridiculous stance to take as a communist.

Com, if you only read the preface of that you should read the entire thing.

Haz (his Dengism not withstanding), displays why he's a far superior communist to the ultra lefts afraid of appropriating American patriotism and American symbols.

Here is what separates idealism from materialism: The idealists believe that American imperialist ideology has its basis in ideas about America, in flags and in patriotism, rather than material, and therefore unconscious structures which elevate the American subject to the universal status. It is of no consequence whether that standard disguises itself in the form of ‘anti-imperialism’, ‘leftism’ or even ‘Communism’ - the content of the standard is by nature imperialist. It implies a universal state apparatus to interpellate such a ‘universal subject. Here lies the essence of American unipolarity. The American ‘Marxist-Leninists’ have merely replaced American universal human rights, slogans of ‘democracy’ and ‘economic liberty’ with the disguise of Marxism-Leninism.

American universalism is nothing more than the highest stage of Anglo-Saxon idealism, according to the particular arises out of a fixed universal premise. Shoot the arrow, then find the target. Marxist humanist universalism, best epitomized today by Xi Jinping Thought, in contrast to Americanism, recognizes the universal realities of mankind to arise out of and through the wealth of differing concrete and particular realities - which do not follow under a common prescription, standard or discourse.

The unity of mankind does not follow from the prescription of some supposedly universal form of this unity upon it, but from a concrete unity forged on the basis of mutual respect, determinate association and withdrawing all claims to any pretense of knowledge of the other’s essence. What is truly in common, then, may arise authentically and on the basis of authentic mutual recognition.

American leftists cannot make, as an excuse for their own petty bourgeois antisocial paratism and inability to lead the American masses. the anti-American sentiment that prevails among global forces of anti-imperialism or marginalized ethnic minorities within America. These forces, many of whom even taken the American war of independence as an inspiration of their struggle, have every right to be anti-Americans insofar as the official representatives of America engage in ceaseless acts of aggression against them. They can in no way be faulted for their anti-Americanism. But American leftists, and white leftists in particular, possess no right to be anti-Americans, and can be criticized for their anti-Americanism, since it is a form of refusing their own responsibility.

They uniquely possess the duty to seize hegemony over their country, to be even more authentic American patriots than the imperialist deep state and ruling class - since American politics is precisely their problem. The nature of the American government is not the problem of anti-imperialists, defending their homelands against American aggression is. They have their own governments, their own countries and their own homelands to worry about - America has imposed its significance only isnofar as it has engaged in aggression against them.

But American leftists cannot abdicate and surrender their responsibility for the foreign policies of their own country: It is their patriotic duty to take responsibility for the actions of their own country, and seek an end to American unipolarity, imperialist aggression and do right by victims of American imperialism. This requires an ideological revolution on the part of Americans, from unipolar American universalism to a Marxism-Leninism fit for the age of multi-polarity, where they apply the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism to the particular context of the United States, and cease to act as though the latter context is itself some universal site of prescriptive truth.

It appears contradictory only to those who lack any semblance of dialectic thinking that American Marxist-Leninists must, at the same time being the most fervent enemies of American exceptionalism and American imperialism, be American patriots. America is a particular country, insofar as American Marxist-Leninists treat America as a particular country, they combat the very essence of Americanism, according which America is the universal police state of the world. It is not by burning American flags that American Marxists threaten American imperialism, it is by reigning in on American imperialism by seizing it at the level of its own particular material, national and civilisational premises.

Dialectic thinking entails that all things are annihilated on the basis of their own premises, likewise, American imperialism can only be destroyed on the very same basis that had engendered its emergence: The American state and people. No wonder that Trump was a greater anti-Imperialist than all the Baizuo frauds combined!

Regardless I don’t see the point of inviting discord between communists, MLs especially, when we should be promoting understanding and coexistence. Dengoid remains an insult and will just shut people off.

I quote Marx here: "Our task is that of ruthless criticism, and much more against ostensible friends than against open enemies; and in maintaining this our position we gladly forego cheap democratic popularity." http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1850/04/kinkel.html

But he’s made his allegiance clear. His brand of “patriotic socialism” that Maupin also espouses (who met with the founder of nazbol ideology several times) appeals to the far-right, compromising the essence of marxism to placate fascists but here he made it clear he has no compassion at all for communists who don’t follow him as, in his opinion, they are not actual communists.

This attempted character assassination would work except I'm already familiar with the people and movements you mentioned. You mean Dugin? Dugin is worth reading to understand conservative resistance to imperialism. What's more "NazBol ideology" when you really look into it is basically Social-democrats that have pinched a few ideas from Lenin and tried to incorporate nationalism. It essentially was born out of the 1990s and the sheer confusion of the time. In reality you can fit every single NazBol on earth in one room. They quickly dissolved into the "Other Russia" party showing they were a product of 1990s Russia and that "NazBol ideology" is just another slander against Marxist-Leninists now that communist has become cool.

Just an FYI on this: Black Lenin (Beness Aijo) was in the NazBol party when he was in Russia then joining some other communist parties and he participated in many brave and heroic actions in recent years.

Beness Aijo, an actual "nazbol", has been out killing nazis in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beness_Aijo

appeals to the far-right, compromising the essence of marxism to placate fascists but here he made it clear he has no compassion at all for communists who don’t follow him as, in his opinion, they are not actual communists.

Do you have compassion for anarchists or trotskyites? But back on topic Haz is not stopping other people doing stuff. He's criticising them. Bayarea was actively suppressing other communists

I only read the preface because, wow, imagine writing a book over a twitter fight that lasted one evening. But he’s made his allegiance clear.

I'll have a read of the article he wrote, thanks

Yes

How could anyone support Deng with a straight face?

Deng was responsible for repressing Jiang Qing and her 3 closest comrades then waged a relentless propaganda campaign against them. Even broadcasting their trial on live TV!

The only good thing Deng did was roll tanks over the counter-revolutionaries at Tienanmen.

But even on that point, Jiang Qing was correct in asserting "Deng Xiaoping let in all those Westerns ideas".

don’t support the direction the CPC has been heading towards after Deng?

Dengoids like to pretend that Deng was playing 5d chess and was upholding socialism.

All he did was align China with the USA against the Soviet Union and force the Chinese people into embittered wage slavery in the service of Western multinational corporations.

Corruption was so bad before Xi Jinping came to power that you could kill a person in China and get off scot free for $5000. That was the wonderful paradise Deng created the price of murder dictated by the "socialist market" being $5000

**That being said **I fully support Chinas rise whether Socialist or capitalist at this juncture in history. But if Deng had not defeated then propagandised against the MLs in CPC - Chinas development would've been more balanced and the West would never have entered into their "end of history" phase. Instead they would be wracked with social upheaval at not being able to access cheap Chinese goods to offset declining living standards, China wouldn't have become so polluted and it's overall economic development would've been better.

Full opinion is in this book. I am currently scanning it so might be able to link a pdf

But I suspect from your usage of the word “dengoid” (do I have to point out the racist roots?) that you’re not doing this in good faith.

Shouldve looked at my name before pulling that card. This is why most of the US hates western leftists. It's disingenuous and conniving behaviour.

“all of you defending luna will come begging for forgiveness and I will not give any”?

I literally have no idea what this is referring to. I've seen some videos of Haz but I don't particularly care for youtube culture nor do I want to be involved in the soap operas of it. I would have to know the context in which this was said.

Would rather appeal to the far-right than other communists, where have I seen that before? 🤔

You just straight up ignored the fact he suppressed and deplatformed other communists of subs he modded. Haz says he wants to appeal to far rightoids. Who cares? Haz wasn't stopping BayArea from having any mention of his name enter his sub or trying to cancel him.

To be fair though I have no idea who bayarea was appealing to besides Sakai'ists. His own ego and patreon account I imagine..

I've no idea to make this judgement (RE: appealing to far right or the "left" in USA as I'm not from there) but I know I would rather appeal to far right than most of the Left and even those who call themselves communist in my country. Far right usually have just gone down conspiracy culture. Linking that to capital and capitalists is not very hard.

I will tell you now though I prefer appealing to far right over a corporate lawyer and Sakai'ist that claimed he was "POC" and "Latin" whilst not even speaking Spanish

Also it is my firm belief that the rightists will balkanise USA in the next ten years. There is a good chance the rightists and trump supporters (that will balkanise the USA) can switch sides during that time and make the impending revolution/balkanisation a socialist one.

The current US left is not capable of anything. (Just my opinion but I can see why he would appeal to rightoids)

With all due respect, his "content" was telling proles that "actually markets are their friends" and that China had perfected Marxism

Now, given the cold war against China I'm not particularly against China getting popular amongst Dengoids or the youth in the West. But the guy was involved in deplatforming Communist parties as well as Maupin and Haz from subs he owned because of IdPol.

I would have nothing but positive vibes to the guy if he A) wasn't a complete prick and B) wasn't evicting families in his dayjob as a corporate lawyer and C) organised in deplatforming actual decent Marxists (the Dengism notwithstanding) that dressed respectably and didn't look like terrorists

What planet do you live on? Virtually everyone who is not a communist already associates us with terrorists. Until we begin to consistently meet people’s material needs, that is not going to change.

Literally not true. I learned this the very first day I was out leafletting and chatting to people and an old lady approvingly said "it's good to see communists out again".

The dude was protecting his identity, and

Why even do youtube videos though. He's a lawyer. He's an intelligent person. He knew he'd get doxxed eventually anyway. There's programs that can reverse engineer his darthvader voice thing he was using in seconds (obtaining his real voice). He must've known this. If he really wanted to hide his identity why even come out on camera?

The answer is: ego.

He got doxxed eventually and it was all the more funny that he was a lawyer evicting families and businesses from their homes

for his virtually entirely positive contributions to our movement.

Yes the positive contributions being telling proles that "markets actually are the proles friends", that China has perfected Marxism and that actually being a communist is dressing like a terrorist because building a revolutionary movement isn't painstaking community work but setting up a protracted peoples war on an American highway.

I applaud him for his virtually entirely positive contributions to our movement.

He suppressed communist parties on the subs he mods who don't toll the IdPol line as well as other communists like Maupin and InfraRed.

And whilst those 2 are dengoids also: at least they're far more intelligent than he was, look like respectable normal people instead of terrorists and those 2 don't go around wrecking communist parties and deplatforming communists doing actual decent work.

This is one of those cases where if you disagree with him or his methods, that’s cool, you’re free to critique. but if your critique is about him concealing his identity, please just shut the fuck up.

He also actively silences communist parties that don't toll the IdPol line, Caleb Maupin and InfraRed though. All mention of them is banned from subs he mods so it's not just a case of criticising his methods.

He actively pushes out communists that don't dress like terrorists out of the movement (communists much more heavily based in theory than himself)

Also I do have to laugh at the reaction to this when I found out today that he was doxxed as a lawyer that evicted families.

But to be fair, that should be expected from a dengist that thinks markets are achtually the proles friends and that China has perfected Marxism.

Also hilarious he unironically he posted this.

On what? To make communists look fkn ridiculous and like cowardly ninjas?

I'm sure he's a nice person. His content was very good.

But he objectively did way more harm than good and those determined to find out his identity have long already done so

Least favourite person in the world

Imagine going on youtube looking like a fucking terrorist and calling yourself a communist because of such petit-bourgeois fear of "muh corporate job!"

The amount of damage this guy did is phenomenal. Every single person that agreed with him was already an ML and everyone else, if they didn't already, now associated communism with fucking terrorists

I once had a long conversation with an "anarcho bolshevik" on twitter who had made disparaging comments to me about the Soviets because they "signed a pact with Hitler".

When I pointed out the Soviets were the last European country to sign a pact with Hitler, that they had worked tirelessly since 1933 to build an anti-nazi pact which was scuppered by Uk and France (who helped the fascists take over Spain in the spanish civil war whilst only Mexico and Soviets came to defence of the Republican government).

When I pointed out that Chamberlain wasn't merely an "appeaser" as British propaganda has tried to put him as but an active collaborator, especially with the Munich pact a year before the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. Where Chamberlain and the British foreign policy went into overdrive to ensure that the French would not initiate the defence pact that the Soviets and French had signed to protect Czechoslovakia. (the Czech president, understanding that if only the Soviets came to their defence it would likely turn into an all out "anticommunist war" had demanded that the Soviets could only come to their defence if France came first.

I even pointed out until April 1940 the British were running spy planes into USSR looking for targets to bomb during the "phoney war" period".

I pointed all this out and the "anarcho bolshevik" finally said "you still shouldn't sign a pact with Hitler".

Faced with this utter removedation I had an almost epiphany in exactly how idealism and a lot of the left sees itself. Their ideology is this untouched beautiful thing untainted by actual reality.

And because they never intend to actually build or take power and instead remain a lone beautiful voice against the harsh wind of reality they can essentially build whatever castle they like in the sky.

The opportunism of the likes of Jason Unrue and the rest of the Western Left (if this is what you're referring to the video of Haz discussing with Jason) revealed itself so totally and completely in that discussion and shown 3rd worldism for the bankrupt opportunist and ultra left ideology that it is/

When Haz posits to Jason exactly how he intends to come to power Jason starts mumbling about "climate change will probably wipe us out" (nevermind that the most influential climate change book The Limits to Growth was funded by David Rockefeller and the neo-malthusian society likely as a psyop against society that "doom is coming" to prevent optimism or revolutionary ideology becoming popular )

There is no decolonisation. Colonialism happened and left it's scars on the world. Are the burgers going to send all their whites back to Europe? (fuck right off we don't want them)

The Soviets were patriotic for their country (as they should be)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/yaroslavsky/1941/war.htm

And likewise Marxist-Leninists must be patriotic for their countries and pick the kernels of patriots that can represent the new socialist society (I don't really care what Burgers pick nor would I know as I'm not a Burger or in Burgerstan). USA has lots of working class history socialists should champion and push forward as patriotic.

Ceding the ground on patriotism to the right is, tactically, amazingly stupid.

But a lot of this is ultra left whining from idealists that have zero intention of actually taking power in Burgerstan

Real communists understand that communism (and by extension communists) being built, in this world not imagined ones, is not a beautiful thing.

Sometimes communists must take slaps in the face and sit there and take it. (Much like Lenin did in Brest-Litvosk in signing one of the most humilitating treaties in history or Stalin did by signing Molotov-Ribbentrop).

De-colonialism and sending white Burgers back to Europe is not happening in a million years. That is the slap Americans need to take in the face then they need to go out and present the best elements of the American working class and communist movement and turn them into American patriots and banners to signal socialist revolution in USA.

Joseph Massad points this out that arabs used to be considered "decadent" in his book Desiring Arabs. Edward Said in "Orientalism" that the export of imperialism was identities. And as the West has come to attempt to universalise identities (LGBT its newest incarnation) we see how imperialism operates by exporting LGBT

The flipside - whilst it's exporting LGBT it exports homophobia in places where there was no LGBT identities and neither homophobia. So we see American fundamentalist Christians exporting to Kenya and Zimbabwe homophobia and imperialism reproducing the culture wars of the West to dampen class struggle and the combatting of imperialism

Clip from an interview with him

Joseph Massad (JM): The difficulty of speaking about a particular term like sexuality is on account of the ongoing Euro-American efforts to universalize it, and that in this particular Euro-American context there has been a need, nay a necessity, which has increased measurably since the 1970s, to consider it as always already a universal category. The point of my work is not to remind us that “sexuality” is experienced differently in different historical or geographical contexts, and that it has distinct “cultural” interpretations that shape it. Rather, what I insist on is that “sexuality” itself, as an epistemological and ontological category, is a product of specific Euro-American histories and social formations, that it is a Euro-American “cultural” category that is not universal or necessarily universalizable. Indeed, even when the category “sexuality” has traveled with European colonialism to non-European locales, its adoption in those contexts where it occurred was neither identical nor even necessarily symmetrical with its deployment in Europe and Euro-America.

John D’Emilio argued many years ago that “gay men and lesbians have not always existed. Instead, they are a product of history, and have come into existence in a specific historical era…associated with the relations of capitalism.” We must add that this equally applies to heterosexual and straight men and women who also are a product of a specific historical era and that their historical emergence and production was also specific to those geographic regions of the world and those classes within them where a specific type of capital accumulation had occurred and where certain types of capitalist relations of production prevailed.

As I argue in my forthcoming book Islam in Liberalism, as capitalism is the universalizing means of production and it has produced its own intimate forms and modes of framing capitalist relations, these forms and modes have not been institutionalized across national laws and economies, and in the quotidian and intimate practices of various peoples, in the same way. They have also not produced similar effects as they have in the United States and Western Europe. This does not mean that the hetero/homo binary was fully successful in normalizing Euro-American societies either, but, rather, that it set itself as the hegemonic form of organizing identities and continues to normalize populations in the West who resist it (by claiming that they suffer from internalized homophobia, false consciousness, and the like). The inability of the hetero-homo binary and its commensurate socio-sexual identities to institute themselves in the same way everywhere is also not unlike many other categories and products that travel with imperial capital from the metropole to the unevenly developed periphery, and are not always used or consumed in the same metropolitan way.

The sexual order of the postcolonial context to which contemporary western sexual identities are introduced is already the effect of a colonial epistemology that has been translated and iterated earlier. As I chronicle in Desiring Arabs, the European shaming of non-Europeans on the basis of sexual desires and practices begins at the dawn of the colonial encounter, inciting a reactive discourse of assimilation into (and at time difference) from European norms. This means that the more recent imperial export of the homo-hetero binary—and specifically of gay and lesbian identities—takes place in a context that has already suffered a prior process of translation. This process produced particular “peripheral” understandings of normative and natural desires, inflected with western medical and scientific arguments and taxonomies, but which mostly failed to institute a replica of the western regime of sexuality.

Mind you, I am not arguing that these sexual identities always fail to institute themselves inside or outside the West and that this failure is total, rather that they succeed and fail differentially across classes and countries depending on the effect of capitalist structures, and their production of certain lifestyles, forms, and modes of intimate life on different classes, which are in turn the outcome of uneven capitalist development. While imperial capital is often productive of new identities, including sexual identities commensurate with its dissemination of the heterosexual bourgeois nuclear family form globally, whatever new sexual identities it creates and generates in the periphery are not always or often mappable onto the homo-hetero binary. That Gay Internationalists seek to assimilate these identities by forcing them into the frame of the homo-hetero binary is itself a culturally imperialist symptom of imperial capital’s penetration of these countries, and not the outcome or effect of such penetration, since in most cases it was unable to reproduce or impose normative European sexual identities on the majority of the population. Here, we must bear in mind that, as Edward Said reminds us, “imperialism is the export of identity.” It operates in the register of producing non-Europe as other, and sometimes as almost the same as (or potentially the same as) Europe.

D’Emilio sought to demonstrate that the effect of capitalism on the emergence of gay and lesbian identities in the West was both an outcome of labor relations that required new residential and migratory activities, the dissolution or weakening of kinship and family ties, and the development of a consumer society and the emergence of social networks that produce, shape, and articulate sexual desires that are commensurate with these changes, which led to the development of sexual identities. The extent to which crusading sexual identitarians have insisted on the presence of such identities in a number of countries in the periphery as proof of a parallel development of what happened in Europe and the United States, however, appeals to the subjective identifications of few elite members of these societies, and neglects the absence of economic and social structures that led to their emergence in the West.

https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/28167

lmao preach

If a nation is some land and all the people on it governed by the same laws, then yes, it’s a nation if it doesn’t matter to you that laws apply differently to different classes and races

That's not a nation. That's a State.

The USA rules over multiple nations who are completely alienated from their State - the indigineous and native populations and the black population.

Stalins seminal work on the National question is here, is quite short and in typical Stalin fashion explains an indepth and complicated topic in a short and readable piece

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm

To take his general conclusion though

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

It goes without saying that a nation, like every historical phenomenon, is subject to the law of change, has its history, its beginning and end.

It must be emphasized that none of the above characteristics taken separately is sufficient to define a nation. More than that, it is sufficient for a single one of these characteristics to be lacking and the nation ceases to be a nation.

The popular question of Stalins day of course was Zionism and whether the Jews constituted themselves a nation. The Marxist conclusion is they do not constitute themselves a nation and they should be assimilated into their actual nation (how can Russian and French Jews even communicate with each other for eg?)

The Marxist orientation to the nation and States is explained quite lucidly here

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm

No the US is a political State that contains multiple nations that have been crushed and subordinated to the White Nation

China just released a brilliant 40 episode long drama on the Korean war

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjihZPxNTGU

Just colourised it on hotpot.ai

What is so impressive is the unholy alliance between liberals and fascists

This type of stuff is simply not being shown or deliberately mis-characterised in the West

Like for instance a while back the BBC felt the need to interview a Polish neo-nazi on the situation in Belarus

petit-booj nonsense and there's no such thing as a "democratic Marxist" if you have a Marxist conception of the State and in who's class interest the State is wielded in.

If you call yourself a "Democratic Marxist" then all you're telling me is that you have rejected the Marxist conception of the State and the Marxist conception of class society

The people’s state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx’s anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one’s enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people’s state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist.

Engels to August Bebel In Zwickau, London, March 18-28, 1875;

As Muad-Dibber has said, bourgeois 'democracy' has proven to be the best shell for capitalist rule and to secure capitalist class power and domination of the State over the proletariat

The function of modern day 'elections' is to finance both sides of the aisle of ruling parties in the specific interests of different sections of the bourgeoisie (Trump represented the local American bourgeoisie for instance whilst Clinton/Biden represented a cosmopolitan bourgeoisie)

Coupled with privately held media you certainly have the technical freedom to run in an election against bourgeois candidates but you will never break that wall into the popular consciousness and the most you'll ever get in 0.5-1% of the vote

This is not "democracy" but a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

I'd advise you to read this study (from Princeton and Harvard) that classifies US democracy as an oligarchy where even when popular policies are proposed they do not get passed

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B