A clear case of chauvinism

From the first world. The ever present condescension and disdain toward the proletariat, no matter who it is.

From this blog:

https://noheroespublishing.blogspot.com/2024/05/marxism-maoism-first-worldism-tactical.html?m=1

I wanted to know what communists think of whatever it is this person is brooding or thinks they're brooding by utilising the finance system the bourgeois have deviced and which has unfolded to this point. It seems to me they (whoever 'noheroespublishing' is) think they can use the system against itself as it unfolds to fund some type of "carnation revolution".

Whatever the case, this seems a petite bourgeois measure to try to increase social measures in a way (misquoting Mao and Marx to justify these), but notice it does not in any meaningful way address the issue of the world proletariat. In fact, it should be clear that this person hasn't let go of their chauvinism in any significant way by the language they use ("the government is doing, or facilitating, operations like Gaza." The bolding is mine) and using what seems to be very brazen devotion to bourgeois democracy (that reminds of Sam Seder or the humanist report, except both of these don't call themselves "MLs", Seder even calls himself a liberal) along with petite bourgeois measures ("Collectivizing funds together enough to establish a revenue stream and thereby acquire reliable money for the generation of Professional Revolutionaries, people we pay to do the job of Organizing, Educating, Traveling, and Agitating, along with Labor Lawyers that we can keep funded for Anti-Corporate Lawsuits, Union Strike Fund Contributions, Protest Funding") as they couldn't understand that some of those measures have proven useless and probably even opportunistic and cynical (the recent student protests come to mind).

I leave that analysis to other people in the r/communism sub.

What I wanted to point out is they seem to buttress their chauvinism by seeing the world proletariat (the real ones on the Third World and those that are immediate immigrants as well as other minorities on the imperial core) as this "other" and not understanding why (or not caring at all).

Just look at the caricature of Marxism this person seems to portray with a very clear chauvinistic, liberal flavor when they say "even contributing to International Struggles Abroad". It sounds like the typical settler-colonial mindset of "spreading the revolution from here to other countries" rather than seeing those countries as the primary front-runners of revolution itself due to their conditions and history.

Also, the usual excuse of first world chauvinist "marxist leninists" (as has been clearly noticed in this sub whenever a piece written by first worlder "marxists" is linked here) is that it "sowes division" amongst the proletariat. They fail to take into account that a physician or a teacher in the first world is never going to be same as their counterparts in the Third World. That the former are labor aristocrats or petite bourgeois, the latter are a part of the proletariat. It is this same chauvinism this same person seems to be engaging in in order to stick it to the "Third Worldists". No, an amerikan md is never going to be the same as a Nicaraguan md.

A clear case of first world chauvinism

Regardless of whether someone that comes from amerika, Canada, western Europe or any other monopoly capitalist exporting country (the empire of Japan, the zionist entity, etc) calls themselves "Marxist Leninist" or not, I'll always be skeptical and very distrustful, just as I'll always despise "democratic socialists" (bernie sanders, the dsa, etc.) for their utter social chauvinism as well as their social fascism and their settler colonial mindset toward exploited and attacked countries (like Cuba). So many people seem to call themselves "ML" nowadays yet fail to even take the world proletariat into account.

There are people out there who condemn (rightfully so) both Russia and China for their imperialist interests, yet fail the most basic tests of anti-imperialism ("abolish NATO? And what do we replace it with", this was said by a self-proclaimed Marxist Leninist who goes by the username "Socialism For All", who I will comment on eventually, not on this post). They are so chauvinistic that they're unable to see the imperialism in their own country, how it produces it with these imperialist 'alliances' and how, yes, they generate inter-imperialist conflicts and how they need to be abolished and attacked by every marxist out there. It is this chauvinism, the chauvinism that comes from so-called "MLs", but the ones that would be thought of as "ML" by many (not the reactionary people that are "patriotic socialists", "conservative socialists/communists" or whatever it is they call themselves these days, not the opportunists and memesters like "the deprogram", not the highly toxic content creators pretending to be 'historians' like BadEmpanada, not the dengists, not the trotskyites (and people in the IMT), not the revisionists, not utterly bigoted, chauvinist parties like the KKE or the Comunist Party of Mexico (this last one is endorsing a pro petite bourgeois candidate and has had retrograde, sex pests among its members), not whatever Jason Unruhe is). I'm including in those this person 'noheroespublishing'.

I can ponder for hours on why these "MLs" criticise "Third Worldism" and revel on condemning other monopoly capitalist countries (in a way that makes them not unlike social fascists like Sam Seder and the rest of his team), dismiss events/phenomena on regions like the Sahel as "not marxist" instead of pointing out what should be done or any of their "analyses" that comes from first world chauvinists lecturing the proletariat in exploited countries. Instead, I'm going to point out how these people (using 'noheroespublishing' as an example) have still traces of chauvinism and settler colonial mindset into their thinking, even if they have done a lot of reading (as is obviously the case of Socialism For All).

'Noheroespublishing' writes:

"Criticisms have been made of the Working Class of the Imperial Core, criticisms I find unreasonable and not reflected upon with meaningful care."

This is right off the bat abysmal. They use the term "working class" (and yet also fail to point out WHO in the imperial core is this "working class"? The lawyer working for JP Morgan? The doctor working at the Mayo Clinic? Who?) as opposed to proletariat. It kind of tells me that either they're being dishonest or they haven't done enough reading (because mind you, I'm a layman on marxism myself but would never stick my neck out for labor aristocrats pretending to be "marxist leninist" that have so much chauvinism in them that they'd whine about "Third Worldism"). Also, this tells me they've only found opinions from first worlders like themselves rather than testimony from Third Worlders and the exploitation their own country imposes on such people. This is the type of comment I'd expect from an anarchist or a demsoc, not a ML.

"One being, that the Working Class doesn't exist within the Imperial Core"

The proletariat does exist, but I suspect (because again, they don't specify who this "working class" are, dishonestly or idly) they don't know or do not want to point out who it is, perhaps because if they did, 'noheroespublishing' (and I'll venture this, as I don't know them personally, other than they once commented that they are disabled) would find themselves more in common with labor aristocrats than with a proletarian in Palestine or Burkina Faso, or people in a Native American Reserve (or however those peoples/nations want to call themselves and their communities). If it were up to me, then no, I'd simply tell this person to their face that the proletariat is nowhere to be found in amerika for the sake of being contrarian. I certainly don't think a person with settler ancestry and priority on the global capitalist system has any business telling a Yemeni "we're as revolutionary as you people, goddamit"!

"I dismiss this as a hand-wringing gesture by flustered ideological defeatists whose contributions are simply a repetition of this with no meaningful addition".

This position yet again seems to come from (I'm assuming, but seems to be what they are getting at) the whole "Third Worldism" concept. I do not consider myself a Third Worldist and defeatism is certainly not what I would encourage first worlders to embrace, if I assume "defeatism" here means "just don't do anything".

But see, chauvinism is showing again.

'noheroespublishing' implies that "because there is no 'working class' [sic] in the imperial core, nothing should be done". In no way are we Third Worlders implying that because you guys not only have failed but never cared for doing squat regarding your country's imperialism (mind you, you have a lot to lose from your labor aristocratic/petite bourgeois positions) that you shouldn't do anything at all and sit/kick back. This only means that you, with your privileged positions are wagging your finger at proletarians. Because excuse us for being skeptical after all these hundred years since 1917, you have never proven us wrong (save perhaps the GDR, small win). No, do fight for the revolution, but ALWAYS make it clear that the first and foremost concern in every imperialist country is...imperialism.

first worlders always complain about the police being oppressors, whose main function is the protection of capital. Yes, it is true, but they do not seem to see (nor do they seem to care, as they do not seem to make it a priority) that the military of their countries (including the US) are precisely doing that, they are oppressors whose main function is the protection of monopoly capital exportation (imperialism). They do not see this because it's not on their immediate surroundings, and so it is not a priority. Imperialism should be at the top of any first worlder's (specially amerikan) list of anti-capitalist action. None of these people (including 'noheroespublishing') have demonstrated it is their main concern. In fact, I'd wager that very few people in amerika (or Canadian or European imperialist countries) who call themselves "ML" give it a thought. The much more destructive and murderous international cops are less of a concern to the first world "communists" than the local and national cops at the local police force or the fbi (the feds).

"The Second being that the Working Class in the Imperial Core does not wish to fight, the examples of the protests against the genocide in Palestine and the increased Union Drives throughout the Core, as well as increases in the organic formation of Left Militias; as interviewed by the German National News Broadcast are indeed counter examples to this assertion, more must be done but promising signs have been extant even through earlier periods."

The first claim has already been rebutted in the r/communism sub overwhelmingly. The protests are a show of tomfoolery and theatrics that do not seem to be accomplishing anything, it certainly doesn't seem to be anything different to (and this is me being very indulgent) the whole opposition to the amerikan invasion of Vietnam. There is no reason to believe those students won't grow up to be business as usual (labor aristocrats or petite bourgeois) eventually and look back and think "I fought the power and it was cool, I'm proud". Yet this first worlder wants us to believe otherwise.

The second claim is meaningless. Unions come and go, many of them are non-marxist and even bourgeoisified. It is laughable to even think they will become a tool for the world proletariat somehow. At best, they'll bring in a social fascist like Bernie Sanders to speak.

Thirdly, they talk about "left militias". I am uninformed of such groups being formed, but there is no reason to believe these militias won't just end up like AFD, led by (and this is at best) inept or ignorant and non-marxist people like some of its former leadership.

"The Third is that the Working Class, when comfortable, or when allowed comfort, doesn't want to jeopardize such comfort, I submit where would such a criticism not hold true anywhere on the earth? (People are animals that avoid pain and pursue pleasure, this is a biological imperative that even nonhuman animals exhibit, if one’s analysis ceases there and one then throws up their hands and declares defeat, I question the strategic creativity of the analyst and submit their shrugging is simply a justification of either inaction or a lack of genuine adaptation under ever changing combat conditions on the Imperial Core Front of shifting battlefield of the Class War)"

'noheroespublishing' yet again using that murky, unclear term ("working class") and assigning that term to amerikans. They then go on and generalize their "amerikan 'working class' position" to that of positions of proletarians on other countries around the world. Wow. So 'noheroespublishing' here thinks that the "working class" (which they weaselly do not define, yet again) in amerika has the same positions as that of Filipino proletarians. That the 'comfort' that the "working class" in amerika has is the same as that of the "working class" in Venezuela. That the "amerikan working class" really does have nothing to lose but their chains. The finger-wagging here is through the roof. "I am a prole, just like you".

People are animals, that much is true. But it is also true that, yes, the "proles" in amerika and the rest of the imperial core DO have a lot to lose if they lose their positions. The starving child in Angola does not care that you're unable to collect your social welfare for the month, 'noheroespiblishing', they need to go to the mine to attempt to scrape by a little.

Also, be quiet and listen already. You think you know the strategy to end global capitalism (or so I assume you think it doesn't end at your country's borders). Stop thinking about your amerikan "working class" and start thinking about what your country's oppressive force and the rest of its apparatus's branches are doing elsewhere. There you'll find the answer, no, it's not just fighting against the war crimes on the Palestinians, get the big picture, start thinking in a systemic way, you're not a liberal. Nobody's telling you (except other amerikans, Canadians and Euros perhaps) to shrug and kick back, they're (the proletariat, the Third Worlders) telling you your strategies are not working for many reasons and to listen to the peoples your country's government...and its bourgeois...and its petit bourgeois...and its labor aristocrats...are oppressing. There you'll find the key to the capitalism your country rests upon.

"The glory associated with the Peoples War of the Imperial Periphery is not, and will not, be the same as the glory of the combatants within the Imperial Core, if anything it will not be the AK that will symbolize the warrior here, but the briefcase, the numbers they run will not be that of active soldiers in the field, but of quarterly profits for the funding of our legal and social operations at home and abroad."

There is no proof that this will be the case. It is wishful thinking, thinking that a revolution will be "bloodless" and will be waged on the "stock market" sounds so much like whatever the next newer generation (1dime comes to mind) 'intellectuals' could come up with to have to cope with the possibility that amerika may not indeed be as we know it. The way I see it, it is possible that even amerikan 'MLs' (let alone anti-communist "leftists") really shun the thought of seeing amerika balkanized or seeing a war between nations or a civil war that would leave it devastated, probably its then former territory occupied by another imperialist power (Russia, China, etc.). This isn't any surprise at all. amerika has always waged wars on other countries through all of its recent history. There is no example that this amerikan "ML" could use that could tell us how truly revolutionary amerikans are. The examples of (maybe) proletarian struggle (though it could be classified as white settler struggle still) during the early 20th ceuntry were not at all bloodless. So there is no reason to believe amerikans won't need another pro-slaver secessionist war to bring about revolution. There is also no reason to believe it wouldn't turn the country fascist, 'noheroespublishing' hasn't given me any reason to believe that wouldn't be the case if they were rank and file of that revolution.

"In short, our glory may indeed be that of the gamified revolutionaries, many of whom will not be able to participate in the streets or halls, but will indeed be able to contribute their funds towards the employ of professional revolutionaries on the ground by having those funds accrue enough compound interest so that the Revolutionary machine can fund itself by parasitizing off of the Stock Market itself; we must bear-hug the Market, so that its gains are ours, and with every successive windfall we must gain in strength alongside it, thereby making a strong market ensure a strong Socialist Movement beside it; like an infant we feed off of the mother system until we can be born, for Capitalism must birth Socialism, just as Feudalism birthed Capitalism; perhaps we must accept our parent before we can outgrow them?"

More wishful thinking, a petite bourgeois, financialist "strategy" from a petite bourgeois mind. There is no proof that in the imperial core or the periphery or semi-periphery there won't be a bloodless revolution to bring about the path towards scientific socialism.

What "ground" are they talking about? The stock market? The professional managers and lawyers in investment management firms are going to be the "revolutionaries", they will be the figureheads that will lead the "masses" of labor aristocrats ("working class") towards the "dictatorship of the proletariat". This time gamestops will lead us into Marxism Leninism!

"Often people shy from the unpleasant nature of contradiction. The very idea that the Left may indeed have to take up the trade of the investor to defeat the very system they fight against seems contrary. Yet, Marx had his Rich Industrialist coauthor Engels, Stalin Robbed Banks, the Left has always needed money to establish, secure, and move about."

So...I don't even know where to begin. The mindset of first world "MLs" does not cease to amaze me. Note that this is not one of those types that watches "the deprogram". You'll find them commenting on channels that many amerikans would think are bona fide "MLs" (and I've pointed out which ones).

The "left" (a nebulous, muddy term) will have to go all gamestops on the bourgeois system to defeat the bourgeois. It is not getting rid of all of their chauvinism (including the utter chauvinism this person exudes), it isn't abandoning any 'aspiration' of becoming petite bourgeois or maybe a labor aristocratic vocation, in which the aeronautics engineer will have to choose working for halliburton, raytheon or lockheed martin, and then call Sam Seder to get approval from a "fellow leftist" for what they're doing, it most certainly isn't the remote, ugly possibilty of worsening of conditions in the first world to the point where monopoly capital in such countries is rendered harmless. It is the stock market.

Next they seem to be making a conflation and false equivalencies here.

Using a couple of individuals (Marx and Stalin) to juxtapose these to the labor aristocrats and petty bourgeois of amerika, while they engage in the latest trend of monopoly capital to...try to fight back against it ("I'll destroy them from the inside"!) is not something I would expect from a marxist. Stalin and Lauesen needed funds. Ultimately those who gave the former's (his party/organization rather) victory and the latter's loss was the proletariat, it had and hadn't the class consciousness (respectively) to be the victors, enough class consciousness at least. To think that "the proletariat" (or "working class" as 'noheroespublishing' calls it) will bring about revolution by purchasing assets from blackrock or vanguard group is as ludicrous as thinking the world will get to communism via the bourgeois "democracy" the u$ murder machine spreads. It's to think amerikans really do have "nothing to lose but their chains".

"However, today in the Imperial Core, the Left needs not rely on overt appeals to the illegal or extralegal, which comes with costly attacks from the state, today the Left in such places can legally acquire funding through Property Acquisition and Bourgeois Right."

Whenever I hear an amerikan talking about "the left" the way 'noheroespublishing' describes it here it's like I'm hearing about "market socialism" or some other meme ideology that doesn't represent marxism at all. Again, amerikan "leftists" unable to cope with the possibility that a revolution in amerika might not be pretty at all, that it may balkanize it completely and that it may even devastate it to at least a certain extent.

"Through the purchase of Stock, and various Securities, the Left may fund itself"

Or...you know...it may end up petite bourgeoisifying and bourgeosifying "the left" even more. Just a thought, because it hasn't occurred before...

"The Capitalists have created a world wherein such a thing has never been easier in all of history."

Is it even any wonder that this person doesn't know about (amerikan) history itself?

Anyway...I'm tired. I didn't think having to mildly dig through the mind of a "leftist" from an imperialist country would be this exasperating. I am losing all faith in whatever the "MLs" got going in the US and the rest of the imperial core. There is simply no way that people who claim to have read that much (or at least comment on channels that have clearly read a lot of theory) could be this chauvinistic.

There simply is no conclusion. The conclusion is that you're not going to find "MLs" in the imperial core, because to them imperialism is a policy or it's when the most blatant of war crimes are committed, but they get the conclusions so wrong (for instance, thinking they're there, down in the "working class" just like the proletariat in Haiti) that you just can't help but think if their "leftist infighting" is nothing but posturing and aesthetics.