Another interaction with a white chauvinist
Reddit is a pain
I’m dropping these texts here. I’ll make an effort to give the proper context to these to make this as clear as possible. It is a part of a few interactions I’ve had with reddit user u/lvl1Bol. I am exposing chauvinism via the interactions I’ve had with that person both on the socialism_101 sub (which has not banned me, unlike r/socialism, but does not approve my comments either, I’m either triggering their rules and/or my comments are shadowbanned there while I’m able to see them while I’m logged in, but not able to see them while I’m logged out, you be the judge) and the Marxism sub (which apparently doesn’t like links posted on the comments, which is why those comments are ghosted/shadowbanned on that sub). I even left another message trying to clear the issue here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/1r24t4b/comment/o6cm0vd/?context=3&utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I hope I have made myself clear here. I’m going to post this again on my sub r/readingthesocfashes so that anyone that is a real Communist can have documentation of the white chauvinism and settler apologia some (so-called) “Communists” will embrace and all sorts of gymnastics and lengths they’ll go through to defend it, and why exactly there has been no real praxis of Marxism and the vanguard party in the u$ vs several Third World countries out there. If you ever wonder why, here’s one of the reasons, the “Marxist-Leninist-Maoists” (or however these distorters of Marxism want to call themselves) from amerika (and other settler colonial entities) are really just white chauvinists who hate “the capitalists” a lot. On to the comments.
First off, here is a reply on socialism_101 (which the coward lvl1Bol deleted) which is currently shadowbanned/ghosted by that sub, why, I don’t know, but here I am posting the reply here. - Edit: they approve the messages (or at least just mine), why, I don’t know but it seems either my opinions are too controversial for “socialism” because they only approved one of them or the mods are targeting me. Whatever the case, all replies can be seen here. -
- Edit 2: the first reply (this next one) is the one that wasn’t approved. Of course, it is arbitrary but here’s the excuse (based on non-marxist criteria rather than theory) they used:
“Your comment from Socialism_101 was removed because of: '[C] Not Conducive to learning'
Hi /u/WL1917, Thank you for posting in /r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Not conducive to learning: this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
Original comment: /r/Socialism_101/comments/1r1r0ro/practically_speaking_what_would/o6bw4lm/”
How it is not “conducive to learning” compared to the other second reply I posted that was actually approved we don’t know, but it’s clear to anyone that their criteria is not based on marxism at all.
They also deleted this comment that I had made several days earlier, and that I edited several days later to pronote this substack post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/1r1r0ro/comment/o54o2ft/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Which can be found on Arctic Shift.
Either way, that forum (and any other that does not adhere to marxism such as r/socialism or r/latestagecapitalism), because its not based on theory will definitely be lost to history, along with the replies of all those revisionists and people who aren’t even marxist anyway, when the revolution arrives to the yankee entity and the proletariat (the JDPON of the Third World workers) is able to seize the means of the social media platform (and any other social media platform) to keep on existing, the non-marxist replies will be deleted and no one will be able to see them, and only the marxist ones (like those of u/dashthered) will be preserved for posterity, the “rules” will also be forgotten for good, it’s the ones that are useful to the revolution that matter. And all of the mods of that sub (or any other “leftist/progressive” sub that aren’t Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, the real ones, the ones who acknowledge everything that needs to be done to bring about socialism and communism) will be dealt with accordingly.
As I said, my reply is deleted but you can find it on Arctic Shift -
The comment I replied to (deleted by lvl1Bol, but can be found on Arctic Shift)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/1r1r0ro/comment/o69tgvp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Here is my reply (lvl1Bol is split in > signs):
There is no "fascism" in removing settlers from lands they took via genocide. You are the fsscist by not recognizing this though.
>Because you are literally advocating population control and ethnic cleansing.
Every state does 'population control', if you are not a Marxist (ie. An anarchist or "libertarian socialist" or any other liberal ideologue of sorts) then fine, keep advocating for your idealism, I don't care about it though. Regarding "ethnic cleansing", when you worry about Turtle Island peoples and Palestinians and their struggle for recovering their lands from settlers, then we can talk about "ethnic cleansing." Meanwhile, start shouting the slogan "death to amerika" everywhere you go, because a settler colonial, repugnant, genocidal entity like amerika needs to go, the sooner the better.
>meaningful integration (not assimilation)
I do not care about the semantics you use to justify amerika (and israel) to keep on existing. The 'language revival' and 'cultural revtalization' are all based on self-determination, and for that, the removal of settlers is key (rather "integrating" or "assimilating" peoples and nations into your settlrr society). It's the only way to build a Communist ("socialism" in the first world=social fascism) project.
>any socialist revolution would necessarily be a break with the past national project.
I don't know exactly what you are trying to imply. If "the past national project" means Turtle Island, that is the national project and the goal of decolonizing that land in the first place, if it means "the united state$" then there was no "national project", it was a settler colonial project built for settlers, for whites, that one should be done away with completely.
>The only fascist here is the one advocating literal deportation of people based on ancestry or skin color and that's you bub.
Except I am advocating "literal" deportation based on settler status, not "ancestry" or "skin color," everyone who's a settler will be deported. This will definitely be the whites, but everyone that's a settler will also be deported. You arr the one who inserted "skin color" and "ancestry" into this (which let's any Marxist know more about you than anyone else really). I'm not "bub".
Here is another reply to another one of my comments on that same post by that same user:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/1r1r0ro/comment/o69bpwu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Here is my reply to that (now deleted but still found on Arctic Shift) comment:
>how does Stalin describe the conquests of the alexandrian empires “historically constituted” all nations are historically constituted born from conquest, oppression, displacement, assimilation,
And all those nations and peoples eventually are able to get the self-determination they need in order to move towards Communism. There is no "integration" to be had with settlers.
>Marxism isn’t about moralizing about which national project deserves to exist and which doesn’t
"Marxism isn't about moralizing about whether Israel deserves to exist and Palestine doesn't, " "Marxism isn't about moralizing about whether the United States deserves to exist and Turtle Island doesn't," "Marxism isn't about whether the aboriginals in that thing we call "australia" deserve to have their own national project while australia doesn't," "Marxism isn't about moralizing whether expanded nazi germany deserves to exist while the other nations occupied by it (all the way to Vladivostok) don't."
>it asks how nations form, what they do, and how they can be abolished.
Whether you think settler colonial projects like the united snake$ and israel are "nations" or not is irrelevant. What they do right now is occupying the lands of oppressed nations and live on by the exploitation of internal colonies and oppressed peoples. How they can be abolished is clear. Back in the 19th century the Haitians were able to get rid of french colonizers by the use of force, this will also happen in Turtle Island if we want to end the settler colony, there are other options (life imprisonment and deportation) but also what the Hatians did is also an option. Whatever the case, the removal of settlers is a must.
>Nations are not eternal, primordial entities.
And you are no one to tell oppressed peoples and nations as well as genocided peoples how to arrive to that conclusion. Only self-determination does this. If that wasn't the case we would have adopted the Kautskyite position of imposing the will of German (or French, or British) workers on the cultures of other nations and peoples and embracing "one single language, one single policy, etc." and even "integrate" Palestinians into 'jewish language' rather than going the Leninist way and leaving everything to those people to move forward. To embrace the former (what you're doing) is Kautskyite, the height of chauvinism, the do the latter is the correct Marxist (Leninist) position.
>To single out certain nations as uniquely guilty because their formation involved conquest is to misunderstand how nations form.
The formation of the nation state did involve certain processes of conquest and mass murder, but this doesn't mean that the measures that ought to deconstruct and dismantle such conquest and "violence" (mass murder) shouldn't be the use of violence (force that is lethal, of course), imprisonment AND deportation. In fact, those are still an option and for you to think these won't happen (anyway) and that hundreds of millions of settlers will not resort to violence to hold on to their settlerism is indeed 'moralizing' as you said. On top of this though, the nations (the settler colonial entities) are pretty much on top of the chain of imperialism. For starters, they're settler colonies and will be dismantled, but even if they weren't, the JDPON will take care of them based on their imperialism alone (but also, racism and other oppression aspects such as xenophobia, neocolonialism and other aspects of oppression and exploitation which allows them to be on top of that imperialist outlook). So yes, "singling out" is not actually wrong when you look at history and how it has culminated (or reached its apex at least) into what we have so far (and what we've had for eons anyway).
>but the point is Marxism is not a theory of original sin
There is no "original sin" regarding the materialist view of history. The facts remain clear though and the process is a continuity which you simply cannot "pause" and try to take a picture while Marxist theory makes an effort to catch up with society. Which nations (and settler colonial projects) are, to this very day, the main benefactors of imperialism? I want you to think for a second before you keep distorting Marxism any further though. Is it the fertilizer worker or fuel extraction worker from Russia? Is it the New Afrikan that keeps getting arrested and is now homeless? Is it the Bangladeshi sweatshop worker or Congolese miner? Or is it the white suburbanite?
>Lenin and Stalin’s formulation of the national question was about secession and self determination, not population control.
You keep using this concept "population control" which isn't used in Marxist books and texts (AFAIK). It actually sounds like one of those phrases some reactionaries use to oppose abortion. If you want to talk about "population control," let's check out that control when you're willing to talk about the withering away or even abolition of monogamy (or the concept of "getting engaged/any type of (what many call) "marriage,"" any "-gamy" really) or when people in germany, britain and france (for instance) start realizing that Communism will imply that a New Afrikan, a Mexikan or an Iranian will have, as much a possibility and should be able to raise the children they gave birth to, as themselves, and that such children do not need to give any of their time to the people that gave them birth, or when men realize a policy regarding universal male c***ration could be a possibilty (along with the abolition of sex and gender), and yes, all of this enforced by people like Lenin and Stalin. This is the types of discussions Communists have, the removal of settlers has been settled (no pun intended) for about a decade or more now. How's that for "population control?"
>You are the reactionary. You are the chauvinist. Every accusation is a confession
Yes, this means that you have no further arguments (because you didn't have any in the first place) and that you concede that you've been embracing white chauvinism the whole time. You are a fascist and every single word you've uttered so far reflects your class and your class interests, which are that of a repugnant, fascist labor aristocrat (or petty bourgeois) settler "communist" hack (that are all too common nowadays among other settlers and western europeans in online spaces), there is no way to deny this as you've made all sorts of gymnastics to try and justify your labor aristocratic, white settler position (and failed every single time in a godawful way by the way).
One last, third interaction I’m having (which deleted my post clarifying things because I posted links) can be found here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/1r24t4b/comment/o6cgctr/?context=3&utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
You’re not going to find it because the comment was removed for posting links to other subs. But my interaction with this person in this sub can be found on that post. I already made it clear that I’m tired of interacting with that cowardly white chauvinist because (and here’s my reply, which I linked to at the beginning of this substack post here):
“Also, I've grown weary that among all of the interactions we've had so far, because of the way reddit is configured, because of some "rules" and guidelines (regarding "word choice" and link posting and "keeping things on topic", as if Marxism treated things and the actions of people 'separate' rather than harshly criticizing the person doing such actions in a totality) that "need to be followed" and the way mods seem to shadowban me while approving your comments I am unable to hammer home the points I'm making. Thus it seems like I'm responding to you based on these "accusations" of yours on this post alone. I am already able to know that you're a reactionary, and that (like I said in that other shadowbanned post) you keep using liberal, or outright fascist terms ("population control", "international law") while I have already addressed them but since I'm shadowbanned it looks like yours is the last reply. So yes, at the end of the day, chauvinism is prevailing thanks to all these nuisances that do not allow for a high level criticism.”
Because reddit is a real pain (giving too much power to mods, not being able to use certain words, mods using message bots to refuse posting a person’s reply dud to “infringing rules” (when such bots take things out of context) and “not being able to post links (like youtube) I’m having to post this interaction here and on the reddit sub r/readingthesocfashes.