Interaction with a white chauvinist 2
More white chauvinists
Response to this comment:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Communist/comments/1re08ce/comment/o8xkak1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Responding to it because reddit has a character limit and I’m using some words/terms that reddit will not allow and has suspended me for previously.
Proof of how my positions are somehow "reactionary"?
Yeah, you're a leftcom, that's all I need to know.
class war
Is the concept that needs to be taken from the scientific perspective of imperialism. And imperialism can only be understood when you know who the perpetrators are (the whites) and who the main benefactors (the labor aristocrats) are.
proletarian internationalism
Which is what all Third World workers should embrace, NOT first world workers, those aren't proletarian, they're labor aristocrats.
revolutionary defeatism
A term that cannot be applied to every situation out there, and is clearly spouted by trotskyites, left coms (and other ultras) and many other revisionists out there. The only defeatism is that of first world workers (western europe and amerika).
class struggle
Which is only important if its proletarian, but it is not in the interest of labor aristocrats to embrace it, the labor aristocrats (along with petit bourgeois and bourgeois) should embrace mass class suicide.
and every other standard Marxist position
"Standard" for whom?
is better than the counter-revolutionary social chauvinism of the CPRF
I don't care about the cprf, but there is nothing counter-revolutionary to revolutionary victory, while there is everything counter-revolutionary to "revolutionary defeatism" in this case.
Maybe by joining the loyal opposition bourgeois-governmental party?
And what is a "loyal opposition" in this case? What is the difference between the cprf and the cpusa? And why didn't you point out that the cpusa is exactly the same as the cprf? Perhaps because you don't see that party (nor the psl, nor the frso, nor the apl, nor the plp, nor the cwpusa, etc.) as a "loyal bourgeois-governmental opposition" (whatever the heck that means)? In which case I know exactly why. Your white chauvinism is clearly showing, and there is a legality-driven, or at least generally liberal (doesn't surprise me, since you're a leftcom) logic to these things you're addressing. This is why you say:
don't trust anything associated with the official Russian government
As if that was the point of Communism in the first place (again, no evidence you would say this regarding the cpusa) but then:
honestly just steer clear of ML orgs at least...
But you wouldn't do this for a yankee/amerikan asking "should I join the youth wing of the cpusa?" You didn't point out there are Russian Marxist-Leninist-Maoist parties, and that one of them recently had members arrested. You didn't encourage the OP to join them but instead assumed it was "obvious" there aren't "many good" ML organizations in Russia and suggested the OP join an anarchist org instead. An organization that doesn't care about Leninism and wouldn't actually be willing to form a vanguard, apply democratic centralism and establish the DOTP in Russia, nor expand such dictatorship to as many countries as possible.
blue "communists" supporting the bourgeois democratic party
Yes, there we have it. This statement is clearly very different from "associated with the official Russian government". At least you admit the cpusa is (to you) 'better' in not being "associated with the official American government", they simply are "supporters of the Dem party". Again, there is a liberal rhetoric/logic that you are operating under to make this distinction, but you're articulating it in your message. Then you mention in passing that you consider MLs "counter-revolutionary" (without mentioning your leftcom/anarchist tendency), whatever "outwardly bourgeois oppositional parties" means.
bureaucratic bonapartiste style of bourgeois government that Russia has makes it harder for revolutionaries to organize openly
Now you're using trotskyite language and fusing it with "bonapartism" (as if that means anything here). The claim you're making regarding the difficulty of organization needs to be backed up though.
most comrades are forced to be clandestine
Yes, this is precisely what being a revolutionary is all about, and this is how waging a revolution looks like. Such revolutions were carried out in Russia, China, Peru, are being carried out in India and the Philippines and being clandestine is one of the characteristics of being a revolutionary. The revolution is simply not a tea party.
there isn't going to be some great Maoist takeover of Russia
Then there simply won't be a revolution (not a proletarian one anyway) in Russia ever again. Maoism is the current phase of Marxism, it takes after Marxism-Leninism and is the only way the proletariat liberate themselves from imperialism. Mind you, there are some "MLMs" who reject most of the developments of theory since the 1980s but only the Maoists who embrace these components of theory are the ones proven correct by history and are the ones who continue the revolution, while other "Leninists" have become revisionist one way or another.
just literally didn't read the book
I already know what you're doing. And all of the revisionists I've spoken to (trotskyites, hoxhaists, leftcoms, even "mlms") all use this concept lightly and apply it to Russia. The chauvinism sets in once you point them out to how we're not in WWI, were there were two factions, which Russia wasn't even the main actor of anyway, and how Russia belonged to the faction that won, where it withdrew from the war, Germany (an imperialist, white country) lost and went into one of the most nasty recessions ever seen, embraced fascism several years later. Russia went on to expand in its Sovietism, they didn't go to brunch in its "defeat" and conquered several countries in its surroundings, while having a few countries more than poking them and transgressing them, sending military arms and other things to reactionaries (like the Russian Whites) to destroy the Communist revolution. This is NOT the situation Russia finds itself in anymore, with a faction of over 28 countries that are currently beyond hostile and willing to expand their imperialism if Russia was to retreat. On the contrary, you're someone that at least seems to downplay white imperialism (if you're not from a white state or a white settler colonial entity like the united state$ itself) it is your duty not to tell any Russian, Iranian, Turk or any non-white what to do, it is your duty to use the slogan "death to amerika" and tell people to read Settlers as their introduction to Marxism. The 'revolutionary defeatism' here is yours, not the Russians. You're the one who's supposed to embrace mass class suicide and be at the mercy of the proletariat (Turtle Island, Ukrainian, Venezuelan, Cuban, Iranian, Russian, Chinese, Chicane, New Afrikan or otherwise) and the JDPON.
this third-worldist nationalism
Yeah, there you go with that buzzword, it's a slur that first worldist white chauvinists use whenever their white anxiety and fear shows.
moralistic and aesthetic support for anti-western bourgeois imperialism
There is no moralism lol. How do you think the JDPON will be enforced? It's terror, but on the white countries and the settler colonial anglosphere entities. There won't be any excuses for it, it will be terror. There is also no "aesthetic support" otherwise I wouldn't be a Maoist, but an actual Maoist, one that supports revolution, the violent, swept overthrow of the state of things, I wouldn't be supporting the revolutions in the Philippines and India and a few other places. I'd just tell you to go protest to an ANSWER coalition to "stop the war in Iran", use racist, revolting slogans like "yankee go 'home'", "no war but class war" (this one reminds me of "all lives matter") and to "join a (mostly white or completely white) union". None of that is what I advocate because it goes against the revolution. Being anti-white (or "anti-western" but "west" is an orientalist/'the other' slur) is the name of the game in Communism, the white suburbanites are the main benefactors of imperialism, they make imperialism possible, this isn't the case for people in other countries outside the white world.
in the case of an inter-imperialist war, the solution is always to call for the defeat of your country and the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war by the proletariat of both imperialist nations against their national-bourgeois,
That is not how it works. First, most nato countries (specially western europe, kannada and the yankee entity) do not have a proletariat. Their 'working class' is made up of labor aristocrats, not proletarians, and the small minority that such countries DO have as proletarians aren't even legal and are at risk of being deported ASAP. This is why I told you we no longer live in 1917 and Leninism (which you don't subscribe to, you're a leftcom) no longer applies. Back then, germany had some decades to turn its working class into labor aristocrats, and it's one of the reasons the revolution as soon as it started in germany faded away just as fast (albeit under the banner of "Communism" for decades until 1989). You cannot call this conflict an inter-imperialist war (it is) and then come up with the solution of "let's have both countries' proletariat turn this into a civil war and then have them seize power" and lazily use a scenario of the early 20th century as an example when none of that is there and further developments have changed the wheel of history radically (to the point that the start of Leninism in the late 1910s and ML in the 1920s is gone, and we have a further phase of revolution, with new theory developed since and it is being developed to this day). Taking these facts into account, the "defeat of your country" means having several imperialist powers right in front of you, where none of those countries (for obvious reasons) are willing to give up their imperialism and will make sure that the inner contradictions grow to go back to square one (1990s situation or worse), but furthermore, you're advocating for the defeat of Russia (hypocrite much) without knowing what the "defeat of nato" and the yankee entity entails here (the dissolution of the yankee entity and the oppresion and undermining of western europe by the proletariat). There is no "proletariat" in france, germany, britain and the yankee entity, while there is in Russia, Maoist organizations exist, there is no "defeatism" to be had, where Russia retreats and abandons Ukraine, that is nothing at all like early 20th century germany and would be advocating for "revolutionary defeatism" for Turkey, Iran, China and many other countries. You also say that the national bourgeois should be targeted, and yet Mao proved that the national bourgeois can be made an ally of the proletarian country against the white (imperialist) enemies, you didn't mention the compradors (conveniently) which are an asset to white countries and CAN be used against countries like Russia, Iran, China and Turkey. The main contradiction is imperialism and the main perpetrators are always the white countries, which really need to be subdued by the proletariat in the JDPON.
proletarian internationalism
Which CANNOT be had with the white working class as they're all labor aristocrats.
if you don't agree with this, you are by definition anti-communist
I am a Maoist, you are an ultra and you don't even know who the proletariat are, you're doing this because you're muddying the definition of class, this is done by imperialism, in which conditions of the highly advanced imperialist state rise to such an extent that bribery has made those 'workers' so different that they have so much more to lose than their chains.
if you side with one of the camps of bourgeois imperialism
I side with Russia because Russia still has a proletariat, and there is no reason to believe that will change, whereas the defeat of nato, the submission of western europe and dissolution of the unite state$ is a must. You will lose much more than your chains. I do not side with "bourgeois imperialist camps" (I don't speak ultra), I stand by the protection of the proletariat, whether in Russia, China, Turkey or Iran.
whether Ukraine or Russia
This is actually weird. I support the proletariat of both nations, but there is zero chance that both countries at the same time (we're talking about within the same year) embrace MLM. If Ukraine was to embrace it then that country is the one I'd support, but you seem to have forgotten about the other imperialist states for some reason. You didn't stop and factored in germany, france, britain the yankee entity and several others. There's also the case to be made that if Ukraine adopts Maoism (highly unlikely) that it may spillover to Russia, there's no reason to believe that will be the case if Russia adopts it first AND retreats from Ukraine, if anything, expansion will need to be more voracious than before to recreate the Soviet Union with as many countries (except Ukraine and the Baltic states) as possible, but that is highly unlikely in today's world. Anyway, you don't care about that, you are not pro-Soviet Union since you're a leftcom.
Anyway, you need to read Settlers, you need to read The Wealth of (Some ) Nations and you need to read Divided World, Divided Class. If you're a white, you are NOT a proletarian, the world is divided between the proletarians (and peasants) and then there's labor aristocrats, petit bourgeois and bourgeois, most probably you're not on the first camp, and no, wage earner/salaried individual does not equal proletariat. Or maybe don’t, I know (according to your first comment) that you simply hate Russia too much and think they (Russians) are “like us” (amerikans and western europeans), but Russia is not like amerika at all. Russia does have a proletariat, they did have a Communist history they did not come to be a settler colonial entity, they do have a chance to bring back the Soviet Union with everything we know today, whereas since you’re a leftcom, the revolution will be over you AND directly opposed to you, you’re an enemy of the proletariat. And since you are a white chauvinist, the revolution will target you to such an extent that you will most probably find it horrifying, the removal of whites from Turtle Island and the oppresion of western european countries won’t be pretty. The changing of social relations will be enforced with the utmost severity. The concepts of family, sex, gender, whiteness, among others will be done away with, and a New Afrikan, a Chicane, a Mexikan, a Roma, a Turtle Island person, a Venezuelan, a Cuban, an iranian and a Russian, will have as much of a “right” to take care of your children as you do, you will not have any “personal property”, because “personal property” is a concept that revisionists and non-marxist leftists keep spouting to soothe your labor aristocratic/petit bourgeois lifestyle cravings, your toothbrush and your underwear will be taken from you if the revolution demands it, in order to have healthcare you will be compelled to participate in such healthcare, you’ll study healthcare and help out as much as possible, you will not be a “consumer”/”customer”, being a “consumer” is for labor aristocrats and consumption aristocrats, so it won’t be “free at the point of service”, you will receive education and you will have to help out educating other people like a real educator (from children to adults). All of this is the ‘compassionate’ way, and there’ll be people who’ll refuse and force will be used against them (perhaps a relative of yours) to comply. The removal and submission of white settlers and white europeans will be done by deportartion, life imprisonment and lethal force (in action or death penalty). But a war between the proletariat and all the classes of the first world (specially, the labor aristocracy) will also be unleashed. Western europeans will see things that they haven’t seen since WWII and the outcome (if the revolution is victorious) will be even worse than in WWII, since they’ll see their conditions shattered unlike in the subsequent decades of WWII, where imperialism helped their labor aristocrats and petite bourgeois enjoy some of the best conditions in all of history. The amerikans will not have it any better, the white settlers will be deported, forced to leave Turtle Island for good so that all of the oppressed nations (Turtle Island peoples, New Afrikans, Chicanes, etc.) are able to have their self-determination, just like how “israelis” will all be removed from Palestine (all of it) so Palestinians can have their self-determination. And there’ll of course be a lot of violence, but in order for the revolution ro win, a lot of white settlers will simplt need to be taken down. This is why I’m saying you’ll find it horrifying. But for the proletariat, because they’re the ones who’ll be doing all of this, it’ll be liberating.