Why am I not surprised. I remember one time Eddie Smith (One of the folks of the MWM team) had the idea to "criticise" Prolewiki on twitter because we called him out for supporting the Great Russian Black Hundreds (and therefore fascists).
MWM is a patsoc shithole which aims to be the "middle ground" between the extremist patriotic "socialists" (Hazites) and the "Ultra-leftists" (Marxist-Leninists in this case), which at the end of the day proves nothing because he sides with patsocs to begin with.
Also funny that he pulls the patsoc trope of using AI art. Long paragraph full of word salad combined with the AI art picture in the end basically shows what an average patsoc is, an overglorified gish galloper.
You're giving patsocs a lot of credit when their 'current' has not produced anything in the 5-6 years it's been tried beyond making a few streamers rich and putting themselves against all actual Marxists (never a good sign). They have no actual plans to make America socialist, like they claim, because any formulated plan would expose that this is a dead-end that's only good for grifting.
They had the "CPUSA 2036" slogan for a while, which was about infiltrating the CPUSA and winning the 2036 election, and they tried that, got found out and blacklisted, and now they pretend it was never about that and they've stopped talking about it.
You're assuming they are trying novel techniques, but they're just tailists. It's been tried before, and it always ends with a Hitler in power.
The people they are trying to tail are not interested in being friends with China, stopping the genocide in Palestine, or being pro-labor. What they are is by and large the petite bourgeoisie, and to teach that segment 'Marxism', they need to water it down and purposely limit it. "MAGAcommunists", who changed their name after they started hating the label 'patriotic socialist' which they picked for themselves (they also tried "Mecha tankies" for a while lol), are starting to say socialism is conservative (they don't expand on what that means) and that marxism is "pro small business".
If I "introduced" you to math by saying 2+2 can be equal to 5, and you didn't have the knowledge to disprove it, and I then continued teaching you bad math, nobody would be saying "well at least he's introducing people to math!". No. I would be teaching bad math, and I would be a terrible teacher that should be stopped before I do more damage. So why, when people teach bad theory, do we let them do it because "at least they're teaching people"? I'm not a monkey that reacts to the buzzwords, much to the dismay of patsocs. You have to actually give me a sound argument, and not just write "Based!" in the margin of a Lenin book for the instagram picture.
They've tried "reaching out" a couple times, their big plan was to send Haz to interview some MAGA protestors once or twice. He gave them softball questions like "do you think the establishment is working against the common worker?" and got ecstatic when they said yes. He might have been thinking about socialism, but I can guarantee you they were thinking about Trump. They were also small business owners and considered themselves workers, obviously. Obviously he couldn't namedrop socialism to them or he would have got his ass beat, because for all their posturing and spitting, they have not yet reached out to any MAGA. They claim they did, but they did not. All they got is 14 year olds edgelords who will grow out of it, I assume, in a few years.
They are enemies of Marxism and Marxists and it's time to proclaim it. Communists like to pass around Anarchism or Socialism from Stalin, where he says "Anarchists are the real enemies of marxists" (back in 1905 so before fascism), but then when it comes to patsocs we contort ourselves into shapes trying to justify their existence. We don't have to work with them. They have to prove they have something of value to bring, and I don't see that because they spend most of their time trying to convince real marxists that magacommunism totally works, and if you disagree, they start insulting and dogpiling you. You're either with them or against them.
Like who else is actually saying we need to "win over" the maga? If there is civil war it's gonna be communists and maybe a few others against the magas. The first thing the magas are gonna do is organize lynch mobs as soon as they get the go ahead. There was civil war in Russia, there was civil war in China, there was civil war in Vietnam, there was civil war in Korea, but these clowns think that in the heart of empire, in the number one imperial power in the world, they can avoid civil war if they wish for it hard enough.
I got bad news then, you're gonna have to pick up a rifle and shoot the magas you want to win over if there is ever a revolution. Because I can assure you magacoms would sooner join them and abandon any pretense of being marxists than raise a rifle against them lol.
Who cares about their follower count, when they are simply unable to build anything -- because that's not the point of patsocism. The point is to get a few feds into positions of legitimacy. How do you think Hinkle got to 2 million followers in less than 5 years (actually less than 1 because he was boosted up there after October 7)? The official account of the state of 'Israel' quote tweeted him. Why would the glorified US military base in West Asia do that not once but twice, garnering him tons of new followers each time? Like when any real marxist starts getting too popular, it should raise red flags, not garner amazement. He has fed written all over him and has completely stopped talking about marxism, instead now stealing tweets and reposting them on his account. That's his amount of praxis.
Midwestern Marx has always been patsoc, they're just now dropping the mask because Laroucheism is finally paying off for them. First, Edward Ligger is wrong about Lenin on the Black Hundreds. Lenin was not saying to disrupt their meetings to recruit workers there, he was saying to fucking kill them. Yes, that's what Lenin wrote black on white. Our guy was leading the revolution and civil war just a few years later and they're trying to lionize him into a peace-loving, "reaching across the aisle" type of figure. What Lenin wrote at the beginning of The state and the revolution has come full circle and against him now.
Every time this brain-damaged wrestler opens his mouth he gets clowned on and I'm not sure how you can have been following what he's been saying and start defending his position, while at the same time not having seen any of the criticism he gets, including right in the top comments of the linked tweet.
and it likely wouldn’t be relevant to non-white people who have national interests of their own to organize around
What do you think they're gonna do to non-white people if they ever get into power?
Aside from MAGA communists generally seeming like transphobes, misogynists, and potentially racists, (something all the other electoral groups in the US also are),
Yes, which is why the answer to the US Question is decolonization. There will always remain transphobia, misogyny and racism in a settler-colonial state. But patsocs are not advocating for decolonization, they don't even dare use the word. And the reason communism is such a shitshow in the US is exactly because communist parties did not want to grapple with this fact, that all communist parties will decolonize, that their prime directive is to put the Indigenous nations in power and not lead in their stead, and this goes all the way back to all the "working class stories" we've been told about the US, all the "good communist parties" there, all the "grassroots" movements, none of them advocated for decolonization because it would jeopardize their power and even livelihood. This is their contradiction, to admit to decol being necessary would be admitting to your party dissolving eventually. But regardless of the history of communism in the US, patsocs are not doing anything new. You look far enough into the CPUSA's history (which is not that far, it's around 100 years old) and you see proto-patsocs there as well.
You're correct that we shouldn't ignore patsocism. We should fight against it. I expect their movement will slowly dwindle though, but never fully go away. Laroucheism is not new (I mean, Larouche himself was active not that long ago) and Laroucheism is a fed op, so it's not going away any time soon.
Yeah tbh I think you're sealioning. I sincerely can't believe you've been organizing for 10 years but have only now heard of MWM, Hinkle, Infrared etc. while at the same time being familiar enough that you can quote from their latest videos. You also say you support decol but then show you don't actually support decol because "it's not popular" which is the textbook definition of tailism, and ultimately says you don't actually support decol regardless of what you may think on the matter.
I've had my eye on you from your first comment in this thread but we always give people a chance to explain themselves first. The only reason it took this long to ban you is because I wanted to get more opinions, which I eventually did. So, you get a rule 5 ban: no patsocs.
Yes. Prolewiki has too. What Eddie Liger Smith is arguing is that we don't convince them of their reactionary ways but rather adopt them. That is what 'reaching out' means. We do not 'reach out'. We convince them of their reactionary views. Smith doesn't seem to agree with this proposition.
Therefore, would it be more practical to steer these american labor aristocracy workers towards a movement like MAGA communism?
Somehow you gotten everything correct and then you decide to say this. No. MAGA Communism is a reactionary movement. By bringing people towards MAGA Communism, you're introducing reactionary sentiment. MAGA Communists are not progressive in any sense. By stating it is the case that we should convince people of a backward, reactionary sentiment, of which imposing "patriotism" to the reactionary masses, means that you are advocating for reactionary sentiment. Please read up Prolewiki's article on Patriotic Socialism.
Aside from MAGA communists generally seeming like transphobes, misogynists, and potentially racists
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?
When it comes to anti-imperialist nations, we tend to accept their social conservatism under critical support because we understand that they are the product of their conditions, but when we see anti-imperialist Americans who have similar social conservative views, we reject them entirely for it and call them fascists and feds.
Their social-conservatism is a result of domestic action. We should still, and rightfully, criticise those nations for being anti-LGBT. Critical support does not mean ignorance. It means criticising the nation (for being capitalist, anti-LGBT) and supporting its international actions for anti-imperialism. This does not apply to Conservatives because the US imposed cultural imperialism onto the third world, thus making the third world less likely to adopt LGBT ideas because it is seen as a "western" thing. You're comparing two different things. In either case, we should combat the anti-LGBT sentiment.
(Hinkle has gained 2 million followers since 2019, PSL has almost 100k since 2009).
Follower counts mean nothing. Just because more people follow it doesn't mean it's good. PSL has actually been doing stuff, what has Hinkle been doing? Pretty much nothing. He tried to communicate with the third world but it results in failure because no one cares about him.
If the option is between status quo and MAGA communism, because americans are not willing or interested in a full bolshevik style revolution, isn’t MAGA communism better for the rest of the world?
No. This is no different from lesser-evilism. MAGA Communists don't even have their own party. They just tell you to vote Donald Trump because he is supposedly "anti-imperialist".
Is there potential that, like DSA and Bernie, this group could be a wide funnel into the left that could result in some sincere right wing conversions?
I've seen this argument before and it can be debunked by stating it can have the opposite reaction. Sure it may bring new "leftists", but it would also dissuade people from "leftism". Hence why I don't support the DSA or Bernie, especially given both of them support imperialism.
Beyond that, wouldn’t it be better for folks like us to be engaging and disagreeing openly with MAGA communists to provide the people attracted to their ideas
Yes. We should. And we did. And we will continue to do so. Patsocism isn't a dying trend, but it isn't necessarily one that gains traction with conservatives. You can literally think the same way. Conservatives don't like Communism. Therefore Conservatives won't support MAGA Communism. Therefore this movement, as big as it sounds, it's a fringe and extremist group, one which requires further analysis than looking at the surface.
Again, as a person just hearing about this guy, I am reading his quote and reading what you say he means and it seems to be the opposite of what he says...
I don't disagree with the quote. What I disagree with is this statement: "If Modern day Western communists lived in Russia they would have tweeted pictures of the Bolsheviks reaching out to the black hundreds and demanded that people cancel them for it.". Source This is what Smith was advocating for. It is not a question of having a "pretty cemented perspective on this topic" but how words are used. This is not semantics. This is just what reaching out means. What Eddie Smith argues is what I said earlier, so I won't repeat it again.
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.
Not all anti-imperialists should be supported, quote Lenin;
Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.Source
Supporting conservatives for "anti-imperialism" is not anti-imperialism but rather the opposite. You are directly siding with conservatives rather than the general masses (or in this case the proletariat). You completely ignored my statement which was this:
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?
If they didn’t somewhat appeal to the “US identity” and all the chauvinism that comes with it, the messages wouldn’t get through the gates, but could they be inoculating progressive ideas into the white working class by not presenting in a way which totally alienates them from even beginning the conversation?
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.
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?
so whats the problem with these guys trying to convince settlers to back off on China and Russia and place the blame with billionaires?
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".
Speaking of Trump, I haven’t seen anything of these guys saying to vote for Trump, can you show me that?
Many patriotic socialists call Trump "anti-imperialist". He isn't. The strategy of Patsocs is that they vote for the Republicans as they are also "anti-imperialist" and back MAGA. However some patriotic socialists argue there are RINOs! So even if I haven't shown that they will vote Trump, they still argue that Trump is "anti-imperialist" and so is MAGA "Communism" in general.
They seem to have just launched some sort of org recently, I watched Hinkle’s speech from it and he had the crowd of white people cheering Hamas and listening to quotes from Lenin.
"They quote Lenin so they must be anti-imperialist!" I've seen many revisionist organisations quote Lenin in part or not at all or leave parts out. This doesn't mean they are anti-imperialist in any way.
I consider DSA and Bernie to be reactionaries at this point but I can’t say I don’t know many good comrades who went from apolitical -> DSA/Bernie -> MLs and I see the value of that.
I have also seen conservatives scream against Bernie as he is apparently a "socialist". Good for you that comrades seen Bernie and became MLs. What I care for is the opposite reaction which can also be caused. Conservatives are against Bernie and thus they won't be MLs, or at best Patriotic "Socialists" or there will be MLs who are sympathetic to the Democrats or Bernie just because he has some "socialist values". You may not be well in-touch with Patriotic Socialism, but if you are a US communist, please, please understand it is a backwards ideology that must not be supported.
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.
Why am I not surprised. I remember one time Eddie Smith (One of the folks of the MWM team) had the idea to "criticise" Prolewiki on twitter because we called him out for supporting the Great Russian Black Hundreds (and therefore fascists).
MWM is a patsoc shithole which aims to be the "middle ground" between the extremist patriotic "socialists" (Hazites) and the "Ultra-leftists" (Marxist-Leninists in this case), which at the end of the day proves nothing because he sides with patsocs to begin with.
Also funny that he pulls the patsoc trope of using AI art. Long paragraph full of word salad combined with the AI art picture in the end basically shows what an average patsoc is, an overglorified gish galloper.
Hahaha, it was exactly because of the AI slop at the end that I just had to post it.
Removed by mod
You're giving patsocs a lot of credit when their 'current' has not produced anything in the 5-6 years it's been tried beyond making a few streamers rich and putting themselves against all actual Marxists (never a good sign). They have no actual plans to make America socialist, like they claim, because any formulated plan would expose that this is a dead-end that's only good for grifting.
They had the "CPUSA 2036" slogan for a while, which was about infiltrating the CPUSA and winning the 2036 election, and they tried that, got found out and blacklisted, and now they pretend it was never about that and they've stopped talking about it.
You're assuming they are trying novel techniques, but they're just tailists. It's been tried before, and it always ends with a Hitler in power.
The people they are trying to tail are not interested in being friends with China, stopping the genocide in Palestine, or being pro-labor. What they are is by and large the petite bourgeoisie, and to teach that segment 'Marxism', they need to water it down and purposely limit it. "MAGAcommunists", who changed their name after they started hating the label 'patriotic socialist' which they picked for themselves (they also tried "Mecha tankies" for a while lol), are starting to say socialism is conservative (they don't expand on what that means) and that marxism is "pro small business".
If I "introduced" you to math by saying 2+2 can be equal to 5, and you didn't have the knowledge to disprove it, and I then continued teaching you bad math, nobody would be saying "well at least he's introducing people to math!". No. I would be teaching bad math, and I would be a terrible teacher that should be stopped before I do more damage. So why, when people teach bad theory, do we let them do it because "at least they're teaching people"? I'm not a monkey that reacts to the buzzwords, much to the dismay of patsocs. You have to actually give me a sound argument, and not just write "Based!" in the margin of a Lenin book for the instagram picture.
They've tried "reaching out" a couple times, their big plan was to send Haz to interview some MAGA protestors once or twice. He gave them softball questions like "do you think the establishment is working against the common worker?" and got ecstatic when they said yes. He might have been thinking about socialism, but I can guarantee you they were thinking about Trump. They were also small business owners and considered themselves workers, obviously. Obviously he couldn't namedrop socialism to them or he would have got his ass beat, because for all their posturing and spitting, they have not yet reached out to any MAGA. They claim they did, but they did not. All they got is 14 year olds edgelords who will grow out of it, I assume, in a few years.
They are enemies of Marxism and Marxists and it's time to proclaim it. Communists like to pass around Anarchism or Socialism from Stalin, where he says "Anarchists are the real enemies of marxists" (back in 1905 so before fascism), but then when it comes to patsocs we contort ourselves into shapes trying to justify their existence. We don't have to work with them. They have to prove they have something of value to bring, and I don't see that because they spend most of their time trying to convince real marxists that magacommunism totally works, and if you disagree, they start insulting and dogpiling you. You're either with them or against them.
Like who else is actually saying we need to "win over" the maga? If there is civil war it's gonna be communists and maybe a few others against the magas. The first thing the magas are gonna do is organize lynch mobs as soon as they get the go ahead. There was civil war in Russia, there was civil war in China, there was civil war in Vietnam, there was civil war in Korea, but these clowns think that in the heart of empire, in the number one imperial power in the world, they can avoid civil war if they wish for it hard enough.
I got bad news then, you're gonna have to pick up a rifle and shoot the magas you want to win over if there is ever a revolution. Because I can assure you magacoms would sooner join them and abandon any pretense of being marxists than raise a rifle against them lol.
Who cares about their follower count, when they are simply unable to build anything -- because that's not the point of patsocism. The point is to get a few feds into positions of legitimacy. How do you think Hinkle got to 2 million followers in less than 5 years (actually less than 1 because he was boosted up there after October 7)? The official account of the state of 'Israel' quote tweeted him. Why would the glorified US military base in West Asia do that not once but twice, garnering him tons of new followers each time? Like when any real marxist starts getting too popular, it should raise red flags, not garner amazement. He has fed written all over him and has completely stopped talking about marxism, instead now stealing tweets and reposting them on his account. That's his amount of praxis.
Midwestern Marx has always been patsoc, they're just now dropping the mask because Laroucheism is finally paying off for them. First, Edward Ligger is wrong about Lenin on the Black Hundreds. Lenin was not saying to disrupt their meetings to recruit workers there, he was saying to fucking kill them. Yes, that's what Lenin wrote black on white. Our guy was leading the revolution and civil war just a few years later and they're trying to lionize him into a peace-loving, "reaching across the aisle" type of figure. What Lenin wrote at the beginning of The state and the revolution has come full circle and against him now.
Every time this brain-damaged wrestler opens his mouth he gets clowned on and I'm not sure how you can have been following what he's been saying and start defending his position, while at the same time not having seen any of the criticism he gets, including right in the top comments of the linked tweet.
What do you think they're gonna do to non-white people if they ever get into power?
Yes, which is why the answer to the US Question is decolonization. There will always remain transphobia, misogyny and racism in a settler-colonial state. But patsocs are not advocating for decolonization, they don't even dare use the word. And the reason communism is such a shitshow in the US is exactly because communist parties did not want to grapple with this fact, that all communist parties will decolonize, that their prime directive is to put the Indigenous nations in power and not lead in their stead, and this goes all the way back to all the "working class stories" we've been told about the US, all the "good communist parties" there, all the "grassroots" movements, none of them advocated for decolonization because it would jeopardize their power and even livelihood. This is their contradiction, to admit to decol being necessary would be admitting to your party dissolving eventually. But regardless of the history of communism in the US, patsocs are not doing anything new. You look far enough into the CPUSA's history (which is not that far, it's around 100 years old) and you see proto-patsocs there as well.
You're correct that we shouldn't ignore patsocism. We should fight against it. I expect their movement will slowly dwindle though, but never fully go away. Laroucheism is not new (I mean, Larouche himself was active not that long ago) and Laroucheism is a fed op, so it's not going away any time soon.
Removed by mod
Yeah tbh I think you're sealioning. I sincerely can't believe you've been organizing for 10 years but have only now heard of MWM, Hinkle, Infrared etc. while at the same time being familiar enough that you can quote from their latest videos. You also say you support decol but then show you don't actually support decol because "it's not popular" which is the textbook definition of tailism, and ultimately says you don't actually support decol regardless of what you may think on the matter.
I've had my eye on you from your first comment in this thread but we always give people a chance to explain themselves first. The only reason it took this long to ban you is because I wanted to get more opinions, which I eventually did. So, you get a rule 5 ban: no patsocs.
Yes. Prolewiki has too. What Eddie Liger Smith is arguing is that we don't convince them of their reactionary ways but rather adopt them. That is what 'reaching out' means. We do not 'reach out'. We convince them of their reactionary views. Smith doesn't seem to agree with this proposition.
Somehow you gotten everything correct and then you decide to say this. No. MAGA Communism is a reactionary movement. By bringing people towards MAGA Communism, you're introducing reactionary sentiment. MAGA Communists are not progressive in any sense. By stating it is the case that we should convince people of a backward, reactionary sentiment, of which imposing "patriotism" to the reactionary masses, means that you are advocating for reactionary sentiment. Please read up Prolewiki's article on Patriotic Socialism.
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?
Their social-conservatism is a result of domestic action. We should still, and rightfully, criticise those nations for being anti-LGBT. Critical support does not mean ignorance. It means criticising the nation (for being capitalist, anti-LGBT) and supporting its international actions for anti-imperialism. This does not apply to Conservatives because the US imposed cultural imperialism onto the third world, thus making the third world less likely to adopt LGBT ideas because it is seen as a "western" thing. You're comparing two different things. In either case, we should combat the anti-LGBT sentiment.
Follower counts mean nothing. Just because more people follow it doesn't mean it's good. PSL has actually been doing stuff, what has Hinkle been doing? Pretty much nothing. He tried to communicate with the third world but it results in failure because no one cares about him.
No. This is no different from lesser-evilism. MAGA Communists don't even have their own party. They just tell you to vote Donald Trump because he is supposedly "anti-imperialist".
I've seen this argument before and it can be debunked by stating it can have the opposite reaction. Sure it may bring new "leftists", but it would also dissuade people from "leftism". Hence why I don't support the DSA or Bernie, especially given both of them support imperialism.
Yes. We should. And we did. And we will continue to do so. Patsocism isn't a dying trend, but it isn't necessarily one that gains traction with conservatives. You can literally think the same way. Conservatives don't like Communism. Therefore Conservatives won't support MAGA Communism. Therefore this movement, as big as it sounds, it's a fringe and extremist group, one which requires further analysis than looking at the surface.
Removed by mod
I don't disagree with the quote. What I disagree with is this statement: "If Modern day Western communists lived in Russia they would have tweeted pictures of the Bolsheviks reaching out to the black hundreds and demanded that people cancel them for it.". Source This is what Smith was advocating for. It is not a question of having a "pretty cemented perspective on this topic" but how words are used. This is not semantics. This is just what reaching out means. What Eddie Smith argues is what I said earlier, so I won't repeat it again.
Not all anti-imperialists should be supported, quote Lenin;
Supporting conservatives for "anti-imperialism" is not anti-imperialism but rather the opposite. You are directly siding with conservatives rather than the general masses (or in this case the proletariat). You completely ignored my statement which was this:
I ask again, do you not want us to have rights?
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.
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?
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".
Many patriotic socialists call Trump "anti-imperialist". He isn't. The strategy of Patsocs is that they vote for the Republicans as they are also "anti-imperialist" and back MAGA. However some patriotic socialists argue there are RINOs! So even if I haven't shown that they will vote Trump, they still argue that Trump is "anti-imperialist" and so is MAGA "Communism" in general.
"They quote Lenin so they must be anti-imperialist!" I've seen many revisionist organisations quote Lenin in part or not at all or leave parts out. This doesn't mean they are anti-imperialist in any way.
I have also seen conservatives scream against Bernie as he is apparently a "socialist". Good for you that comrades seen Bernie and became MLs. What I care for is the opposite reaction which can also be caused. Conservatives are against Bernie and thus they won't be MLs, or at best Patriotic "Socialists" or there will be MLs who are sympathetic to the Democrats or Bernie just because he has some "socialist values". You may not be well in-touch with Patriotic Socialism, but if you are a US communist, please, please understand it is a backwards ideology that must not be supported.
Removed by mod
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.