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.
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.