As you have all noticed, this seems to be a point of contention here. This is a good thing, since it means someone will learn something.
Now we seem to be all over the place, with this general area of thought, provoking many questions. Whether or not PatSocs are socially conservative, what is position on social conservatism? Many of us are very young, both in age and ML experience, so an online discussion would be a great learning tool.
1. Are socially conservative individuals allowed to be apart of the leftist movement?
- A. Are socially conservative individuals victims of bourgeois propaganda?
-B. If socially conservative people are turned away by the left, where do they go?
-C. How high of a position would a social conservative be allowed in a ML party?
-D. How has or will MLs educate socially conservative folk?
-E. &tc, &tc.
2. What exactly is Patriotism?
-A. Does patriotism depend on culture?
-B Is possible for a distinction between patriotism for a country and wanting to abolish the state?
-C. Is patriotism corrupted in the Core?
-D How have post imperialist countries with Communist experiments built patriotism?
-E. &Tc &TC
3. Who even are the PatSocs?
-A. If the label is too convuluted, should we make a distinction between Maupin and American exceptionalists?
-B. Who of the leaders do we consider MLs?
-C. Should patriotic socialist be distinct from socialism or is inherent in socialism?
-D. How much do WE even know if PatSocs?
-E. &Tc, &tc
We can look at the USSR and GDR for these questions. Remember the Hammer and Sickel came from somewhere.
Things to look out for about the US:
-It is the imperialist power, AND a settler state.
-Low levels of cultural development
-The culture that is there is taken from marginalized groups.
-Americas are the most propagandized people in the World.
-It is huge and incredibly diverse
More questions about the US could follow:
-Should the US be balkanized? If so how does patriotism be built in balkanized regions?
-How does land back go about? Will indigenous countries emerge, and if so should we reconsider American MLs as different MLs for the Regions in North America.
-If we see different nations and regions in North America how does that affect culture? Is the question of how we view the land a prerequisite to discussing patriotism, is it contradictory to call yourself an American Patriot if you decide to divide up the land until regions?
There is so much potential for deep political for North American based Comrades, this is a rabbit hole I do want to delve into. I'll cross post this to GZD but I want it mainly on Leftist Infighting.
Edit: spacing issues
Zizek is either a psyop or incapable of critical thought.
Photos taken from "Slavoj Zizek Presents On Practice and Contradiction". Note him disparaging anti-imperialism and accusing the CPC of basically the worst crimes against humanity, and arguing that in the future they will practice eugenics.
Oliver Stone pretty much sealed the deal in my mind that the CIA assassinated JFK, that's one major so-called "conspiracy theory" cemented as probably true.
The U.S. state has poisoned its own citizens before, dropped bombs on people in its commonwealths. Is it poisoning the water supply? What reason would they have? Weakening agents, toothpaste lobbyists putting shit in the water to rot our teeth in order to spike demand for their product? Testing bioweapons that cause esophageal cancer? Water that causes acid reflux at the behest of Big TUMS? Their justification for using bioweapons in San Fransisco and New York were to "test against a possible hostile bioweapon attack", so we know the Amerikkkan state doesn't need justification to do anything, it's completely arbitrary and irrational at times -- as fascism is wont to be.
What about our news media? We know mainstream news outlets are bought and paid for by RFA and the NED and other NGOs the alphabet boys and the pentagon use to maintain hegemony. What about the news outlets we trust? We know the U.S. state will brazenly ban and shut down entire websites and newspapers if they're deemed a security risk (as they did with that Iranian website), but usually it's a soft-ban where social media and streaming corpos deplatform news outlets like the Grayzone, RT, Lee Camp, etc. Who's to say that the state department isn't carefully cultivating a drip-feed of true info to keep us content as a portion of the population "in the know", but just little enough to ensure that we aren't keen on the absolute, total, nightmarish barbarity of it all -- just little enough that the masses will consider us conspiracists forever. Does there exist a sort of "information bubble" that will never be popped until the state is destroyed?
I've heard some people claim that we give the modern state too much credit, that it's much weaker than it was in the Cold War days because they refuse to adapt and change strategy, and it's led by a bunch of senile fools who promote shit like "cisgender woman of color CIA agent" propaganda. On the other hand, communists seem to be split on exactly how strong the state is -- are we all on a list, or is the bureaucracy so disorganized and overwrought that a true "list" is improbable?
I don't know. Materially, if all of this is true, or if none of it is, it won't impact the fact that we need to organize, nor that Marxism is a science and framework for responding to the **material** reality as far as we are capable of witnessing it. It just bothers me. The neoliberal hegemon, in all of its cruelty, is capable of trying anything and for any reason, most usually profit.
"Anarchists are communists" now? I've never once recognized this, and I'm still kinda questioning why r/sls is so intent on playing protectionist over [people the FBI made specifically to be wreckers.](https://www.autistici.org/poderobrero/articulos/in-cointelpro-fbi-used-anarchism-to-disrupt-left-attack-vietnam-ussr) Idgi, but it frankly sickens me.
Vent, of course.
For the past decade, the impacts of climate change have made itself so incredibly clear on the coast of North Carolina. I grew up by the beach, as my father did, my grandfather did, and my great grandfather did. Eastern North Carolina and the coast of the Carolinas itself is very important to me and it is for a lot of people who have long family history there, whether it be the Lumbee or Tuscarora or any of the many different tribes that have grown their roots there in the sands of the islands. I’m not Native American myself but their stories of love and passion for the sand and the soil and the rivers that run through NC have made me feel that same love and passion for the state. Climate change’s effects on the coast are terrifying. The sea gets closer each year and the beaches become more like small cliff edges than the long walk to where the waves would once crash against the many small shells.
Towns like Rodanthe are mainly tourist towns, where those houses were initially built far from the ocean and on solid ground. Nobody usually lives there in those houses year round. They’re bought by large real estate companies and rented out for the summers to people who can pay thousands a week for them. The people who do live year round do not live in the big houses, but the smaller houses closer to the sound. They are a lot less well built than the houses on stilts. The islands are skinny on a map, but in person they can fit rows of houses. Many houses are built on stilts per NC house building codes. The laws to build homes on the barrier islands have always been strict and have to follow specific guidelines or it will not be built. The houses in Rodanthe met those guidelines. Built on stilts, far from the ocean, and it still collapsed. It’s so easy to blame us North Carolinians as individuals than accept the harrowing, scarier reason for why this is happening. The barrier islands have always been fragile, and because of their fragility they are one of the first to feel the effects of climate change. I live a few hours south of Rodanthe, but each year the winds get worse. We get 30 mph winds constantly, often up to hurricane force winds a couple times a month due to the smallest rainstorm or low pressure system. We used to fear hurricane season but now we fear each week of the year.
“It’s just houses collapsing!”
But the houses are signs of a bigger problem. With the sands shifting and the barrier islands eroding, the mainland of NC is threatened. The coast of NC is like a giant marsh. Beautiful grasses and full of life living In brackish or freshwater, each time a storm brews they are at risk of having their environments destroyed by ocean salt water. This leads to a phenomenon called “ghost forests,” where forests become flooded with salt water and the trees all die. It leaves massive tree stalks standing without the greenery of the leaves. The wood is bleached. Ghost forests are scary to look at in person. It’s unsettling.
And not only that, these eastern towns within NC were primarily founded by freed black slaves. With sea water rising, worsening storms, the loss of the barrier islands, we are losing Black communities. These communities are often very poor, as most eastern North Carolina towns are no matter the demographics of people who live there. They are the ones who are most effected by this issue, and yet people blame the white people who were able to afford buying their homes on top of hills for these problems. We talk a lot about Hurricane Katerina and how black neighborhoods were the ones who flooded the worst, as they had to live in flood plains due to bigotry and poverty. It’s the same thing here. But you know, since they’re southern, why should anyone care?
When NC was hit by the Category 5 hurricane Matthew, the last recovery package we got was 2 million dollars. We needed almost a billion dollars. Towns like Princeville, founded by freed black slaves, sat underwater until the waters eventually receded. Now they lie abandoned and rotting. Many other towns close to the coast suffer this same fate. You can see houses and buildings rotting from floodwater.
They all vote red, certainly. Voting matters when it comes to a life or death situation like this, certainly (sarcasm).
Each time the South is hit by a hurricane I hear people saying we deserve it. That we deserve it for “voting red,” and yet we don’t say they deserve earthquakes or wildfires for voting blue. I don’t think the rest of the US really understands this social code that is found in many southerners. If you don’t give us respect, we won’t respect you. If you shit on everything that is about us, our home, we won’t follow you. How do you expect southerners to follow tail to tail to you when all you do is spit on our shoes while expecting us to shine yours?
Southerners like politicians who speak to the people and promise to help. That’s why Trump was so powerful, because he spoke to the southerner and promised to help us and bring us back industry. To help let the southerner see the day where abandoned buildings weren’t everywhere and everyone wasn’t turning to drugs to cope with their situations. Yet, like all politicians, he lied. And the southerner keeps itching for a new politician to help them while propaganda is being shoved down their throat and while they’re blamed for the worlds problems.
Fact of the matter is, most of these politicians and businesses responsible for this climate crisis live and grow in blue states. A lot of politicians who lead in the south aren’t even from the south. And yet it’s us who’s responsible for everything.
Our states are so deeply corrupt and no one cares. People each year lose their homes and no one cares. Southerners have been suffering with poverty for decades and no one cares, refusing to acknowledge that the people hit the hardest aren’t white. Because they don’t care.
But I hope communists do.
So it seems to me that across many spaces there is a tendency to water down queer and gender issues into the cynical commercialism that finance capitalists have pushed for. Among communists I see this with what people in Donbas have said, what a person from the DPRK has said to a Chinese interviewer, and it is also found in the west. Also in sections of the Indigenous community oftentimes elders will claim that (ironically) white people made up Two-Spirit people, all despite evidence to the contrary.
We also see characters like Putin rallying around this idea that the west is obsessed with "gender freedoms" despite the very obvious coordinated crackdowns against these supposed "freedoms" in the west.
When I hear people make these claims I am baffled because I am certain that colonialism has damaged and (attempted to) erase Indigenous gender expressions around the world. To say that queer issues can be boiled down to liberalism is clearly false and likley has its root in colonialism. Yet communists and other forces that are otherwise opposed to the financial imperialist system are not unified on this issue.
It does seem clear that the west tries to weaponize human rights to justify war and to justify investments. It also demonizes and makes sure to show when its enemies show these sentiments. But this reactionary strain of communism has failed to explain how the bourgeoisie apparently invented trans people without simply criticising their least favorite liberal feminist or gender theorist (perhaps Judith Butler). But gender is dynamic and if it has been molded by capital in this way then it should be demonstrable beyond criticisms of a single theorist or a single field.
I myself am absolutely no expert on gender or queer theory. Im straight and grew up in a reactionary home. Im hoping people here can give insight on how to address these issues that exist among communists. I think we can tallow the west to use human rights to further colonize the world and gender issues accross the world probably manifest differently and that should be understood and respectes. Simultaneously, we cant allow this erroneous view that the western bourgeoisie is not only the protector of gender rights, but its progenitor.
Anyways, I am hoping for some discussion on this.
Transcript, starting with me:
> Is it true that they caused a huge CO2 spike and that most of the iron was useless? I know that anticommies are claiming this but I don't know how to refute them.
>Why are you asking me? I'm also pretty sure you banned me from ShitLiberalsSay, So why should i help you?
> Never mind.
>Yeah, fuck off liberal.
(For context, I only suspended this individual for a few days.)
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/185305
> cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/185304
> > Hey comrades, this is an article I've written in response to DashRendar's essay on Maoism, which you can find here:
> > https://dashthered.medium.com/yo-dawg-the-maoists-have-a-point-9024983ee56a
> > Consider this the "full" version of a response I made here on Lemmygrad just a few days ago. I realised that I had way too much to say to fit into a well-formatted post here, so I made an account on Medium and wrote an entire article instead :D Hope you comrades enjoy.
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/181959
> NOTE: Please do not go out and attack or harass [@DashRendar@lemmygrad.ml](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/DashRendar) for writing this essay. This is meant to be a civil exchange of ideas, not a witch hunt. Thank you.
> Well comrades, I'm back at it again for another response post. Last time we had fun clowning on Enigma's attempt to portray Russia as socialist, but this time around things are a bit more serious. Because recently [@DashRendar@lemmygrad.ml](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/DashRendar), a well-respected comrade in our community known for his long, comprehensive essays, has gone down the hill a bit.
> Recently Dash published a 46-minute long essay on Medium titled "Yo dawg, the Maoists have a point". In this appropriately-titled essay, Dash essentially argues that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the only correct ideological path, that Marxism-Leninism itself is outdated and useless, and that only anti-revisionist Maoism can save us.
> Here's a link to the original essay:
> I want to start by saying I have a lot of respect for Dash and I have enjoyed many of his articles, which makes it all the more unfortunate to see him adopt such an unrealistic position as this. Therefore I see it as my civic duty to respond to this essay and refute its points to the best of my ability. Unlike last time I'm not gonna just go through the article dissecting every point I can - otherwise we'd be here all day - rather I'm going to organise Dash's main points into a numbered list and scrutinise them that way.
> As Stalin would say, let us get down to business.
> **Claim #1 - "Maoists have accomplished way more than Marxist-Leninists in the past 40 years"**
> A recurring theme you will see in this essay is Dash being adamant about the fact that regular old Leninists have not achieved anything significant revolutionary-wise in the past 40 years, as compared to the several Maoist revolutions happening around the world today. While I do agree with this point in the sense that Leninists have made no real revolutionary gains since the fall of the USSR, I do find this criticism rather unfair.
> What Dash doesn't seem to recognise is just how devastated the left was with the fall of the USSR, the most powerful socialist country in the world which funded and exported revolutions to numerous countries for decades, and also funded many international communist parties. When the USSR collapsed, it was like the heart being removed from the human body. Many communist parties completely fell off due to the loss of support, and many were even outright banned as a preemptive measure, as was the case with the Communist Party of Canada.
> If anything, what China is doing today is arguably for the better by not trying to export revolution like the USSR did. As communists we cannot rely on a single state or a single central power to basically fund all our revolutions for us, tactically it's just incredibly prone to failure as the USSR's collapse perfectly demonstrated.
> This is why, as Leninists, we have instead dedicated much of our time since the fall of the USSR to learning about the structure of AES like China, Cuba, the DPRK and Vietnam, countries that have not only survived in a post-Soviet world, but continue to thrive in it. It is our duty to learn about what these countries did that the USSR didn't do, which can provide something of a framework for our revolutions so that we don't fall into the same trap as the USSR.
> Of course Dash doesn't see it that way. This is what he thinks of MLs supporting AES:
> > Where, even, is the [Marxist-Leninist] theoretical debate? It always defaults back to some form of shut up and critically support ‘Actually Existing Socialist states,’ with no theory or formula for bringing new socialisms into a state of actually existing.
> I wonder why Dash is so hostile to AES states... oh yeah, I forgot. This is anti-SWCC, pro-Mao hit piece. Of course! Dash thinks all current AES states are revisionist.
> Well, what does Dash suggest we do about preventing revisionism/eradicating bourgeois elements in our socialist society?
> **Claim #2 - "The Cultural Revolution was good for China"**
> Hoo boy.
> That's right folks. Dash tries to argue that Mao successfully curbed revisionism and bourgeois elements of the Communist Party in China by launching the Cultural Revolution. Worse yet, Dash goes so far as to claim that the Cultural Revolution wasn't even about culture:
> > Part of the problem of understanding the Cultural Revolution (usually called the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, or GPCR by Maoists) is that “Marxist-Leninists” think it was either like Mao trying to do-over China’s culture [...] Cultural Revolution is the continuation of Civil War — the fight to the death between the now dominant proletariat and the remnants of the bourgeoisie and their allies. The Cultural Revolution is the process of grinding down the bourgeoisie, taking away everything from them (their expertise, their wealth, their accumulation, their power, their institutions, and all the gates they keep) and distributing it to the masses and crushing all the capitalists and counter-revolutionaries that attempt to stop or impede this process.
> Right, because it's not like cultural elements such as Buddhism became under heavy persecution during this time period, or anything else.
> But even by your own definition of a so-called Cultural Revolution, all these attempts to "give back" to the proletariat were clearly a failure, as the Chinese economy continued to suffer from a short food supply and widespread poverty, especially among the peasantry, during the 1960s and 70s. Only when Deng assumed office did things begin to improve; so much so that China became one of the fastest-growing countries in the world as a result of market reforms and the introduction of the Chinese labour force to the global market. Only then did absolute poverty in China finally begin to take a nosedive.
> This is because the Cultural Revolution was quite unabashedly about ideology over materialism. For all it emphasised the importance of taking everything away from the bourgeoisie and what have you, it was quite obviously a movement that prioritised ideology over material reality; it was about instilling a communist mentality into as many people in all sectors of China as possible, and it was the assumption of Mao that once this process was completed and the "communised" workers had all the means of production, then everything would suddenly work out. Somehow this would suddenly cure all the widespread poverty most peasants were still experiencing as a result of the failures of the Great Leap Forward.
> This is pure idealism. And for someone like Dash who goes on and on about how Marx and Engels argued for scientific socialism in the face of revisionists of their time, this doesn't seem like a very scientific thought process to be advocating for.
> I think [@email@example.com](https://lemmygrad.ml/u/juchebot88) said it best in his comment underneath Dash's original post:
> > One can argue that Deng went to far, and ultimately fell into right deviation. But we should not allow this to obscure the fact that Gang of Four were massively left-deviant, and that Deng’s occasional rightism was simply the inevitable reaction. Thus, if China during the 1990s came dangerously close to neoliberalism, it was ultimately the fault, not of Deng, but of the Gang of Four.
> The reason Marxist-Leninists are either ambivalent or outright opposing of the Cultural Revolution is because it is pure left-deviant idealism that ignores material reality. And if you're a communist who rejects or ignores materialism, then, well, are you even a communist?
> > This is why you see fucking bourgeois assholes getting yelled at en masse by fifty thousand people waving red books at them in all these photos. They said or did something reactionary and the masses shamed and berated the shit out of them for it. It was fucking awesome.
> Sorry Dash, but edgy internet quotes like these aren't going to eliminate absolute poverty in China.
> Anyways, I'm going to leave it off here for right now, because my response to Claim #3 is too long to fit into Lemmy's character limit, and plus I've think I've written enough to keep you comrades entertained plenty. I'll try to come out with part two of my response tomorrow, but hopefully I've already given you comrades enough to think about with regards to the state of Marxism-Leninism and the Leninist critique of the Cultural Revolution.
> Stay tuned comrades!
>As the war in Ukraine grinds on, I feel like I should take the time to talk about tankies within the Left. Whoo boy.
>First, what is a tankie?
>The term originates from the 2nd half of the 20th century. There was a large schism within the Left at that time, after the Soviet union rolled tanks into Hungary and Czechoslovakia when the two tried to break out of the Soviet sphere of influence.
>While most leftists opposed this, there were some weirdos who supported the Soviets in their brutal crackdowns. These were the OG tankies back then.
>Second, the Soviet Union back in that time period. It wasn't socialist or communist. It was a fascistic oligarchy, that later transitioned into far-right kleptocracies, with the exception of those countries that ended up with the West.
>Here's the name of the game: build a totalitarian dictatorship with a ruling class of strongmen and cleptocrats, and then put "The People's" in front of the name.
>As such, the People's Republic of Hungary wasn't the people's and wasn't a republic, just like every other country under Soviet military occupation.
>Enter modern day tankies, carrying the torch of authoritarianism onward. If you've seen leftists in support of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, chances are they were tankies.
>The alpha and omega of tankie political thought is "US bad" (here "US" includes the West as a whole). From this, they extrapolated that anything opposing the US must be good by definition.
>Who opposed or currently opposes the US? The Soviet Union. China. Russia. Syria. North Korea. Cuba. The list goes on.
>You might notice that these countries all happen to be horrible dictatorships with the aforementioned ruling classes of strongmen and cleptocrats. They disappear people with dissenting political opinions, forming opposition parties or opposing news outlets is either banned or severely restricted, heavy state propaganda is broadcast to the population 24/7, and so on.
>Every person with an IQ above room temperature (in Celsius) agrees that these governments are the opposite of good.
>Why? Because US bad.
>In their minds the US is such a comically overexaggerated evil that even the most horrible actions taken by opposing governments are justified.
>China bans forming independent workers' unions? Well, they have to, because those unions would be controlled by the CIA.
>Cuba throws political dissidents in jail? Well, they have to, because those people are surely US-puppets.
>Russia invades Ukraine after the latter drifts away from its sphere of influence? Well, they had to, they were afraid of US-led "NATO expansion".
>You might have guessed it already, but tankies aren't leftists. They only adopted the aesthetics of what many consider "leftist", i.e. symbols associated with the Soviet Union for the most part. Otherwise they're just fascists painted red.
>Leftists don't stan for dictatorships and oligarchies. Tankies do.
>Leftists don't condone jailing political opponents. Tankies do.
>Leftists don't deny genocides like the Holodomor, or what China does to Uygurs. Tankies do.
>Leftists don't support Russian blood and soil imperialistic action against Ukraine. Tankies do.
>The list goes on.
>Especially now, every effort must be taken to excise these lunatics from the left, and send them off to the far-right where they belong. Otherwise they'll keep festering on leftism like a tumor, making it much harder to bring people over.
>Next time you see a tankie, feel free to hurl a creative insult of your choice in their direction. In fact, you should.
>Thank you, rant over.
>[[*insert tiresome and unfunny ableist image here*](https://invidious.snopyta.org/ggpht/dOAfhO20SCBoMQ-kx7HVTcugCwS_h_SwTniDyv40YitGtIkODe5lu8Nv0uwH3shL-BNlPsxrBS_gTA=s560-c-fcrop64=1,03540000fcabffff-nd-v1)]
So, we have:
1. Brushing off criticism by changing the subject,
2. Ignorantly equating privileged Ukrainian neofascists with their less privileged Russian equivalents and
3. Creating another ‘big tent’ or class collaborationist movement. (Because that worked out so well for the Makhnovshchina, am I right?)
There’s also a strong implication that they’re fighting for one bourgeois state over another, but you can be generous and assume that they’re merely interested in protecting ordinary Ukrainians, if you want.
You know, I never thought that I’d be clamouring for all those dull and cowardly ‘both sides are bad’ comments and sentiments, but Judas Priest, at least those would be a little more circumspect. I’m almost surprised that, so far, nobody has said ‘red fash’ or rereminded us about the Molotov Cocktease Pact again.
(On the plus side, [at least some other anarchists know better.](https://nitter.net/i/status/1500085721373106176#m))
Instant feelings of elation, instant feelings of being trapped in a crowd of brainwashed 14-year old lemmings are finally leaving my body. my stress levels have gone down, my productivity has gone up.
I have learned a few things: f.e. all non-federated non user driven non matrix client based social media sites can tonguebathe my hairy mocca salient.
I m not saying this plattform will not one day suffer the same fate, as all platforms and companys at some point join the lemming festival and jump over the cliff. Usually due to the ever same economical problems that cause all platform of a certain size to have to deal with a whole bunch of lawyers affiliates, interest groups, notices and paperwork hardly a developer (or a handful for that matter) can handle alone, and this is where things start to get out of hand. and i ve seen it all over the place. at some point public money infusion or moderation drive is needed and that doesn't come without a catch.
And now let me mention the fact that for years, major lefitst subs had been taken over by shitlibs and infiltrated by rightwing brigading and psychic-nudging astroturf and then fall for every political campaign that pretends to have a red stripe hidden somewhere, maybe, potentially.... which is probably why we are alll here...
I think judging by the posts on this instance, a lot of people here didn't think that Russia would take military action against Ukraine. I was one of those people. Hell, even yesterday I wasn't expecting to wake up to this. But I think it's safe to say that that position was incorrect.
I've read opinions from communists on both sides *now that it's happened* of whether the military action was justified or not, but it seems that few are reflecting on the fact that we were wrong about the prediction that there was not going to be military action. Personally, I'm very surprised that this happened. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
The purpose of this community is sort of a “work out your frustrations by letting it all out” where different leftist tendencies can vent their frustrations with one another and more assertively and directly challenge one another. Hostility is allowed, but any racist, fascist, or reactionary crap wont be tolerated, nor will explicit threats.