Yes it does. Were they socialist? No. That’s why we aren’t calling them that. “Patsoc” used for a socialchauvinist is a wretched word, entirely giving away very important concept and castrating yourself.
It’s fine if american communist don’t want to use that word, even if a little misguided, as Lenin explained, but don’t push that as general rule, it’s american exceptionalism and it’s defeatism.
Again, “national socialism” is excellent example in yet another way. Just look at the history of the world after WW2. how many systems that could be easily name “national socialism” were there, but we can’t name them like this, because this term is forever lost, even despite it means something completely unrelated to socialism. Don’t lose more ground, class war is going here too.
Yes it does. Were they socialist? No. That’s why we aren’t calling them that. “Patsoc” used for a socialchauvinist is a wretched word, entirely giving away very important concept and castrating yourself.
It’s fine if american communist don’t want to use that word, even if a little misguided, as Lenin explained, but don’t push that as general rule, it’s american exceptionalism and it’s defeatism.
Again, “national socialism” is excellent example in yet another way. Just look at the history of the world after WW2. how many systems that could be easily name “national socialism” were there, but we can’t name them like this, because this term is forever lost, even despite it means something completely unrelated to socialism. Don’t lose more ground, class war is going here too.
I’m just being pedantic, I think you have a good point with “social chauvinist”.