Populism
3

Communism is true populism, and real populism is communism, ask any random Chinese person who was, is, and will be the communist party fighting for and they will answer the people. For example populism is redundant in China because it is a given that all politics must be “populist”.

Real socialism is populist because populism is supposed to mean serving the masses but every “populist” who is not a communist (today not historically) is just a fake populist who is only in power to prevent the rise of class consciousness among the masses.

There is definitely an anti-establishment current emerging in the United States, but it is up to the communist party to emerge as leader over it as opposed to other (fake) populist forces that form and show how communism is true populism and win over the minds of the people.

Socialist patriots want a socialist United States but there are people calling themselves socialist who want it to be called “Turtle Island” because they think America is fundamentally stained and Americans are all settlers benefiting from imperialism. Despite this being so divorced from the masses as all they know is the US and the vast majority identity with the US. Socialism isn’t just about having ‘correct beliefs.’ If your position doesn’t allow you to build a mass, POPULAR movement of your countrys MAJORITY, then you are not a socialist. It is socialism that delivers true patriotism and socialism that delivers true populism and only socialism which can as it is the scientific vehicle moving society forward.

Revolutionary defeatism is the stance American communists need to take internationally and when it comes to the oppression of oppressed peoples inside the US, but that needs to be backed up by real patriotism not the phony patriotism of the ruling class. We are patriotic to the people themselves, not the current state. We want to win over the masses and establish a socialist state to serve the masses because only with communism can the mythos of the American dream be made reality for the masses.

enigma
creator
link
3
edit-2
15h

What if I was to tell you that I was working class:

I was anti-government, anti deep-state.

Anti-elite/ultrarich/bourgeoisie.

Anti-establishment.

Anti-corporation/monopolies Anti-MSM.

Anti-idpol, equal rights, live and let live.

Anti-immigration, seeing immigration for what it is, braindrain.

Anti-war, anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-racist.

Pro strong state to serve the people.

Pro a government of action for working families.

Pro conservative, centrally planned economy.

Pro worker/small business/farmers.

Pro populism.

Pro wealth, pro material abundance, not anti-billionaire.

Pro environmental/animal conservation.

Pro gun ownership, anti-ACAB slogan.

Pro immigrant.

Pro self-determination.

Nationalist, patriot.

Pragmatic, thinking of how things can be directly applied to my community/state.

Believed that taxation was theft of the working man.

Landlords with one house not the problem, landlords with 100s and 1000s are.

Facts and logic don’t care about your feelings.

What happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom.

You’d probably think that I was conservative but no I am a communist.

Liberals would be calling for my arrest.

@peanutbutter
link
22M

Pro a government of action for working families

o7

enigma
creator
link
2
edit-2
14d

When it comes to American leftists, they sure love to focus on issues with don’t have anything to do with the majority of people.

The economic and political are 99% of issues and the social is only 1% but Americans seem to hyperfocus on divisive identity culture wars which plays into the bosses hands because americans are highly polarised within a narrow overton window giving the illusion of difference leading to team sport mentality. Even before the neoliberal era, “social issues” used to refer to matters of housing and health and occasionally societal issues such as abortion and gay rights, but since then, it has only ever refered to identity politics of the individual.

Leftists become associated with this identity confrontation due to the liberals, while right liberals (conservatives) are the reaction to this, often even American “Marxists” themselves will make out the social issues to be the most important focus and completely ignore the economic issues. Ironically since Occupy Wall Street, leftists have become more and more pro-establishment, pro-NATO, pro-intervention and it is the Trump faction of the republican party which is dominant over the party which has taken on the anti-establishment aesthetic (of course Trump is a phony). While so called “ACAB” supporters praise the police crackdown on rightwingers, and today seeing anyone who identifies as a “leftist” oppose NATO is seen as a good start when before that was a given

It is because of this that us Marxists and us revolutionaries must break from the left-right wing paradigm if we want to win because Marxism-Leninism transcends the linear and binary political compass and it is up to us to ensure that we tread the golden centre of Stalin and not tread past the tightrope to revisionism on the right or ultra-leftism on the left.

ACAB is a slogan which in general just puts us backwards. Most people know individual cops but of course we know that the true nature of the police force is to serve capital. When it comes to the police I completely agree with this Parenti piece. Those who are already communists know that ACAB refers to the police as an institution, but average people when they hear that the term think it means we are calling all individual officers bad people. This definitely does alienate a large percentage of people from our cause and plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie keeping us divided. ACAB is an anarchist/radlib slogan not one communists should be using because it can be exploited against socialist states, which as we know still retain police forces and have to maintain law and order. When that order breaks down, all states, including socialist ones are susceptible to regime change, which gets exploited by the imperialists themselves. We must be careful as to our wording. I do however have no problem when it comes to people in the ghetto being against cops and pigs in phrasing because it is these (poor and minority) communities which suffer the most at the hands of the police and it is through rap and other artistic form that anti-establishment sentiment can be sown.

“Eat the rich” is almost as cringe as “ACAB” because rich is subjective and even the slightly well off man down the road thinks he’s “rich”. We must ensure that our actions and phrasing is directly against the true enemy of the working class, the capitalists themselves, and that it isn’t against the worker who is slightly better off. One good thing that came out of OWS was the slogan “99% vs the 1%” because in comparison to “Eat the rich”, this slogan explicitely is raising the issue of class itself and while class relations are far more complex than this, it was a far better starting point to build a mass movement from and far less easy to exploit by the capitalist media. I think it is because of this (as well as the anti-establishment rap songs which were everywhere) and the rise of the internet which led to widespread anti-establishment sentiment. From this we saw such a reversal of this trend from the late 00s, as censorship became widespread, the internet became monpolised, as well as manipulation of algorithms to prevent the masses waking up.

(There are also terms that come from liberal metropolitan university ivory towers pushed by academics on the masses to refer to groups of people. These terms are academic jargon terms and more often than not these terms are hated by the people they are actually supposed to describe. For example “POC/BIPOC” and “Queer”. “POC” is hated by a majority of people it describes and has evolved from a gesture of solidarity to one of skirting around racial issues. “Queer” is hated by a vast majority of LGBT people. The same also applies to ‘latinx’. Of course it is obvious with these terms that they have their uses, it is clear that when the vast majority of people they are describing dislike or even hate the term, that they should be avoided when referring to those groups of people if at all possible. This is what I mean when I talk of academic jargon terms being pushed on people. We should avoid the jargon and get down to real issues and talk to the masses with normal terms they are familiar with not academic jargon they don’t identify with.)

When it comes to our sloganeering, phrases such as ACAB which require context to understand can come back to bite us because if you have to keep explaining a slogan then that slogan becomes useless. It is far too easy for our enemies to play up a strawman of our views and use that to keep us from winning the masses. “Eat the rich” can also similarly be exploited.

enigma
creator
link
2
edit-2
14d

Race is a social construct dependent on where you are, who is defining it and how it is defined". Race science comes from Anglo-Colonial pseudo-science to justify slavery and colonialism for the bosses and to divide the exploited classes on the basis of skin tone/pigment/melanin and DNA/Haplogroup/Ethnicity etc.

However while it is a social construct, it does have real meaning in simple terms since the colonial era. For example, to an African man living in Johannesburg, it is obvious that the fair skinned man (white) who came to enforce apartheid was serving the whites in trying to keep the majority who are darked skinned (black) people down. Whereas in the past before this dialectic came up through the onset of colonialism, different African groups fought each other, had vastly different cultures, languages and looked different, whereas against the white man, they were all black and in the struggle for African liberation after the colonisers left they were also black. The same holds true today globally as we live in a globalised society and one in which the vast majority of people outside of the imperial core (which is overwhelmingly white) are not white and are under the lock of imperialism.

While we must oppose race essentialism, it is undeniably that different racial groups will have different interests. For example, the promise of 40 acres and a mule to the black people of America which was promised to them after freedom from slavery was never fulfilled, instead they were ignored, segregated and later Jim Crow laws made them poor. All of this has a real impact still to this day and even today they suffer in much higher rates from police violence. From this there is the potential to build a mass movement of black people which will deliver 40 acres and a mule to every black family and which will uplift the community. The affirmative action programs of today, which are based on race and not class are clearly made to divide as poor whites get left out while even rich blacks benefit, this should in the future be based on wealth. Giving land to black families would greatly uplift the community and would be an impetus for a cultural and social revolution as a rejuvenation is brought to the rural areas and black culture would thrive.

Similarly in America, when it comes to the native people, they are of course after a revolution going to have the right to self determination on a tribe by tribe basis and this will also serve as part of a massive land reform program which will see the poverty of reservations be no more and will uplift them and allow them to thrive and be respected and contribute to their communities in ways which were impossible through the reservation system which oppresses them. Both of these are massive impetuses for popular support in these communities which are both significant minorities. There is so much land owned by corporations and capitalists that other groups would of course also be included in an extensive land reform program.

I discuss this in detail here:

enigma
creator
link
6
edit-2
5d

Also to address those who hold some dogmatic idea that “populism” means “mob rule” whatever that is supposed to mean to entail as if it is a buzzword.

“Mob rule” is a slanderous term invented by the bourgeois historians to slander populist leaders and movements throughout history. However what is wrong with it? Real socialism is populist because populism is supposed to mean serving the masses and under a socialist system they themselves are in power. Only socialism has historically, and only socialism can provide this future to the working masses.

@ksynwa
admin
link
24M

Mob rule is cool and good

Discussion Community for fellow Marxist-Leninists and other Marxists.

Rules for /c/communism

Rules that visitors must follow to participate. May be used as reasons to report or ban.

  1. No non-marxists

This subreddit is here to facilitate discussion between marxists.

There are other communities aimed at helping along new communists. This community isn’t here to convert naysayers to marxism.

If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.

  1. No oppressive language

Do not attempt to justify your use of oppressive language.

Doing this will almost assuredly result in a ban. Accept the criticism in a principled manner, edit your post or comment accordingly, and move on, learning from your mistake.

We believe that speech, like everything else, has a class character, and that some speech can be oppressive. This is why speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned.

TERF is not a slur.

  1. No low quality or off-topic posts

Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed.

This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on lemmy or anywhere else.

This includes memes and circlejerking.

This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found.

We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.

  1. No basic questions about marxism

Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed.

Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum.

  1. No sectarianism

Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here.

Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable.

If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis.

The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.

Check out ProleWiki for a communist wikipedia.

bottombanner

  • 0 users online
  • 10 users / day
  • 18 users / week
  • 49 users / month
  • 155 users / 6 months
  • 3.73K subscribers
  • 2.29K Posts
  • 7.08K Comments
  • Modlog