The 'Nazbol' Vortex

Part of This Series of Posts:

The terms ‘nazbol’ and ‘red-fash’ or ‘red-brown’ gets thrown around a lot lately, even by self-professed ‘Communists’. The people who use these terms tend to be liberals who slander Communists and want to associate us with the horrors and brutality of fascism, while at the same time denouncing our history as such. This is in great contrast to the brutality that the Soviet had to endure and their heroic sacrifice in defeating the Nazis. While at the same time there are also ‘Communists’ who use this term to slander real Communists.

However while all this is a recent trend on the internet. (With some clowns actually identifying with and filling in the blanks of a meme ideology). In real life the real meaning (it’s real material application) of the term nazbol could not be further from that of the internet. In Russia the nazbol party was not actually a meme fusion of Nazism and Communism, in reality it’s ideology was actually a strange fusion of anarchism, liberalism and some fascist elements with nationalist characteristics and it’s membership was comprised almost exclusively of hippies. It rejected racism with the fascist elements being that it wanted Russia to unite the former U.S.S.R. through conquest (remember that this was the 90’s in the fallout of the U.S.S.R.'s collapse) and that it was a party that emphasised Russian ethnicity over other ethnic groups.

While these terms might originally have been used on the internet as memes to mock both Communism and fascism at the same time, it has also more recently began to be used by radical-liberals online deceptively to suggest that Communists are similar to fascists. Making out that both are ‘totalitarian’ (which is a term invented by the CIA and has been used to suggest that anyone who opposes the established liberal/globalist world order is fascist). According to these radical-liberals, anyone who opposes the unfettered imperialism of the United States is a ‘nazbol’ and any state that dares stand in their way is ‘red-fash’ or ‘red-brown’.

Radlibs such as ‘Vaush’ (who ironically are social-fascists, social-imperialists and even outright imperialists for their support of U.S. imperialist narratives time and time again) try to claim that Russia, China (and other anti-imperialist states) are ‘red-brown’ states, this whole argument is an imperialist argument that sets the precedent for US imperialism in Eastern Europe and elsewhere on ‘humanitarian’ grounds coming from the left. Ironically in Russia all nationalist parties are banned, this includes Nazi groups and nazbol parties, while parties that suck up to the west such as liberal parties are also banned with their leaders going to jail. An example of both would be Alexei Navalny who has a history of using slurs and even violence against minority groups. What is even more ironic is that despite all this Navalny is still pushed by the west and despite all their media fawning over him he enjoys absolutely zero popular support in Russia.

The term ‘red-brown alliance’ was used to dismiss the peaceful protestors of the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis who opposed the rigging of the election against the Communists, and other parties who opposed the austerity of Yeltsin (who was backed the CIA). The police used violence against the protestors killing 147 people. Yeltsin refered to the protestors as a ‘red-brown alliance’. What made this whole situation even worse is that even internationally some Communist parties (such as the CPUSA) used this term and denounced the protestors.

The term is also used to refer to anyone who holds ‘social conservative’ views, radlibs were calling Pedro Castillo a ‘nazbol’ prior to his election as President of Peru, for his previous opposition to gay marriage. All this is despite the fact that historically Communists have been for the most part conservative with regard what we now call ‘social issues’ (prior to the neo-liberal era this term referred to issues such as housing and healthcare). The reason that the western left does this is so that they can completely dismiss mass movmements in the third-world as ‘reactionary’ and beneath them. They focus on social issues in the west so as to distract from their economic failings and failure to reach the masses as a result and so they can push their ‘humanitarian’ and ‘woke’ imperialism on the world under the guise of the left. Ironically these third-world movements are often more progressive on these issues than the western left themselves. Here is a good article which debunks lies from American leftists on this matter.

The people who use this term also use the term so as to protect the ruling class. Whenever we talk about the DoTB (normalised as the ‘Deep State’) or the bourgeoisie (normalised as the ‘Elites’) they cry ‘nazbol’ and assume that we are talking about a certain ethnicity, Jewish people, as they have already due to the use of this term equated us with Nazis. However what is ironic is that they are themselves anti-semetic because they are making the assumption that the elite and the establishment are composed solely of Jews or otherwise that there is no elite, when this could not be further from the truth. They show their true colours and expose themselves for who and what they are.

“Furthermore, [radlib] voices tend to argue that anything resembling Lenin’s analysis of capitalism in its imperialist stage is somehow anti-semitic. [Radlibs] will often claim that references to bankers, international bankers, or globalism is merely a coded repackaging of Nazi conspiracy theories about Jewish global domination. This allegation is absurd, and would render not just all adherents of Marxism-Leninism, but also many liberal critics of globalisation such as Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, and Naomi Klein to be Nazi propagandists” - Caleb T. Maupin

I have demonstrated the complete hypocrisy and malicious intent of those who use this term. It is clear that these are terms that we should avoid as they are used to slander and divide our movement. Given that fascism is the psychosis (breakdown) of liberalism, it should be of no suprise that that the fascism of the future will come from radlibs. We have seen recently their support of big tech censorship (‘conservatives’ are right-liberals while ‘liberals’ are left-liberals, the point is that radlibs are the avant-garde of liberalism) with them even becoming the footsoldiers (similar spiritually as to how the lumpen were the footsoldiers of Bonparte despite him serving finance capital primarily) of the Silicon Valley cartel crackdown on anti-imperialist voices. We have also seen their recent support for the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine (as well as other CIA backed counter-gangs elsewhere). As the U.S. empire continues to breakdown and the quality of life decreases at home and society collapses, we can expect them to become the footsoldiers of imperialism, reaction and further authoritarianism at home, and in a last ditched attempt to hold onto their quality of life and empire, who knows what they could do?

Camarada Forte

Very nice text, comrade. The fact that Caleb Maupin has been called a misogynist, a transphobe, a Nazbol and other bogus claims by liberals makes me believe his work is somewhat hurting the current establishment. Although I couldn’t verify some of those claims, if they are true, we should be critical of those views but not necessarily dismiss all of his work. The same goes for people like Paul Cockshott, for instance, which is a full-blown outspoken and virulent transphobe, but does great work in the economic and theoretical field, except for his essentialist vulgar materialist views on gender shared by his peers on CPGB-ML.

The Hegelian dialectic teaches us that to overcome/sublate (Aufhebung) the abstract towards the concrete, we must not disregard the abstract entirely, but also retain the useful portions of it. If an incorrect view is enough to dismiss a whole body of work, we learn nothing, because everyone is bound to make mistakes. Their mistakes, however, should be correctly acknowledged in every possible opportunity.

Just imagine if Marx dismissed Hegel because he had idealist deviations and became a grumpy metaphysician in his later years. Engels would have written his ground-breaking work Socialism: utopian and less-utopian


Very good points comrade.

As Mao said:

“It is good if we are attacked by the enemy… It demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but also achieved a great deal in our work” - Mao Zedong

Remember that the bourgeoisie will mercilessly attack and slander those individuals who expose their agenda, look at what happened to Julian Assange.

With regard the work of Caleb Maupin I have a great post debunking all of the lies and slander directed towards him.

Remember what Caleb said:

“There will will never be a socialism that the New York Times approves of” - Caleb T. Maupin

This applies as well to individuals who are anti-establishment and do good work in opposing the status quo and building a mass movement.


What these threads do is load up on quotes and citations but only those that support their point. Everything inconvenient is not addressed at all and the same goes for Maupin.

In 2018, Maupin met with Dugin, the founder of the Nazbol party. Before making the nazbol party, Dugin was in various fascist orgs. He even participated against the Soviet Union while it existed. So in this sense OP is right that nazbolism has 0 things to do with communism.

But Maupin apparently enjoyed hanging around Dugin, because he praised him at the time and doesn’t want to call Dugin a fascist or ex-fascist. He does admit Dugin is a conservative, but you know, that’s also what liberals say when they kinda like a fascist. So it’s not really a damning criticism.

And if you ask Maupin directly, he will block you. He will debate fascists (which we shouldn’t be opposed to on principle), but will block other comrades and distance himself from them as “not true communists” or whatever when they have questions about his relationship with Dugin. He doesn’t want to address it and that’s why comrades (whether good or great, new or old) call him a nazbol. Well, he also said weird stuff before the Dugin thing and declined explaining it to put other comrades at ease. The video of his appearance at the 2018 conference has also been mostly purged from the internet, but this person (no idea who they are) talks about it here: and provides clips.

In typical American exceptionalism however, their leaders – no matter how obscure – should become our leaders as well (I remember a now defunct communist party that started in the USA and was exported to a few other countries under the same name, but I forgot their name). As a European, I really don’t care that much about what Maupin does. It’s disheartening when comrades sweep his controversies under the rug but at the end of the day, it’s a question for Americans to answer. Maupin has also edified himself to a leadership position with his center for political innovation… perhaps he suffers from the delusion that he’s the one true communist and needs to put everyone else back on the right track.

Perhaps Maupin is more palatable. He has ties to Haz from Infrared (including Haz very much liking Maupin and identifying with his theory), who has veered into full reactionary communism in a very short amount of time. Haz is unhinged and maybe that’s why Maupin gets the spotlight, he’s more palatable.

That anarchists use nazbol to dismiss the ebil tankies is not really a problem. Anarchists and radlibs have always rattled their sabres at us, it’s not gonna change anytime soon. Now they even started calling each other tankies lol, let’s just leave them in their locked room and not disturb the pigsty. By this logic we shouldn’t use the term imperialism because radlibs call China imperialist?

Moreover while nazbolism has become sort of a meme on the internet, it does exist in similar (not identical!) forms in the rest of the world. Alain Soral is also a meme on the internet, but he’s a French nazbol. He’s dangerous as well. The more general definition of nazbol would be left on labour, right on values. He does use some marxist language (or close to) but then promotes a Christian, assimilationist France (you can be black in his France, you just can’t be anything other than French, with French values). These are very real people trying to influence policies using the powerful framework of marxism, and they should be taken seriously.


Back in 2018, Caleb Maupin attended a Conference by the name of ‘The Alternatives to Globalisation’ which is held every year, of which the key theme of the year was ‘The Strategies of the Multipolar World’. Also in attendence was the ‘Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union’, the youth wing of the Communist Party of Vietnam, along with the PSUV of Venezuela, the Islamic Republican party of Iran and several other anti-imperialist parties and organisations. Caleb was in attendence due to his employment at Russia Today (RT) and was there to offer his viewpoints which he wanted to put out there, rather than them (our viewpoints) not getting heard, because if we don’t get out there and present our viewpoints they simply won’t be seen.

At the conference he gave a speech which I am sure you would agree with if you listened to. In it he focused on anti-imperialism, the need to fight the ruling order as well as the need for populism in the American Communist movement. It was not a debate, Caleb merely gave his viewpoint while the other speakers sat beside him (two of which were Fourth Positionists, and one who was a fascist, as they were also invited as they claim their viewpoint opposes liberalism and globalism) while an audience below them listened on. This was not Caleb agreeing with them or pandering to them, it was Caleb offering his viewpoint and presenting it in his speech. He also mentioned how he often got called a ‘Duginist’ despite never before reading Dugin’s works, which ended up leading him to read Dugin’s ‘Fourth Political Theory’ and from this he realised he did not agree with Dugin, but not that he completely dismissed Dugin. He saw some good in the idea of the ‘Multipolar World’ and the opposition his idea of ‘Eurasianism’ poses to U.S. imperialism:

“In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution. The new Eurasian empire will be constructedon the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the U.S., and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilisational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union” - Alexander Dugin

“The philosophers Locke and Kant described the project of ‘civil society’ in which nation-states were to be abolished. Some individuals could theoretically do without them. This is how the philosophy of cosmopolitanism arose, involving the abolition of nation-states and (as an ideal) the creation of a World Government. This was the birth of globalism albeit in theory” - Alexander Dugin

“There is another, ‘hidden’, ‘secret’ or ‘implicit’ unipolarity, that is globalism, multilateralism, and the so-called ‘No Polarity’ promoted by the chief of the Council on Foreign Relations. We roughly call this ‘globalisation.’ Globalisation means that all systems, societies, peoples and countries in the world will accept the Western way of progress, development, human rights, democracy, and liberalism. And when this happens, there will be no great differences between the United States, Russia, China, or Africa. Everyone will be ‘equal.’ But in what sense? Everybody will become Americans, Western, and everybody must like liberal democracy and human rights. This is a special kind of globalism. It is not a dialogue between countries, cultures, and civilisations. For example, Russia has proposed Russian values, and China has proposed a Chinese identity. But there should not be any collective identity in this concept of globalisation. Everybody should be equal precisely because everyone should only be statistical individuals - no cultures, no religions, no ethnic roots” - Alexander Dugin

(Just as a sidenote I have not read Dugin, and I am sure it is the same for the vast majority of people here, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but from everything I have heard and I am aware of) I do not agree with Dugin at all (except in opposition to U.S. imperialism), but it is clear to me that Dugin is presented as a scary, bearded, hairy Russian boogeyman by radlibs. To them he is a ‘Rasputin-like’ figure who they can project all of their Russophobia onto. This is despite the fact that none of them have read any of Dugin’s work (which Caleb did and from this he realised he disagreed with Dugin). Dugin is someone that we should read, so that we can debunk him, due to his prominence in Post-Soviet states. As Mao Zedong said:

“Oppose book worship; Seek truth from facts; No investigation, no right to speak” - Mao Zedong

“All erroneous ideas, all poisonous weeds, all ghosts and monsters, must be subjected to criticism; in no circumstance should they be allowed to spread unchecked” - Mao Zedong

“If you don’t study the negative stuff, you won’t be able to refute it. Neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin was like that. They made great efforts to learn and study all sorts of things, contemporary and past, and taught other people to do likewise” - Mao Zedong

Dugin is just a Russian conservative, (in the past he was everything from liberal, to fascist, to nazbol) I do not get why us as Communists have to rally around the lies and slanders of radical-liberals. We should oppose them and oppose the ‘Fourth Political Theory’ as well, but we should not make a mountain out of a molehill and we should not spread lies, especially lies about a theorist (however bad) in an anti-imperialist country who has nothing to do with the west except opposition to it’s imperialism.

Recent video rallying against the lies.

Camarada Forte

Everything inconvenient is not addressed at all and the same goes for Maupin.

This is precisely what I mentioned about mentioning their mistakes whenever possible or opportune. And this is a big mistake on the part of the OP. By hiding Maupin’s real and de facto association with Nazbols (which I wasn’t even fully aware until your comment), it promotes a false and misleading view of Maupin which hides a much more clear reason why he is called a Nazbol, and OP even risks associating himself with Nazbolism by disregarding that.

On the matter of sublation, Maupin has apparently written a work denouncing the ties of famous BreadTube members to imperialist organizations recently mentioned by Grayzone. This may be very useful information for us, independent of Maupin’s reactionary tendencies. But by hiding these tendencies, OP actually hinders our cause, uncritically associating himself with reactionaries and misleading readers into doing the same.

It’s hard to navigate in the sea of contradictions that is people, and reality itself. But it’s an effort that every coherent communist should be attentive to.

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.


  • 0 users online
  • 4 users / day
  • 35 users / week
  • 137 users / month
  • 551 users / 6 months
  • 6.64K subscribers
  • 2.64K Posts
  • Modlog