It is hasbara to dilute Marxist discourse and sow conflict.

Quite literally using the liberal take of “read something not written by a white man”. You’re not fooling anyone. You’re talking like an American or someone imitating one.

You are the one who needs some lessons lib.

You’re ignoring how politics work, you’re ignoring my points, but worst of all you’re ignoring theory and trying to distract from class struggle.

There is nothing gross about my attitude of saying that class struggle is the most important goal of any socialist movement.

You are wrong just as other modern self-proclaimed socialists are. Champagne college student socialists aren’t Marxists. They do not understand Marxism, they do not understand politics and socioeconomics altogether and they don’t understand the working class life.

Nothing but class struggle will ever be the main focus of communism. Your personal goals are not more important than humanity. Ideology doesn’t morph to suit you. And it’s disgusting that you’re trying to use it to push your own agenda to the top.

If you are put off by this, you’re in the wrong circles and ideology. We have no need of liberals nor the need or goal to win you over. You’ve already disagreed with me and insulted me. With that you’re dead to me and I don’t give a shit about your personal struggles. You do no represent any movement, neither the LGBT movement.

More Hasbara great

The world is not coloured in black and white. The purpose of a communist movement is to build socialism and a dictatorship of the working class first and foremost. Claiming anything else is revisionism.

No one is arguing against LGBT rights. No one is being abandoned. All you’re doing is making empty false accusations.

Your claims are unsubstantiated too. Supporting LGBT rights has not revived any communist movement in the world thus far. And it won’t. Actually building working class mass movements will.

You’re the one who can go fuck themselves for being a raging liberal. You’re no Marxist.

Not usual and they’ve just relabelled themselves.

Communist parties in the west have done nothing to build socialism or create the conditions for revolution since the fall of the Soviet Union. Arguable even before.

Before we can build socialism, we need to overthrow the old order. For that we need agitation, populism, destabilisation and acceleration. The existing communist parties have not achieved this. If we stand by doing nothing or founding even more splinter communist parties we will be lost once a revolution arrives. Then it will be fascists seizing the reigns of any mass unrest or civil war.

What we need is to seize the narrative and rhetoric. That’s what a new populist party is better suited to do than a tiny party of old farts reminiscing about the old days.

Personally I’m very much vocally supporting a security apparatus for the party that can prevent any subversion from non-socialist populists joining. Also as a note the party has been thorough with their membership application process. I had to wait nearly a full year for it to be complete.

As said before the BSW does not oppose LGBT rights. But the BSW is a working class party, not a LGBT party. The priorities should be obvious. Pandering to any kind of minority is how liberals do politics. Nothing we should copy. Again just look at China as an example.

The DKP hasn’t achieved anything in decades. It’s not getting any traction or any growth. Most members are just old ostalgists.

We need movements that can agitate and destabilise. That is what the BSW can be. I’m fully aware that it will never lead a socialist state, but it will create the conditions for one to arise and replace it. In the East German states the BSW already achieved election results rivaling the old parties and the far right.

Currently a quarter of German electoral and parliamentary politics is held by the far right. It could rise to a third. The old parties won’t prevent this. The BSW can both further cause the decline of the old parties and stop the far right from coming to power.

Die Linke because it’s neither a marxist party and is flooded with lifestyle leftists aka university students, social democrats and democratic socialists. Marxists are a minority platform and with the founding of the BSW most left. Also it’s been dying until recently.

As for the DKP and MLPD, because they’re tiny parties and not going anywhere. Communist parties will not revive themselves. As said previously in their current state they wouldn’t be able to become a vanguard for any revolution.

They also have their own issues. The MLPD is a bit suspect because leadership has always been in the hands of one family and their friends. And perplexingly enough they’re pro-Ukrainian or at least opposed to Russia in the Russo-Ukrainian war. The DKP had a revisionist streak, though since about 10 years ago turned away from revisionism towards more revolutionary politics again. At the same time rehabilitating Stalin. But again they’re still in no position to lead any revolution.

I have recently been finally approved for membership.

I do disagree with outsiders calling the part socially conservative. It doesn’t take issue with things like LGBT rights, deviation from the “nuclear family” or anything else that allows people to live their personal lives as they see fit.

What they did criticise is the overfixation on liberal gender issues. The party doesn’t view intersectionality as an important topic. And I tend to agree with that. The focus of any Marxist or otherwise left party should be the working class. If there is a societal push to greater LGBT rights or the like, it should be supported. But it’s a waste of resources to spend too much on those issues, if there isn’t. Specifically changes to grammar of the German language were made. To be more inclusive gendered nouns are slowly being replaced with neutral nouns that are aesthetically unpleasing and don’t really do anything about inclusiveness (One of the most common new spellings includes an asterisks in the middle of the word *). Neither has language been specifically un-inclusive. It’s a way too overblown issue and waste of time.

Take China as an example with it’s three no’s in regards to LGBT (no approval, no disapproval, no promotion). Homosexuality bas been decriminalised in the 90s or early 2000s if I remember right. No one is stopped from being gay, bi, trans, etc. Yet the LGBT movement in China is no important political issue. Therefore the CPC isn’t championing LGBT rights or making any sweeping reforms in regards to such. It’s a puzzle piece, not the entire puzzle.

As for the party itself, it’s not a Marxist party, but much of its leadership come from Marxist circles. It does incorporate democratic centralism. But the goal of the party isn’t to establish socialism. It’s a vehicle to break up traditional neoliberal politics via populism and revive the left. Hopefully some day reviving Marxist movements and communist parties in the west. Because honestly speaking if a revolution were to break out anywhere in the first world, no communist party there today has the organisation or numbers to lead it.

Very divisive, but also interesting.

He’s in a similar boat to Zizek nowadays. Coming from socialist / leftist backgrounds, but supporting liberal progressive movements. But at the same time not completely opposed to more “authoritarian” means to shackle neo-liberalism.

They’re distinct from your general liberal movement though as they’re far more populist, anti-establishment and especially anti-neoliberal. They don’t advocate for socialism or even social democracy outright. But many of their goals are to build towards a more grassroots and less elite dominated system. There is an argument for such populist movements as vehicles towards a revival of Marxism in the west, similar to for example Wagenknecht’s new political party in Germany (although Varoufakis movement is a lot more liberal than that).

That said they’re still reformists at best. They’re pro-EU, not opposed to US hegemony and for the most part have the same political outlook on foreign affairs as other liberal movements, though they’re much less important to them.

But you see, a country doing that if the constitution allows for that is democratic. Because the country is democratic and so the constitution is democratic making the country democratic. Simple liberal math.

Thanks for that. I feel like way too few people were willing to have a discussion that wasn’t in bad faith and instant dismissal. I could not conclude much except that the main disagreement is over critical support which is something I cannot support in the form it’s lived in.

Anyone got more of an understanding of the Nepali communist party?

As I understood it they promote socialism with Nepalese characteristics, similar to how China is adapting socialism for itself. And that they came out of a merger of a Maoist and a Marxist-Leninist party.

Saw others call them revisionist. Is there any grounds to that?

That is specifically why I’m asking.

I see the majority of Marxists critically or sadly sometimes uncritically supporting Russia in this conflict.

That is something I do not agree with or understand on a moral level. And on a strategic level I do not see Russia as a reasonable or competent potential ally anymore after the recent years. I cannot support Russia without any arguments for it that I’m not aware of, without any cognitive dissonance.

I would never defend the actions of the Ukrainian government in ending the protests in the east following the Maidan coup. Put putting down the opposition is still on a different level from invading a country.

Now this is just an irrational and insulting response, calling me a lib.

All you’re doing is throwing the word nazi around.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine is run by nazis.

But both have nazis and other fascists running rampant in their society and army. Wagner quite famously had many far right elements. The only difference between Wagner and Azov was that Wagner was a mercenary troop and not directly part of the Russian army.

What you’re describing essentially draws no difference between the two countries, except that one has been aligned by NATO. So again I have to ask, why support Russia in this case? And as it seems from your comment, why so uncritically on top of it?

Russia is not struggling against western imperialism, it’s trying to cling onto it’s past sphere through it’s own imperialism which just so happens to put them up against the expansion of the US hegemony.

As I said before I can understand the strategic interest in Russia winning. But again morally I do not see how this justifies it. Neither government is worse than the other, both filled with corruption, far right elements, oligarchs, oppression and massacres. But only one is defending.

I’m not defending Ukraine. I’m saying they have a right to defend themselves against aggression. As any nation does with the rare exception of countries that commit massive atrocities and genocides (Cambodia, Nazi Germany (ofc tho they were in fact the aggressor), Rwanda, Myanmar).

Furthermore if not a full scale invasion, then what was the push for Kiev when the war started? Its goal was the quick overthrow and surrender of the Ukrainian government and armed forces. After that failing Russia is still occupying probably around 1/4 to 1/3 of Ukrainian lands since the war started. Troop movements and the front lines are objective facts.

How so? Ukraine deployed the military to its eastern regions to crush opposition protests and possible secessionist movements. But that’s still an internal affair. Not an attack on another nation.

The issue is you can say all the same about Russia in this case, except for not being NATO aligned.

My objection is starting a war and attempted full scale invasion with the intend of territorial expansion and installing a pro-Russian government (not much different from the CIA couping a pro-Western government to power).

I’m asking for reasons as to why to critically support Russia as opposed to Ukraine and if the strategic advantage is worth the moral repercussions.

To me it’s a case of two condemnable states at war with each other. Where the aggressor is still less moral due to being the invader.

Of course. Cuba would be great, my only issue is that I’m not too fond of high temperatures like in the Caribbean. But that will be a problem in the future anyway.