If anything I’ve read too much theory comrade. I’m fully familiar with the arguments you’re citing, though personally I disagree. I disgree with the third-word The Leninist concept of labor aristocracy, though useful (which is not to say we can’t disagree with Lenin: he was a man of his time and what wrong on several points, though not the most important), I think often gets used in a really metaphysical and binary way. The Western proletariat certainly has advantageous conditions of life which are due to imperialism. That goes without saying. However no-where in what Lenin writes, not according to class interest, must the Western proletariat necessarily perceive I think people often make far too much of the idea that the Western working class consciously knows exactly what its supposedly reactionary interests are in that way. That’s not the way that class is lived or experienced. At times that might come through, such as when they vote for the far right in elections during a recession and high levels of immigration, but I think it’s a big assumption to suppose that their have a perfect understanding of their class interest when they do that. They certainly don’t seem to have a rational grasp on it when you speak to them, and so the only way of supporting the argument then seems to me to be to argue that there is some subconscious, structural or superstructural determination of their reactionary positions as in their class interest whether they are conscious of this or not; but this seems deeply unscientific and unverifiable to me - regardless, I think there a bunch of basic arguments, including from Marx himself, which make clear that it is the very nature of capitalism, understood in terms of its class system, which makes the class interests of the working class opposed to that of their bourgeoisie.

The Western proletariat does have a class interest in ending capitalism. The large majority of them have not seen their living standards increase since the 70s, and I strongly believe that their conditions of life would be far healthier and more fulfilling were they to live in socialist and communist societies. Otherwise my fear is that we’re using a very reductive understanding of what class interest or quality of life means, making it excessively consumerist, thereby reproducing mystifying capitalist categories. My fear is that it devolves in a stereotype of vulgar materialism, as opposed to the far more open method of historical materialism which Marx uses (I’m not going to touch on dialectical materialism as that’s more controversial a concept).

Practically, it seems to negate a really basic and essential for of solidarity, and would suggest that every communist in the West should give up, leave the West, or wish for the death of their loved ones. Even practically I don’t see it as a coherent strategy, given not only the previous comment but also because the idea that the working classes of the Global South are consciously very progressive politically is unfortunately often not the case, which is clear to anyone who has lived outside of the West. This is ofc a different point to whether or not there are geopolitical and global economic processes which lead certain geopolitical blocs or their working class populations to take certain views and positions which are progressive as historical material movements. For instance I can simultaneously say at Hamas and the Houthis, in their domestic contexts, are high reactionary in a bunch of ways, while also recognizing that their struggles against Israel and US imperialism are very progressive as far as geopolitics goes. I’d argue that Russia is more ambiguous. I still think that a fully successful communist revolution must be global and so will require a revolution in the imperial core, as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and most communists have thought.

I also think there’s some ambiguity in what we mean by ‘strong’ and ‘develop past neoliberalism’ in what you’ve written. Neoliberalism was a political process of change in policy to reestablish conditions of profitability through programs of austerity. It’s not a different kind of mode of production. It’s still capitalism. This is historical and therefore can, and will, end. Other modes of production will emerge. So I guess you might be suggesting that the West will simply go fascist? I’m also add that I don’t think that revolutions are simply matters of the military strength of the power, but broader socio-economic conditions, though if the question is whether the conditions of the working class will need to become more critical before revolutionary conditions emerge, then I’d certainly agree. Nevertheless that doesn’t imply that the immediate target should be the immiseration of the Western working class.

Obviously this is a theoretical disagreement, not a personal attack. Feel free to let me know what you think comrade.

I’m just not seeing the argument apart from a pessimistic/accelerationist argument. Fascism is not going to make construction of socialism easier; I don’t see how it won’t make it immeasurably more difficult. Even if fascism is inevitable, you’d also have to argue that it should be sped up, which is where it just doesn’t seem like a serious argument to me, because surely the European working class should be given and requires more time to develop?

Removed by mod

Yeah not to suggest that leftists have not always had something of a tendency for division and degeneration into critique to the detriment of constructive solidarity, but this is also not sufficient as an explanation in my opinion. If anything, I’d argue that the contemporary version of this phenomenon, especially in a country life America, is deeply mediated by the social groups that radical groups is emerging out of, and fact it is occurring in a cultural and intellectual climate that is still (and has been since the late 80s), not simply anti-Marxist/communist but actually post-communist. We might nuance this by noting an uptick in interest in socialism among the young and working class, but we should not overemphasize the scale or influence of this. Nor should this lead us to lose sight of the fact that a lot of the young people who identify as radical do so in a way that can be quite vague, and have more to do with individual lifestyle aesthetics than a sense of ‘calling’ for the militant path, nor a sense of direct exploitation. This is partly due to the greater presence or visibility in popular culture of ideas that are more just post-modern liberal identity politics marked for the sake of capitalism, and the corresponding greater influence of radleft and anti-marxist poststructural thinkers in what is presented as radical thought. Which should remind everyone that Marxist and Communist politics are not going to be bred in Universities any more. Marxist historians don’t control the history department as much as they used to in some placed. This is not a personal criticism of all these people but more a recognition of the different reasons, conditions and paths that form of the context of people’s experience of radical politics or thought.

What is more significant is the increased level of labor movement activity. A bolshevik style party cannot simply be willed into existence. It is not a vanguard phenomenon (by definition) because it is ‘above’ or separate to the working class like a set of generals or the state, which would be to misunderstand the military metaphor, but because it is supposed to position itself at the forefront of working-class struggle. It is suppose to identify the key areas of struggle and potential and to act accordingly. So it strikes me that American Bolshevism (album title) would have to be born more fully out of the concrete struggle between an emerging American labor movement, in conjunction and synthesis with groups who also emphasize imperialism, colonialism and neocolonialism, racist and gender and LGBT+ struggles.

Alot of these dynamics reinforce themselves in vicious ways too. Bad interpersonal relationships can generate bad politics and vice-versa.

For what its worth, by far the least sectarian environments I’ve encountered where ones where different militants from different orgs had to collectively organize or help on the group in relation to on-the-ground labor struggles in work places.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to be aggressive comrade. What you’ve described is certainly a real and alienating phenomenon, though I’m guessing you are making reference to the American trotskyist culture, which is somewhat distinct from those in other countries, largely because the history is different, and American trostkyists seem to have been less connected to working class organizations and under even more pressure to conform to Cold War narratives and positions. I’m more familiar with the Latin American and European cases, in which they are by far the most seriously present communist groups in those countries. For example a lot of people here love repping France every time there’s another episode of social unrest, but do not realize that a lot of the organization is being done by trot groups. Again, there are a lot of them, and i’d agree that most are very far from great, but they would agree with that statement themselves.

On the newspaper point: there’s nothing wrong with trying to get literature out there. The question is more one of form. Again, I can think of as many ML and weird left-com and Maoist groups who do the same thing. If that’s sufficient for you to judge all Trots on that basis, then it should be for those other groups, which I suspect is not the case.

Kind of weird and 3edgy4me how that’s not really related to my point but go-off I guess. Kind of weird and disturbing honestly to be wishing (it seems) for their collective demise.

I’m not a trot but as someone who has known alot of them, honestly in this day and age if you’re really under the impression that most people who thinks of themselves as trots are going to become neoconservatives then honestly my suspicion is that you do not actually know many. It might be worth pointing out that while the most annoying and sectarian, indeedly dogmatically detached self-described communists I’ve met are Trotskyist, so are several of the more serious, capable, dedicated militants I’ve met.

If you really wanna spend your time swinging against them instead of considering forming solidarity over a common Marxist and Leninist tradition (you might not think that they are leninists, but they certainly think they are) and discussing non-sectarian methods of organizing, then with respect comrade I really feel your point of view is limited and needs to develop, though I don’t know how much experience you actually have engaging with, or actually trying to organize with, trots.

Whether you agree with them or not, most actual militants who are Trotskyists have their ideals in the right place. On a moral or ethical level, most of them are motivated by the same disgust with capitalist society and same hopes for a communist society as other communists. On a political level they are normally also self-consciously Leninist. In fact the reason they have such a tendency to splits and factions is because there’s an almost theological emphasis on the need to recreate continuously that genesis of the Bolshevik through splits with those they perceive (even if metaphorically) as Mensheviks and reformists, so that the part remains in a correct revolutionary position necessary at the revolutionary conjuncture. I’m in strong ideological disagreement on a bunch of points, and don’t really like their culture, including that of their interpersonal relationships, but frankly that’s not a problem unique to Trotskysists (Maoists, MLs and anarchists I’m looking at you).

Also, frankly, there’s no surer way to alienate potential communists from what you’re doing that to be beefing over the political conflicts in the Soviet Union of the 20s and 30s. I’m not really able to see it as anything other than self-indulgent, given that it seems obvious that a mature position would include very serious critiques of both Trotskyism and the USSR (for the record, if you talk to more intelligent Trots, they often have several quite scathing critiques of several of Trotsky’s positions).

Interesting example of how neoliberal strategies of extending the reach of financial instruments seems to inevitably come for the lower and middle classes’ (or broad working class’s) savings.

I haven’t had the time to look at the proposals in any detail, but in essence, it seems that he’s just restating the classic economic logic that the source of investment is savings, and so if there is a mismatch between them, this will cause a negative output gap in growth, both due to demand and suppl-side factors. It is also obviously motivated by the concerns of mainstream economists that the lagging productivity (in particular of labor, because labour is the source of all value and how they form a common unit of value and productivity measurement, as Marx understood) is a serious issue and that AI is the way to deal with it. Also interesting the classic decrepit European realization that they are falling behind the US and China (and Russia, for that matter) on these fronts. Though it is strange how that ignores other key factors determining investment, like expected returns and interest rates (which are rising). Also, if private businesses are already unwilling to invest because they know that savings and income are too low, and people not willing enough to engage in borrowing sprees, to make their expected returns on investment profitable, then how would an investment fund financed with savings deal with this issue? He might argue that more efficient capital markets and new investment vehicles leverage savings might deal with that, but it is again not clear to me that the private sector is going to be that motivated. Most of the interest of private firms so far in AI has been either in superficial labor-saving areas like branding, website design, and potentially in more efficient systems of labor surveillance, monitoring, control and time-management, as opposed to any real tremendous gains in real labor productivity, though the future is ofc an unknown country. It also seems to ignore the naturally monopolistic tendencies of a sector like investment in advanced AI software and hardware, which would not suggest to me that the Europeans can easily compete with the US or China, who have a head-start in terms of concentration, advantages of scale and greater levels of government support.

Funny also how none of the French liberals are asking which social group’s savings are going to bear the brunt of this. There is ofc no mention of the trillions in the bourgeoisie’s offshore bank accounts. Given the high rates of taxes (at least perceived) in France already it’s not clear how this would be popular with anybody.

It might also just accelerate the fascicisation of Europe, which is likely good for no-one, let alone for Europe’s working class. Unless one’s holds to some kind of accelerationist theory of revolutionary conditions.

Sometimes I do really wonder how many Trotskyists people have actually met.

I’ve honestly watched The Patriot more times that I care to remember (there’s something hilarious about Smel Bigsom to me). Honestly ridiculous. Not only because it fits into the general theory (like Braveheart) that Gibson despises the English and likes to be in movies that portray them as unambiguously depraved (critical support) but also because how fucked up the depiction of slavery and race-relations is.

Honestly at the end of the day I just watched it for the vibes of war crimes against British colonial troops.

Yeah it’s also crazy when you realize how instinctual it is. Like I don’t think all the dolts at the Guardian pumping out ink for the ink god really reflectively think ‘we have to craft this Manichean narrative for the sake of liberalism’ given that’s not actually how ideology generally works. I have no doubt (actually, I know from personal experience) that it you push narrative which don’t conform you will sometimes get responses which straight-up make no reference to the truth of the matter but explicitly reject what you’re saying because it’s politically inconvenient. That being said, it is fascinating and disturbing how reflexive and instinctual these kinds of responses are in general liberal culture, and how little most people in liberal societies are either unwilling or incapable of critically analyzing and evaluating this kind of stuff. Like they could just read what Putin says to get a more accurate account of the Russian state’s motivations for their actions.

I don’t really think this is valid reasoning tbh. Governments can kill people at a whim, but frequently do not because they would rather they die over time through conditions such as prisons. There are other factors they consider apart from simply wanting him dead. They don’t need to have killed his directly. It could simply be the result of mental and physical health issues due to his imprisonment. Life expectancy in prisons is markedly lower for a reason.

I’ve seen takes that he was killed by the West to blame Putin, but I haven’t really seen any actual hard evidence for this

Western governments want Assange dead. So by that logic he’d be dead long before now. He’s not, but I’m not about to conclude that the US gov doesn’t want Assange in an anonymous ditch. There are plenty of revolutionaries being let to rot in US prisons from the previous decades. It’s just killing them in slow motion.

At the end of the day we don’t have objective info to allow us to conclude one way or another as to exactly why he’s dead, and both the West and Russia are obviously deeply biased sources.

Birth of a Nation.

The Patriot.

No figure better encapsulates Western liberal propaganda against Russia.

Notice the complete absence of discussion of any other oppositions figures or forces (controlled or otherwise) within Russia, along with the attendant impression that he is supposed to be far more popular than he actually is.

Note the conspiracy of silence regarding his past and actual political ideology.

That being said, whatever the circumstances of his death, it’s a nationalist government killing a fascist. Oh well.

If you think this doesn’t exist then you haven’t spent enough time differentiating Marxism from liberal identity politics.

Yeah I agree with that. But I think that even in the best of outcomes the situation is going to be pretty dire.

I’m not sure. At times I think so and at others I’m more sceptical. I in no way claim to have an answer. The situation is worse than a dilemma. However it’s a dilemma because two things im confident of is (1) that Hamas will (unfortunately in several key respects) remain the main armed opposition capable of opposing Israel, and so will inevitably play a key role in the struggle against Israel; and (2) that they will never be an organization who will lead to a long term solution to these issues nor will they introduce the socio-economic reforms and political revolution that Palestine needs, even in the best of scenarios. Though Palestinian comrades seem to still see cooperation with them as tactically necessary though is does make me worry for them for obvious reasons. Their opinion does have to be respected.

Hence my pessimism (which does not imply that there should be no struggle, but that it should focus on making the most of the concrete situation presented. It in fact obligates even more rigorous struggle, and the most important thing those in western countries can do is show support for Palestine and make clear that their countries are supporting a genocidal apartheid fascist state. Ideally there would be more mass demonstrations and support attempts to pupressure but hat is looking difficult. But then again who knows how things will develop as this shit continued to get worse.

But I also this that this support should not be explicitly describing Hamas in positive terms other than as the only vehicle Gazas (and Palestinians in a sense) have for militarily opposing Israel, though I also disagree with Hamas’s tactics (not that that matters of course, like who am I), and think other mass radical labor organization to economically squeez Israel would have been ideal, but I also recognize that the situation is so fucked and Israel has so brutally sabotaged any other alternative that that has become impossible for the time being. Another reason in terms of optics I think they need to be distinguished is that the one of the best weapons that Western media has is the trump-card of anti-semitism, and Yh when you see people holding signs like ‘queers for Hamas’ or ‘Jews for Hamas’ it looks insane if you know much about Hamas’s or Islamist ideology regarding Jewish people and what Hamas media and charters have said about it over the years, or when you know their social positions such as on LGBT issues (I.e that it’s an evil deviance the Jews have spread to corrupt Muslims). Of course the reality is complicated by the fact that western media is already doing its utmost to destroy the distinction between support for Palestinians and strong ideological support for a group like Hamas. Though the real ambiguity’s and problem is that Hamas is still the main force through they exert there opposition for the time being. I’m not saying I’ve figured my way out of that other than by saying that we can’t condemn Palestinians decision and we mousy stand with them while also being honest Kong ourselves regarding the progressive potential and it’s limitations for the struggle when int his framework, which again is not to say that a better one is going to present itself any time soon.

On the Taliban given how extremely reactionary they are it does make that kind of judgment very emotionally difficult. My honest opinion is that it is unclear. Honestly a liberal bourgeois government would have been more advantageous to the growth of socialist politics imo. But that was also not realistically going to be produced by the Americans, given how brutally extractive and destructive their occupation was.

deleted by creator

First off there’s literally no need for this to get aggressive. Some of your latter responses are showing far mor about your own maturity frankly that making substantive points. It’s not milquetoast and it’s no issue with violence. Nor is it saying that you cannot cooperate tactically with reactionaries. It’s highlighting the dangers and pointing to what has happens to communists every time in the Global South when reactionaries who communists have cooperated with win. I agree that an FNL victory is preferable to French colonialism. That’s not what is at issue in my point. This is a serious discussion about what are the correct ways to view different third world movements whose interests are not the same as imperialists. And that’s not a trivial or obvious thing that you can reduce to lower school arithmetic of supportive of the yanks or frog munchers or not. Al Quaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram all define themselves as liberation movements and are opposed to US imperialism. That America is to blame for their existence does not contradict that. That’s a bizarre, arbitrary metaphysical inference that doesn’t follow at all. It’s just blowback. Taliban are also a material product of US policy, but their aims changed and diverged radically.

If you’re going to want to establish that the FLN was partly communist in some substantial, organizational, ideological sense then please provide evidence of them implementing actual communist policies which are not simply what any corrupt national bourgeois government would do and please explain their reactionary policies. Again comrade this is not me being passive aggressive, I’d just like clarification of what you mean.

By-the-bye, the political violence I was referring to was not against the French. I am mentioning against progressives and Algerian civilians. The idea that these were all q French lovers is not true. But yeh, again, and I’m going to keep saying it seems there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance: not all methods of national liberation or opposition to capitalism are equally valid politically or ethically imo. If people are able to understand this in the case of Sendero Luminoso and the Khmer Rouge it’s not clear to me why this isn’t clear in other cases.

Like it also seems to le that the a lot of the people self-identifying as Leninists don’t actually seem to have very seriously studied the history of the Bolshevik party’s foreign policy. The relevant example is that neither the Soviets nor the PRC ever took a position of unconditional support for all national liberation movements. They had to actually indicate substantial potential for progressive policy and change. There is some argument for that in the case of the FLN, but I personally think it’s often overdone.

On your comment that I’ve not made sense, respectfully I think you haven’t grasped my point. I was having a hunch at what your point was supposed to be. You said that they were not anti-communist and appeared to justify it by saying that they banned other parties and formed a one party state. The FLN were opposed not simply to that particular communist party, but communist movements in general. But if that’s the reasoning, then that would make any party that did that not anti-communist. Again, as I already mentioned in my above comment, I’m not saying that it makes them anti-communist to oppose other communists, I’m saying that the fact that a group opposed groups apart from communists doesn’t negate their anticommunism.

Also: my claim is not that the fact that Islamist’s ascended tit he detriment of communists is what makes the FLN anti-communist. What made them anti-communist was their ideology and their policies and material consequences of those. The point about the rise of Islamist is me pointing to the danger of these groups. That’s my central point. Their dominance and inevitable insufficiency, combined with their opposition to more progressive political developments, created the conditions leading to that.

Like are you just defining as communist now what happens to be the popular party or the one that can oppose western imperialism? I’m assuming you’re not but it’s difficult for me to know because you haven’t made clear what the terms you’re using mean. I’m not trying to be rude here but it’s not clear what the meanings or points or relations between points you take yourself to be making are to me.

Someone killing a communist does not preclude them being ideologically communists or implémentign some genuine policies of socialist construction.The Stalinist killing of many members of the party (and don’t bother linking me some brain dead Grover Fur garbage to argue otherwise, cos u can literally just read the actual archive documents) did not preclude Stalin being a serious, intelligent and self-consciously committed communist. That’s called being an inconsistent communist. Stalin has quite a few L’s. Like y’a know, ethnically cleansing tartars and putting bullets in the spines of quite a few innocent comrades who had given there lives for the revolution, known and unknown. At this point in history, not incorporating that into a balanced view of Stalin is not only pathetically childish and idiotic, and will not only alienate someone from from the entirety of the left we actually have to work with if you are an actual militant, but means that in any future hypothetical opportunity for socialism the same mistakes are more likely to be made.

Not giving a fuck about some of consequences is unfortunate and problematic but it is what it is. But opposition to imperialism and opposing unnecessary atrocity are not inconsistent. In any case, your lack of sympathy or empathy is not a guide to correct politics. That’s not his communist agitating or organizing is going to be effectively done. It breeds a reactionary politics and diverts attraction to reactionary alternatives like Islamism. Neither is outrage at atrocity a strict guide, that’s not the point. One of the great lessons and warnings of the 20th century in the post-WW2 period is that national bourgeois governments are in no way a solution to the post colonial dilemma or a sufficient response to imperialism and neocolonialism is even it formal independence is achieved.

I’d also add that I’m not saying that cooperation with the FLN or Hamas for local communists is the wrong move. But the communists in those positions are under far less illusions about the extent to which that’s a matter of necessity and survival. The first united front between the CPC and the GMD is a telling example of how that logic survival can apply even though it’s t might also be likely that once that group has an advantage and the shared opposition is no longer immediate, that they will crush it the communist movement when the opportunity arises.

Again not trying to make this aggressive or tense comrade.

You’re correct on the first point. That’s a typo on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. They were of course nationalist. But their nationalism was still ultimately inconsistent with communist politics. My brain was fuzzy lol as I’d spent all day explaining to ultras what Islamism is.

In really not sure what you think is being established by your second comment. Are you saying they were not anti-communist because they also banned other political parties? Because that is self-evidently false. Fascists also banned all other parties along with communist parties to establish a one party state. Are they now therefore not anti-communist because they also banned other political parties? The fact that it may (or not) be valid for communists to only allow one party under socialism does not seem to imply that all one-party states are equal. Additionally they were explicit in their anti-communism. Their rule extinguished the potential for communist politics, along with the rise of Islamist. The installation fo ineffective and corrupt nationalist governments has not generally led to communist political ascendency, but rather to Islamist ascendency, as the latter benefited more from the perceived illegitimacy of these governments.

I’m not really sure what your point is by noting that there were a lot of pied-noirs. Should Jor Slovo have been axed after he was part of the armed struggle against apartheid because he was white even though a communist? Judging the political progressiveness of someone like that is fundamentally identitarian and has far more in common with contemporary postmodern and post structural or general liberal, Soc dem and ultra leftist identity politics. It is fundamentally non-Marxist. What matters is how that individual positions themself politically and whether, in this case, they are a class or colonial race traitor. Otherwise kind of position which simply says ‘they white therefore they bad’ is strangely and perversely moralistic to me, and just reproduced the race essentialism, rather than taking a historical materialism view on racial identity, which doesn’t allow that kind of blanket conclusion. You are correct that the PCF has had persistent issues with racism and chauvinism still its inception. So did Engels, frankly. I don’t see how this invalidates communism as preferable to nationalism or indicated that the PCL was in no way communist in its ideology or politics.

My sources are French, Algerian and from Algerian Communist and non-communist friends and acquaintances. You of course correct that the general French liberal and conservative reaction to the nationalist is to see them as satanic. That being said, the FNL did completely did commit atrocities against progressive opponents and civilians. The fact that western liberals or conservatives oppose a group due to their own interests in no ways means that said group’s long term interests are coherent in any long term sense with those of communists.

This kind of argument is very weird to me. It would carry over to the case of the Iranian revolution and the Islamist’s. Should the fact that they were, in a broad sense, attempting to ‘liberate’ Iranians from Western imperialism, therefore they should be viewed positively or as progressive? They are an even more prefect example of a diversion of radical energy from a growing communist movement to radical reactionary mass movements that then brutally crushed all Iranian communist groups through torture, rape and assassination.