Colin Bodayle is a “philosophy professor” who somehow “teaches” people at Villanova University. The truth is, Bodayle is really just your average, bog-standard example of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb in the past has described as an “Intellectual Yet Idiot” or IYI.

He has a degree, which, for some reason, he mistakes for real intelligence or knowledge.

His institutionalized outlook is so out of touch with reality that it leads him to make many stupid claims, such as the idea that “nations are not materially real,” that “open borders” is somehow possible within the context of a proletarian dictatorship (“Communist state,” as most people understand), or that an individual can just “choose” to identify with whatever ethnicity they want to, and somehow acquire that ethnic identity.

For many months, he has engaged in obsessive behavior toward the American Communist Party. He believes that his liberal outlook is “true Marxism” and that I (Haz) am, by contrast, merely a “Duginist” and “fascist.”

Failing to demonstrate this, he was challenged to a live debate. He claimed that due to time constrains (and how valuable his time is), he would not do this. Some followers of mine even offered to pay him $500 dollars to debate me in a live setting, and he refused.

Instead, he claimed that he was only willing to “debate” on Twitter - where, in fact, his time commitment is potentially unlimited. So much for his “time” being valuable.

To be clear, I much prefer to attack and criticize the far-Right. But Colin would simply not stop attacking us - even as he could see that we were spending the majority of our time pushing back against Neo-Nazism and racial cannibalism.

After having ignored this rodent for many months, Colin made the fatal mistake of attempting to respond to a post of mine here:

Colin has refused to actually debate me in a definite, live setting and claimed he would only debate me through text. I decided to accept this challenge, to show him how easy it would be to destroy him in his own preferred medium, if I had enough time to set aside to do this.

As Executive Chairman of the American Communist Party, my time is not unlimited. Due to the immense gap of knowledge, education, and basic grasp of Marxism-Leninism (and its history), - due to the sheer depth of Colin’s ignorance compared to my knowledge, the nature of such a medium is such that, such a debate can go on “indefinitely.”

The purpose of the debate is to demonstrate who has a greater grasp on the fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, not who ultimately has the “correct position” in the abstract - a question that could take eons to resolve through the medium of text alone.

This is actually why I prefer live debates. They are subject to definite time constrains. The level of knowledge and reasoning a challenger has can be put to the test, on the spot, then and there. In this way, there can be no bluffing about who has a superior grasp of Marxism.

The medium of “textual” debate, by contrast, demonstrates no such thing. The potential of education - is unlimited. But as soon as a debate transforms into a dynamic in which I am a teacher, constantly exposing my interlocutor to new ideas, thoughts, and facts they have never considered before - the debate actually ends, and they accede to me their inferiority so far as their grasp of Marxism is concerned.

With that being said, I am pretty confident in that I have demonstrated my ability to thoroughly dismantle so-called “Marxist professors” like Colin, who are actually little more than common liberals, and with minimal effort at that - through their own preferred medium of communication. I will let the audience judge that for themselves.

Colin has basically conceded on this debate, and decided to switch topics to another one. I invited him to actually prove that he can defend his position in a live setting. I see no use in responding to all of it, because, as the line of argumentation here shown proves, he will just end up pivoting to something else. The potential to pivot to another topic is unlimited. The extent to which an interlocutor finds it necessary to do that, is the extent to which they admit defeat.

Colin Bodayle Gets Schooled

I first responded as follows:

Not only were the "AES border policies" in question applied to the migration of populations between Socialist fraternal countries - Even the flow of ethnic populations WITHIN Socialist countries were usually carefully controlled and managed.

Sorry "professor," but this topic is above your salaried pay grade. It's no wonder you're terrified of debating me, and resort to bitching about our Party 24/7 on Twitter instead.

You pathetic fucking idiot.

Colin’s First Response:

My First Takedown of Colin:

I claim that socialism "preserves ethnic identity" (while also facilitating their development) because it is a matter of actual fact that this is what AES states did.

Regarding the American national context, we are even more "progressive" than AES were. Rather than treat America's various "racial minorities" as separate ethnic identities, we seek to facilitate their unity into a single nation.

And no, regarding migration policies in Socialist countries, I'm not just talking about the interwar period of the USSR. Although it should be noted that migration wasn't simply controlled for security purposes. Avoiding inflaming ethnic tensions and conflicts were also heavily taken into account.

This was especially true in the Caucasus' region, under Stalin's wise guidance. But in every period of Socialism, including in the mature stage, immigration was tightly controlled.

To whatever extent it was occurring- it was heavily regulated and controlled. There was never a policy of unconditional and unrestricted borders between Socialist fraternal states in the entire history of the Warsaw pact. Individual migration was never treated the same as mass migration.

The latter was vastly more restricted and, when it did occur, heavily planned for. And the context was clear: Socialist countries were planned economies that could not afford the chaos of unrestricted mass migration.

Ruling Communist Parties also sought to prevent ethnic conflict and tension at all cost. Now, what fundamentally is missing?

I would be happy to address your deranged and silly jibbering about Heidegger and Dugin if you had the courage to commit to whatever claims you would like to make in a live setting, where you cannot ChatGPT your responses.

Unfortunately they are completely irrelevant to the question of migration policy under AES countries, past and present. Though I can see why you're trying to pivot from this silly mistake of yours.

Colin’s Second Response:

My Second Takedown of Colin:

To be clear, the actual issue in contention is whether there is a single example of an AES country that has ever had a policy of 'open borders' (even in relation to fraternal socialist nations, or, in the case of mass populations, even collectively) or unrestricted mass migration.

You claim that:

"Every instance of immigration being tightly controlled under AES was a result of socialism being under siege, including incidents that aimed to prevent ethnic conflicts"

This is patently false. While imperialist powers did try to exploit ethnic tensions, those tensions were very real, and Communist parties carefully took them into account as a very important factor in their governance and policies regarding the flow of populations. Imperialist intrigue was not the sole cause of these tensions. These tensions had deep historical roots which Socialism did not immediately eliminate.

Rather, ruling Communist parties managed them in such a way so as to facilitate their eventual elimination in the future. This has nothing to do with the national-nihilist or liberal cosmopolitan view, which treats immigration, culture, and national realities as purely individual ones. It has nothing to do with the bourgeois view, which is completely blind to the social consequences of exchanges between populations.

Your jibber babbling about "Jünger, Evola, Dugin, and Heidegger" is completely irrelevant, and is little more than a sad form of paranoid schizophrenia.

The truth is, the extent to which we regard national realities and their historical basis as a Party is basic Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy, and if you were familiar with even the basics of classical Marxist-Leninist writings on the matter, you would be able to see that.

But due to your illiteracy with regard to the basic canon of Marxism-Leninism, you resort to chasing ghosts and grasping for straws.

You accuse us of taking quotes out of context, and then attempt to apply a quote by Marx in defense of national-nihilism.

You may speculate that Marx was attempting to argue that we should abandon all semblance of continuity with national historical traditions, though a cursory familiarity with his writing reveals that he was actually talking about those attempting to directly emulate the revolutions of the past, rather than of the present. It has nothing to do with the fundamental question of historical continuity.

And the great part is that we don't need to speculate about what the orthodox Marxist-Leninist view on the matter has been. Let's ask Dimitrov directly:

"The fascists are rummaging through the entire history of every nation so as to be able to pose as the heirs and continuators of all that was exalted and heroic in its past, while all that was degrading or offensive to the national sentiments of the people they make use of as weapons against the enemies of fascism. Hundreds of books are being published in Germany with only one aim -- to falsify the history of the German people and give it a fascist complexion. The new-baked National Socialist historians try to depict the history of Germany as if for the past two thousand years, by virtue of some historical law, a certain line of development had run through it like a red thread, leading to the appearance on the historical scene of a national 'savior', a 'Messiah' of the German people, a certain 'Corporal' of Austrian extraction. In these books the greatest figures of the German people of the past are represented as having been fascists, while the great peasant movements are set down as the direct precursors of the fascist movement.

Mussolini does his utmost to make capital for himself out of the heroic figure of Garibaldi. The French fascists bring to the fore as their heroine Joan of Arc. The American fascists appeal to the traditions of the American War of Independence, the traditions of Washington and Lincoln. The Bulgarian fascists make use of the national-liberation movement of the seventies and its heroes beloved by the people, Vassil Levsky, Stephan Karaj and others.

Communists who suppose that all this has nothing to do with the cause of the working class, who do nothing to enlighten the masses on the past of their people in a historically correct fashion, in a genuinely Marxist-Leninist spirit, who do nothing to link up the present struggle with the people's revolutionary traditions and past -- voluntarily hand over to the fascist falsifiers all that is valuable in the historical past of the nation, so that the fascists may fool the masses.

No, Comrades, we are concerned with every important question, not only of the present and the future, but also of the past of our own peoples. We Communists do not pursue a narrow policy based on the craft interests of the workers. We are not narrow-minded trade union functionaries, or leaders of medieval guilds of handicraftsmen and journeymen. We are the representatives of the class interests of the most important, the greatest class of modern society-the working class, to whose destiny it falls to free mankind from the sufferings of the capitalist system, the class which in one-sixth of the world has already cast off the yoke of capitalism and constitutes the ruling class. We defend the vital interests of all the exploited, toiling strata, that is, of the overwhelming majority in any capitalist country.

We Communists are the irreconcilable opponents, in principle, of bourgeois nationalism in all its forms. But we are not supporters of national nihilism, and should never act as such. The task of educating the workers and all working people in the spirit of proletarian internationalism is one of the fundamental tasks of every Communist Party. But anyone who thinks that this permits him, or even compels him, to sneer at all the national sentiments of the broad masses of working people is far from being a genuine Bolshevik, and has understood nothing of the teaching of Lenin on the national question."

He then goes on to issue a citation from Lenin, who writes clearly:

"Are we class-conscious Great-Russian proletarians impervious to the feeling of national pride? Certainly not. We love our language and our motherland; we, more than any other group, are working to raise its laboring masses (i.e., nine-tenths of its population) to the level of intelligent democrats and socialists. We, more than anybody are grieved to see and feel to what violence, oppression and mockery our beautiful motherland is being subjected by the tsarist hangmen, the nobles and the capitalists. We are proud of the fact that those acts of violence met with resistance in our midst, in the midst of the Great Russians; that this midst brought forth Radischev, the Decembrists, the intellectual revolutionaries of the seventies; that in 1905 the Great-Russian working class created a powerful revolutionary party of the masses. ."

Our willingness to utilize the American revolutionary tradition, moreover, has precedent in this country. It was the basic line of the Communist Party for nearly the entire duration of its existence, to draw from the American revolution of 1776 a source of legitimacy for socialist struggle.

Were they, too, guilty of reading too much Ernst Junger? You silly, pathetic fool.

You claim that Socialism with American characteristics would "have to adapt to the MATERIAL CONDITIONS of the American proletariat." But as Stalin writes lucidly in Marxism and the National Question, national realities, too, are part of these material conditions.

According to the basic Marxist-Leninist outlook, nations, too, are materially real. You give examples of Socialist countries overturning "traditions of the past." By this, you mean basic modernization. But as much as these "traditions" are "overturned," such events participate in the facilitation of the development of the nation, bringing it to a new stage of historical existence - preserving its rational continuity with the past.

This has nothing to do with the national-nihilism you espouse. You claim that: "to claim that socialism "facilitates the development of ethnic identity" is idealist crap" Was the 'new Soviet man' idealist crap?

The explicit project to facilitate the development of the various people's of the USSR into a new, Soviet national identity? Did this not facilitate the progressive development of various ethnic identities, exposed to the wealth and treasure of various histories and cultures they otherwise would have no way to authentically encounter without the rubbish of past historical conflicts, grievances and grudges getting in the way?

You claim that: "Yet just as much as AES countries have allowed for local traditions, they have also aimed to unite these different groups and traditions together under the single banner of socialism" Yes, but they do so in a way that is not historically nihilistic - in a way that preserves the histories of various peoples, and situates and integrates them within a rational historical continuity that culminates in socialist development.

This has nothing to do with the capitalist and nihilistic erasure of traditions, cultures, and peoples you extoll as 'Marxist.' Moreover, the extent of your jibbering is quite profound here.

I speak of the "facilitation of the development of ethnic identity" - you call this idealism. Then, just using different words - you attribute the same thing to what AES countries did.

Almost like you are intentionally interpreting my words in bad faith, because you are just so outraged about the fact that I engage seriously with a diversity of non-Marxist authors to better strengthen the Marxist outlook.

Colin’s Third Response can be read here:

https://twitter.com/colinbodayle/status/1834996027926929869

My Third Takedown of Colin

Back for more, Colin? It's sad how you're just receiving a free education at this point. You could have just done the honorable thing, and admit your fundamental illiteracy about the history of AES. Instead, you're trying to salvage your pride getting schooled as a student of mine. Let us consult the record clearly and unequivocally:

The original point of contention was not about current U.S. immigration policy - since I was clear about the fact that there is nothing Communists can do to affect it, and that it should therefore not be prioritized. The original point of contention was about the history of border and migration policies in AES, and what kind of policies a Communist Party, were it to seize power, would implement in relation to the immigration and border policy. You see, this is fundamentally different than "current U.S. immigration policy."

The current policy is the policy of an imperialist state machine. The hypothetical policy under contention, by contrast, would be under a proletarian dictatorship. Your inability to follow a basic line of argumentation is remarkable. Later, you claim this is a "utopian question." Utopianism is about pre-planning all meticulous details of a future society. The extent of policy I presented would be pretty standard for the programme of a Communist Party. Which you would know if you were not a fundamentally illiterate dipshit who knows next to nothing about the history of Communist politics.

Now, advocating for policies under the current regime is a form of agitation. That you believe the content of agitation is identical with some administrative or utilitarian realization of policy yet again reveals the Lovecraftian depths of your ignorance not only about the basic history of Communist organization, but even what was standard for the late 19th century Social Democrats. Agitating for policies under an imperialist dictatorship is not primarily about actually passing the policy, but creating the context for building a movement and accentuating contradictions of importance within the consciousness of the people.

You put the cart before the horse - establish yourself as a 'wise policy maker' who will pass policies that will 'benefit the movement' - without any strategy about how you will actually make this popular among the masses themselves, who are necessary for passing the policy in the first place. You claim the debate is not about the cause of tensions, but about the cause of border policy. But this is pure sophistry - since you attempted to imply that, absent imperialist intrigue, the tensions would not have needed to be carefully managed, since no one would be there to 'exploit' them (effectively rendering them practically non-existent). And because you claimed that imperialist intrigue was the sole cause of border policies, this must mean that tensions were primarily the consequence of imperialist intrigue. This is basic logic, Colin. But I know it isn't your strong suit.

"the fact that there were pre-existing ethnic tensions does not imply that the USSR would have engaged in these border policies even without the threat of imperialism."

If you carefully study Soviet policy on managing the differences and tensions between various ethnicities, and if you study the history of inter-ethnic disputes within the USSR, you will find that imperialist intrigue was not necessary for misunderstandings, confusions, and offenses to national sentiment to lead to social instability.

The latter was prevented, time and time again, because of the wise management of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which was always sensitive to these issues.

"Does segregating people ever help resolve ethnic tensions? No."

The fact that you are attempting to twist Soviet national policy into "segregation" reveals the large extent of your liberal individualism.

No policy of "segregation" was necessary for the fact that Soviet people, by and large, tended to live within historically constituted communities - with a common culture, language, and shared historical background. This was not some exception that needed to be enforced - it was the norm. Socialist planning did not violently uproot people from their historically constituted communities.

So issues pertaining to basic economic planning - such as employment, distribution, settlement, etc. - was fundamentally intertwined with pre-existing historically constituted ethnic and national communities. As such, people could not mix together in an uncontrolled way. That is not to say they couldn't mix together at all. Moscow, to this day, remains an incredibly diverse city. But they could do so only on the basis of socialist planning, responsibility, and management - in other words, on a collective, rather than individual basis.

On a basis that took into account differences, and on the basis of these differences (rather than at their expense), established genuine and authentic forms of contact and exchange between different peoples. The icing on the cake is that, in the first place, I mentioned mass migration. "Second, why should internal segregation have anything to do with the external policies in relation to the USSR's borders with non-USSR countries?"

To be clear, what I said is that no AES has ever had a policy of open borders, and this was not simply due to security reasons, because they neither had 'open borders' with each other (fraternal socialists nations) nor even on an internal basis as it pertained to different ethnicities.

You started talking about segregation - because you are little more than a common liberal. "if we carry Haz's argument through to its conclusion, what Haz is basically arguing is that there are ethnic tensions between Latin Americans and people in the U.S., so we should segregate the Latin Americans from the U.S. to prevent ethnic tensions" I have no idea why you would lie like this when everyone can see the record clearly. I never actually called for segregation or even unconditionally closed borders - but control, regulation and management - in a way that took into account the economic implications, as well as potential cultural misunderstandings between differently historically constituted populations.

Once again, that was the standard policy of all AES countries. Under a proletarian dictatorship, different historically constituted peoples would be able to fuse together, exchange, and possess genuine solidarity on a basis that recognized, rather than liquidated, their histories, languages, and cultures.

This is by treating the issue collectively rather than individually. By contrast, under liberalism, mass migration has the effect of alienating people - both immigrants and citizens - from any sense of collective solidarity or existence. No proper procedures for introducing strangers, no proper ability to understand others, no fairly established economic rationale, no control, no regulation. Obviously, and coupled with the existing economic alienation, this breeds wild forms of resentment and conflict. And for all that - what does it breed? The most stark forms of segregation and ghettoization in modern history.

Controlling exchanges between population is not "segregation" (and we can all see how you are attempting to invoke the Jim Crow era here). On the contrary, only on the basis of socialist planning and control can different populations engage in genuine cultural exchange.

Under the liberal policy you currently champion, and also seem to propose for a future proletarian dictatorship - cultural exchange actually becomes extremely limited. How can people who speak different languages ever understand each other without a "translator?" The role of a Communist Party is to be the "translator." That requires, first of all, recognizing different languages and peoples on a collective rather than individual basis.

"Haz is clever at disguising his meaning through sloppy syllogisms"

The "professor" seems to confuse a basic line of argumentation for a "syllogism." It sounds like you are the one attempting to consult the formalistic terms of propositional logic to follow here. All I have to do, meanwhile, is just be honest about the actual facts of history.

"Here, Haz switches into a Duginist analysis, specifically the thesis of the Fourth Political Theory that the "individualist" aspect of liberalism is to be rejected."

I actually just quoted Georgi Dimitrov, General Secretary of the Communist International. Would you like me to quote Soviet Introductory textbooks on Marxism-Leninism, so that you can know what Communists actually had to say about the "individualistic aspect of liberalism?" That Dugin might agree with this is not particularly relevant.

Your silly line of argumentation is as follows:

The underlying, super-rational secret behind Haz's arguments, is none other than Dugin! This is a sad form of paranoid schizophrenia and psychoses. You cannot actually address the arguments according to their content - namely the correct depiction of the facts of history, the basic and orthodox Marxist-Leninist outlook as it pertains to the national question, socialist patriotism, etc.

So you have adopted a form of psychosis, where you can attribute your own inability to rationally engage with what I am saying to a secret magician - Dugin.

The truth is, everything I have said is consistent with the facts of history, and with the basic, orthodox Marxist-Leninist outlook on the matter - both in theory and in practice.

You are just clearly trying to pivot from the argument at hand - because you're losing. Badly.

"false binary between what Haz tells us is "the soviet attempt to eventually eliminate ethnic tensions" and the "national nihilist/cosmopolitanism," a set of ideas that Haz wants to attack (in idealist fashion)."

Was Dimitrov, too, guilty of this "false binary," was he too guilty of attacking national nihilism and cosmopolitanism "in idealist fashion?" You then go on to claim that my argument is bad, and the reasoning you provide is that you think segregation and ethnic cleansing are examples of the bourgeoisie carefully taking into account the social consequences of exchanges between populations.

But racial segregation and ethnic cleansing are actually profoundly anti-social, Colin, because they deny, oppress, or even exterminate historically constituted communities wholesale. Such savage policies reflect the inability to recognize any kind of real social being, and reduce peoples to the narrow, metaphysical terms of 'race.'

This, in fact, has nothing to do with being sensitive to the social consequences of exchanges between different populations, Colin.

"This contradicts the statement Haz has pinned to his page."

No it doesn't. The extent to which I engage with Dugin or Heidegger elsewhere has absolutely nothing to do with the issue under contention right now. There is no need to read any Dugin or Heidegger to grasp the correctness of my position here. It is really just orthodox Marxism-Leninism. It's so sad that your illiteracy is so profound, you can't even recognize that.

After days, one would have thought that you would have actually read up on some actual Marxist-Leninist literature. Instead, you continue to tweak about Dugin. Just sad.

"Just because Dimitriov said it doesn't mean it's true."

So we have changed the goalposts - at first, nothing Haz was saying had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism, it was rather just Duginism. Now, Haz's position is actually the same as that of the General Secretary of the Comintern - but Colin has decided that it's actually Dimitrov who is wrong, and Colin, in his infinite genius - who just discovered who Dimitrov was because Haz mentioned him - is correct. But what you have done to demonstrate the correctness of your position? Nothing.

"Oh, I have read Dimitriov."

To be clear, ladies and gentleman, this is what someone says when they have, in fact, not read any Dimitrov.

You quote Marx, who says:

""The working men have no country" - Marx"

Marx was correct, Capitalism profoundly alienated the proletariat from their national existence, history and homeland. Now let us read what he wrote shortly afterwards:

"Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

Now, it is definitely true that Marx and Engels believed that the proletarian revolution would more or less eventually lead to the dissolution of all national differences.

Marxists afterwards long believed that a proletarian revolution would be a single simultaneous event of all nations, leading to the constitution of a higher, international form of historical existence.

But notice, even this was not cosmopolitanism. It was thought to be the culmination of all national histories, rather than their negation.

And while even Lenin understood the reality of unevenness, even he believed (before the experience of the October Revolution) the success of socialist construction would hinge upon an international revolution.

This is one of the reasons that the synthesis of Marxism-Leninism is not identical with 'classical Marxism.' Marxism-Leninism, the notion of Socialism in One Country, the Popular Front strategy, the Two tactics, etc. - all reflect an increasingly national awareness of the context of class struggle. This is not a regress into 'narrow nationalism' as the Trotskyists claim, but rather an increasingly advanced awareness of the real concrete determination and form of class struggle.

The "internationalism" of the social democrats, and even of the First International, was, however correct in principle, comparatively a type of indeterminate abstraction, and therefore less advanced than the Marxist-Leninist outlook.

"No, he actually explicitly says that the revolutions take from the future, not the present."

Pure pedantry. Obviously Marx believed that the future acquires an immanent significance in the present. The present, after all, is in motion.

But you missed the actual point: He was not talking about the extent of continuity with history. He was talking about directly attempting to emulate the past.

"The continuity of what with what? Why should we care about historical continuity?"

Sure, let me provide you with more education on the matter. The Communist outlook regards all world-history as a single concrete whole, characterized by a fundamentally rational development.

The bourgeois, metaphysical and idealistic outlook, marked by the narrow terms of the division of labor, regards various eras of history, and moreover the various details of these eras, only in isolation, and as fundamentally disconnected from both the present and any greater ongoing development, past or present.

Dimitrov stresses the importance of history because giving expression to it establishes the context of a single shared historical existence. This gives legitimacy to Communists, who prove they are truly the leaders of the people, of the nation - at the fundamental level of their historically constituted existence.

Now, where is Heidegger?

"Dimitriov is right. Fascist ideology is 100% rooted in "historical continuity," which is precisely how you sneak fascist ideology into Marxism."

Lol. The dishonesty is so incredible. I clearly showed that Dimitrov believed that Communists must themselves make use of history, or else the fascists' will. He says:

IF we do not root ourselves in historical continuity, the fascists will steal history from us and from the people.

This is why you had to elsewhere argue that Dimitrov was wrong. You now take a sentence from Dimitrov out of context, so as to insinuate that he was saying that the problem with fascism is that it draws from history in general - and not the fact that it is drawing from history in such a way so as to legitimize their present villainy.

Why would you do this, when just a few paragraphs later, what Dimitrov says directly disproves your silly interpretation of that sentence?

"I mean, kind of like what you do with your transphobia/homophobia?"

What? What does sexuality have to do with national sentiments? But to be clear, according to Dimitrov's reasoning here, - you are in fact playing into the hands of fascists by engaging in national nihilism, confirming their attempts to associate Communists with all that is offensive and degrading to national sentiments.

"Again, sounds like you." Profound argument. "Again, shows that historical continuity is an aspect of fascism." Again, let us actually consult what Dimitrov says:

"Hundreds of books are being published in Germany with only one aim -- to falsify the history of the German people and give it a fascist complexion. The new-baked National Socialist historians try to depict the history of Germany as if for the past two thousand years, by virtue of some historical law, a certain line of development had run through it like a red thread, leading to the appearance on the historical scene of a national 'savior', a 'Messiah' of the German people, a certain 'Corporal' of Austrian extraction. In these books the greatest figures of the German people of the past are represented as having been fascists, while the great peasant movements are set down as the direct precursors of the fascist movement.

Mussolini does his utmost to make capital for himself out of the heroic figure of Garibaldi. The French fascists bring to the fore as their heroine Joan of Arc. The American fascists appeal to the traditions of the American War of Independence, the traditions of Washington and Lincoln. The Bulgarian fascists make use of the national-liberation movement of the seventies and its heroes beloved by the people, Vassil Levsky, Stephan Karaj and others.

Communists who suppose that all this has nothing to do with the cause of the working class, who do nothing to enlighten the masses on the past of their people in a historically correct fashion, in a genuinely Marxist-Leninist spirit, who do nothing to link up the present struggle with the people's revolutionary traditions and past -- voluntarily hand over to the fascist falsifiers all that is valuable in the historical past of the nation, so that the fascists may fool the masses."

Emphasis in bold added to highlight the fact that Dimitrov is not saying the fascists are engaging in any real historical continuity. He is accusing them of the opposite: Of falsifying history, and thereby, actually decieving the masses.

Genuine continuity, as you can read clearly here, is actually very important for Communists. Are you fucking blind, Colin, you sad dipshit?

Let me literally quote it again so you can see:

"Communists who suppose that all this has nothing to do with the cause of the working class, who do nothing to enlighten the masses on the past of their people in a historically correct fashion, in a genuinely Marxist-Leninist spirit, who do nothing to link up the present struggle with the people's revolutionary traditions and past -- voluntarily hand over to the fascist falsifiers all that is valuable in the historical past of the nation, so that the fascists may fool the masses."

Clearly, Dimitrov is emphasizing that historical continuity is important for Communists. I genuinely am baffled at your attempts to deny what everyone can read plainly with their own eyes. It just reveals the sad and pathetic extent of your dishonesty.

"Second, he says that socialist movements should have heroes, but he fails to specify who should be chosen as heroes."

Again, your illiteracy is baffling. Communist states actually did exist Colin, you fucking moron. Including Bulgaria, Dimitrov's own native country. They depicted nearly all great national figures from their respective histories in a heroic fashion. Statues and monuments were built to them. Literature, movies, poetry etc. was made about them. Anyone with an even elementary degree of familiarity with Communist history knows this. You spend so much time talking shit on twitter, but really, - you're this much of a fucking dumbass?

"Furthermore, he says "a historically correct fashion," which does not mean falsifying the history so that slave owning members of the ruling class like Washington and Jefferson"

Dimitrov mentioned Washington directly as an example of a figure Communists should not allow the fascists to appropriate. It was one of the examples he listed of the fascist falsification of history.

This is further backed by the evidence given by the Communist Party USA at the time.

Now, if you would like to present some new historical argument against this, that's fine. But the burden is on you to prove it. You cannot call us "fascists" for maintaining the same position that was the norm for nearly all American Communists throughout history.

You deny nations are materially real. You thereby repudiate any pretense to Marxism-Leninism. If you do not believe nations have any material existence, you are not only not a Marxist-Leninist, you are not even a Marxist, but an idealist.

Stalin wrote lucidly: A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

There was never a question about the material reality of nations within Marxism. Only about the extent to which they would continue to exist separately after a victorious proletarian revolution. To say that nations are not materially real, implies that they are purely "ideas" or "thoughts."

By admitting you believe this, you have departed from Marxism, and entered a bizarre form of solipsistic idealism.

"Not an ethnic identity." [regarding the New Soviet Man]

To be clear, the argument was that the New Soviet Man represented an attempt to progressively facilitate the development of various Soviet ethnic identities, such that they would be characterized by their situation within a new national and collective solidarity, that exposed them to a far greater degree of diversity of culture, history, etc.

"I advocate for the progressive development of ALL people, who can learn from ALL of history."

That is very generous of you, "Professor." Unfortunately, such grandstanding is devoid of any material or concrete substance.

"Nobody wants to erase histories. We want to destroy the superstitions you want to mobilize."

That you regard culture, history and civilization to be "superstitions" rather speaks for itself. I doubt even Stirner, your true teacher it seems, would embarrass themselves by making such stupid statements.

In any case, without understanding the need to recognize various different histories, without the need to carefully facilitate their exchange and merging together, you regress into the national-nihilistic bourgeois cosmopolitanism, which indeed does erase peoples cultures and histories, failing to establish any rational continuity between them and the present.

"The biggest threat to your "traditionalist" perversion of Marxism is history."

It has been shown quite clearly that the biggest threat to your own outlook is literacy itself.

You should never have tried to fuck with me, Colin.

Colin’s Fourth Response can be Read Here:

https://x.com/colinbodayle/status/1835365247864946998

My Fourth Takedown of Colin:

You are shaping up to be, by far, my worst student, "Professor" Colin.

You had an entire day to educate yourself on the rudiments of a topic you are clearly out of your depth attempting to argue about, and yet decided to come back for more.

"No, no, you see, this time I'll truly show Haz! One last response and I'll redeem myself!"

You were offered the opportunity to engage in a single live debate, within a specific and definite time frame. You claimed that because of your esteemed job as a professor, you were "too busy" and it was "not worth your time."

But you have already spent several hours "debating" this and I imagine will be forced to spend dozens of hours more - across several days.

The reason you won't actually debate me in a finite time setting is because when called to actually defend anything whatsoever on the spot, you would fail, like the sad, floundering dipshit that you are.

Now, ONTO THE TOPIC AT HAND:

You once again demonstrate your inability to follow the basic line of argumentation at hand, regarding the question of the difference between current U.S. border policy (and whatever strategic significance changes in it might have for Communists not in power), Communist border policy, and what policies a movement should agitate for here and now.

The actual and original argument you attempted to provide for "open borders" was not that it would be favorable for a ruling Communist Party or a proletarian dictatorship, but for the worker's movement in general. You claimed that if all immigration was immediately legalized, this would eliminate the enslavement of migrant labor, and thereby negate the harmful effect mass immigration has on the domestic power of labor.

This extremely stupid claim neglects the basic facts of the international labor market, the fact that some workers are actually willing to work for less due to the unevenness of global costs of labor, and that there is actually no way to, outside of power, enforce uniform labor standards without those themselves being circumvented - but Nevermind this, because it's actually besides the point. What you ignored is that it put the cart before the horse.

Migrants do not have anywhere near the leverage that domestic workers have, as far as their ability to organize.

If you were to pass a policy on the basis of the reasoning that it would benefit the worker's movement - Then short of some kind of Machiavellian 4D chess and complete subterfuge of U.S. politics (for the utilitarian aim of legalizing all immigration - though it is curious, if you have such power, why not use it to just dismantle the state outright, rather than one policy?) you would already need a strong labor movement in the first place, that advocates for policies that are (supposedly, and this one in particular is just according to your stupid ass) in its interests.

You would need to build a strong, core movement of domestic workers in the first place, before even thinking about "organizing" migrant workers. And the reason for that is simple: Absent a core movement based in the domestic working class, migrant workers have absolutely no leverage.

The dependency capitalists have upon their slave labor only rests upon the very conditions you'd be 'organizing' them to abolish. Logically, to whatever extent they could ever be successful, is the same extent to which whatever leverage they had in the first place disappears. This is why you cannot take a 'short-cut' around the actual, national, domestic working class.

They alone have the leverage to challenge the ruling class. Because deporting them would be a violation of the entire state itself, not just them as workers but as citizens. The whole edifice of the state itself would collapse.

You just fail to understand that policies do not come out of the heads of 'brilliant' (or even comically stupid ones, like yourself) individuals.

They, to the extent that they are outside the intentions of the ruling class, rest on the basis of movements. Power can only be exercised outside of the established power, through the power of masses, movements, large volumes of people willing to fight.

In this way, you put the cart before the horse - you think that this policy will benefit the labor movement, or labor in general - but being able to pass it and go against the current policy of slavery would itself require the very same degree of power by the labor movement which you presume such a policy would establish.

At the very minimum, you would need a huge degree of popular support.

Perhaps Colin thinks he is going to be able to mobilize and pull upon the heart strings of all of America's college students, fomenting a mass movement on the basis of passing new immigration policy to legalize all immigration.

But if you had the power to foment any mass movement whatsoever - for any purpose whatsoever - you wouldn't need to be bitching about the American Communist Party on Twitter 24/7.

So it begs the question: Why haven't you gone about putting your 'theory' into practice yourself? This is why I claim you are fundamentally ignorant of the basic history of socialist and Communist politics, organizing and movements.

You claim I'm not providing any specific examples - but I very clearly stated that Socialist parties and movements have always distinguished the content of agitation from the content of the responsibilities of actual administration once they actually were to seize power.

Agitation in the realm of policy advocation serves the purpose of heightening contradictions, and educating the masses about them. It serves the purpose of exposing why the bourgeois state is incapable of acquiescing to basic minimal demands.

This basic taking-into-account of the disparity between the consciousness of Communists and that of the masses was elaborated masterfully by Lenin, in Left-Wing Infantilism - a book whose contents you are being exposed to for the first time in your sad life.

Reproaching those German ultra-lefts who regarded parliamentary institutions as all-together outmoded, Lenin states:

"Parliamentarianism is of course “politically obsolete” to the Communists in Germany; but—and that is the whole point—we must not regard what is obsolete to us as something obsolete to a class, to the masses"

The specific content of what Communists do in parliament is not to fall under the illusion that this is actually an organ of proletarian policy-making. The content is to serve the purpose of agitation, and educating the masses through the course of the contradictions that are revealed in the struggle therein.

Such is made clear by Lenin when it comes to participation in parliaments all together. Before Lenin, the precedent set by the Second International was also very clear. The 1891 Erfurt Program of the German Social Democratic Party established clearly the distinction between maximal and minimal programs.

Before the era of reformism, Social Democrats did not regard minimal programs as a vehicle to serve any kind of 'humane' purpose. They regarded minimal programs as agitational vehicles to realize mass movements, that would eventually be powerful enough to realize the maximal program - the program of victorious Social Democracy at the reigns of power.

This set a basic precedent for Communist Parties in conditions where there was no expectation of an imminent revolutionary situation. The fact you were unaware of these basic facts, and required me to list specific examples of them, etc. - reveals that you're just receiving a free education at this point, not engaging in an actual debate.

You simply don't have the capacity to actually debate me.

You then claim I have fallen into a "nest of thoughtless contradictions." The reasoning you provide for this is that, in fact, it is I who is presenting themselves as the "wise policy maker" by giving people an idea of what a Communist Party might do if it actually seized power. But you missed the point of why I accused you of this. You are actually trying to pass policies under the current regime, to serve the purpose of 'strengthening the labor movement.'

This is the reasoning you provided for telling Communists to engage in political suicide by agitating for "open borders" and "legalizing all immigration." But passing those policies in the first place, requires making them popular among the masses. This is the objective fact of the matter.

You are attempting to be a "wise policy maker" who "benefits the masses" without any mediation by an actual mass movement, which is what you would actually need for any policy to be passed under the current system in the first place.

By contrast, the program of a Communist Party is not made under the illusion that any policy in the present state is going to be passed for the utilitarian purpose of benefiting the movement. It is the open program of the Party that is given to the masses, and the extent to which it resonates among them is a basic question of the dialectical process by which the masses and a Communist Party learn from each other.

But you are trying to "manage" some kind of labor movement before it even exists as a 'wise policy maker' passing policies that benevolently help the workers. You claim that the decisive step of making the policy popular among the masses is "irrelevant."

But if the very condition of the possibility of what you propose rests upon it (in actual material reality, mind you), how is it irrelevant? Under what circumstances would it be possible for this policy to be passed without being led by a core mass movement?

You reveal your individualism and idealism by treating policies in a vacuum, divorced from the actual material and social conditions under which they would even be possible. You claim these conditions are irrelevant - only the 'correctness' or 'incorrectness' of the policy matters.

But as we can see, such a criterion of 'correctness' or 'incorrectness,' by your own admission, has to be expunged from basic material and social considerations.

How could such a criterion possibly reflect the materialist outlook? Or, do you, like your teachers, regard the reality of masses, politics, social relationships, etc. as immaterial realities?

Do you regard as material only what is possible within the narrow sphere of hypothetical, natural-scientific possibility expunged of any human element? Then your 'materialism' lacks dialectics, and is certainly not Marxist.

What kind of 'Marxist' can derive the correctness of incorrectness of not only a policy, but a given viewpoint - in a way unmediated by material considerations? Not a Marxist at all - but a bourgeois idealist.

NOW, sensing that you have gotten yourself in a ridiculous position, you attempt to combine two entirely separate positions you have espoused - namely:

1) The policy of open borders you propose here and now under the current regime, on the supposed basis that it would help the workers movement, 2) A hypothetical policy of open borders as the program of a Communist Party that has seized power.

By conflating these two, you downplayed the immediate significance of actually having to make policy 1 popular among the masses. You now afford yourself the liberty of simply treating it as policy 2.

But now you have no argument in favor of "open borders" at all. Especially while you lack any precedent by any Communist state in history.

We all saw your silly little "syllogism" Colin, you pathetic retard. I was hoping you would bring it up in this post of yours, because I began to worry that since I did not respond to that tweet, you were holding onto it as the last refuge of delusion, that you can somehow avoid the total, complete, and unequivocal destruction I am going to dispense upon you:

It is only appropriate to force a given line of reasoning under the scrutiny of formal logic when an otherwise ordinary use of reasoning must be called into question. You have to demonstrate why that is, though.

Absent the ability to confront the actual facts, you attempt to engage in sophistry by litigating the formal correctness of the reasoning I engaged in. But no such formal parameters, that satisfy the limited confines of propositional logic were ever even agreed upon.

The basic error of attempting to impose them here is that it unjustifiably reduces, in bad faith, the terms involved in the ordinary use of reasoning to rigid and exclusionary variables.

I did not simply claim that just because no actually existing AES country had open borders, that the United States likewise shouldn't. In order to demonstrate the validity of your syllogism, you need to show how I established this "just because."

You cannot.

I didn't simply mention the border policies of past and present AES states, and use the authority of the latter to justify them. I mentioned them to illustrate examples of the actually applied Communist outlook on the question of immigration, borders, and national policy - and I moreover provided an ample amount of explanation and reasoning for these policies.

In other words, I did not only provide examples, I showed how they were rationally commensurate with the underlying logic, method, etc. behind the Communist outlook.

Therefore, your 'syllogism' collapses as a supposed illustration of my argument. I demonstrated this under multiple lenses - questions of not only security, but basic socialist economic planning, questions of national policy, and questions of mediating, balancing, and reducing tensions between different historically constituted groups.

You ignored all of these facts of history. You made no argument about why none of this would apply to a proletarian dictatorship in America.

Let me help you, Colin. If you were smart, you would say that the rigid form of socialist planning in past AES won't be applicable in the 21st century, and that these were necessary to build socialism in feudal or semi-feudal conditions, and were therefore far more restrictive conditions than in a modern liberal society. In those conditions, people were weighed down by past prejudices to a far greater degree.

This is not a particularly brilliant point, but it is the bare minimum to prove your sapience.

I would, of course, respond by pointing out the example of China - a country which has, indeed, moved beyond the primary stage of socialism and into a far more dynamic system. I would point out that despite this, planning was never actually "liberalized" - just made more dynamic.

I would point out the extensive system of restrictions on internal migration within China. I would point out how still, all forms of mass migration in China are planned and controlled, whether on an ethnic basis or otherwise.

This is the basic meaning of socialist responsibility, and treating the realities of populations on a collective rather than individual basis. The 'free for all' of liberal individualism cannot survive into a proletarian dictatorship. It negates the very logic of the proletarian dictatorship, which is a type of state power that addresses society at the level of collective existences, and operates on that basis.

You then start floundering as a consequence of your own inability to follow a basic line of argumentation.

You hilariously tried to claim that imperialist intrigue was basically the sole cause of border policy.

I mentioned the counter-example of ethnic tensions, and the mitigation of them thereof.

You then said that these ethnic tensions (at least to the extent that they factored into consideration for migration and national policy), logically, must themselves be the consequence of imperialist intrigue.

You deny this now. But here is what you said directly:

"Every instance of immigration being tightly controlled under AES was a result of socialism being under siege, including incidents that aimed to prevent ethnic conflicts (a tool that NATO frequently uses to destabilize governments)."

So, you claimed that incidents that aimed to prevent ethnic conflicts were a consequence of responding to imperialist intrigue. For all your floundering and jibbering about syllogisms, logic just isn't your strong suit, is it Colin.

You claim that the point is that mitigating ethnic tensions was never a sufficient cause of restrictive migration or border policies in AES.

But you never actually got around to addressing the question of why these same restrictive policies were applied between socialist fraternal states, or internally as pertained to national policy.

For example, you could not explain the implementation of phenomena like the Soviet-Czechoslovak population transfer agreements. In agreements such as these, only ethnic Russians and Ukrainians within Czechoslovakia were given the option to acquire permanent citizenship in the USSR, while Czechs and Slovaks were given the same option for Czechoslovakia.

Inside Czechoslovakia, Czechs and Slovaks were not given this same option to move to the USSR. Why was that, Colin?

The argument that ethnic considerations were never sufficient causes in explaining Soviet migration and border policies collapses wherever we evaluate changes in the Soviet border, in SSR's like Ukraine, for example.

While some scholars argue that restrictive Soviet border practices can be reduced to paranoia that other populations were raised under different systems and governments, this reduction collapses upon minimal scrutiny. When we evaluate the case of the Soviet annexation of Polish territories, where ethnic Ukrainians resided who had lived for nearly two decades outside the Soviet system, the Soviets were in no way reluctant or hesitant to grant the latter full citizenship in the Ukrainian SSR.

Many cases exist of population transfers, such as the Soviet-Czech agreement mentioned above. In an agreement with the new Polish government in the postwar period, ethnic Poles were transferred out of Western Ukraine and into Poland.

Why didn't the Soviet Union treat such realities as a liberal free for all? Because they knew that without carefully defined agreements between different nations, that treated populations on a collective rather than individual basis, red lines could inevitably be crossed which offend peoples national honor.

In this way, they reduced ethnic tensions, animosity, and conflicts. All the examples we see of mass migration, of huge volumes of people moving around, were tightly controlled, regulated, and national considerations were taken strongly into account.

It would be hardly reasonable to justify the notion that all of this happened strictly on the basis of 'imperialist intrigue.' If that were true, the Soviets should have been far more reluctant in gleefully accepting ethnic Russians and Ukrainians who resided in Czechoslovak territory, while tightly restricting entry for other populations.

You claim I do not have the "authority" to talk about Soviet history. I invite you to study the history of the USSR's national policy. Ethnic tensions were mitigated by institutionalizing ethnic identities and delimiting definite territories of settlement, employment, opportunity, etc. for them. It suffices to study the dynamics of Soviet policy when it came to defining SSR, ASSR, Autonomous Oblast, etc. statuses for different groups.

These, and their delimited territories actually underwent considerable degrees of variation (i.e. conversion of SSR's into ASSR's, vice versa, etc.) often on the basis of mitigating ethnic tensions. In the Caucuses, the territories of the Armenian and Azeri SSR's had to be carefully delimited so as to mitigate outbreaks of violence and tensions, while stemming all separatist impulses.

This is why the Soviet Union did not really have "mass migration" as much as it had varying and dynamic delimitations of territory. And these delimitations were themselves very restrictive. They could not be crossed liberally, but they themselves could go change depending on different circumstances.

The idea of cosmopolitan individuals freely moving around without restriction across territories and borders was inconceivable. Only Western liberal dipshits like yourself, Colin, regard that as some "human right."

You claim that the underlying "premise" of my argument is, somehow, that the U.S. should adopt the same exact border policies as the Soviet Union. There are many layers of stupidity surrounding this (for one, it doesn't distinguish the present regime from a proletarian dictatorship).

In particular, it ignores how border policies obviously varied between past and present Communist states. But rather, what they all had in common was an outlook on questions of national policy, flow of population, settlement, and social existence that led to certain shared characteristics, which there is no reason to assume a Communist America would not also possess. The logic of proletarian dictatorship and socialist construction necessarily prevents the possibility of 'free flows' of population on an individual basis.

Settlement, employment, and various social benefits all need to be carefully controlled for socialist planning to even be possible. In consideration of recognizing differences between different historically constituted groups, it is also necessary that encounters between populations are not 'left to the devil' as a 'free for all' without any mediation.

All of these considerations reflect the differences between the Communist and the liberal, or the proletarian and the bourgeois outlook. The bourgeois outlook only recognizes individuals.

It does not recognize people at the level of their collective existence or social being. And as Marxism-Leninism teaches us, nationality is the form of social existence, the form of a given historically constituted social being. Under liberal policy - people are only treated as 'individuals.'

So when huge volumes of people of similar background migrate somewhere, this is treated as just as 'accident' and an 'amalgamation' of 'different individual snowflakes.' No responsibility is assumed for the consequences this might have - whether social, economic or cultural.

The Communist view, in relation to such matters, is one of responsibility - not liberalism and irresponsibility. That is my 'premise.' Not that "The US should adopt so-and-so policy just because the Soviet Union did."

You claim that I am talking about "separating people on the basis of ethnic differences" and therefore a policy of segregation. That isn't true at all. I don't want to separate anyone actually - people are already separated. So the question is, how do you proceed from there? Allow ethnic tensions to explode and lead to ethnic conflicts, or recognize these already existing differences so that any antagonism can be managed?

The point is not at all imposing separation, but carefully manage existing forms of separation between people. And the principle form of separation is based on recognizing their national sovereignty. Different historically constituted groups, more often than not, exist within the context of different sovereign states.

That is why the Soviets treated the delimitation of Soviet Republics, oblasts, okregs, etc. on such a careful basis. This is why I strongly emphasized controlling immigration on the basis of bilateral agreements.

Notice how this outlook, that prioritizes the recognition of national sovereignty, is basic Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy.

Introductory textbooks like The Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism literally have entire chapters titled Cosmopolitanism and Not Patriotism Is the Ideology of the Imperialist Bourgeoisie. It reads clearly:

"The question here concerns the ideology encouraged by the imperialists, which propagates a sham “obsolescence” of the principle of sovereignty, the “legitimacy” of limiting state independence, an indifference to national traditions and contempt for national culture. This ideology alleges that at the present time the idea of motherland is devoid of any meaning. For the financial oligarchy of the U.S.A., cosmopolitism has proved the best way of disguising its struggle for world supremacy and for the doing away with the independence of other states"

You go on to ignore the significance of what was the norm in the Soviet Union, claiming that "people tend to live in communities everywhere" and that "people also travel."

But under capitalism, people are not only uprooted from their communities, they are fundamentally alienated from them in ways they were not in the Soviet Union, which preserved their collective, historical existence in ways capitalist countries did not for their own populations.

And you ignore how severely travel, let alone permanent settlement, was restricted in the USSR, even internally. And yes, to whatever extent different people mixed together, it was definitely controlled. This is a fact of Soviet history.

You attempt to racialize this in the context of America. But if you knew anything about the actual viewpoint of the American Communist Party on the National Question in America, which you regularly decry as "racist" and "fascist," you would know that we do not recognize different "races" as separate nations.

We recognize only one American nation, and the various history of different "races" as belonging to a single, integral history of one nation in the process of defining itself. Marxism-Leninism recognizes national policy as inexorably tied to the basic questions of self-determination and sovereignty.

Once again, here lies the significance of bilateral agreements in consideration immigration under socialism.

You then claim, in all your generosity, that you do not want settlers to randomly move into indigenous lands, and oppose gentrification. But you miss the point entirely: The point is not about establishing discriminatory policies against certain ethnicities or group in consideration of mass migration.

Your fundamentally liberal error resides in the assumption that mass migration is the norm, rather than the exception - in the strict sense that people are moving around for no reason whatsoever, and there is no way to make that reason accountable to an actual Socialist country - which is somehow, mind you, managing and being accountable for nearly every other factor and consideration of production.

Under socialism, the movement of peoples must obey a social and collective rationale, rather than the whims of an individual. People cannot simply freely decide, in an individual capacity, to move anywhere they want to without some kind of accountability for the consequences of this decision being taken into consideration.

It is true that Socialism should at the least be as dynamic as current American capitalism is, when it comes to permitting people the freedom to choose their fate.

But this does not mean being blind to consequences. Under liberalism, is it true that people can simply move wherever they want?

No. They must be atune to basic economic considerations - such as the prospects for employment, settlement, and others - and only when these matters are settled, can individual whim, taste, and discretion acquire true power. But under socialism, by no means are these matters settled 'automatically.'

That would be Utopian. They are still economic considerations that need to be factored in a way that is commensurate with socialist planning. Socialism will not eliminate all economic restrictions whatsoever - it will rather base those restrictions in the rational necessity of economic planning, rather than the irrational and anarchic realities of capitalism.

This requires treating individuals on a level that is more collective than under the present liberal capitalist system. Now, for whatever bizarre reason, you claim that this basic truism of not only the experience of all socialist economics, including today's China, but from what anyone can see would follow quite logically and inevitably from the realities of a proletarian dictatorship and socialist planning - is somehow 'liberalism.'

You go on to claim that what is being described here - which is just educating you, an illiterate dumbass, about the actual realities of AES, including the Soviet Union, is just "putting forth the Fourth Political Theory."

Not content with embarrassing yourself here to such a unfathomably ridiculous extent, you quickly realize how you have contradicted yourself, floundering around in your own "accredited" excrement, and eventually deciding to fall upon the proposition that actually, I am "inverting" Dugin.

That you have no self-awareness of how badly you are just waffling, jibbering, and at this point babbling with the same severity as a schizophrenic crackhead on the street's word salad, is very sad Colin. You are just a stupid person to an extremely sad degree.

"You're a Duginist... But actually, you're a liberal, which is the opposite of Dugin - but actually, that's just inverse Duginism, so it's the same thing! Dugin! Dugin! D....d....d... Dugin!"

Do you even hear yourself tweaking?

And not a sentence after accusing me of being a liberal, this is what "illiberal" Colin says:

"I say: fuck cultural essentialism and fuck ethnocentricism. My allegiance is to the working class and the dignity and liberation of ALL people."

Very punk rock. Very brave. Unfortunately, this is little more than an infantile type of idealist cosmopolitanism, which has nothing to do with the Marxist-Leninist tradition.

What you are effectively saying is that cultures and nations don't matter, rather, what matters is some indeterminate and ideal abstraction in your head.

True proletarian internationalism is derived on the basis of the recognition of different nations. It is universality through particularity, universality through movements within concrete determinations.

As the "liberal Duginist (?)" Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism points out:

"Bourgeois propaganda tries to represent the capitalist class as the bearer of patriotic feelings. They want to slur over the fact that the patriotism of the bourgeoisie is always subordinate to its selfish, narrow class interests, and to disparage the patriotism of the working class and Communists. In this connection, bourgeois propagandists sometimes refer to the passage in the Communist Manifesto which says that “the working men have no country”. It is perfectly clear, however, that it is not a question of repudiating the fatherland, but of the fact that in a society ruled by capitalists the fatherland is actually usurped by exploiters and is not a good father but a vicious stepfather to the workers. By overthrowing the rule of the exploiting classes the working class creates the conditions for the fullest possible manifestation of its patriotism, for it itself is the true bearer of patriotism in our time

Developing the Marxist point of view regarding the fatherland, Lenin wrote in 1908: “The fatherland, i.e., the given political, cultural and social environment, is the most powerful factor in the class struggle of the proletariat.... The proletariat cannot be indif- 384 ferent to and unconcerned about the political, social and cultural conditions of its struggle and, consequently, cannot remain indifferent to the fate of its country.”240

This does not in any way mean, however, that, while belonging to the single international army of working people, the worker ceases to be a Frenchman, Englishman, Italian, etc. Quite the contrary. True and not sham patriotism springs naturally from proletarian internationalism. In point of fact, does not faithfulness to the ultimate ideal of the working class imbue the workers with a fervent desire to see their own people free, prosperous and achieving social progress? Seeking liberation from all forms of oppression and exploitation, the working class wants this not only for itself, but also for all the working people, for the whole nation. Only the achievement of the ultimate aims of the working class, i.e., the overthrow of the power of the exploiters, who impede the progress of the nation, and the building of socialism, can bring every nation real freedom, independence and national greatness. It follows that the most internationalist class— the working class—is at the same time the most patriotic class."

Compare this lucid outlook based in Marxism-Leninism with your own childish "Fuck all culture!" "fuck all ethnicities! You actual child.

You go on to make the hilarious and delusional claim that:

"Traveling within the USSR was no different than traveling within the European Union. Sure, you couldn't just move into a new city without having a job lined up there, but you have to fill out paperwork to change your residency in every country."

Lmao. The Soviets had one of the most restrictive internal migration systems in the entire world. This passport (propiska) based system.

Those who received a propiska, which was initially designated only for certain regions, they were authorized to reside in a certain address or area. But changing this area was not a right, and, without special permission, or some special reason, it was very difficult. Notice, this is true even just for individuals - to say nothing of entire swaths of populations.

Now, even if it were true for individuals that it was easy to resettle (which it was not, as I will show) and "no different than the European Union," one of the primary differences you're ignoring is that this isn't the same as mass migraiton.

As soon as these 'whimsical choices' by individuals would ever acquire the ineligibility of a social pattern, the idea the Soviet state would not be responsive to this phenomena in a decisive way is just hilarious.

I just implore anyone reading this to study literally anything about the internal system of migration in the Soviet Union to see how fucking stupid Colin sounds to me right now.

The Soviets had a three-part system of passport control - a countryside that did not even rally have passports, thus couldn't move anywhere else unless as a direct consequence of state policy - unrestricted cities, where any passport holder could hypothetically reside (i.e. with no outstanding restrictions preempting it formally - that doesn't mean they could do it whimsically or just choose to) and 'closed cities,' where passport holders could reside only with special permission.

So, there is variance within the system - again, nothing that reaches the proportion of liberal capitalism - but none the less, variance.

That is because the system is controlled, with an actual rational purpose and plan in mind. It is not a liberal "free for all." You are trying to create a straw man, according to which I am arguing that no travel, no migration, no flows of population, etc. should ever be allowed - when the reality is that what I am arguing is that it should be controlled according to a rational criterion.

Control does not preempt allowing for a limited extent of 'free movement' when the parameters of this movement are pre-defined, and when all its consequences can be properly anticipated and calculated.

Once again, you're jibbering about this straw man according to which I am saying that people should be "separated" on ethnic lines. I am not saying that - I am saying those lines will exist regardless of whether you recognize them or not, and thus, if not carefully managed, it can lead to undesirable outcomes. Including alienating people - both migrants and native residents - from their historically constituted cultures and communities.

You are somehow creating the strawman that I fear 'Colin Bodayle's Utopia,' where everyone will just mix together in one indiscriminate melting pot, where no ethnic considerations will ever factor into how communities are constituted, where everyone will just be a free individual devoid of any particular collective existence (beyond the abstract universal of "ALL PEOPLE" and "ALL HUMANITY"). I do not fear your Utopia Colin. I just think it's an infantile desire, which has no basis in reality.

The reality is that if you do not carefully manage differences between different historically constituted communities, it will lead to misunderstanding, conflict, chaos, and an explosion of ethnic tensions and resentments. Hypothetically, if we did not have to worry about that, why would I - or Soviet statesmen for that matter - or the statesmen of any Communist state in history - give a shit?

Because I am a "racial essentialist?" But to prove that, you need to demonstrate how that is fundamental to my reasoning. You can't do that. You haven't done it. And you won't do it.

"travel was not restricted and he needs to provide evidence that internal relocation was also restricted based on ethnicity. Even if he does provide evidence of such restrictions, however, this has nothing to do with his main argument"

Hold on, what?

First, the comical delusion:

"Travel WAS NOT restricted."

What do you mean it wasn't restricted you fucking moron? It was the most severely and tightly restrictive travel regime in the history of any large polity in world history.

You then claim I need to provide evidence that ethnic identity factored in considerations of restriction. But what about providing evidence for the ludicrous claim that there was no restriction at all? In any case, the propiska included ethnic identification. Why do you think that was?

The propiska was necessary even for temporary travel, mind you. To list specific examples of restriction based on ethnicity, it was never formalized obviously. But in terms of how to make sense of the patterns of the decisions made as far as restricting travel from different groups, it's pretty clear according to all reputable historians that ethnicity was a significant factor.

Depending on patterns and tendencies of migration, the Soviets limited it to some regions and opened it in some others - on the basis of clearly intelligible ethnic and national considerations. It was never really a massive issue though, because people did not arbitrarily even want to randomly transplant themselves into different ethnic communities. It made no sense. Why would people just want to move away from their families and so on randomly? The logic of 'snowflake' liberalism didn't exist.

"I want to go on a journey!" I guess there was some Russian hippies who had this mentality. But they were regarded as anti social by the state.

You then decade, for some reason, to make a distinction between "open borders" and "open immigration."

By this, I assume you are pedantically referring to the distinction between permanent residency (or citizenship) and moving around freely? Just what are you waffling about, Colin?

"Haz is saying that he wishes to prevent people, based on their ethnicity or culture, from traveling across borders"

I expressly said the opposite you dishonest fucking idiot. What I said clearly and succinctly was that such travel should be planned for, controlled, and carefully managed. Not unilaterally and unconditionally restricted.

Why is this so fucking hard for you to understand?

You claim I need to specify the exclusion of certain cultures and ethnicities. Again, you're incapable of thinking in a Marxist fashion. I do not need to specify anything like that.

A ruling Communist Party will pose the question: Who is trying to immigrate to America, and for what reason? What are the causes and underlying factors behind this? What might be the consequences of this, economically and culturally? How can we ensure that these consequences conform to the goals of socialist planning and proletarian dictatorship? How can we address these causes and underlying factors, and render them commensurate, on a rational level, with their consequences?

Firstly, the question would not be treated in a cosmopolitan way. People who want to immigrate are doing so from a certain country. What is the political status of that country? What is their disposition? A bilateral agreement should be in place, so both countries can carefully plan and manage the flows and transfers of populations, on a rational basis.

This is what it means to treat immigration from the perspective of socialist responsibility, rather than liberal cosmopolitanism. In contrast to what you ridiculously propose - which is "open borders" or "open immigration." You then start floundering about and revealing your liberal individualism, by comparing the differences between different historically constituted groups and the differences between individuals.

The reason Marxists reject that comparison is because 'individual differences' have no historical import, when abstracted from the integral and wider realities of collective existence, based in a definite mode of production and a tangibly, historically constituted community.

Individuals are situated within the context of a social being, a social being which possesses different forms - and these forms, within Marxism-Leninism, are called nations.

"We should treat individuals as individuals, some of whom might identify as members of a historically constituted community"

Okay Rachel Dolezal.

The problem is that these are exceptions to the norm, and the whims of the individual are by no means a sufficient basis for a historically constituted community.

To the extent that a historically constituted community accepts an individual from without, it is to the extent that this individual submits to the history of a real, constituted collective existence - and not to the extent that such an existence submits to the whims and desires of some outside individual.

The reason this point about individuals "choosing" to live in different communities is immaterial is because such choices could never serve as the foundation of any community (at least according to Marxism) in the first place.

I have no idea why you're bringing up Dugin, anyway. He actually does say that people can choose to be Russian, have the Russian soul and outlook, and that it isn't based on blood or 'genetics.' I mean you keep bringing up Dugin rather than talk about Marxism-Leninism, but what's funny is that you don't even know shit about Dugin, either. So sad and pathetic.

"all humans are free to create a historical narrative for themselves, to identify with whatever historical tradition or community they want, even if those communities do not accept them."

Lol. I am superstitious for thinking that you cannot just become a Navajo (even if they reject you, at that), because it's what you "identify" as? This is your idealism. You think history and communities are based on individuals whimsically "identifying" with things in their head, rather than tangibly grounded patterns of reproduction and production, which are based in material and historical laws.

Marx made it clear - men and women do make history, but not as they please.

It seems you missed that part.

"These are just ideas and the experiences and knowledge we have from being around certain groups of people with shared values."

Experiences and knowledge are not just "ideas." They have a profoundly unconscious basis. Studies have even shown that generational trauma can be passed down on an epigenetic basis.

Sorry Colin, but you cannot just decide to be an indigenous American because you "feel" like it.

"They are products of thought and experience. They are not real."

Yes Colin, nations are "not real." How very "Marxist." I recommend reading Engels Origin, where he outlines the material basis of nations quite clearly. They are very far from just being "thoughts and experience." They are integral patterns of reproduction, production, and communal existence in relation to nature.

The point about being a translator flew over you head, and just decided to take it literally. But even on that account, your argument is that it "makes me a dick."

It seems I have become yet another thing, in addition to title of professor, you do not have.

This is getting quite tiring. You then continue to expose your lack of rudimentary familiarity with Marxism-Leninism, or even just basic dialectics, by claiming that the only "collective existence" is some abstract universal (like "universal human dignity," lol) unmediated by any particular determination.

Sigh.

Firstly, this is an undialectical logic. An 'abstract universal' lacks concreteness. And within dialectical logic, universality can only be given expression through particular determinations.

Further, an "abstract universal identity" like "universal human dignity" cannot possibly acquire the status of a collective existence. A collective existence cannot be real if it is not tangible or particular.

If it is just some kind of intangible, abstract, 'universal totality' within which all individuals belong, it has no particular material significance.

We are just back in liberal individualism, because such a category has no concrete or practical import.

It may as well not even exist, beyond some vague commitment to "universal human rights."

And that is the logical conclusion of this silly thinking of yours, in the end. American unipolar imperialism.

What you are talking about is a type of silly, philistine bourgeois cosmopolitanism that has nothing in common with proletarian internationalism.

It's just sad to witness a dipshit like you write shit like this, at this point.

You accuse the basic Marxist-Leninist outlook of being identical with "identity politics." but the opposite is true. Identity politics is founded precisely upon a metaphysics of intangible, abstract universals - these are not concrete particulars, they are particular 'abstract universals,' vessels of the same invariable bourgeois identity of nothingness.

They are not living forms of collective existence, they are invariable vessels of pure difference. They are thus devoid of concreteness.

True concreteness is based on a dialectic of form and content. Communist universalism acquires substantiality because it is mediated concretely within specific, tangible existences - defined not by invariable forms of "identities," but specific instantiations of a universal dialectical tension - such as class struggle.

This is why the slogan of Marxism-Leninism on the matter is National in Form, Socialist in Content.

Since the time of the Communist Manifesto, Marxists understood that class struggle is national in form.

Nations are very real, insofar as they are particular determinations of a contradiction. But the very fact of their particularity is not simply an accident, but commensurate with the ontology of dialectics itself, according to which a universal acquires reality only through its particular instantiations, nay, it is the same as those instantiations, it shares identity with them.

This is what preempts the possibility of "identity politics" or bourgeois nationalism - because we cannot know the universal according to the conceit of an invariable thought or "identity".

We can give form to the contradiction only actively, by participating in the living historical development of a given nation.

When Soviet Russians gave expression to the Russian national form, such as in socialist realism, they were not giving expression to an invariable idea. They were giving expression, through particular forms of activity (artistic, literary, or even political) to a living contradiction and a living movement, namely the historical development of socialist construction within the Russian context.

This could never be reduced to some 'pure idea.' It was an active process, rooted in constant change.

You cannot see the difference between this and "identity politics."

Because you simply don't know anything about Marxism. It's really that simple.

On the question of Dimitrov, thanks for conceding. I was wondering how long that would take. You don't agree with Dimitrov, fine. But let's not deceive people and pretend my position here is anything other than standard Marxism-Leninism.

You then hilariously attempt to imply that Stalin did not mean to say nations were materially real when he claimed that they were a "historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."

Ladies and gentleman, do my eyes deceive me? Colin claims that what Stalin describes above is not necessarily something he would regard as materially real.

You claim that language is not "purely material" because of the needed materiality of consciousness. At best, this makes you guilty of metaphysical dualism, which, actually means the worst thing - idealism.

Consciousness is not somehow "immaterial." It is definitely a material reality. It is just not material according to the direct products of consciousness itself.

In other words, idealism is not the product of some metaphysically ideal realm. But of a confusion, of a misrecognition. A vain attempt to regard all reality as identical with a given product of thought-activity, hypothetical or otherwise.

Idealism itself is a material reality. Marx regards it as a consequence of the division of labor in his early writings.

Everything has a material basis and reality according to materialism, Colin you fucking moron.

You claim "territory" is immaterial. But neglect how Stalin makes it VERY clear the territory is not strictly defined by force, but influenced by a mode of production, i.e. by an extent of settlement, trade, and economic activity. Stalin is arguing legal borders are downstream from that.

You claim "psychological make-up" is immaterial, but rather ideal. So you are not a materialist.

You realize Marxists subscribe to a materialist view of psychology right?

But alas, the best part about all of this is that you fail to grasp that materialism is not the same as metaphysical dualism. Ideas are involved in common culture, but that doesn't Somehow make culture any less materially real.

Your attempt to claim that nations are not materially real (notice you changed your point - before, you claimed that they didn't exist materially - now you say they're a combination of material and ideal elements) on account of the fact that they are involved with ideas involves basically any other category of Marxism, including a given mode of production itself.

Capitalism also involves ideas. So do the existence of various classes. Now tell me Colin, does this make it such that they are not materially real?

Marx and Engels were themselves clear about how ideas are involved in history, how these exert an influence and play a role, and not just economics. But your mistake lies in conflating materiality for economics exclusively.

The Dialectical Materialist outlook also accounts for the existence of ideas as materially real themselves - just not on the terms of the ideas themselves.

And after all, proletarian consciousness is necessary for the proletarian class struggle to advance to a certain stage. Does this make it 'partially immaterial?' Would you be willing to commit to the logical conclusion of your silly, idealist view of nations?

Or rather, are you yet again going to shift the goal posts and change your argument, to somehow claim - in contrast and in contradiction to Stalin's view - that nations are actually just a superstructure themselves.

You dishonest, flip-flopping rat. I await to see what new mental gymnastics you are going to try and employ to get yourself out of this little mistake of yours. And I will have no problem crushing them with the same degree of severity.

The idea that nations are a "superstructure" contradicts Stalin's view.

This is explicitly evident in Stalin's writing on language, where he EXPRESSELY REJECTS the notion that it is "super structural."

He writes:

"In this respect language radically differs from the superstructure. Language is not a product of one or another base, old or new, within the given society, but of the whole course of the history of the society and of the history of the bases for many centuries. It was created not by some one class, but by the entire society, by all the classes of the society, by the efforts of hundreds of generations. It was created for the satisfaction of the needs not of one particular class, but of the entire society, of all the classes of the society."

All of this is directly applicable to what Stalin likewise writes about nations. Even in that same text!

"The question is: Do these ideas help the exploited and oppressed in their struggle for liberation?"

The question of who the subject of such a struggle is, what form they acquire, what context such a struggle takes in, the concrete content of liberation, etc. - all of these are questions closely tied to the content of a given concrete historicla, and therefore national existence.

The idea that you can begin with the conceit - of an "abstract" humanity and an "abstract" liberation - and regard the concrete determination of the former as some ancillary detail, treated in a utilitarian matter as a "vehicle" to reach this ends, puts the cart before the horse. It defines the content of socialism in a formalistic, ideal way.

How can you think to know anything about the "liberation" of anyone by, in your head, violently abstracting and uprooting them from the context of their actual collective existence?

Because you're just a "bourgeois socialist," and that's being charitable, because what I really think is that you're just a fucking dumbass.

You somehow think that you know the goals of liberation, you know humanity, you know the 'proletarian subject' - and meanwhile, the actual, concrete form this takes is just some 'ancillary detail' to be sorted out in a 'utilitarian manner.'

This is a reflection of your academically rooted idealism. All you have are thoughts, which you reify and confuse for actual reality. This is why you make silly statements such as the idea that "nations do not materially exist."

They are immaterial insofar as you have to regard them with any significance in order to be a pencil-pushing parasitical piece of shit academic and publish papers. But they are very material insofar as actual Communists mean to regard the real form of class struggle in their country with any degree of seriousness or consideration.

In sum, your goal is "liberation." In other words, liberalism. My goal is the political supremacy of the proletarian class and smashing the political state machine, not for any abstract "liberation," but only to follow through on the very logic and meaning of a world-historical class struggle whose premises are already in existence.

And in a way far more concrete than your "liberation." Colin, it really feels like I am beating a dead horse at this point.

The amount of schooling you've received - I just don't know how you can ever recover from this.

If you do not respond to every single point of contention raised here substantively, I will regard that as a full and unequivocal surrender.

I recommend you take time off of work. You need to read all of what I have written, in its entirety. The time commitments you have forced yourself to submit to are going to be very, very large.

All you have been doing is "responding" according to the new information I am educating you with, meaning this is simply never going to end. How many times will you keep coming back to get humiliated?

How many more defeats do you seek to suffer at my hand, Colin?

Because the potential seems quite infinite.

Get to work, student. Come to class prepared next time. This was embarrassing for you, to say the least.

The “Professor” Surrenders and Pivots

Colin’s Attempt to Defend “Wokeness”

Having been so utterly exposed for his lack of knowledge on the basics of Marxism-Leninism, Colin decided to settle for pivoting to a completely new undertaking.

He has decided to launch a “series” that he has paywalled, which promises to go “line-byline through the essay “Marxism is NOT woke,.” pointing out the logical leaps, out of context quotes, and the half-baked readings of Lukacs and Heidegger.”

Firstly, everyone can see the clearly dishonorable behavior Colin is engaging in. He is only ever willing to “respond” to my views when he can avoid incurring a response from me (in this case, by pay-walling his article, or, by branching off into a million new topics through the written medium).

In this way, he does not actually engage with my views, but “throws stones and runs away.” To actually engage with my views, would require that you expose yourself to the possibility that I might actually be able to respond to you. By refusing to engage in live-debate (and thus, demanding that I set aside all of my duties and responsibilities as Executive Chairman of the American Communist Party to educate him in particular, for an indefinite period of time), and by “pay-walling” his content, he preempts that possibility. So all he is actually doing is just coping with his actual inability to engage.

Having failed to demonstrate rudimentary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism, Colin is now attempting to take shots at a past project of mine, which was made in response to far-right attempts to villify Marxism, Marxism is Not Woke.

Colin is a textbook example of a fascist collaborator, who facilitates, from a “leftist” perspective, the attempt to associate “all that is degrading or offensive to the national sentiments of the people” with enemies of fascism, namely Marxists.

[…] all that was degrading or offensive to the national sentiments of the people they make use of as weapons against the enemies of fascism.

He has paywalled the article for his “own protection,” by this he probably means eventually being exposed yet again for his fraudulent pretensions to having knowledge of basic theory.

Colin already has an incredibly sophomoric grasp of Heidegger, and has already been shown to have no grasp of Marxism. I highly doubt he will be able to demonstrate basic knowledge of Lukacs, Spinoza, or Dugin.

If and when he decides to eventually remove this paywall, we might, at an unspecified future time, decide to update this article accordingly - that is if any real claims are made that are even worthy of being addressed.

But if the accessible part in the preview is anything to go by, Colin manages to flounder and waffle around in it with an equal, if not worse degree of stupidity and bad reading comprehension as what we have seen above:

Colin’s “essay” begins with the following brave proclamation:

[…] we will be unmasking Haz’s sources, laughing at his logical errors, and exposing his Wikipedia-fueled readings of Lukacs, Spinoza, Marx, Heidegger, and others. I will also be drawing the reader’s attention to the correct Marxist position throughout the essay.

Let us take a look at this “unmasking.” Colin writes:

Yes, Haz is right that Marxism is a method of analysis, not an ethical theory of justice, yet it does not follow from this that “Marxists,” people who draw upon the Marxist method of analysis, are unconcerned with matters of justice and equality. Here, Haz sneaks in a false binary opposition, disguised behind some truths.

Colin begins this “unmasking” by establishing a straw-man, in which I supposedly make the argument that Marxists are unconcerned with matters of justice and “equality.” Marxists are obviously concerned with all matters pertaining to human existence, including morality. Marxists are no less concerned with questions of dignity, morality, honor, etc. than they are concerned with questions of oxygen.

But Colin’s bad reading comprehension is revealed when he confuses this for Marxism being a theory of justice, morality, dignity, honor, etc. - rather than a method for acquiring knowledge of historical laws. Marxism is no more a theory of morality than it is a theory of oxygen - this does not mean Marxists have no regard for it. Rather, it means that Marxists are not interested in artificially constructing some kind of new morality from scratch, or proposing a new “ethical” project.

This is not simply the same as rejecting “equality and justice” in the “abstract.” It is about understanding what Marxism actually is, and what it is not. And because the notion of justice and equality relevant to Marxists is concrete, this preempts the very possibility that it can be artificially contrived, over and against what is evident already in the concrete reality of moral sensibility. In this way, Marxists do not need to propose a “new” morality, as much as they need to have the courage to actually be moral concretely, even according to the deeply rooted sensibilities of the masses.

This is different from the “abstract” morality of the ruling class, not because such an abstract morality “insufficiently addresses injustices.” Here Colin actually attempts to confuse Marxism for some kind of liberal “band-aid,” where the artificially contrived and institutionally based modern-liberal morality, which treats all forms of material existence and culture not premised by abstract institutions “unjust,” is applied to all realms of culture.

Just have a look at the citation from Lenin Colin attempts to use to justify his cultural liberalism:

Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibility of oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan! Freedom and equality for the oppressed sex! Freedom and equality for the workers, for the toiling peasants! A fight against the oppressors, a fight against the capitalists, a fight against the profiteering kulaks!¹

But Lenin is not actually referring to some artificially contrived “justice and equality” that remedies the “shortcomings of liberalism.” What makes this reference to morality, to justice and equality concrete, is that it is grounded in the context of being written right in the middle of a revolutionary situation.

Lenin’s “moral reasoning” here does not have to rely on any artificially contrived systems of ethics or sensibilities based in out of touch institutions, but a reference to injustices and inequalities whose weight is being felt quite immediately and quite clearly on a deep intuitive level by the masses themselves.

Lenin is not imposing an “alien” or “woke” morality from above upon the masses or even upon society. He is rather expressing the courage of speaking the plain truth, a plain truth which, when articulated clearly and directly, is felt very powerfully by the revolutionary masses.

When Lenin speaks of “freedom and equality” for the oppressed sex, he is not referring to “micro-aggressions” or some silly or deranged attempt to eliminate all differences between men and women. We know this because in the 1920’s, certain bizarre developments were occurring among the Komsomol youth, in which women began to discard feminine behaviors and mannerisms:

The Komsomol style as an expression of masculinity was best seen in how girls who adopted it were treated. Girls struggling to fit in cast off their dresses, makeup, and other forms of feminine beauty for a more masculine style as statements of their revolutionary authenticity.

But leading Soviet statesmen at the time, such as Nikolai Semashko, the People’s Commissar of Health, described these women as:

“disheveled, frequently dirty hair, a cigarette between her lips (like a man), deliberately gruff manners (like a man) deliberately rude voice (like a man), etc.” as violations of nature itself.

Clearly, the type of equality and injustice that Lenin was opposing had nothing to do with that decried by “woke” “social justice warriors.” The Bolsheviks were not trying to overturn “nature” itself, nor were they attempting to treat every instance of men and women being treated differently as an “injustice.”

For Lenin, the injustice did not lie in difference itself but more concretely in real forms of degradation of women, forms of degradation that all society already knew were unjust, but repressed for hypocritical, etc. purposes. This is in contrast to “woke” morality, which decides that the sensibilities of the masses actually need to be re-wired totally, and made to believe things are unjust, unfair, in ways that completely betray their own sensibilities and intuitions.

We know what Lenin meant by “freedom and equality” for the oppressed sex, by virtue of the Soviet experience itself.

He meant women being provided with the same access to education, job opportunity, and esteem within society. He meant the elimination of domestic slavery, domestic abuse, and women’s isolation from participation within society. He meant the elimination of all forms of sexual exploitation and prostitution.

This does not mean that Lenin believed it was somehow an “injustice” that, for example, women were disproportionately outnumbered in the leadership of the Red Army, or even within the leadership of his own party. But these are the standards the bourgeois and neoliberal “morality” Colin falsely attributes to Lenin, attempts to impose upon all the institutions of both state and civil society.

Colin writes:

In the same spirit, the slogan of Marxists would be “black lives matter,” rather than “all lives matter,” putting forth the particular struggle, rather than hiding this struggle behind universal notions of equality and opportunity.

That is funny, because as a matter of fact, if you actually read our back-and-forth before Colin decided to retreat into this new exercise of copium, he expressly denies all concrete, particular determinations of universality, regularly opting for silly statements like how the only collective existence of a given people is “universal human dignity” and:

My allegiance is to the working class and the dignity and liberation of ALL people

But in any case, the basic lack of Marxist analysis is quite evident even here. Colin claims that Marxists should opt for the slogan of “black lives matter” because it is a “particular struggle.” But where is the actual materialist analysis of this “particular struggle?” He speaks about the concrete verses the abstract - and yet, all he does here is partake in the elaborated application of what is clearly a completely abstract morality.

For the struggle in question to acquire the dimension of concreteness, it has to be rooted in a concrete, rather than abstractly contrived struggle or antagonism. But of “Black Lives Matter” was such a “concrete struggle,” then was it necessary for Black Lives Matter to receive $220 million dollars from the Open Society Foundations (an NGO responsible for various anti-communist and imperial color revolutions around the world) in 2020, leading up to the so-called “concrete struggle” Colin refers to? Why was this “struggle” championed by all sectors of institutionalized civil society, by all the bourgeois institutions of society and the entire imperial hegemony?

It was certainly “trendy” among the youth at the time. It was popularized by major celebrities in the music industry (another institutionalized branch of the imperial hegemony, mind you) and, further, by online influencers.

But such a “struggle” could never have rested upon the laurels of an organic struggle among the masses, however small a minority of them. It was a synthetic, artificial “color revolution,” which attempted to disguise itself in the very real (and legitimate) grievances of the American black population. You see, the problem is that Colin mistakes the concrete dimension of “struggle” with the superficial appearance of “struggle” on social media or as given a platform by bourgeois institutions.

He never engages in the rudimentary Marxist analysis, which attempts to locate the real causes and origins of these phenomena. He thus partakes in the opposite kind of outlook than the one he pretends to - opting for precisely an “abstract” rather than concrete morality.

A concrete expression of moral sensibility would evince a basic awareness of the concrete facts of a given situation. Colin fails to do this even on the most superficial level.

The importance of taking the moral sensibilities of society and the masses seriously as the foundation of Marxist morality, furthermore, has nothing to do with simply emulating the masses directly. Colin might, for example, attempt to make the argument that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was unpopular among the Americna masses at the time of the Civil Rights Movement.

But all great revolutionaries (that is not necessarily to regard him as a revolutionary) were initially “unpopular.” Jesus Christ himself was “unpopular.”

The difference is that they are precisely unpopular because they speak the truth, a truth which actually does, organically and authentically, weigh on the guilty conscience of society. Society represses this truth out of hypocrisy, etc. - but by no means is such a truth “abstract” for it.

But “woke” morality has nothing to do with speaking into existence the repressed truth of society. It it is the imposition of a completely artificially contrived “morality” upon all society, which has absolutely no basis in the sensibilities of the masses - in the strict sense of the fact that there is no way for them to grasp such a “morality.”

Only within the institutionalized, fake and artificial world of bourgeois “civil society” (such as academia) can such a morality be “grasped,” because it is an institutionalized, fake and artificial “morality.” In no way does it reflect a concrete morality that can be communicated authentically to working people. It has to, rather, be imposed upon them by abstract institutions.

Attempts to draw comparisons to the Communist experience, of course, are completely wrong. While Communist institutions did impose a great deal upon the masses, that was only insofar as they equipped them with the ability to participate in a completely new dimension of society’s own existence, namely the proletarian dictatorship, socialist planning, etc.

Moreover, early Communists were very sensitive to the realities of ‘over-reach,’ and were quick to retreat upon failed attempts to impose projects that were foreign to the sensibilities upon the masses. The examples of Proletkult, and various other forms of ‘avant-garde’ experimentation speak for themselves.

Colin goes on to write:

What is the logical error in Haz’s reasoning? Simply put, Haz suggests that either Marxism is a theory of injustice/inequality or it’s a method for understanding the laws of society. Marxism, however, could be both.

Colin fails to understand that Marxism has no pretense to offering some “theory of injustice” or “theory of inequality.”

Let us even take the example of Lenin. Colin does not understand that Lenin’s insistence upon waging the democratic struggle for equality, and the revolutionary struggle against exploitation (etc.), is not a “theory” derived from Marxism. Rather, Marxism, as a method for understanding the laws governing the historical development of society, gives Lenin an acute degree of clarity and awareness as far as assuming the morally correct position.

But we can even go farther than this. Colin is not aware of the specific context of Lenin’s revolutionary strategy. Lenin is not “imposing” some “moral precepts” that were created by Marxist theory - he is attempting to fulfill the democratic revolution, simultaneously and alongside the proletarian one. But Colin does not understand this difference.

If I were to be charitable, it is because his mentor, Gabriel Rockhill, is a Trotskyite - affiliated with the “Marxist AND Leninist” (but not Marxist-Leninist) PSL, which was founded by Marcyites.

In pre-revolutionary Russia, the question that had weighed on the minds of Marxists was what strategy revolutionary social democracy should assume in the“backward” and “uneven” context of autocratic and semi-feudal Russia. Before the possibility of a proletarian revolution, so “Orthodox Marxist” theory went, a bourgeois-democratic revolution was necessary to clearly establish the context of class struggle.

The Mensheviks believed in stageism - namely, the view that they had to assist the fulfillment of the bourgoeis-democratic revolution, which the proletariat could not possibly take the lead in. Trotsky, for his part, was an adventurist who did not believe in historical laws whatsoever, and did not have any regard for the significance of the difference between the democratic and proletarian revolutions.

But Lenin believed in a revolutionary alliance of worker’s and peasants. And by the latter, he included the democratic petty-bourgeoisie, or the smallholding peasants, as the true basis of the “bourgeois” democratic revolution, as opposed to the established city bourgeoisie. As such, Lenin proposed an alliance, where the democratic aspirations of the peasant petty-bourgeoisie could be combined with the revolutionary aspirations of the proletariat, bypassing the need to “wait” for the established big bourgeoisie to do anything (Lenin rightly understood that they were beneficiaries of the autocracy, and would never go as far as the peasant petty bourgeoisie would).

So Lenin is not deriving purely from “Marxist theory” his acute sensitivity to basic democratic rights - such as equality, and fairness on questions of the right to the self-determination of nations. No reference to any “morality” is here necessary either. He is rather drawing from the precedent of historical democratic revolutions, and, through his correct Marxist analysis, applying them to an uneven context.

Not a “Marxist theory of equality,” but an application of formal, democratic equality to the uneven context brought to the fore by imperialism. It is true that Lenin could only appreciate this context because of his correct grasp of Marxism. But this had nothing to do with some principle of ‘equality’ derived from “Marxist theory.” The significance of the Marxist method, here, is that it permitted Lenin to sagaciously grasp a new context of history. Marxism never “proscribed” any new moral “principles” like “equality” or “injustice.”

Marxism is not a theory about how to “rectify inequalities” or even injustices. The rectification of inequalities was already the aspiration and aim of the democratic revolution. The fight against exploitation and oppressed was already the aspiration of the existing proletarian struggle.

Marxism did not need to proscribe these aspirations, their premises were already in existence. As such, Marxism cannot be a “theory of morality” or a “theory of equality.” Forces are already at play within society, which have a concrete moral significance, and already attribute some significance to formal democratic equality. The role of Marxism is scientifically clarifying these forces already in existence, not creating them from scratch. Regarding equality itself, Engels already spelled this out clearly in Anti-Dühring:

The demand for equality in the mouth of the proletariat has therefore a double meaning. It is either — as was the case especially at the very start, for example in the Peasant War [see Engels’ work Peasant War in Germany]— the spontaneous reaction against the crying social inequalities, against the contrast between rich and poor, the feudal lords and their serfs, the surfeiters and the starving; as such it is simply an expression of the revolutionary instinct, and finds its justification in that, and in that only. Or, on the other hand, this demand has arisen as a reaction against the bourgeois demand for equality, drawing more or less correct and more far-reaching demands from this bourgeois demand, and serving as an agitational means in order to stir up the workers against the capitalists with the aid of the capitalists’ own assertions; and in this case it stands or falls with bourgeois equality itself.

Engels makes it clear that there was already a demand for equality by the proletariat. Marxism was not necessary to proscribe any “theory of equality.” Engels then goes on to attribute it to two causes:

1. A spontaneous reaction to a massive form of economic polarization

2. An agitational vehicle, to exploit the already existing, institutionalized, and legitimized bourgeois principle of equality, to use the assertions of the capitalists against themselves.

In both cases, we do not find the demand for equality stemming from “Marxist theory” or some kind of “theory of equality” at all. It arises on the basis of real, material and historical laws - on the one hand, a spontaneous reaction to economic polarization, on the other hand - to the already legitimized bourgeois principle of equality, where the proletariat did not even need to invent any new kind of “equality” at all, but rather, was simply drawing on the prevailing principle.

And regarding this so-called principle, Engels writes in one of his letters to August Bebel:

"The elimination of all social and political inequality,” rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions,” is similarly a most dubious expression. As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.

Engels makes it absolutely clear that the notion of socialism as a realm of “equality” is merely an extension of one-sided bourgeois politics. In no way is Marxism a “theory of equality.” Marxism may analyze the significance of various different demands for equality that already exist - but Marxism proscribes none itself.

Colin continues:

Yet Haz’s deceptive presentation suggests that Marxism is not concerned with injustice or inequality because it is scientific, when in fact Marxism is concerned with equality and justice for the oppressed and exploited.

Obviously, Marxists are concerned with all aspects of human existence. Marxism is a holistic and integral outlook, which has real ontological stakes, and is not simply a one-sided “branch of science” within the wider division of labor. That much is clear and evident in the very post “Colin” attempts to “respond” to here.

But Marxism in particular is not “concerned” with equality and justice for the oppressed and the exploited. Forces at play in the class struggle whose premises are already in existence are. Marxism is no more “concerned” with equality and justice, than it is concerned with oxygen. In no way is it synthetically or artificially inventing some new theory of “equality and justice.”

Obviously only Marxists can consistently raise to the fore the revolutionary aspirations of the proletariat consistently, because they have a correct appraisal of the laws governing historical development. But those aspirations really do have a basis in the proletariat itself, within the sensibilities of forces already in existence within society.

Marxism did not invent the “struggle for equality and justice” (these are rhetorical and agitational slogans, really) for the oppressed and the exploited. Marxism is a method through which the real meaning of the former, in terms of the social forces they represent, etc., in terms of its material content, can actually be understood scientifically.

That does not mean Marxism reduces humanity, morality, etc. to crude economic factors. It means that Marxism is not trying to completely invent a new humanity, a new society, or a new “principle of equality and justice.” Marxism takes its departures from all the treasures of mankind. It takes its departure from the entire wealth of historical precedent, and on this basis, correctly anticipates the development of society.

This is, of course, not a passive process, but one that the highest faculty of the intellect. consciousness, and political will, participates in. But if “professor” Colin actually read my thread, he would know how I already proved that.

The underlying point is that this has nothing in common with “wokeness,” which attempts to litigate all forms of “social and political inequality,” all forms of cultural difference, etc. - on the basis that they reflect an insufficient degree of extent of the subjectivity of bourgeois institutions, insofar as they attempt to erase any trace of objectivity within society, in favor of the “pure subjectivity” of hegemonic, imperial institutions.

And that is really what the problem boils down to, as articulated in the series Colin is “responding” to. Marxism regards society as an objective reality. It regards various social relations of production as objective. It regards culture as having its basis in objective realities.

Marxism does not regard “objectivity” as a purely passive reality devoid of humanity, rather, it contains a dialectical view of the objective. For something to be objective does not mean it is un-involved with ‘subjective’ realities. Rather, something is objective to the extent that it is a specific, concrete determination of a dialectical tension, in other words, the real, particular determination of a given process.

Marxism regards all determinations within reality, including within nature, as specific instantiations of a given development, movement, or process.

And the device of consciousness cannot preempt or define the terms of these processes, whether in nature or in society - it can only, through the highest exhaustion of it faculty, submit to them, and then and only then participate in it in a manner that can be called Marxist or scientific.

We can only speculate about Colin writes after this, as the post has been pay-walled. Needless to say, if the above is anything to go by, he, in all likelihood, has nothing of importance to say.

We can expect various bad-faith readings of Heidegger, Dugin, as well as Colin responding with any reference to accredited thinkers with: “Ackchyually”- tier pedantic jibberings so typical of dipshit “academicians” like himself, who, short of making actual arguments, attempt to portray their non-institutionalized interlocutors of having “insufficient knowledge” of the content at hand.

This is because Colin literally makes a living off of pretending like he is “gate-keeping” knowledge through an “accredited” institution. As such, he does not actually have knowledge of anything, nor an ability to grasp anything. All he has is the pretense that he is authorized to talk about things in ways others cannot.

But for all this bluffing and pedantic attempts to claim that I have “Wikipedia level” knowledge over the authors I write about, it has been shown to be complete projection.

To whatever extent Colin has named even a single writer throughout the entire course of this ordeal, it has been shown he had absolutely no grasp of their actual views or what they had actually written on the very matters he attempted to involve them in.

At best, Colin has the mechanical ability to format citations. He’s way out of his depth in terms of attempting to “engage” with anything I’ve written in the past about Heidegger and Dugin - when he fails to demonstrate rudimentary knowledge of basic Marxism.

EPILOGUE

I accepted Colin’s “challenge” to a textual debate for a number of reasons:

1. I found it necessary to prove to all Marxists that anyone can be “accredited” by a bourgeois institution, and it doesn’t somehow mean they have a solid grasp of Marxism.

   I can confidently say I have proven this to anyone who so takes the time to read this back-and-forth.

2. I am renowned for “debating” people through the livestreaming medium. This has led some of my critics to presume I am somehow incapable of written polemics, or that the live setting is somehow less “sophisticated” and “legitimate” than written text.

   I decided that it was necessary, as the Executive Chairman of the American Communist Party, to demonstrate my ability to engage seriously in debate through the written medium.

   In this way, going forward, no one can use the excuse that I debate in live settings just because I am a “sophist” who relies purely on “rhetoric.”

   Clearly, I prefer live settings because that is the only way in which a debate can happen within a finite time constraint. My time is not unlimited and I do not particularly enjoy spending it personally educating illiterate dumbasses like Colin Bodayle.

   I can confidently say I have definitely proven my ability to debate in other mediums, and that my preference for live debates has nothing to do with some ‘inability’ to write. Other challengers should take note of this when called upon to defend their claims against my Party and myself.

3. I wanted to provide written material in order to educate both my followers and neutral parties on the Marxist-Leninist view surrounding immigration, national policy, and the national form of class struggle.

   I can confidently assume that even neutral readers, who are not invested in this particular “clash of personalities” will walk away educated to a greater extent on the matter.

4. I wanted to defend the honor of the American Communist Party, against Gabriel Rockhill’s protege. Colin has been slandering and bad-mouthing our party for many months. It was a long time coming that the bankruptcy of his entire worldview, and that of his teacher, Rockhill, gets exposed.

   It suffices to say, I have succeeded in putting this little rat in his place.

I’m not particularly sure of Colin will respond again. He has certainly been exposed to new information, education, and facts of history he was unaware of before. He will thus try to cope in new ways. But it was never his job to invent new ways to cope about his pathetic worldview. It was his job to actually show that he currently had a solid grasp on the basics of Marxism-Leninism. He failed to do that.

I think after 20,000 words, and destroying him four times, that I really have shown he has not grasped the basic rudiments of Marxism-Leninism in a way I don’t even think my biggest critics can contest.

There is simply nothing he can say now to redeem himself, or somehow reverse what everyone can plainly see - he simply doesn’t know anything about Marxism.

He will inevitably try to “redeem” himself from this defeat somehow. But it is simply too late.

Obviously, my offer to “Colin” to actually commit to a finite period of time and actually debate me in a live setting remains.

But I think we can now all see why he doesn’t want to do that: He has a lot of education to do before he can confidently demonstrate any knowledge of Marxism when called to do so on the spot.

I may come back to address his next response if it is substantive enough, and evinces even a single trace of capability on his part to follow consistently even a single line of argumentation.

But given the precedent of his '“responses” shown above, I’m not holding my breath.

It is not news to anyone that the Communist Party USA has long resigned itself to being an appendage of the Democratic Party.

Gone are the glory days in which the party aspired to represent the political independence of the American working class.

Ever since the dissolution of the USSR, the CPUSA adopted a neo-Menshevik view, according to which politics must develop through more 'stages' before Communism can ever have political relevance again.

It became party orthodoxy to assert that the political relevance of the Communist Party is only possible if the Democratic Party accomplishes an absolute, permanent and final defeat of the Republican party.

At one point, this view was convincing to many old-guard members. The dissolution of the USSR & the socialist bloc demoralized them. The very purpose of the party was no longer clear to them.

All they could do is observe a continued political relevance of the conflict between the Democratic and Republican parties, which increasingly appeared as a conflict of interpretation over the legacy of the Civil Rights Act: 'Wedge issues' like Affirmative Action, Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc.

Economic questions, where they were not fully marginalized, were reduced to questions over the conservation of old institutions (Welfare, legacy unions aligned with Democrats politically, etc.). But they were never brought to the fore in a new and unique way - neoliberalism was the guiding outlook of both the Democrats and Republicans.

In any case, no drastic procedures to usurp Party democratic centralism were necessary. The view was not contentious enough to warrant that. Communism was becoming totally out of style. At best, the remaining 'true believers' thought that maybe, sometime in the future, it will be relevant again. But in the meantime, they must ensure a total defeat of the Republican party, whose agenda will certainly make this outcome less likely.

This was their reasoning in the past.

But never in the history of the party has it become as contentious as it has recently.

This is the product of three major factors, which will be ranked in order:

1) Joe Biden's culpability in the ongoing genocide in Gaza, which has shocked the international community and has led even major institutions of 'democratic civil society' to turn on him.

2) The launch of the CPUSA 2036 initiative in 2021, which has led to my followers flooding the party (while concealing their views to prevent expulsion) on the basis of Infrared's new interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, hoping to restore the party to its former glory by pursuing political independence.

3) The rise of a new generation of 'pan-leftists' or 'Red Liberals' (Redlibs), or adolescent ex-Democrats who reject supporting Democrats on purely emotional grounds.

So to put things into perspective, this weekend's 32nd National Convention of the Communist Party, was a referendum on the CPUSA's continued support for Democrats.

The CPUSA has 'National Conventions' every four years. These conventions establish procedures for democratically electing leadership and the future direction of the party.

The only major issue in contention for this national convention was about whether or not the CPUSA should continue to support Democrats. There were no other major issues that were in contention.

There is no point in having elections just out of procedural formalism. The point of democratic centralism is to be a mechanism for resolving disputes, disagreements and contentions within the party.

The reason why I told my followers to join the CPUSA is because having disagreements with the ideological, strategic or even programmatic line with the party is not sufficient grounds for abandoning it.

As Stalin pointed out, the Communist way is to submit to the will of the majority of the party, however erroneous it may be regarded by you individually.

The point is that through internal discussions and dialogue, you may have an opportunity to argue on behalf of the correctness of your position, in order to persuade others and ultimately change the party line.

This is the point of democratic centralism: To make the party as an institution responsive to changes and nuances concerning the will of the majority, while simultaneously enforcing submission to the outcome of that will.

So even when the party decided to undemocratically and unconstitutionally pursue a policy of trying to ban members affiliated with 'Infrared,' I continued to tell my followers to hold out, to stay in the party and follow its rules and procedures, and conceal their views.

The position taken on by the leadership was irrational - egged on by certain suspicious personalities with apparent connections to US intelligence agencies.

The best hope for restoring sanity in the party would be in the 32nd convention, where members would have an opportunity to discuss and vote on changes in the party.

For Infrared, the primary contradiction in the CPUSA was not about its stance on me personally, on 'woke' culture, or MAGA Communism. The primary contradiction was about its continued support for the Democratic Party, which was the root cause of all its other errors.

The 'redlibs,' who joined the party in large numbers purely to wreck the 2036 initiative also claimed to reject the CPUSA's subservience to the Democrats - but in practice, they did nothing to challenge it.

Those that sincerely took issue with it lacked the discipline to articulate their stance through party procedure, and were quickly expelled.

The rest took the craven position of focusing on 'purging' and rooting out my followers. They failed to identify the overwhelming majority, who still remain in the party and a huge portion of which remain present at the convention as delegates as of this writing.

Rather than form a united front with us to disentangle the party from Democrats, they decided that 'patsoc' ideology (a term they made up themselves) was the primary contradiction, and not the concrete subservience of the Communist Party to Democrats.

But everything changed after the Zionist genocide in Gaza. This genocide has made even the most ardent liberals hostile to the Biden administration and the overall tendency of the Democratic party.

It finally provoked some of the Redlibs to have the courage to finally challenge the 'party line' on support for the Democrats.

Such that by the time of this weekend's convention, delegates could be divided into three camps:

1) Pro-Democrat Joe Sims sycophants.

2) Followers of Infrared and Midwestern Marx (Anti-Democrat)

3) Redlibs (Anti-Democrat)

SO, WHAT HAPPENED?

On Friday, the convention rules and the presiding committee were presented. According to the CPUSA constitution, the rules for the convention are to be adopted democratically.

Any dissent with these rules, while being presented, requires that they be discussed openly.

According to the rules for the 32nd convention, votes would not be counted. Instead, they are to be arbitrarily decided by a vocal vote of 'Yeas' or 'Neighs.'

If the decision by vote appeared to be split audibly, it would be taken to the National Committee to decide.

Only, the National Committee is more or less hand-picked by the Sims clique themselves through the 'slate system,' meaning that whatever decision they arrive at reflects the authors of the resolution!

It's just a roundabout way to pass the resolution without having to secure a majority!

Someone made a clear objection to these rules. They were completely ignored, in total violation of the CPUSA constitution!

It was clear to everyone that day that this convention was a referendum on Democrats.

Nearly all the discussions had and speeches presented were tightly controlled by leadership to argue that the 'MAGA fascist threat' was existential, that defeating it was of paramount importance, and that this was only possible by following the Democratic Party.

It was the constant and recurring theme of the entire convention.

The leadership knew it was the only really contentious and decisive issue, and went out of their way to make sure that those who disagreed with them would not have a voice.

They went out of their way to establish undemocratic convention procedures, which ensured that they were guaranteed to prevail on the most decisive issue without any democratic legitimation.

The second day, or Saturday was also primarily devoted to pro-Democrat evangelizing. But wait until you hear about this utter tomfoolery:

For all other resolutions, panels were held comprising not less than 10 people, each of whom spoke for no more than 3 minutes - and left the remaining time for the floor.

These were nothingburger resolutions, just procedural formalisms - with the exception of the resolution on Palestine.

So, the most time and discussion was permitted for those issues for which democracy was superfluous - there was no sufficient contention to even require voting.

But for the panel on the one resolution that actually mattered the most and which was the most contentious - Resolution 5:

- The presiding committee violated all precedent and cut speaking times from 3 to 2 minutes.

So they violated the very conventional procedures that were already adopted unconstitutionally to begin with!

- Of the 51 people who chose to sign up, 4 were selected to speak. Now get a load of this:

All four of these panel members were pro-Democrat, and were deliberately chosen on that basis. It is even said that some of them DID NOT EVEN SIGN UP TO SPEAK, but were simply called by name by the presiding committee!

- The panel discussion began at 2:44pm, ended at 3:19pm.

So after panicking and shortening the length of panel speakers, the leadership ensured that the four speakers were pro-Democrat so as to not take any risks.

And allowed them to speak AT LENGTH jibbering about the need to support the Democratic Party and Joe biden to defeat the 'MAGA fascist' threat. This 'panel' was in fact longer than all others! And it was not a panel at all, but a Democrat-glazing circlejerk.

- The discussion was given to the floor at 3:20pm. The discussion was promptly put to an end at 3:25pm.

For a grand total of FIVE MINUTES, this charade of a 'panel' could be challenged. Note that voting would begin seven minutes later, at 3:32pm!

It's unbelievable: They took 30 minutes away from the floor, after the 'panelists' took up a bunch of time - under the pretext of 'allowing time for Dinner.'

The only problem? The party didn't even provide dinner! Such cynical nonsense!

Saturday was filled with nothing but stalling to totally minimize discussion on Resolution 5. Again, this was the only resolution, the one to decide the party's future relationship with Democrats, that mattered.

Voting was imminent.

A motion was called for the vote for resolution 5 to take place by secret ballot.

Everyone knew that anyone identified who voted against it would be identified as an enemy of the Sims clique, and their prospects for future leadership destroyed.

That motion was ignored.

A motion was called to actually count the Yeas and Nays on resolution 5. It was ignored.

Finally, the big vote.

Note that all the newer clubs, known to be anti-Democrat, were placed all the way in the back where they would be less audible - while pro-Democrat established clubs were placed in the front.

Predictably, the results were 'unclear.'

The room was clearly divided before between pro-leadership sycophants and anti-Democrats.

But the votes weren't counted. My own followers, plus the redlibs formed the majority of delegates. Obviously the sycophants were sizeable - most people do not have the discipline to even stay in the party.

Additionally, some redlibs themselves are sycophants, talking about game on Twitter but bowing before the 'old guard' leadership because they have too much 'social anxiety' to stand up for what they claim to believe.

To be fair, the establishment exerts a great deal of pressure to fall in line on this issue. But most redlibs do not have the integrity or courage to stand on business when push comes to shove.

But it is clear that there was a strong possibility that the majority voted against Resolution 5. The lack of being able to count the votes meant it was 'unclear.'

And the unconstitutionally adopted convention rules established that in the absence of clarity, the Resolution would be decided by the National Committee.

Meaning it would pass, against the will of the majority.

And the best part? The National Committee is more or less hand-picked by the leadership!

A 'nomination committee,' appointed by the existing NC nominates 88 names. Delegates have an opportunity to nominate others on the floor, but not enough time.

Delegates decide, via a checklist, which names they want to be part of the National Committee - and need to choose a minimum of around 70.

There is very little room for actually voting here. At best, delegates can challenge 10 or so people 'nominated.' The rest are guaranteed to be part of the National Committee.

In this case, only one delegate from the floor was elected.

Formally, the process of nominating the National Committee is supposed to be based on recommendations by local chapters and clubs. But in reality, all of them were hand-picked on the basis of being pro-Democrat.

On Sunday, or the final day, the National Committee, hand-picked by the Sims clique in the first place, was 'sworn into office.'

And they unanimously decided to 're-elect' Joe Sims as party chair.

The entire purport of the Sims clique craven policy to submit to Democrats is based on 'defending democracy.'

But to defend democracy, they must in fact suspend any trace of democracy in the actual party itself!

It reminds me of how Democrats themselves actively seek to destroy our civil liberties in the name of 'protecting democracy!'

Make no mistake. The events of this weekend prove without any doubt that a coup has taken place in the party.

The leadership has engaged in shady practices for a long time, but never have they been so explicit in suspending democratic centralism completely as in the 32nd convention.

The one issue for which democracy mattered, was imposed upon the entire party without any semblance of democracy.

The newer clubs - both 'patsocs' (made up term btw) and 'Redlibs' alike - simply do not have representation. The perspective of the younger generation has been completely suppressed, without any possibility of discussion.

It is one thing to insist upon the wisdom of leadership. But dissenting views were simply not given a platform, in the only convention in which they are promised to have the opportunity to.

The fascistic behavior of the Sims clique violates all the traditions of the party. It is an insult to the honor and legacy of the party, not just in terms of the content of the positions (which is nothing new) - but for the first time, in terms of the form itself.

The sacred protocols of party procedure and decision making have been defiled and effaced.

The great Foster turns in his grave in this unprecedented usurpation of party authority - all for the sake of enabling genocide Joe Biden!

Before, one could say that they oppose the CPUSA line ideologically and strategically. But now, the party itself has been usurped in a coup.

This is not about ones opinion or ideology anymore. It is about the integrity of democratic centralism and the party as a formal organ of power itself. The constitution has been burned, and the party is now formally occupied.

They have simply rigged the convention. And their actions will not go unanswered. There will be consequences.

For now, my followers remain entrenched in the party awaiting their orders.

Shame on all those who have allowed it to get to this point. History will not look upon the enablers of the Gaza genocide kindly.

I find it difficult to see how the imagined 'fascism' Joe Sims uses as a pretext to in all but name liquidate the party - could be worse than what is happening to children in Gaza.

History will not look upon those who sold out the only party of the working class to the Democratic Party at a time in which they help oversee the murder of over 30,000 civilians.

Proving beyond possible doubt that James Lindsay and other rightists are fundamentally wrong about Marxism, and that Marxist theory in the West is meaningless without the aid of Dugin and Heidegger’s thinking.

§1

Marxism has no reality at all in the West. Nearly all self-proclaimed Marxists are frauds who haven’t even read Marx, let alone understand him. They use the label Marxism, despite knowing nothing about it, as a pseudo-intellectual obfuscation for their liberal ideology.

§2

To begin, what is Marxism?

Marxism is not a theory of equality. It is not a diagnosis of injustice, nor is it a specific prescription of how to remedy society’s ills.

Marxism is a method for acquiring knowledge about the laws governing the historical development of societies.

§3

Marxism thus regards itself as a type of science. Most people think of science as something purely descriptive.

But the reason Marx’s contemporaries called him Prometheus is because he bequeathed a science that did not just describe reality, but participated in its development.

§4

This makes Marxism totally contrary to modern science.

Modern science places knowledge above its object. To know, means to strip something naked to consciousness and turn it into a utility for the knowing subject. He who knows an object, can control, master, and alter an object.

§5

But the ‘object’ known by Marxism is none other than human society itself.

And the paradox lies in the obvious fact that society is not just an object, but also a subject.

Marxists (subjects) are themselves part of the very object they make knowable.

§6

To complicate matters further, Marx does not claim knowledge of society alone can transform society.

Instead, he proves that society is already coming to know and transform itself materially in the form of the then growing proletarian class.

§7

Most people think Marx is ‘Promethean’ because he wanted his ideas popularized. But the REAL reason was because he had the courage of declaring the return of knowledge back to being itself, and human beings in particular.

He created a science that ceased to be above its object.

§8

For Marx, the knowledge of historical laws arrived at by consciousness, was being reflected in history itself.

Knowledge of humanity does not dominate humanity, but reveals that it was there, and part of it all along.

“Communism is the riddle of history solved.”

§9

Why the need for class consciousness?

This is where people misunderstand Leninism as an attempt to turn politics and state power into a tool for realizing some goal of the mind.

In reality, the role of Marxists lies in spreading the ‘good news’ to the despairing proletariat.

§10

Class consciousness, the so-called ‘vanguard party,’ and the Communist state is the realization of the proletariat’s faith in itself.

Communism is not realized ‘automatically’ without the participation of a Communist party because society is not just an object.

§11

Neither just a subject either. Communist parties do not create new societies, only guide the existing development of society.

This guidance is necessary because politics, Communist or otherwise is itself part of material reality.

§12

Without the guidance of proletarian consciousness, the movement propelling society still continues.

But it leads to an economic, political, spiritual, moral and overall social crisis. Society eats away at itself as it cannot make sense of the contradictions driving it.

§13

The crisis of Western Marxism lies in its inability to overcome the subject/object distinction when it comes to society.

How can society both be a real (material) object, while also given the quality of subjective responsibility? Two responses emerge:

§14

The first cope of Western Marxism is a type of fatalism, which Lenin calls economism.

According to this view, politics is not involved in the revolutionary transformation of society at all, which happens only because of economics, or a spontaneous uprising of the proletariat.

§15

The second (more relevant) is the opposite extreme.

In this view, society must act as a pure subject in the form of institutions (party or otherwise), exterminating every trace of its pre-conscious, and objective material being, recreating all society from scratch.

§16

But both two sides of Western Marxism are incompatible with Marx’s Promethean gesture of suspending knowledge back to being.

In the first, being is upheld entirely independent of knowledge.

In the second, knowledge is asserted over and at the expense of being.

§17

If society will become communist independently of the engaged subjective partisanship of communists, then all you have is the conceit of some subject-in-the-know passively watching their object fulfill the expectations of subjective knowledge.

§18

If communism is just some enlightened consciousness, then what you have are psychotic subjects devoid of any trust that their knowledge is actually based in (non-conscious) reality itself, denouncing the latter as ‘reactionary.’

Knowledge only as ‘subjective self-consciousness.’

§19

The ‘praxis’ uniting thought and practice then is only in the fractal movement of subjective self-consciousness - voluntary ‘action’ becomes the ‘object’ of the subject, who then acts on its basis: ‘object’ takes on the processual quality of yet-to-be fulfilled subjectivity.

§20

This is exactly why @conceptualjames places Marxism in the Gnostic tradition: This Western interpretation of Marxism is founded upon a metaphysical distrust for reality.

Because of that distrust, good, virtue, etc. lies only in knowledge as pure subjective self-consciousness.

§21

This Western Marxism has its origins in the neo-Kantian György Lukács, whose seminal work “History and Class Consciousness” was written to resolve the problem the subject/object distinction posed for the Marxist concept of society, class & history.

§22

In order to begin, Lukács engaged in an egregious form of revisionism; blaming for Marxism’s commitment to natural realism Fredrich Engels and his "dialectics of nature."23

To Lukács, when Marx referred to objective material reality, he was merely opposing society as a supra-individual horizon of meaning to individual subjectivity. It did not include objective natural reality, which Lukács brackets as irrelevant to Marxism.

§24

Society was ‘objective,’ and consciousness was ‘subjective.’ Their dialectical interaction, for Lukács, was the basis of history itself.

But the material reality outside of social mediation (nature) was irrelevant to, and outside this dialectic, outside history.

§25

The reason I mention Lukács is because Western Marxism was founded on the false view that he resolved the problem of ‘subject/object’ distinction for Marxism.

But he did nothing of that sort, he just changed the definition of objectivity to exclude objective reality itself.

§26

Here, objectivity is just the reified totality of social relations, denied of active subjective responsibility.

This obviously contradicts Marx’s materialism, for which objectivity does include nature, not just society as some purely transcendental horizon.

§27

Without including nature in the definition of material reality, then class-consciousness consists in dissolving all society, in all its objectivity, into a pure subjective self-consciousness. For Lukács, the proletarian class is the first ‘subject-object’ which does exactly this.

§28

This is a gross perversion of Marxism, and it is easy to see the lineage of the Lukácsian view in the Frankfurt School, the New Left, ‘postmodern academia,’ gender studies in Wokeism as a whole.

But is Lukácsian Western Marxism really to blame?

§29

In fact, when Lukács decided to reject Engels, he was just compromising with institutional modern realism.

Engels ‘dialectics of nature’ was too ‘metaphysical’ because it saw something ‘human’ in reality. In other words, the opposite of a metaphysical distrust in reality!

§30

In other words, James Lindsay is a fucking moron when he blames wokeism’s metaphysical distrust in reality on Marxism.

In actual fact, the distrust in reality is the very basis of bourgeois modernity.

It can be thought as the entire premise of the Age of Enlightenment itself!

§31

In the realm of science: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in our conventions, intuitions, religious beliefs, and sensibilities about the nature of reality.

Reality is a pure OUTSIDE only accessed by cold, indifferent, impersonal inquiry.

§32

In the realm of politics: Metaphysical distrust in reality takes the form of distrust in traditional sovereign authority, regarding it as unjust, arbitrary, and tyrannical.

Sovereigns must be legitimated by some explicitly abstract constitutional or democratic procedure.

§33

Wokeness is just the applying it to the realm of culture, where the unwritten norms of civilization secretly disguise relationships of injustice, oppression, and marginalization - by virtue of not being premised by expressly consensual, rational, etc. consciousness.

§34

In bourgeois modernity, only what is in the sphere of explicit responsibility of conscious subjects can be ‘trusted.’

Any recognition of humanity in reality itself is no different than a superstition: Reality is arbitrary, meaningless, and malign. Only institutions are Good.

§35

The madness of bourgeois capitalism, which alienates mankind from its material being, is the true culprit behind the Woke phenomena, NOT Marxism.

All Lukács did was make Marxism compatible with bourgeois institutions. The original problem is the bourgeoisie itself.

§36

The Gnostic, occultist, and alchemical origins of the bourgeois enlightenment are abundantly clear. Lindsay accuses of Marxism, what is in fact THE FOUNDATION OF LIBERALISM!

Marxism is the exact OPPOSITE of this bourgeois conceit of knowledge (gnosis), formalism, and wokeness.

§37

In Marxism, the highest aim of knowledge is to give way to reality. This entails a great trust in material being - anything of importance arrived at by knowledge, is already reconciled within material reality itself.

But the paradox is that this ‘giving way’ is a necessary act.

§38

Lukács’ response to this paradox revised Marxism itself. But even if Lukács were to be rejected, the problem remains.

Furthermore, what is really the problem with Lukács’s revision, anyway? Exploring that reveals the way to a better solution.

§39

As we have shown, the idea of communism as a pure subjective self-consciousness, is based on the notion that objectivity is just reified social relations. This naturally begs the question of what the content of these social relations consists in, as so far they are only pure form

§40

Marxism is historical materialism, and Communism is just the practical application of historical materialism, via the class-conscious (historical-materialism conscious) proletariat, to society itself. But what does that say about the nature of society in the first place?

§41

It means society is an indescribable ‘totality’ of individual mental states, opinions, and beliefs, - the objectivity of social relationships, is merely a result of the subjective mind ‘reifying’ segments of the totality and treating them as external realities in themselves.

§42

Thus here, society has no real determinate content - it is a pure ‘Kantian Thing-in-Itself,’ a mere totality of individual relations that only asserts its existence negatively, via the reification (‘objectivization’) of its constituent parts.

§43

This means that material relations of production are rooted in reified mental states, not material reality. Consciousness of them (plus action) would dissolve them.

Material society is then defined by ‘that which subjective consciousness has not yet assumed responsibility for!’

§44

Having rejected any specific form of being as *necessarily* material, including nature, it is only upon failing to render the Totality fully transparent that consciousness may renunciate its aspiration to dissolve everything in itself.

Totality is the Lukácsian sublime.

§45

The Totality of individual relations in the form of History, or Society, constitutes a type of absolute objectivity which is not merely a reification - but the free, continuous and holistic content of every possible experience, mental state, and subjectivity.

§46

A totality cannot assume self-consciousness, since it cannot be confined to any one self. So that is simply the end of Scientific Socialism: The only thing that can really be known about society, is that nothing at all can be known. This is no more knowledge than Kant’s Thing.

§47

Subject-Object distinction reemerges, only now between a subjective self-consciousness (in the form of Party, institutions, etc) rendering transparent and assuming responsibility for all determinations of society and the Totality of relations as the supremely impenetrable object.

§48

So we are back to square one, and none wiser in answering:

1. To what extent is society (including all relations of production) itself objective?

2. To what extent is Communism merely a subjective consciousness?

These are the most fundamental questions of Western Marxism.

§49

I place special emphasis on Western Marxism, since these questions are obvious within the framework of the experience of Marxism-Leninism. There, the question of the objectivity of society, and Communism, were answered practically: In the Soviet Avant-Garde and in the GPCR.

§50

Both of these events ran upon the objective limits of their underlying aspirations, and the wisdom of Marxism-Leninism - whether in Socialism in One Country or in Deng Xiaopings Reform and Opening Up - defined itself in relation to that experience.

§51

Moreover, Marxism-Leninism is defined within the context of countries where the question of society and the individual is resolved in the concrete bonds of civilization, bonds which were never questioned even at the height of revolutionary experimentation.

§52

In the comparatively atomized West, it is not at all clear to people to what extent society is objective, or to what extent ideas are subjective, even outside Marxist theory. Modern Western thinking doubts absolutely everything about society, even the definition of gender.

§53

The very distinction between subject and object itself is not at all clear in Western society, which is extremely sensitive to algorithmically-driven shifts in culture. Even scientific consensus is (rightfully) called into question, while expert opinion disguises itself as fact.

§54

In contrast to Lukács notion of reification, the real problem with the subject-object distinction cannot but appear to be rooted in the notion of objective Being implied by it, as totally purified of human quality. Despite that in reality, all objects appear somehow tainted by it

§55

When the thinking consciousness is entirely divided from reality, as pure spirit, soul, mind, or cogito - what remains of reality is completely meaningless, and devoid of any moral, historical, spiritual, or human significance.

How could that square with Marx’s view bellow?

§56

Marxists as early as Plekhanov have also opted for regressing into Spinozism as a means to resolve the problem, where subject and object collapse into the supreme Substance. In this way thinking consciousness is the mere attribute of Substance: the most fundamental form of Being.

§57

Soviet Philosopher Ilyenkov, goes so far as to draw out speculative cosmological implications of this view, according to which thought arises as a necessary attribute of matter to prevent the heat death of the universe, by initiating a conscious cosmic catastrophe to reset it.

§58

The problem with Spinozism is not the view that mind and matter (‘subject and object’) share reality, but in the notion of reality as ‘Substance:’ a metaphysical view of the object already united with its subjective determinations. Substance thus has no stake in its attributes.

§59

This is just one of the ways of ‘resolving’ the problem by denying it all together: Substance is mere objectivity given Form by the mind. Substance is treated as supreme, antecedent, and given, but it is the repository of a dogmatic subjective determination, not true objectivity.

§60

The Marxist-Spinozist view cannot ground the origins of proletarian consciousness, Marxism, and the Communist party in reality - it represses its own origins, and pretends these arise in perfect continuity with the self-same Substance, effectively gaslighting itself.

§61

This view does not arise from any necessary procedure of thought, experience, or relation to the world. It is a metaphysical view that does not pay for itself in any way - it is an insight that cannot itself be reproduced materially, a pure dogmatism of the mind.

§62

There never comes the decisive gesture of Marx of renouncing knowledge to suspend it back into Being - Substance is the conceit of a knowledge that already inheres in Being, perfectly continuous with the intellect which at no point runs upon the limit of its pretentions.

§63

In practice, it becomes a type of ideological hubris, asserting the unreality and meaninglessness of every actually substantive bond of civilization, in favor of a supreme ‘Substance’ that has neither any skin of its own in the game, nor any reality outside a calcified intellect.

§64

More importantly, it renders Scientific Socialism into a metaphysical dogma, incapable of deriving concrete knowledge of concrete social reality. No specificity of societal objectivity is possible - everything is just ‘capitalism’ permeating the whole of its ‘attributes.’

§65

It is obvious that if ‘everything’ is objective, then nothing in particular is, including society itself. The extent of society’s objectivity is the extent it is continuous with a dogma of the mind. It is no wonder Spinoza is the favorite thinker of pseudo-Marxist academia!

§66

Spinozism is categorically incompatible with Marxism for no other reason than that its foundations make impossible insight into laws governing historical development, and the particular qualitative character of societies. It could not possibly constitute any class-consciousness.

§67

Specifically, it cannot afford any recognition of the objectivity of contradictions (such as the class struggle). In the stead of the objectivity of class struggle lies a pure subjectivist ‘will to immanence,’ a notion of communism as antisocial as Lukácsian “self-consciousness.”

§68

The scholastic concept Substance does not resolve the object-subject distinction (the principal theoretical problem of Western Marxism), but only conceals it. For the 100+ years Western Marxism has confused it with Marx’s materialism, Marxism was condemned metaphysical languish.

§69

It suffices only to recall Marx’s own apt view of Spinoza: A metaphysically disguised objectivity which excludes the objectivity of man, and therefore the socius relevant for Marx’s own materialism.

§70

Marxism succeeded in overcoming metaphysics, but only within a limited scope of practice. That is namely in the investigations of Marx in Capital, the writings of Fredrich Engels and the concrete historical experience of Marxism-Leninism.

§71

Marx and Engels failed to fully transmit their theoretical genius. Lenin alone inherited it, and gave it practical reality. The genius of Marxism survived as the genius of world-historical statesmen and civilizations, but its original spark of consciousness was lost.

§72

Marxism-Leninism emerged as a type of phronesis, whose advanced outlook was established by the context of the concrete historical experience of Communism. Not strictly a matter of theoretical intellect, but also a type of advanced sensibility based on practical reality.

§73

Marx’s Promethean gesture acquired objective reality and history exclusively outside the West, where objectivity of society was not metaphysical question, but a given reality. And the problem of metaphysics permeated the whole of Western thinking, not just Western Marxism.

§74

For Marxism to be meaningful in the West, it cannot ignore this problem, for when it does, it always remains trapped within it anyway, inevitably regressing materialist objectivity from practical Scientific Socialism into the scholastic Kantian or Spinozist frame.

§75

In the case of Kantianism (as in Lukács), proletarian objectivity dissolves in the subjectivism of social-dem institutions. In Spinozism, it becomes an intellectual conceit devoid of skin in the game. Revisionism, opportunism, and defeatism are the certain conclusion of both.

§76

The object in the form of ‘capitalism’ - whether as Thing or Substance - becomes so overwhelming and insurmountable, that the comparative weakness of Marxist subjectivity takes in. The paranoiac spectre of ‘fascism’ reflects a consciousness always in retreat before its object.

§77

And hardly anything could affirm that paranoia more than the fact that the thinker who finally initiated the revolution that would emancipate the Western mind from bourgeois metaphysics once and for all, is nearly equally infamous for their affiliation to German Nazism.

§78

Originally a student of Husserl and the phenomenological school, Martin Heidegger inadvertently lays the foundation for a complete rediscovery of Marx, emancipating Western thought from its metaphysical shackles and opening the way for a truly consistent materialist outlook.

§79

Heidegger elects to orient thought to an origin more fundamental than can be contained within the frame of the reductionist ‘res cogitans/'extensa’ or ‘subject/object’ distinction, and that is toward Being as such. This is the beginning of what is popularly called ontology.

§80

For Heidegger, Being as such pre-exists the classification, categorization, utilization, etc. of particular beings by thought. It is the ‘Being of beings’ - the more fundamental ground by which particular beings are given to us - whether in experience, contemplation, or practice.

§81

He calls the difference between Being & beings the Ontological Difference. Every relation to beings, is based on a fundamental horizon of Being as such. When a specific horizon acquires historical dominance, it is metaphysical - imposing upon Being a specific relation by thought.

§82

The view of the thinking being is set on a foundation far less metaphysically loaded than the Cartesian Subject: as Dasein, a being for which there is a question or openness of Being. Dasein embodies the very discontinuity of Being that justifies the Ontological Difference.

§83

The problem with the subject-object distinction is that it can only regard beings as objects for a given subject. This makes for a notion of objectivity that is a priori idealist. The notion of Subject also implies a specific view of objects as mere utilities for its realization.

§84

Subject, moreover, defined as res cogita, is thought itself taken as its own real object. This implies an alienation of thought from reality, foreclosing its scandalous incipience in Being. This notion is the final conclusion of idealism; for Heidegger metaphysics as such.

§85

Marx already accomplished the rejection of the culmination of idealist philosophy, especially in his early writings. But the incipient materialist language he made use of (man, class, mode of production, etc.), later fell victim to inevitably metaphysical conceptualizations.

§86

Some of these Concepts were involved in the first breakdown of European Marxism itself. The changing nature of capitalist production & role of the proletariat ceased to neatly conform to their Concept, and this was used by Social Democracy to justify its revisionism.

§87

Western Marxism, with its conceptualist orthodoxy, became infiltrated by metaphysics, so it is natural that only a Western thinker entirely outside Marxism - and even entirely opposed to it politically - could initiate the emancipation of Western thought from metaphysics.

§88

Heidegger may have been beset by various idealistic and politically objectionable peculiarities, but these do not define his primary historical significance. His primary significance lies in setting all thought on a basis which asserts its posteriority in the face of Being.

§89

The concept of Dasein helps resolve the fundamental problem of Marxist theory: The Subject/Object paradox and its methodological individualism. For the first time, society, classes, and civilizations can be acknowledged as real in a manner consistent with the materialist view.

§90

Dasein does not necessarily afford contemplation exclusive significance in its overall issue of Being, so it is not just another concept of the subject: Not simply cognition, but practically being-in-the-world, facing the constitutive disjuncture with Being in its very Being.

§91

This overall phenomenological orientation permits thought to acknowledge reality without preemptively attempting to assume the consequences or implications it has for the thinking being. Whatever consequences or implications there may be, they begin with being, not thought.

§92

It is undoubtedly possible that Dasein can be conceived exclusively as an individual, but unlike the concept of the Subject, it is not necessarily so. Being as such is a common well-spring that cuts across individuated ‘subjects,’ and is the staging ground of any shared reality.

§93

Moreover, without acknowledging the incipience of thought from more fundamental Being, Marxist materialism becomes an absurdity: Materiality becomes identical to the thought of materiality (like Substance), and thus an idea! In this way, materialism easily becomes idealism.

§94

Dasein is constitutively a being already thrown in a world, a world not only not of its choosing, but whose givenness, in the form of beings, cannot be pre-emptively defined by thoughts, ideas or concepts. It rather rests upon a relation to Being as such, which can only be uncovered.

§95

The real individual is thus set against a background within which their very individuated identity is subordinated to a more fundamental horizon of Being. Dasein, in its incipience, knows no distinction between individuals, or itself and others. It is not even a collective.

§96

Typically, Marxists try to resolve antinomy of sociality (either the sum-total of individual subjects or a collective subject individuals are part of) by just grotesquely defining it as a ‘complex’ of relationships between individuals, too numerous to ground in anything definite.

§97

The concept of Dasein, properly speaking, does not necessarily even imply individuated identity, let alone a grouping of individuals - but a more fundamental and antecedent background from which individuals acquire distinction, place and identity within a world.

§98

The simultaneous quality of being open to Being, while also itself Being, implies Dasein as an incipience of thought that goes from the question of a subject faced with its object, to a quality of the ‘object’ itself, as originally discontinuous with regard to itself.

§99

A Dasein is already immersed within a world, and is a grounded existence while simultaneously corresponding to an openness of Being at issue with, or at least discontinuous with that existence. Yet said Being is nothing more than the very Being of Dasein itself.

§100

This ontological difference (between a world of beings and Being as such) is not antagonistic, since Being merely discloses itself, implying not that it is at odds with the world, only given privileged significance in the way it reveals itself to Dasein, in contrast to beings.

§101

Particular beings acquire definition in their use, or general significance, but their real meaning is always metonymic, always referring to something more fundamental than themselves: Being as such is thus also the ultimate horizon of meaningfulness to which beings are referred.

§102

The definition of a Dasein itself, lies at the point in which it faces the threshold beyond which it cannot cross, simultaneously defining the whole of what it is. Typically understood as a person’s death, but more importantly that within which Dasein may recognize its finitude.

§103

That is necessarily beyond any particular being; even individual ego. Being as such grounds the finitude of Dasein, and meaningfulness arises not simply in the physical death of a person, but in Being itself, so far as it sets upon the limits of its disclosure to a given Dasein.

§104

Heidegger’s shortcoming lies in the ambiguity of Dasein. While Dasein is thrown into a given community, as an established horizon of being, it acquires an authentic relationship to Being only through the exercise of individual will, where it comes to acknowledge its finitude.

§105

Yet at the same time, the community is the very ground of Dasein, since ones relation toward others constitutes a given conventionally established horizon of being. What remains ambiguous is the antisocial status of the Being which discloses itself to Dasein.

§106

Experiencing finitude is necessarily individual, yet the status of the finitude of Being itself is not clear. This is heightened by the fact that for Heidegger, every determinacy of Being is metaphysical, closing the Ontological difference by reducing Being to a particular being.

§107

Though, Heidegger does not make clear how it is community acquires singularity of being, he grounds phenomenological Being the site of its conceivability, freeing it from the methodological individualism of intersubjectivity: and that is his principal achievement for Marxism.

§108

As shown, without the aid of Heidegger, Marxism inevitably regresses into metaphysics. But paradoxically, Heidegger’s understanding of metaphysics is the very chief defect of his outlook, not only condemning it to stagnation on his part, but placing it at risk of idealism.

§109

Heidegger makes no distinction, in his understanding of metaphysics, between Being in the specificity of its determination, and Being in the specificity of its understanding within the history of philosophy. He extends the label ‘metaphysics’ beyond the realm of thought.

§110

For him, metaphysics is an actuality. Thus, industrial capitalist modernity is itself the result of metaphysics and it is implied: a consequence of the history of philosophy. Obviously from an elementary Marxist, or even commonsense perspective, he gets the whole thing backwards.

§111

To understand how Being itself acquires a specific determination, it suffices to return to the ontological difference between Being and particular beings. Heidegger situates this difference at the core of Dasein’s existential turmoil, for which Being is always at issue.

§112

This quandary, while not identical, at least parallels that of Kant, for whom the transcendental subject is likewise situated between the antinomies. So it suffices to ‘in parallel’ look to Hegel for the solution, and transpose the difference as a difference of Being itself.

§113

That is to say, the ontological difference should change the operative notion of Being in the first place, from its one-sided conception mired in the stillness of thought, to an understanding of Being as itself contradiction, difference, etc. in sum, a dialectical union of contraries.

§114

Thus Being as such acquires determinacy as an absolute ontological union of opposites, transposing the difference at the core of Dasein to a feature of Being itself. That there exists Dasein in the first place should change something about our understanding of Being itself.

§115

Yet in contrast to Hegel, it is not necessary to draw the conclusion that thought comprises the essential element in the contradiction at the heart of Being - The misstep of phenomenological Hegelians from Kojeve to Žižek, who regressed from Heidegger’s original achievement.

§116

The important conclusion is that ontology - taken not as a philosophical contemplation, but the real threshold by which mankind relates to Being as such - is itself actively suspended and itself reproduced within material reality, as the formative ground of all thought.

§117

This threshold lies not in the limits of philosophy, but in the limits of man’s existence itself, itself suspended in temporal history. Such a limit lies not in the threshold of man’s mastery over nature, but the limit by which man lives, relates to others and to things.

§118

Such a limit is not preempted by any philosophy, idea, or consciousness, but the genuine limit of man’s existence in relation to the whole of Being, conditioned not necessarily by physical limitation, but by the limit of the absolute contradiction which forms meaning itself.

§119

This can be understood as the contradiction between the givenness of being and Being as such, or between the determinate norms of civilization and their unity in a state authority, a specific frame of past and future, particular and universal, many and one, etc.

§120

Heidegger (at least in his early years) could not see that Dasein is not just a being for whom there is a question of Being - but also a being for whom that question is already resolved in a specific way. Heidegger assumed that resolution was necessarily metaphysical.

§121

While true for the history of philosophy, it is not true for living and real mankind, for whom the contradiction between the determinacy of Being and an appreciation for the ontological, is the very content of the latter. It is what gives Being itself meaning!

§122

The absolute contradiction is a contradiction of incipience, between determination and origins. The contingency of Dasein is not simply a matter of choice, as Heidegger thought, but in a determination whose ‘reason’ is only clear retroactively, like a wavefunction collapse.

§123

A civilization is the way it is, not because it is physically impossible for it to be any other way, but precisely because it is physically possible. Only by assuming one determination against a background of many, can a higher reason participate in the development of a people.

§124

Western Marxism, before it engages in ‘historical materialist’ analysis, projects a vulgar metaphysical view (rejected by Marx & Engels) of humanity, according to which mankind dwells at the precipice of physical extinction. Thus, everything about society is reduced to survival.

§124.1

Hence, class struggle ultimately reduces to the Rational Choice Individual, and one group merely finds itself disadvantaged with regard to others, on account of being unable to fulfill the desires, or restricting the choices of individuals. What is problematic about this is clear

§124.2

It clearly contrasts with the Marxist view of class struggle, which situates class antagonism within a single division of labor, as a contradiction at the core of being itself - giving it ontological significance, rather than a result of clashing individuals.

§125

Understanding any given civilization, is simply a matter of understanding the mode of production. The problem is they never bother to ask exactly what is being produced in the first place. They begin and end with the individual, effectively arriving at no real knowledge at all.

§126

The problem of course is that the individual is situated within a more fundamental horizon by which they relate to others, to things, etc. This jibber-jabber is well-known to ‘Marxists,’ but precisely what is meant by it, at the objective material level they never make clear.

§127

A mode of production is the mode by which something is reproduced; that something can’t just be the individual. For a mode of production to be general, it must itself have a general object, otherwise the entire concept becomes completely useless.

§128

To begin, this object - which is really the specific Being of Dasein - must be a specific logic of reproduction. You could call it a unit of civilization, or a division of labor. Marxoids have devoted an eternity of soliloquies to Capital as a logic of reproduction.

§129

Capital, whose logic is standardization, abstraction, and utilitarianism is not a specific logic, but an empty universalism, which concludes with modern American ‘civilisation,’ and now a mere extension of Church of Cartesian metaphysics (govt, financial institutions etc).

§130

M-C-M’ is merely the form of reproduction of the modern European polity; the abstraction of the commodity form corresponding to the abstraction of the state. Capital is not an autonomous process, but a civilizational quandary. A deeper object has precedence over it.

§131

In a sense, Heidegger is right that ontology here possesses primacy. Before there was capitalism, there was a more fundamental way European civilization came to relate to Being as a whole. That is not to say the latter is arbitrary - on the contrary, it is world-historical.

§132

The point is that in contrast to the vulgar materialist view, all of mankind’s ‘metaphysical,’ spiritual, cultural, scientific, etc. questions, aspirations, fears and dreams were bound up with the development of capitalism, reflecting their highest relation to Being as such.

§133

To know a logic of reproduction, is to know what is most sacred, fundamental, and ontological for a given people. No abstract, mechanical geometrical, or arithmetic conception of physical production suffices to produce knowledge of any given mode of production.

§134

It is clear that Heidegger, though providing the foundation for a Marxism freed from metaphysics, hardly allows us to go this far with the concept of Dasein. But at the very least, with the help of Hegel, it is possible to grasp ontological difference as a feature of Being itself

§135

That is the second most important step to arriving at a true conception of the objectivity of society, after Heidegger’s phenomenological turn itself. That is because it establishes Being as a specific contradiction, thus having some kind of finitude beyond individual death.

§136

This does not yet tell us anything particular about any specific Dasein. For that to be possible, it is necessary to take a fundamental step beyond Heidegger and beyond the West itself. Heidegger gave us an escape from metaphysics - but not a perspective already outside of it.

§137

It was Aleksandr Dugin who accomplished the particularization of Heidegger’s concept of Dasein, thus allowing for it to be put to work in productive, even practical ways. And he does this by returning to the beginning of metaphysics according to Heidegger - in Logos.

§138

Logos is the first forgetting of Being, in the form of Being as the identity of difference. Whereas Heidegger identifies Being with Time, Heraclitus identified Being as change and constant flux, and thus an identity of difference itself. The beginning of Western philosophy.

§139

Dugin, rather than languish in the melodrama of the long forgetting of Being, employs Logos as a productive concept: As the logic of a given civilization’s existence, defining its particular Dasein, or ontology. This analysis is only superficially idealist, but not necessarily.

§140

Dugin claims to reject materialism as a whole. Yet only his language is metaphysical: what he describes is nothing other than the metaphysically-concealed communal being which is the premise of any application of Scientific Socialism. The kernel of his thinking is materialist.

§141

Logos is the revealed form of Dasein, cleansing Heidegger of any traces of potential subjectivism and, in a properly Hegelian manner, transposing the ontological difference itself into a determinate object. Active geopolitical analysis can then replace impotent contemplation.

§142

Dugin offers Space as a proper counterpart to Heideggerean Time, because he does not mind being ‘metaphysical,’ in the sense of grounding Being in specificity. But from a materialist perspective, going from the general to the particular is the opposite of metaphysical.

§143

Dugin is necessary for Marxism, because without specifying the communal being which is the premise of Scientific Socialism, it not only regresses into metaphysics (and cannot draw any particular insights), it becomes a cheap extension of American unipolar liberalism.

§144

Dugin may give expression to this social being in an overtly metaphysical way, but that is just halloween dressing. The important thing is that he delimits it as the very ground of thought itself, fulfilling the logic of Marxist-Leninist dialectics, beginning from the particular.

§145

Socialism in One Country reflected the precise logic that universal Communism can only be built up within a determinate communal being, not a vain pretension to the entire world, but a concrete, grounded relationship between a specific party and a specific country.

§146

Dugin’s geopolitical orientation allows for an understanding of the objectivity of civilizations beyond the formalism of statehood - states only exist to the extent that they can reflect the underlying logos of a civilization, reflected in its geography.

§146.1

For Dugin, the logos acquires particularity (beyond the mere identity of difference) where it establishes a particular logic relating one to many, identity and difference, being and becoming, stasis and flux, universal and particular, central authority and local community, etc

§146.2

Logos is stamped by a particular logic of how it relates to its own incipience, how it excludes nothingness, how a people relate to their own constitutive origins, by what means they relate to a universality, what specific limit defines their existence.

§147

The logos of civilization easily translates in Marxist terms into a specific logic of communal reproduction, which itself would mean nothing without acknowledging the primacy of ‘ontology’ - at least taken to mean the way in which mankind reproduces the conditions of Form.

§148

With Dugin, knowledge can only be derived from the ground-up: every metaphysical, noetic, even psychological assumption is suspended and imperiled phenomenally - not a single conceit of the mind can be idle in the investigation of civilizations and geopolitics.

§149

What accounts for a great deal of Dugin’s mysticism is the phenomenalization of the active intellect, which must cross beyond itself and into its real material premises, where only a language of the sublime can suffice to give expression to its objective limitations.

§150

Importantly, these limitations are put to work for Dugin - the limits of metaphysics are immanent limits of logos itself, thus enabling a positive a positive analysis and investigation of different civilizations, rather than just understanding them in terms of their differences.

§151

This brings us to what is by far the most important contribution of Dugin, and which permits him to be characterized as a true metaphysical materialist, going beyond even Heidegger - and that is in Dugin’s concept of Chaos, the true the phenomenal form of material being.

§152

Whereas Heidegger understands in Heraclitus the beginning of Being’s oblivion, Dugin identifies at the precise incipience of Logos a dark counterpart to it - that is chaos. Chaos is not randomness, nor meaninglessness. It is really the antecedent density of material being.

§153

In contrast to the exclusive principle of Logos, based on differentiation, identity - which defines itself in contrast to the void of nothingness - chaos is an inclusive principle. It is a dark shadow of logos, corresponding to Being that it has forgotten, but which follows it.

§154

Whereas Chaos is ‘Nothing’ to the Logos (or the intellect), it is in reality something. What is this if not a precise materialist view, which asserts the primacy and antecedence of a reality which cannot ever be reduced to any product of the mind?

§155

As an inclusive principle, Logos is included within Chaos, as one of its possibilities. This reflects the history of the ‘Asiatic’ Empires, which never seem to annihilate any aspect of their being (including the conquered), but only include, and aggregate in a higher form.

§156

Chaos is a type of index of Dasein’s development, which cannot be conditioned by the forms of Being it gives rise to. It is the inert density, and eternity of material being faced by the intellect, which extends infinitely into the past, assailing its development into one Whole.

§157

This bears an obvious similarity to Solovyov’s Sophiology, which identifies the feminine divine wisdom as a fourth hypostasis of the trinity. Sophia is the Whole body of universal humanity - the infinite past of infinite divine wisdom of the accumulated history of all mankind.

§158

It is in this way that Dugin renders any Heideggerean accusation of metaphysics superfluous - for Being as such is always remembered in the positive concept of Chaos, which always subsumes Logos - a kind of parallel to the Russian relationship to European modernity.

§159

Chaos affirms that every Logos, every revealed form of Dasein or communal being, is haunted by a more fundamental material ground of existence, which has given rise to it as one of its many possibilities. This tension between Logos and Chaos is the real absolute contradiction.

§160

Translated in materialist terms, civilizations acquire objectivity not because of some static metaphysical quality (like genes), but because their determination reflects an active dialectic at the heart of material being itself. Objectivity is that which realizes a contradiction.

§161

The dialectic in question concerns the incipience of what Ilyenkov called the ‘thinking consciousness’ - which is really more like Dasein - from its opposite in material being. This contradiction is itself real (and the only real thing), and not just an illusion of our finitude.

§162

For Dugin, the concept of Chaos is reflects the inert reality of that contradiction, accumulated in all its forms, unaltered but inclusive of all possibilities. This makes for a materialism surprisingly similar to the Spinozist kind, rendering Logos a kind of attribute of Chaos…

§163

The proper counterpart of the concept of Chaos is the Lacanian ‘non-all.’ Because it precedes differentiation itself, it is ‘all,’ only, not ‘all’ as the sum-total of beings. It is ‘everything,’ but reflects the incompleteness of ‘everything’ by not to be any one form of it.

§164

The problem of the concept of Chaos and by extension Dugin’s notion of Logos is that it is still too metaphysical. It is one-sided materialism, where chaos is never truly, absolutely, and fully, imperiled in its determinations. This gives rise to a type of ‘pluralism’ in Dugin.

§165

The pluralism of different Dasein, and different Logos, is Dugin’s greatest achievement, but also his greatest weakness: Because it is undercut by an unconditionally singular concept of Chaos, which is the condition of this pluralism. Somewhat similar to Spinoza’s Substance.

§166

Dugin escapes too easily the fact of a world-historical and global ‘ontological division of labor’ by humanity. It is hardly conceivable to understand Russian logos, without also including its relation and response to the European kind. The common fate of humanity is inescapable.

§167

While Dugin is right to reject globalism, with its imposition of one ontic vision of humanity, without a shared humanity, the internal reality and development of different civilizations lose their own ground of meaning. Certainty of ones fate is certain impossibility.

§168

By this it is meant that, while a given civilization can certainly come to appreciate and acknowledge its ‘logos,’ it cannot confuse this as the final horizon of Being itself - at minimum, it must rather regard any new disclosure of Being as capable of including it.

§169

Because of this, a civilization cannot recognize its own humanity without recognizing the humanity of others - since, at the level of incipient Dasein - ones own particular Being is actively suspended in the future oriented phenomenal disclosure, known only retroactively.

§170

While Dasein can be particularized, its constitutive lack of certain knowledge about what will enter its own phenomenal horizon is universal, and the same good faith a Dasein must constitutively afford for itself that it is human, it must afford for other civilizations.

§171

This is all that humanism in Marxism amounts to: not a specific ontic view of the human elevated above reality, but a recognition of the human as that to which every knowledge returns: Only the return of an outlook, thought, etc. to its real premises, reconciles it as a being.

§172

Within Marxism-Leninism (and originally consistent with Marx), lies a sophianic view of knowledge, which is neither scholastic nor based in technological domination. Persons like Stalin and Mao had the sage-like quality of knowledge in the form of wisdom.

§173

This type of knowledge does not elevate itself above its object, but is like the Hegelian absolute knowledge, corresponding to it absolutely. In this view, knowledge of civilization does not give rise to the occasion of ‘changing’ it by premising it on the basis of consciousness.

§174

To know a thing does not always mean to possess mastery of it - to know a thing also corresponds to insight into the limit by which that thing is a necessary and rational existence. This is true for nature in the era of ecology, but it is even more true for civilizations.

§175

Communist consciousness does NOT entail the voluntary transformation of society. It entails knowledge in the form of wisdom, of the laws guiding the development of society, and this consciousness intervenes in reality only at the site of the latter’s objective contradictions.

§176

The organic development of communal being, and society, is not premised by voluntary consciousness - but by the generational wisdom that allows people to make sense of their place in the world, and their relations toward others. No ‘conscious’ conceit could possibly replace that.

§177

Societies and civilizations change - but they do not change according to the whims of consciousness. They change according to what organically makes sense to people, in ways that are compatible with their living being, and their specific logic of reproduction.

§178

The application of ‘human rights’ to the sphere of culture, is the highpoint of madness of bourgeois civilization, which is beginning to consume its own human premises. No interiority of grounded life, with its own internal logical and rational development is any longer possible.

§179

Wokeness has nothing to do with the Marxist outlook. You can BULLSHIT all you want by referencing academic bullshit. In China, there is no wokeness. In the Soviet Union, there was no wokeness. Their cultural reforms they did have had NOTHING in common with it.

§180

A logic of reproduction develops on its own terms, and only in ways that are compatible with the reproduction of units of civilization itself. Hierarchy of respect, family life, and culture all reflect objective wisdoms about what human life is, passed through generations.

§181

They are wisdoms because of what they encompass in scale: You can make up your own retarded LGBT identity from scratch. But it is not tested before the wealth of possibilities, outcomes, and experiences of a human life compatible with a civilization shared by others.

§182

The significance of Communism intervenes not in the need to create a new community, but on the contrary, to give expression to the precise indeterminateness and contradictions propelling the development of a given community. That is why it doesn’t refer to anything specific.

§183

Nothing is more anti-communist than Communism itself. Impotent intellectual wimps like James Lindsay and other rightist idiots cannot even dream of coming close: Communism alone emancipates humanity from its objective ‘communist oppression.’

§184

Bourgeois modernity itself, and even Capital can be thought of as a ‘forms’ of communism, giving limitation to objective communal beings in a specific, universal, indiscriminate ‘form,’ the common reality of abstract, formalist, universal modernity.

§184.1

At stake in the consciousness of class struggle, is the sublation of this formal modernity, giving recognition to a contradiction at the heart of it. Communist universalism, unites the future-oriented universalism of modernity with the Sofianic infinite past.

§184.2

Class struggle, given proper ontological recognition, reflects the subsumption of modernist universalism (for Heidegger, Cartesian metaphysics) to a particular grounding of being, a particular traditional civilization and concrete development.

§184.3

Thus Communism does not try to escape modernity or the Cartesian subject, but fully go through it: giving it proper ontological status as an immanent contradiction, in sum, a dialectical object. The ‘value-form’ is finally given recognition, as torn from within.

§184.4

The value-form is immersed within the context of a definite logic of reproduction, which in fact gives it concrete particularity, and whose existence is the beginning of a type of production based on use - in other words, the so-called early stage of socialism.

§185

Communism is the inescapable reality of mankind - but only Communism as such, which “disdains to conceal its aims” objectively frees humanity from a given form of communal being, insofar as it contradicts the real content of communal being.

§186

Dasein is nothing other than Communism itself. Communism is the true horizon within which the objective communal being of a given people reveals itself, in a manner that is consistent with their world and society. Communism is the real movement of change.

§187

Communists do not need to ‘abolish’ anything whatsoever - insofar as anything deserves to be abolish, it has already abolished itself in reality: Only in Communism, are the contradictions, changes, and aspirations of a people suspended into a single phenomenal horizon.

§188

Communism only gives expression to the ‘real communism’ already inherent in a given civilization or people, it simply NAMES this. Communism just names the excess of development, indeterminacy, and contradiction possessed by every civilization.

§189

Communism always ‘falls into place,’ in a manner that reconciles, sublates, and is compatible with existing civilizations. Communism simply names the openness of destiny itself, which in the last instance can only be known by God - but definitely not by any man.

§190

In Communism, the whole of civilization, culture, and society, is ‘lifted up’ and imperiled in the struggle of the proletariat. Only retroactively can it be known what survives past the threshold of its inevitable victory. The whole history of mankind is imperiled in it.

§191

Communism definitely is the risk that everything meaningful and human will be dissolved. Everything is ‘suspended’ into the future, which is ultimately undecidable. Faith in faith in God, faith in the people - is faith that things will fall back into place in a way that is human.

§192

The whole of the people, the whole of the country, and the whole of history is imperiled in the fight for the future. Everything is bounded up there. Everything is actively suspended in something which will not be decided without struggle. Absolutely everything is at stake.

§193

Why it is called ‘Communism’ and not something more specific, is precisely because its specificity, while an inevitability, is never fully formed. That is on account of the historical development of mankind as a continual process.

§194

The era of the rediscovery of Marxism in the West, and America in particular, is upon us. America as the culmination of bourgeois modernity, now faces the certain prospect of civil war. And the self-consuming madness of capitalist modernity imperils all humanity.

§195

A new Event, a new era of the disclosure of Being is upon us - a new threshold by which mankind relates to Being, and thus, an era of Communist revival. 400 years of Cartesian metaphysics now comes to close, and we are thrown into an era of definite uncertainty.

§196

Marxism as a whole must be rediscovered, and emancipated from its social-democratic metaphysical decay, in a manner consistent with the ongoing experience of Marxism-Leninism. The common destiny of mankind depends on it.

§197

One may try to object to an interpretation of Marxism that draws from Heidegger and Dugin. But there is no other way to make sense of the wisdoms of Marxism-Leninism, at least from the Western perspective. And not just in terms of theory, but also in terms of practice.

§198

Real existing Communist states regarded (and continue to regard) society and civilization as objective realities, while also recognizing the role of the Communist party as the guiding light of society’s development. Development does not eliminate the laws of history.

§198.1

They did not regard Communist consciousness as some supreme reality which liquidates and replaces all the wisdoms of mankind with some empty abstraction. Communist consciousness was precisely the sage-like insight, appreciation and respect for that wisdom.

§198.2

Communism does not replace society. It only gives expression to that development which within society is truly and concretely general, truly universal, truly in common. That is the ontological supremacy represented by the proletariat: the true common destiny of mankind.

§198.3

The universalism of the proletariat takes for granted the universalism of abstract modernity (from which Communism has its origins). Yet it avoids the self-consuming madness of globalism, by giving concrete reconciliation of this abstraction in being itself.

§199

Communist development does not eliminate the laws of civilization, the mores, sensibilities and culture of a people. At best, it may reveal changes that were already latent within them, according to the tasks of a new era.

§200

The only real measure of progress, is what takes root organically, and in a manner consistent, or at least compatible with the whole of a people, civilization and history. Various individual-subjectivist trends and ‘experiments’ have nothing to do with Communism.

§201

Communist progress is measured in terms of renunciation and resignation, where a revolution finally reaches its limit. This limit alone defines it as progressive, lasting, objective, and part of the immortal history of mankind - for it defines the finitude of civilization itself.

§202

Upon realizing the limits of Hegelian absolute knowledge, Marx came upon the proletariat as the solution, the reconciliation, and the wisdom grounding the lofty heights attained by the mind.

§203

Upon realizing the limits of European social democracy, Lenin came upon the Bolshevik party, and the strategy of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

§204

Upon realizing the limits of the geographic spread of revolution, Stalin came upon the theory of Socialism in One Country, and for the first time, Communism acquired a concrete, positive mode of development, and civilization, practically aware of its ground in being.

§205

Upon realizing the limits of the cultural revolution, Deng Xiaoping initiated the reform and opening up, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, which has given Communism an unprecedented vitality, dynamism, and flexibility in the guidance of economic development.

§206

It is now time to finally realize the limit of modernity itself, and American modernity in particular. This requires a comprehensive reexamination of the significance of Communism and its relationship to traditional civilizations within the West.

§207

But most importantly, it requires the unconditional assumption of responsibility, by American Communists, before the unforeseen challenges facing the American people.

Communism now entails the responsibility of mankind before its common destiny.

§208

Only out of this, may a people regain meaning after the catastrophe that is to come.

#MAGACommunism is taking the internet by storm, and it isn’t going anywhere. Everyone bearing witness to this phenomena appears puzzled. How can MAGA and COMMUNISM be united? For one is clearly far-right, and the other far-left.

Perhaps it’s like the syncretic, third position politics of fascism, like National Bolshevism? That, of course, assumes the proper significance of a political spectrum.

All political analysts, ideologists, thinkers, and ‘political content creators’ since the incipient populist era of the 2010s have hitherto used, as a heuristic tool to navigate Euro-American politics - some kind of ‘political spectrum.’

The Political Spectrum

All political strategy begins, as an almost axiomatic premise, with an understanding of ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ forces. Thus, one often gets views as the following:

• Should we vote for Biden? It depends, can we push him left? He is more to the left than Trump…

• Voters in America didn’t like Bernie, because he was too far to the left, and Americans are currently very right wing.

• How can Nazism come from the Democrats? The Democrats are not as right wing as the Republicans, and Nazism is far right.

Of course, this neglects to explain how supposedly ‘right wing’ forces appear to outflank leftists all the time, assuming positions, successfully at that, that appear to be associated with the extreme-left, like the unconditional anti-interventionism espoused by figures like Ron Paul, or the discourse against free market neoliberalism associated with the nascent 2016 Trump campaign.

The contrary is also true. If Breitbart were to release an article expressing a favorable view of eugenics, it would be derided as a form of far-right Nazism. But if MSNBC were to release that same piece, attempting to rehabilitate it from the perspective of climate change, it would pass under the radar of ‘leftists’ without question. Such unthinkable scenarios happen all the time. The Western Left routinely defends arming Ukrainian Neo-Nazis (i.e. as in, some don’t even deny they are Nazis, but defend arming them anyway) with high-grade military equipment, as the lesser of two evils in the face of Russia.

Yet it still remains an article of faith that the force animating, driving, and defining politics - is derived from some continuum, pendulum, or tug-of-war represented in the form of the political spectrum. For most liberals - in whom, after all, the political spectrum as a heuristic device has its origins (i.e. basing itself in formalistic idealism) Nazism is the primary metaphysical force.

It’s actually similar to Star Wars for them, and the force has the same meaning. Nazism is a primal, vital ‘dark side’ whose temptations must be resisted through the politics of ‘balance.’ Political passions must be reigned in, and ideological belief must be curtailed with a healthy dose of nihilist realism, lest the ‘dark side’ takes over - or in the words of Jabba the Vaush, the camps come back.

Surprisingly no one has pointed out this funny irony. For liberals and leftists, only Nazism is real. Politics, left to its own devices, flows and bends in the direction of Nazism. The political spectrum, for them, is defined by gradations of resistance toward this fatal, primal, and vital conclusion. If we suspend the liberal-democratic institutions, and the consciousness corresponding to them (political correctness, formalism, moralism, etc.), we fall into the ‘Nazbol vortex,’ sucked in by the gravitational force of Nazism.

The ascription of notions like ‘force’ to politics, implies clearly an implicit, unconscious understanding of a political metaphysics. Hobbes, proceeding with his Baconian metaphysical materialism, geometrically contrives the substance of political power in the opposing and contrary interests of atoms (that is, individuals) suspended in the chaos of their repulsion in the war of all against all, which concludes in a sovereign disposed of an absolute monopoly on violence. However, Hobbes was a political metaphysician of (or anticipating) the modern era, for which the concept of politics was defined in terms of atoms, monads, and states (i.e. in both the physics and political sense) - the social contract between individual citizens and some institution representing their collective sovereignty.

Just as for today’s liberal elites, only Nazism is real - for Hobbes, only criminality (self-interested antisociality) is real.

In the era of the breakdown of Western modernity (and liberal democracy), culminating in the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, the oil embargo, and the 1979 Iranian Revolution - political metaphysicians like Karl Popper (mentor of George Soros) viewed not the sovereign as the ends of politics, but institutionalized and conscientious civil society: The open society. The sovereign is not the culmination of the metaphysical forces driving politics, but is also driven by them, capable of producing horrible outcomes like Nazism or Communism. For Hobbes, individuals are irrational, self-interested, and driven by wild metaphysical forces. They become truly rational only by means of the sovereign. But for Karl Popper, sovereigns are suspended by the same forces - thus institutional civil society must be vigilant, or else the politically impassioned masses will create an updated version of Hobbesian chaos - Nazism.

This has been the basic ideological justification and legitimation for US imperialism since then. America isn’t the world police to police individuals. It polices states. It makes sure these sovereigns won’t become Fascists. The Soviet Union was Fascist. Iraq was Fascist. North Korea is Fascist. Iran is Fascist. Russia is Fascist. Cuba is Fascist. Venezuela is Fascist. The word Fascism today, means malign sovereignty: Sovereignty that is misaligned, unaligned, or even nonaligned with the American unipolar global system. The malign individual is an outlaw, a criminal. The malign sovereign is a Fascist, because their sovereignty used in an illegitimate way. Sovereignty is really a funny word today. Its reality contradicts its technical meaning. The sovereign is not the supreme power. It is subordinated to the open society, or globality.

The historical basis for using this word (Fascist), lay in the circumstances of the postwar period. The Second World War was the war to end all wars. As a consequence of it, the architects of the Bretton woods system, the UN, NATO, etc. believed in a new world order of lasting peace, attempting to ensure that nothing could ever disrupt the stability of the international politico-economic system (i.e. the British financial empire) ever again. Nazism, of course, is the repressed founding sin of this globalism. Nazism was the chaos out of which this system founded its order upon. Nazism was the final loose-end that had to be cut before the thousand-year-reich could really be established. And yet their victory came to haunt them. And so all those who came to resist this global system would be declared Nazis, because they reminded liberals that they didn't cut all their loose ends. They didn’t defeat Nazism, they inherited it. They projected this fact onto others, because others reminded them of this.

Revolutionaries of the past were called criminals. And since the state made no use in distinguishing criminal thugs from revolutionaries, they resorted to criminal means to fight revolutionaries. Today, political dissidents are called Fascists. And since the globalists make no use in distinguishing political resistance from Fascists they, in all their hypocrisy, routinely employ Fascist neo-nazi thugs and employ Fascist means to squash the enemies of globalism. The whole history of the Cold War attests to this. Even our political enemies online befriend and try to recruit neo-nazis against us. The situation in Ukraine speaks for itself. Nazism is the dirty secret of the globalists. They call everyone Nazis, because this is what they themselves are, deep down. The fact that people are even willing to resist them reminds them of this fact.

Malign sovereigns remind them of the the founding sin of American unipolarity. The Soviet Union’s withdrawal from the Bretton Woods agreement negotiations is itself what created the Cold War. For all the anti-communist propaganda (which is mostly derived from a reactionary quasi-populism from bellow) progressives and liberals, deep down really considered the Soviets and their allies as ‘red fascists.’ In the same way that criminals remind sovereigns of the state’s own founding crime, malign sovereigns remind globalist liberals of their own founding Nazism. The metaphysical primacy of Nazism lies in the artificiality of globalist liberalism, progressive politics, down to the plainly virtue signaling of wokeness.

Thus not only North Korea, but even Dave Chapelle is a Nazi. His lack of regard for the etiquette of the open society means he has given in to the dark side: he has suspended his institutional conscience, and is giving way to the metaphysical force of Fascism. He may be an individual, but his individuality is politicized as the atom of a potential malign sovereignty (perhaps, the MAGA movement). And such politics are polarized (“MAGA is actually a tool of Russian Fascism”). The ultimate conclusion of telling transphobic jokes, is chaos. And chaos whirls in the shape of a swastika. Order is left-wing, chaos is right-wing, because order is progressive globalism, and chaos is Nazism. Everything political has turned into its contrary: Great intentionality, artificiality, design, etc. is necessary to maintain openness - whereas people, left to their own devices, will become closed. Freedom is slavery. Slavery is freedom.

Herein lies the political spectrum, which is more like a theory of political gravity. It is Hobbesian liberalism in the age of post-modernity. Such a ‘theory’ is really a heuristic device of pure paranoia and impotence. It’s the copium of a sinking ship, for which water, not the ship itself, is to blame for it sinking. Everything is Nazi that proves the inadequacy, failure, and untenability of globalist liberalism; since Nazism was its sanction, justification, and ‘casus belli.’ The more extreme left, the more one believes in the need for more control over this wild force. The more chaotic, the more far right (and those in power regularly employ this ‘chaos’ to maintain control! Just think at how much control Jan 6th gave them).

In the end the political spectrum, for all intensive purposes, is one dimensional. Many attempts have been made to make better and more accurate model of political difference. Yet all of these fail, and are inevitably doomed to failure for the same reasons that the original was, because they share the same metaphysical premises. In attempting to devise an impartial representation of political antagonism, ones representation is doomed to itself becoming partial to it. What political spectrum is the political spectrum itself on? An inherently absurd and paradoxical question.

A political spectrum is a spatial continuity, whereas political antagonism implies an abrupt and acute discontinuity, both in form and content, affecting - twisting, bending and altering even its own representation. The first step in being able to understand the true forces defining politics is to understand that politics, that is modern politics, is its own force. The establishment of universal modern statehood, culminating in liberal globalism, is a force of its own kind, a force which corresponds to the history of the bourgeoisie as a class. This force neither bases itself in any particular agential (rational, moral, etc.) intention (like the pursuit of power), nor any primal compulsion (like the ‘nazbol vortex’, or Hobbesian wild instincts).

Such a force is rather an immanent contradiction. An immanent contradiction is an antagonism, a paradox, a contradiction, etc. not between two discrete things, or two discrete elements, but a type of pure difference itself. The story of modernity is the story of pure difference, and the paradoxical attempts by which it is given form thereof, from German idealist philosophy, French revolutionary politics to English industrial capitalism. Kant’s transcendental aesthetic, or the a priori pure forms of intuition are divided into space and time because the singular object they have in common is pure discontinuity, difference, or contradiction. Capital has as its object and its basis pure discontinuity, or the alienation between the worker and his means of production. Finally, modern politics has as its object pure discontinuity - between revolutionary change and order.

Pure difference asserts itself within modern politics in the division between universal statehood and civil society. Universal statehood, in turn, is the universal form, and abstracted essence of the people, which is itself founded upon difference - between man in general and man in particular, between abstract right in general and real activity in particular. This abstraction is contrived, not arbitrarily, but based on the absolute certainty of the political will which admits no distinction beyond the bounds of its form. Just as demons provoked Descartes to find certain refuge only in his thought, the malign sovereigns of the English Civil War provoked the English to find refuge in pure parliamentary form (and later, the French in the Republic).

Hence the retards of woke political theory, who critique bourgeois formalism and universalism on account of neglecting differences completely miss the point. “We the people? Are you sure? What about fat trans indigenous woman?” We the people, and the universal statehood implicit in it, is a purported intention - a conceit. It does not claim to actually know or represent every individual person, it is the purport of a state which seeks to act as a universal people - and thus, an inherently abstracted form of the people, the people in the institutional purport of their sovereignty, i.e. if a state will act as the people it can only do so as a pure form which knows no distinction in content (i.e. between persons).

Thus it does not simply imply a lack of sensitivity to the differences among the people, it implies a fundamental difference, or discontinuity between the people as a substantive, particular unity - and the people as an abstracted, formal one. The universal or bourgeois state knows no distinctions among the people. But it also knows no distinction between itself and its own, actual reality. And here lies the basic germ which eventually culminates in modern class distinction, between the purport of the universal form of the people, and the reality of its universal content. The proletariat is not like a ‘fat trans disabled indigenous woman.’ It is not something excluded from the universal state, it is the universal state in its own actual, rather than conceited reality - i.e. the meat-grinder of universal exchange value - the confrontation between universal form of exchange and its own antecedent premises in labor.

However, before class distinction, it is necessary to understand the more fundamental metaphysical difference that gives rise to modern political difference. Modern political difference, while related, predates the modern class struggle. The modern political discontinuity has its origins in the heartbreak of malign, or illegitimate sovereignty. This is first sovereignty illegitimate on its own terms, as in the tumultuous history of the English Civil War, where the sovereign cannot prove itself even by the terms of its own sanction (religion, inheritance, etc.), producing the devastating heartbreak for which everything once thought Good is unreal, illegitimate, false, etc. And then illegitimate in the terms of modern political theories which form in response to said heartbreak (i.e. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc.).

What remains is a pure discontinuity devoid of any tangible or definite content, a pure disruption in the fabric of political being which sets everything awry, after which the world turns upside down. Politics closes its heart to the sacral and the eternal (which had betrayed it), and is left with nothing but the angst of contradiction, and the necessity of grounding itself in terms and by means wholly accountable and knowable to itself. Divine right, which for so long suspended the political into the embrace of the unknowable and eternal, is replaced by virtue of its own impossibility by rational modern statehood, which suspends the political into a man-made institutional sanction.

It is in the paradoxical attempts at restoring unity and giving pure form to this pure discontinuity that a definite and irreducible division appears at the heart of modern politics. The division into change and order, is the self-division of pure difference by means of its transubstantiation into pure form. Order, one the one hand, is nothing more than the pure form of pure difference, taken as something complete. Change, on the other, is nothing more than the affect this same difference and the attempt to give pure form thereof has on a status quo defined by some otherwise substantive content (rather than the pure form of difference), i.e. ancien regime (hence the inevitable failure of every party of order which is doomed to be overthrown by the same means of its establishment, the conservative today is the liberal of yesterday).

The common denominator is of course formalism, for which pure contradiction is, in the first place an impossibility that must be immediately expounded into a definite and one-sided form. Yet this limitation is not shared by the immortal science of Marxism-Leninism, according to which contradiction is itself something real, and immanent to objects. But this formalism is not merely an error of political theory. It is what defines the historical epoch of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist mode of production as we know it. It is not merely a way of representing the world in thought, it is a way of relating to the world in reality: From the perspective of its reduction into universal form.

The failure of said reduction is the history of modernity. And in particular, the history of modern politics, whose own division - into left and right - attests to the impossibility of such a reduction. However, it likewise attests to the impossibility of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist mode of production being the final forms of history. Something even deeper, that is, subterrestrial underlies this conflict between ‘left and right,’ which reveals itself inadvertently in the process of revolutionary change. And suddenly, the topology of the political division becomes confusing, dizzying and disorienting. Left becomes Right, and Right becomes Left. Smoke grenades obscure the position of guerrillas by night, firing, apparently, from all directions.

The bourgeoisie, in their vain attempt at achieving universal formal political unity, finds itself under siege by a kind of terrorist which has no regard for the modern purity of form at all. That is the partisan.

The Partisan Revolutionary

The political spectrum can be defined as the metaphysical theory of political alignment. Its formalism consists in the fact that it makes no distinction between political alignment in actual reality - that is to say, what position one bares in relation to real political power, real political contradictions, etc. - and political alignment as formally represented by abstract values and principles.

Even strictly taken from the perspective of information warfare, it cannot properly locate where a given ideological tendency actually aligns in regards to the political. Abstract ‘values’ and principles are located alongside a formal - and supposedly impartial spectrum. Rather than categorize where a given pattern of information actually aligns, for example, with the actual form of the actually existing state, it categorizes ideological information in terms of where it imagines or purports to be.

For example, the alignment of breadtubers is defined by how they think society should be governed or wish it to be governed. But no regard is placed for what relationship the information of such ‘values’ have to the way it is actually governing now. It might appear contrary, and thus appear revolutionary, but as forms of information they do not challenge the existing state. “I think we should live in a stateless society” might seem apparently contradictory with a status quo where a state is very much still existing. Yet political alignment is really defined by what relation it bares to the actual form of state power.

The grounding of political power based on contrived moral consensus fully aligns with the existing modern state. Ones ‘values’ about how society ‘should look like,’ shares the same position of enunciation with regard to society as the modern state, having as its addressee not a specific segment of society, but it’s same universal addressee. A breadtuber speaks to America in a way not dissimilar to the President. So it should come as no surprise that in actual content, the breadtuber ends up as a force of propaganda for the President’s actual (rather than preferred by the imagination) governance.

One could of course be an anarchist who critiques just about every single thing the government does. Yet most often, even said information aligns with the overhaul of the policy-making apparatus long underway, being subjected to the contrived moral consensus of the ‘Open Society.’ Not so much the specificity of their criticisms, but the subjective vantage point from which said criticisms are made is what defines their real political content. You can be fully aligned with the modern state power, even when criticizing its policies and decisions - because the way you are criticizing them can reproduce its subjective standpoint in consciousness.

Thus, there is an acute difference between actual political alignment, and formal political alignment. Real political difference does not manifest itself at different locations on the same formal map of politics, but between real politics and the map itself. That also means there is an acute difference between an actual left-wing alignment, and leftism (the same is true for the Right). Leftism and Rightism are ideologies of formal political alignment, that cannot tell the truth about any actual Left-Wing and Right-Wing position.

An actual political position - which is not based on ones ideal stance, but their real, subjective stance - cannot be grounded in any formal continuum of political representation. Real political division begins only at the site of an acute discontinuity, based, as Clausewitz understands, on an absolute enmity or contradiction. Establishing an alternative political spectrum is thus an impossibility. Political spectrums are themselves political. And the political spectrum is inherently ‘leftist,’ though not left-wing in its actual alignment.

Leftism is a theory or ideology of left-wing alignment. Since all modern politics has its origins in a revolutionary change that entailed the complete leveling of politics into the pure form that knows no distinction in content, any theory of modern political alignment is going to be ‘leftist.’ And in actual fact, the ‘left wing’ is nothing more than a political misalignment, which is situated outside the bounds of modern political form. Leftism thus is nothing more than the ideology by which modern politics copes about its own real origins, and therefore its real alterity.

The Left can be defined as a modern politics of change, or a wayward path of political modernity.

During the French Revolution of 1789, the politics of change was immediately revolutionary, world-changing. Because no institution of modernity was established, participating in this politics was to participate in something truly new, truly unprecedented, with a truly undecided conclusion.

With the final consolidation of liberal democracy after WWI, ‘politics of change’ actually becomes, in a sense, conservative. The established institutions of modernity make ‘political progress and change’ an inevitability. Eventually, leftism just fulfills an agenda already established outside politics.

On the other hand the Right can be defined by a modern politics of order, or the metaphysics of political modernity. The first Rightist was Hobbes. During the French Revolution, the Rightists were the Thermidorians  and the elements of the bourgeoisie which wanted to emulate the English model, where the king is just a puppet of the ruling class.

But, permanent order is destroyed at the level of established politics in liberal democracy. So, order of a deeper and more fundamental kind has to be sought after. But then, conservatives become revolutionary (konservative revolutionary), like in the 1979 Iranian revolution, where deeper order was found in Islam.

Enter Carl Schmitt’s theory of the partisan. Partisanship is itself a political alignment, regardless of where internet retards try to situate it on their stupid little ‘political spectrum.’ Partisanship entails an actual political position - which means actual contestation for political power. The partisan goes down to the people, repeating the origin of modern statehood by returning it to its real (rather than formal) premises.

Partisans are not leftists. But they are also not rightists either. The Partisan irregular stands opposed to the standardized order of the regular army. From the perspective of the regular army (order), It is a force of chaos. But it is deeply terrestrial, earthly, with a profound attachment to the soil of the nation, and the deeper order of rural life.

But how this order will come to be established is always undecided. The partisan is a true force of change, precisely because it bases itself in what is truly eternal. Think about the Islamic partisans devoted to the eternal creator, or, the partisan like Che Guevara devoted to eternal principles like justice and dignity.

The leftist just takes this real order for granted, and the way in which it has already become established by the institutions of political modernity. The ‘revolutionary’ leftist introduces change with the regularity and banality of a Windows update. But the partisan continues to have an active relation to real and true order, and thus, an active relation to the premises of revolutionary change.

The partisan is ultimately left-wing, because they are revolutionary. Yet the left-wing nature of the partisan is ancillary, and incidental. They are ultimately coded as left-wing because they are engaged in a process revolutionary political change. But on the other hand, they fulfill the authentic kernel of the right, which is the resolution of modernity’s antagonism into order - only in a way entirely contrary to the rightist: The resolution into order becomes a gesture of revolutionary partisanship.

And so already with the partisan arises a most fundamental disruption of the political spectrum of bourgeois modernity. The partisan comes from bellow, resolving the apparent contradiction between left-and-right by introducing an entirely new dimension of political alignment. It does not ‘unite’ or ‘synthesize’ left and right, it rather displaces the contradiction between them into a radically new form. It displaces the ‘left and right’ distinction by articulating that distinction into an entirely new continuum of counter-hegemonic political space.

The partisan is thus genuinely and radically revolutionary, representing something destructive with regard to modern bourgeois politics. The partisan embodies change, is change, but change in the form of the sublation, or resolution of the existing order, accelerating its development toward its real conclusion. It is the political agent at the end of history for which change is a moment in the development of an order more eternal than can be given form by modern statehood.

Leftists, meanwhile, believe in some doctrine, some principles, some theory of abstract change, domesticated change, distilled change for its own sake. And in actual reality, they participate in no political change at all. They subscribe to the religion of change, which is in actuality the putrescence of stagnation.

The leftist is in fact the greatest enemy of the partisan, not simply because they have contrary values, but contrary subjectivities. Leftism represents the highest development of the bourgeois political ideology, which is based on what is supposed to be the ultimate form of change. Leftism is the ideology of American unipolar imperialism, the highest stage of bourgeois political modernity, which seeks to formalize not only all politics, but all culture, society, etc. under the principle of universal formal equality.

Leftism grounds politics not in partisanship, but in some supposedly universal morality, and the fundamental enduring fact of political antagonism vindicates the leftist’s sense of smug self-satisfied superiority. Political conflict endures - not because of any fundamental contradiction grounding politics - but because people are too reactionary, too fascist, too immoral, or too stupid to accept the supposedly universal values of leftism. For leftists, enmity is not so much based on the friend-enemy distinction of any concrete struggle, but a vicious, savage inhumanity toward all those who fall outside their own discursive community, in a way that is structurally identical to the worst aspects of European racism and Nazism.

They thus represent the quintessential target of true absolute enmity for the political partisan, being an agential manifestation of the universal modern state itself, a kind of killer surveillance-bot designed to exterminate would-be partisans. The enmity toward leftists shared by partisans is not simply based in ideological disagreements or conflicts in values. It is like the enmity reserved toward a snitch, whose sole mission is to eliminate and give away the partisans position against its state enemy. On a certain level, it is not even personal. The very alignment of their contrary subjectivities pit them against one and another in a war of absolute annihilation.

Leftism is an ideology of leveling and standardization, flattening out stratified socio-political terrain into conventional smooth-space. The leftist, being therefore an agent of universal surveillance, raising every point of political contention, antagonism, and contradiction to the status of striation on the topography of universal political form (to be smoothed over, i.e. #BLM!). The partisan irregular, by nature, occupies points of antagonistic contradiction, and thus situates its position toward content rather than form. The partisan has no regard for any ‘political spectrum’ or representation of politics, it embodies political antagonism itself.

The class struggle within political alignment can thus be understood as between leftism and partisanship. In the contradiction between universal statehood and civil society stand two opposing reconciliations: Standing on the side of the bourgeoisie lies the expansion of universal statehood, articulating the contradiction in the terms of the inexhaustive universality of the state (the state is not ‘big’ enough). Standing on the side of the proletariat lies the transformation of civil society into a site of guerrilla warfare, articulating the contradiction in the terms of the outmoding of the bourgeois state (i.e. as condemned to the dustbin of history).

Insofar as civil society confronts the universal state as discordant or mis-aligned with it, civil society confronts the universal state as a security flaw which must be patched. This first takes the form of the gross expansion of military-police powers, not the least of which include surveillance. On the cultural front, however, it also takes the form of the expansion of a completely sanitized artificial or institutionalized civil society compatible with the universal state. At a certain point in the acceleration of the development of the historical class struggle, the real existence of civil society had become a crisis of national security.

Here lies, in part, the origin of the Open Society, the apparently decentralized network of NGOs, academic, nonprofit, activist, etc. institutions which, although not directly subjected to the sovereign will of the state, are by nature of their form and design mechanisms for the filtration of civil society into a compatible, sanitized, transparent, open, and overt form. The bourgeois state, having successfully secured itself militarily against armed partisan combatants - and furthermore, having secured civil society (protest, unrest, etc.) into a compatible, sanitized form - appears to have made partisanship impossible.

The dialectic of the partisan and the bourgeois state should be thought of like a game of whack-a-mole. The partisan occupies all the places the state is not looking, which can be heuristically represented in the form of abstract subterrestrial space. Globality, the highest concept of modern geography, refers to the smooth and non-local continuum of open and abstract space, a kind of grid which aligns entire sovereign states as connective nodes for the facilitation of goods, people, and most importantly information. At the apex lies, uniting heaven and earth, the contemporary value-form (i.e. the petrodollar) of financial capital.

American sovereignty thus does not lie at the apex of the American unipolar system. That notion remains confined, still, to the narrow Hobbesian political metaphysics. At the apex of the American unipolar system lies in the reproduction of fictitious capital, or the global financial network based in Wall Street and the City of London, which aligns all sovereign states, including the American (its first citizen) as connective nodes within the continuum of its universal reproduction and circulation. Politically speaking, the globality of American unipolarity finds its articulation, or its expression, in the institutions of the open society (and finds its operational security in the deep state) - which chiefly establish, a la Gramsci, its cultural hegemony.

Politics, then, becomes downstream from this cultural hegemony, and this is at the outset in the form of policy-making. NGOs, think-tanks, universities, lobbyists, etc. - all manifestations of unipolar globalism (propped into existence with the help of the CIA laundering Rockefeller money) do not at the outset change the form of the state. But they change the nature of how individuals are elected, how laws are made, and what policies are enacted. Fictitious capital and its reproduction, standing at the apex of the unipolar system, is not simply a blind process of accumulation either. It increasingly takes the form of economic information-signaling, transforming itself into an extremely dynamic form of economic planning, operationalizing information for the distribution of credit.

Information, as a matter of fact, is the modern aesthetic at the end of history, the final form of forms, political or otherwise. The Open Society is chiefly an information-laundering network. Information - immanent formation - is the implosion of the modern universal form. In keeping with capitalism’s creative destruction, this implosion has itself been operationalized for the purpose of the reproduction of the value-form: Open and free information means compatible information, that is, compatible with the modern form (which is abstract, negative, universal, etc.). The information of science, universal values, finance, etc. metonymically related to the Godhead of unipolarity.

Here lies the significance of leftism, which is the pure and distilled ideology of open information. Leftism means trusting the science, open values, the latest news cycle (Ukraine, #BLM, etc.) - a definite cognitive disorder which fully aligns the mind with the unipolar system. Leftism is not the actual heir to the historical left-wing politics originating in the French Revolution, but is rather an information security machine which imposes the affect of political and cultural change by means of asserting information aligned with the status quo, on a society constantly suspended in a state of flux. Thus the affect of change arises from imposing a dead order on a living one that is increasingly, owing to the development of the productive forces, escaping its grasp.

Leftism is a type of mental retardation, according to which the latest ‘open’ agenda constitutes real historical change. Yet in reality, such an agenda is already set outside of politics, and is entirely foreseeable beforehand. It is set by the nature of the ‘open’ global system, whose veneer of openness conceals a radical closedness toward true alterity, and true historical change, which it suppresses with violent force. Leftism is the muscadin, the death squad, the white terrorism of American unipolarity, sent down to ‘open’ all sectors of society to ensure its proper alignment with the system as producers and consumers of information.

Information has become the most important battlespace of modern warfare. Having been rooted out of its position in both armed combat and civil society, the partisan revolutionary has retreated into information warfare. Information warfare is the final form of modern war, because it is the site within which universal modern form itself undergoes immanent contestation. In all hitherto spaces of warfare, the modern state could take for granted a basic distinction between the sphere of its own exercise of will, operational capabilities, and identity - and the sphere of criminality outside of it.

Yet in the age of information warfare, the modern state is infiltrated from within. Its very ability to inform, that is, take form and reality within the consciousness of the people, can be directly hijacked with irregular hit-and-run, swarm, etc. tactics by partisan info-warriors (i.e. the 2016 and 2020 elections). Of course, the partisan is principally a political (mis)alignment in general - but information warfare represents the most advanced (but by no means exclusive) sphere of activity for the partisan of today. It is the sphere within which dis-alignment from the global system becomes immediately possible at the level of consciousness - a process sociologists call ‘radicalization.’

As a category of polarity, alignment refers to ones place in relation to the continuum of a given globality. The global system of alignment includes a very atypical geographical form of the relation between urbanity and rurality. Rather than being spaces separated by distance (though, they often are), they are chiefly separated by the relation they bare to the global continuum. Thus, an Airbnb in the middle of Idaho is in a way ‘urban,’ and a decaying neighborhood in Los Angeles can in a way be ‘rural.’ Rurality is not necessarily misaligned with the global system, it rather has the potential to be. Being ‘overlooked’ (i.e. ‘flyover states’), it has the chief potential to give rise to malign sovereignties, or counter-hegemonic, partisan kinds of politics - from Islamic fundamentalism to Militia Movement, from bugaloo boys to black guerrilla movements (incl. the early panthers).

The limit of Carl Schmitt’s concept of the partisan lies in his Hobbesian formalism - being unable to define the partisan except by what he is not, i.e. only by the opposition he poses to standardized order, a type of rebel-without- a-cause. The friend-enemy distinction upon which the concept of enmity is based, alongside the definition of the partisan in terms of unconventionality represent the concept of the partisan from the perspective of anti-partisan operations. But partisanship can also be defined by a specific Hegelian sublation of established political distinction, representing a type of political subject interpellated by a new form of universal statehood - the Kojevean Empire, polarity, or determinate globality.

The fertile soil of rurality is what gives rise to the germ of a determinate and particular globality - not the universal open society of globalism, but a society enclosed, or defined by its very specific limitation, way of life, or terrestrial character. The post-Mongol Asiatic Land Empires of the early modern period, as well the modern Communist states which in many ways revived them can be defined precisely in the form of this type of universal statehood. Because rurality, representing the definite limitation and real basis of universal modern statehood, can give rise to malign sovereignties - it must be brutally kept in line by the modern state. The idiocy and banality of rural life must be maintained so no outbreak occurs. Rural people, therefore, are not modern individual subjects, but treated as a type of livestock. Thus, the limit of the modern universal form, is also for it a site of enmity, criminality, terrorism, and malign sovereignty (“Fascism”).

But for Mongol universal statehood, the limit of the state is the stamp of its identity and character rather than its inadequacy. It is the source of its vital power. The modern state is founded on keeping at bay and denying its own source in rural life. But as soon as a clear discord arises between the source and the sovereign in the Land Empire, the sovereign is immediately deposed (as in the case of the overthrow of the Yuan dynasty by the Ming) - no prolonged state of gross oppression is possible. The Land Empires are thus Partisan Empires which, rather than impose standard order at the expense of a people’s particular reality, contrive order on their basis: Universal statehood is defined by its own reality and not just its form. Its form comes to be defined, in fact, by this reality. These Empires’ sovereignty are themselves inherently partisan, that is defined in content by the terrestrial reality which forms their real foundation, rather than a formal ‘state’ of being which attempts, in vain, to artificially establish its own premises.

The present era of multi-polarity has revealed that the historical continuity of the Asiatic Land Empires remains intact, and that their decline - in the form of colonialism, modern conflict, pauperization, and subjugation to the West - was only a transitory and temporary blip in the long process of their historical development. The unipolar system of American globalism is now faced with the emergence of determinate globalities - contrary and unique polarities which inhere all the dynamism, technological and cultural development, etc. of the American global system without the conceit of abstract formal universality. Here lies the true, material, and vital source of so-called ‘Fascism:’ the objective breakdown of the American unipolar system by virtue of its own internal contradictions.

The true threat posed by malign sovereignties - rogue states - consists not in the fact that they are geopolitical anarchists - but that they are aligned with entirely contrary and different polarities, which serve as the germ of a new global system - one that will, rather than culminate in the ‘opening’ of exchange-value, culminate in the determinate ‘closed’ character, necessities for the development of, and interaction between peoples. This true end of history which culminates, finally, in malign globality (ever wondered what the Infrared symbol means?), globality pregnant with the development of determinate civilizations and peoples - is the malign ‘plain of immanence’ out of which all counter-hegemonic politics is being spawned from the future.

The distinction between left and right is displaced by the distinction between Leftism (which increasingly takes, in political reality, the form of an ‘apolitical Center’) and Partisanship, the latter including all manner of eclectic, wild, fringe ideologies which appear ‘all over the political spectrum.’ It appears as such, not because of any mystical ‘Nazbol vortex’ or profound metaphysical significance of fascism - but because it represents, in the final analysis, a denial of modern political form itself. In contrast to ‘third position syncretism,’ partisan political ideologies are properly chaotic, being defined only by their unpredictability from the standpoint of modern political consciousness.

While today’s partisanism is associated with the ‘far right,’ that is only since each partisan ideology has thus far culminated in a type of cult, dogma, confusion, or impotence that, taken separately, immobilize partisan political struggle, Not unlike the various forms of socialism outlined in the Communist Manifesto. Political ideologies which seek to return to, or discover true order are contrived in opposition to the ‘Leftist’ one prevailing. Yet taken individually, they fail to pose any challenge. Taken together, they represent only the general form of enmity with the status quo, and are thus, together, represented as the ‘far right’ - the ‘abyss’ which, for liberal consciousness (and, admittedly, some fringe ideologists themselves), ends with Nazism. Yet it is not any general far-right political ideology which defines these partisan ideologies taken together, only the general form of (potentially) malign political sovereignty.

Politics around the world have become globalized, which is to say Americanized. Leftism, even now in Latin America, where left-wing partisans had been the most formidable opponents to American imperialism - has increasingly come to mean the same thing. German leftism today is indistinguishable from the American kind, meanwhile, the ‘far-right’ partisan movements like the AfD attempt to recuperate natively East German Communist traditions. And this tendency is rapidly spreading to every corner of the globe. A decisive confrontation within modern politics is brewing in nearly every country which represents the greatest political realignment of the modern era, not the least including in the United States itself.

The Red American Sun

In the United States, the MAGA Movement has come to be defined by being the exclusive American form of partisanship. As is well known, the distinction between the Republicans and Democrats, in nearly every election cycle, has never amounted to any real political distinction on the basis of Clauswitzean absolute enmity. Partisanship, that is impassioned political partiality, has made its definite return in the United States solely in the MAGA movement, which has again reintroduced real political enmity and distinction to the belly of the globalist beast itself. Having its origins in a rather accidental confluence of circumstances, in Donald Trump’s presidential election in 2016, the movement has become the host of every possible real counter-hegemonic ideological tendency within the Untied States.

MAGA has come to be defined by terrestrial America, bizarro America, alternative timeline America, other America, flyover America, etc. - and has arisen as a kind of malignant tulpa of the globalist Untied States. A terrestrial version, one that is somehow not aligned with the American-led global system itself, and which carries the germ of a type of sovereignty that can definitively break out of the unipolar global system, and deliver it its final nail in the coffin. It is as though America split with itself in a process of asexual reproduction, only to expose its dark other (the dark other being the globalist establishment!). And the basis of this lies in none other than the American working class, upon whose backs the globalists came to power in the first place, and which therefore have unfinished business with them.

The MAGA movement has taken form as the movement of a people deposed of their hitherto sovereign representation, and therefore a people now struggling to receive the calling of their true polarity. It spawns, like an unstable vacuum deprived of its element, a whole multitude of contradictory hyperstitions projecting into the sky, being the soil out of which sovereigns, states and polarities make themselves born. For the architects of the global system, the American working class was the most overlooked and underestimated element, but in the end, it, alongside the public works and infrastructure of the New Deal, was the true basis and engine of the American economy. The extravagant designs of the ‘progressive globalists,’ like the Rockefellers, simply took them for granted. As in the case of the metabolic rift created in industrial capitalism described by Marx, where capital accumulation leads to the depletion of its own premises in the soil, the MAGA movement is the product of a political metabolic rift between the state and its own popular premises.

It thrusts to the fore the basic question: Did America have to culminate in what it is today? Or, beginning from the very same premises, would an entirely different outcome have been possible? Make America Great Again, really means roll the dice again, repeat (with all the Deleuzian connotations) the origin of America, Reset American history. Return America to the mercy of its progenitor. Nothing could evince the sign of middle-class midwit consciousness and historical nihilism more than the slogan ‘America was never great.’ America was great. It was great when it was other than what it only seems now, when it was latent with culminating into something else, a time that has been forgotten because it is impossible to remember. A time passed over, echoing forever into the annals of a lost past, lost but still felt like deja vu - like a trace memory from the future. MAGA is there in real America and not here in the empire of lies: whose most principal and founding lie consists in the notion that the highest necessity of Spirit culminates in the now of putrescent modernity.

The revulsion toward ‘MAGA’ as a slogan evinces the most base level of undialectical philistinism and glasses-wearing snobbery, betraying the sentiments of a class unwilling to submit to material reality. The favorite shrill of the ‘democratic socialists’ and leftists: “Another world is possible!” is the solipsistic escapism of gentrifiers and airy-fairy social parasites unable to ground their position in any true necessity. MAGA makes clear that its virtual projection - the great America - is grounded in concrete necessity, and therefore something real, which is why it must be made great again, even if, technically, there was never a single point in history that suffices to define this greatness. MAGA does not want to return to a period of time, it wants to return to the premises of technomic American time itself, which is wanting of a malign sovereign (which they have found in the ‘Great MAGA King’ himself, Trump). MAGA represents a complete reversal of chronological ‘American progressivism’ culminating outward into the boundless ‘open Atlantic sea’ of the globalist open society, establishing a temporal flux bending backwards toward rugged, and ultimately metallic Earth.

It is even a funny irony that Donald Trump - known for his association with gold, has emerged as the symbolic patron saint of this movement. Perhaps one day, the colors of the American flag should change, from blue to gold, to symbolize this alchemical transformation from Atlantic waters to Earthly, metallic gold. Gold is, after all, the ultimate elemental principle of telluric societies as the most perfect Earthly Good, the sovereign radiance emanating from the Earthly work of the people, the product of work that is at the same time its ultimate driving aim. Gold, real wealth, is after all a common color on flags representing the workers dictatorship for this same reason. And MAGA is irrefutably the only worker’s political movement that exists in America. The American working class (the ‘mecha proletariat,’ defined by its ownership of the means of augmenting its labor power - trucks, tools, etc.) forms the fundamental core without which MAGA ceases to possess the force of political independence. Without it, all other social stratum surrounding it easily scatter to the wind, having no independent ground for their existence.

Even small business owners (the so-called ‘boat dealers’ as they are called by the declassed, lumpen-bourgeois malformoids of Chapo) do not possess the same social independence from the Open Society that the great MAGA working class majority does. Representing the most immediate and general aspirations of labor, the MAGA movement is at the outset characterized by the demand for the return of manufacturing and a revival of industrial production. But merely seeking a ‘return of old jobs,’ a common faux-Marxist analysis prevailing among the liberal intelligentsia, only scratches the surface as far as the aspirations of MAGA are concerned. Rather than a naive attempt to turn back the wheels of time, demanding the return of manufacturing jobs reveals the aspiration for establishing an entirely different timeline, the development of which having its basis in an entirely different ends and aims than that driving current economic development - and therefore, an entirely contrary basis of sovereign power. The true aspiration of the MAGA movement is a new sun, a red sun, whose dawn retrochronically establishes its prior occlusion into the night sky.

The red sun - or red star - is the most persistent and elemental symbol of Communism. Communism means the arrival of an alien, yet also tangentially familiar sun, an abrupt discontinuity of the seamless continuum of capitalist modernity’s pure form. Communism awakens a lost and forgotten past, first represented in Soviet consciousness as the revolutionary history of humanity (among the first measures of the Bolsheviks were the erection of statues to French revolutionaries, meanwhile, the ballet Spartacus is still popularly performed in today’s Rural Russia). This ideology is also clear in Stalin’s Soviet Union, which moved its capital back to historical Moscow, reviving the glorious past of Ivan the Terrible and Alexander Nevsky, to the point where the Romanov dynasty, once seen as a symbol of Asiatic backwardness, became considered too Western and ‘modern’. Finally China, which is now embarking on the Great Rejuvenation of Chinese Civilization, is tapping into the annals of its five thousand year old past under the guidance of the Communist party.

And the most fundamental purport of MAGA Communism (falsely labeled as ‘patriotic socialism,’ which connotes institutional loyalty to the state) is that a red sun is rising in America, concluding the tragical history of the modern West as we know it. Bourgeois modernity has its origins in the West, and the development of the history of the West has corresponded to the liquidation of histories, peoples, and civilizations. England was the culmination of the chronology of the West, which has finally ended in America. And so the question stands, in the age of multi-polarity and the resurgence of the true history of mankind, as to whether the entire history of the West consists in one, meaningless and accidental disaster - whether America is the most irredeemable, unnatural, Frankenstein bastard of world history that can only hope to await destruction (as Heidegger believed). The error of this temptation neglects that it is mankind itself which had given birth to the West, and that, therefore, the development of Western history tells something about mankind in general.

As easy as it may seem to blame Europeans for some exceptional evil by virtue of a defect unique to them, the truth is that Europe’s evil only reflects the evil of mankind in general, as an inseparable part of its universal world history. The supposedly ‘third worldist’ ‘decolonial’ intellectuals, who are often social-democratic moralizers, are always revealed to be prostitutes of Western globalism anyway. They do not confront the history of the West, they rather leverage moral blackmail in order to benefit from it in some way, not only continuing to take for granted its fundamental evil, but coming to represent this same evil themselves (i.e. moralizing universalism, liquidationism, woke globalism, etc.). MAGA has definitively proven, at the end of the era of Anglo-Saxon hegemony, that there is more to the history of the West. Unipolar globalism (and its forebear in, colonialism, imperialism, slavery, etc.) is only one outcome of the history of the West. Concurrent with this same history is the lost chronology of the genuine development of its civilizations and peoples, found at the point of the historical soil’s tilling at the bottom, rather than at the point of history’s opening at the top.

America does have a real history, and is not simply a Frankenstein accident. A genuine civilizational encounter between different peoples has characterized the history of its development, even from the very beginning of its settlement by Europeans. The historical nihilism of the globalists seeks to erase from the memory of the people this lost history of America, up to and including its greatest literary and artistic treasures. The American people, and the European peoples before them, were not inherently disposed of the genocidal intentionality of universal formal modernity. In fact, those most disposed of this universalist, genocidal, and liquidationist intentionality today are Western leftists and their financial capitalist sugar-daddies, who are the staunchest enemies of the MAGA movement. The American people have risen up against the same evil, arrogance, and satanism that has plagued the history of the West, and therefore the history of the world, to reclaim the real America, and therefore rescue the lost history of the West that engendered it. Here, and not in the distant past of ancient Greece, lies the true other beginning.

Now may begin the era of true American civilization, freed from the shackles of the European past, and oriented toward the future of a genuinely novel development without precedent. This is what it means to make America great again, to return to the lost history of America whose future is genuinely undecided. Together, with the rest of resurgent mankind, America may then help to build the glorious future for all humanity, as a worthy member of the great Land Empires of the world. MAGA Communists believe that in order to realize is true, objective and fundamental striving, the immortal and invaluable science of Marxism-Leninism will be necessary in order to give proper clarity, articulation, and insight into the host of social, historical and political forces which represent both the greatest allies and enemies of the MAGA movement. The unity of Communism with MAGA is nothing more than the unity of Marxism with the worker’s movement. But this unity will not be accomplished by attempting to enforce the condescending tone-policing of Western Marxists, but by a genuine praxiological encounter between Communist partisans and the people.

Leftists sneer at MAGA Communists owing to the supposedly unbridgeable rift between Communism and the MAGA movement. But they are themselves the prime cause, and the greatest beneficiaries of such a rift in the first place! It is the betrayal of the revisionists, and the traitors to the working class movement - career climbing through institutional academia, NGOs and ultimately the highest levels of government - that has earned Communism the dirty name that it has now acquired in America. The ‘communists,’ sitting at their posts as the most vicious representatives of the professional managerial class, are themselves chiefly to blame for the unpopularity of Communism. It is thus inevitable that the greatest enemies of the MAGA Communist movement will be leftists, who stand the most to lose from the unity of Marxism with the worker’s movement. It will outmode them into irrelevance, and turn the ideology that has for so long been the sanction of their parasitism and evil into the weapon of social forces disposed with the intention of liquidating them as a class.

Communism means the real movement of the working class united with working class consciousness. It means a party by for and of the working people, because the working class represents the universal and common interests of society as a whole in actual reality. The critique of private property entailed by Communism does not mean that Communists seek to voluntarily change all property relations. Rather, it means an opposition to economic nihilism, according to which the productive forces of society serve inhuman, alien, and antisocial ends. The reign of the institution of private property is not what guarantees peoples liberty to have their own homes, land, farmsteads, businesses, or things that they actually use in general in the pursuit of happiness. It is what destroys them. The ruling class has deceived the American people into thinking ‘private property’ means having your own shit. But what it actually means are banks and blackrock stealing your shit.

Communists do not want to ‘socialize’ people’s actual belongings or even businesses. The way in which actual relations of production will develop will be a matter of history. Marx & Engels that through the course of the actual development of the productive forces, the institution of private property will become superfluous, because productive relations will develop as forms of free association - production will have a substantive human quality based on relations between people, rather than abstractions like money. Communists do not want to force this outcome on people, but allow it to happen. It could not happen at the expense of what the people want, it could only happen as a result of the people’s own historical development. In the meantime, what Communists seek is the overthrow of the monopolists, the bankers, big pharma, big agriculture, big tech, and others - which have hijacked the American republic in the name of the ‘sacred institution of private property.’

The Communist critique of private property allows for pro-people policies, including lowering taxation, ending government subsidies for the monopolists, and removing red tape - to actually happen, because it places the interests of the people above the interests of money and so-called ‘private property.’ Communists want the people to have more things, not less - more wealth, more businesses, and more prosperity. If the people have more of these things, than the productive forces accelerate faster, unleashing human prosperity and creativity to the point where things like Wall Street, the City of London, and other enemies of the people will never have the chance to take power again. The critique of private property doesn’t mean taking property away from people. It means using political power in a way that serves the common interests of the people, rather than the private interests of money. The contractual forms of association between the people - which allow people to secure their rights of ownership - will continue to exist far into the future, and will only disappear when they are rendered unnecessary by the productive forces - when no institutional challenge to their ownership will even exist.

By contrast, leftists and the ‘democratic socialists’ want to expand our rotten and corrupt government to step on the toes of the American people, beyond the bounds of their rights and constitutional liberties. Just like the Nazis before them, their ‘socialism’ means an expansion of the corporate-state power, securing the monopolies of Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Federal Reserve bankers and others by eliminating all possibility of competition with them. They plan on ‘financing’ their ‘socialism’ by raising taxes, which the moneyed interests have no problem doing as it is a price well paid for securing their thousand-year-reich monopolies. Meanwhile, they want to raise taxes on regular working Americans, who are already being ‘taxed’ to death through debt and banks. ‘You’ll own nothing and be happy’ - that is the socialism the elites have planned for the American people. And the only way to defeat their socialism, which has more in common with Hitler’s kind than the Soviet or Chinese, is with Communism, which will take away the source of their power. Communism turns the tables against the globalists, telling them: You will not own our country, and we don’t care if it makes you unhappy!

No one denies that Communism is unpopular among the MAGA movement. The overt consciousness of the MAGA movement is obviously characterized by all manner of anti-Communist views. For many conspiracists, Communism is the theory behind the globalist enemy and the ‘forces which have hijacked our government.’ This theory retains its coherence because it possesses a grain of truth: Leftism is indeed the hegemonic ideology of the American unipolar empire, and globalist politics can indeed trace back to international social-democracy, the Fabian socialists, and others. The cultural agenda of the globalists, furthermore, inherits much from the New Left, and ex-Communists are well represented among them. What we witness is not any inherent indictment on the MAGA movement being essentially anti-Communist, but the most immediate ‘home-made’ theories and consciousness the American working class is disposed of.

Drawing from the reactionary populist legacy of the McCarthyite era and the John Birch society, as well as cold-war propaganda, ‘anti-Communist’ sentiment is as American as apple pie. Taken from that perspective, the anti-Communism of the MAGA movement is even in a way endearing, reflecting its grassroots nature. People are simply making constructs out of old materials already laying around at home. To view this as some kind of essential inditement on the possibility of the dissemination of Communist ideas, or the compatibility between Communism and the MAGA movement is pure philistine idiocy. MAGA is not essentially defined by anti-Communism. It is, in the first place, essentially defined by being the American form of counter-hegemonic partisan politics, attempting to reground politics on the basis of the terrestrial homeland of the American working class rather than the ‘values’ of the globalist ‘open society.’

That being said, the development of the modern Right is at least tangentially related to the emergence of the MAGA movement and the partisan itself. And so on that basis, it - as well as the immediate (and failed) right-wing ideologies which attempt to give articulation and consciousness to the MAGA movement - is necessary of worthy consideration.

The Impossibility of Rightist Politics

The problem with all of today’s ‘Rightist’ politics is that, when it becomes a definite ideology and definite community - with very few exceptions - it stagnates, paralyzes and immobilizes the partisan politics it attempts to give articulation to. Rather than act as a conduit of movement, it acts as a conduit for the formation of enclosed community.

Organic populist movements are constantly ‘spawning’ ideologies, and these, spontaneously, take on a Rightist character, only because they attempt to give immediate articulation to the meaning of the very real partisan position that created the need for this articulation - with the readymade conceptual tools, prejudices, and ideals of the status quo. It is in a sense similar to the various ‘socialisms’ outlined in the Communist manifesto, which, while anti-capitalist, do not articulate their anti-capitalism in an effective way. Rightist politics will never successfully lead the MAGA movement to victory, because they are outright impossible to have.

The political Right has always been a very real orientation in the history of modern politics. Yet in contrast to the Left, Right-Wing partisanism had always been a self-evident absurdity. Mass politics and partisanship are inherently left-wing, for no other reason than that they entail revolutionary political change. The oft-cited examples of Right-Wing mass movements, from the Black Hundreds to Fascism, were actually more like paramilitary police forces, composed primarily of declassed, lumpen elements. Rather than being authentically popular, they rehearsed the spectacle of popular politics as a means of neutralizing and disarming those that actually existed. Today’s LGBT pride parades, or the 2020 BLM protests thus have more in common with the ‘mass politics’ of Fascism than today’s MAGA movement.

The Right, like the Left, has its origins in political modernity. While the actual ancien regime, as well as the world’s great religions have often served as the sanction of real historically Right-Wing politics, it has done so only in an opportunistic and inauthentic way. Right-Wing politics takes for granted the absolute destruction of the ancien regime (taken to be the premodern world in general), only to reassemble it with the same modern substances responsible for its destruction. The most honest example of Right-Wing politics were the Thermidorians who, admitting the irreversibility of the revolution, reaped its products in the most shamelessly corrupt way - in the name of establishing the permanence of this new ‘revolutionary’ order. The Thermidorian Reaction, in contrast to the various Rightist pretensions of returning to the ancien regime, represents the most naked and accurate expression of modern Right-Wing politics.

This is in contrast to the English Right, which actually lowered itself to the depravity of reinstating the institution of monarchy after it had actually been destroyed. It is as though one murders your father, and then preserves his cadaver for use by a sick, sadistic ventriloquist, pretending that he is still alive. Modern politics pulverizes true, authentic sovereignty based in the embrace of the eternal, into mechanical, simple metaphysical substances (i.e. the form of right). The Right, in an arbitrary and makeshift way - attempts to place reality back together with these substances (like legos), to recreate a once unified order, hierarchy, etc. Both standpoints - Left and Right - base themselves in the Cartesian Cogito, reducing all reality to form of universal, alienated thought - just as the reign of capital reduces it to the universal form of exchange (money).

Thus, historical Right-Wing bourgeois defenses of apparently sacred order - the order of monarchy, religion, property, family, etc. - are made as disinterested metaphysical insights. They defend order by means that are anything but compatible with that same order. Feudal privilege, for example, must be defended with Bentham, humanism, and progress: If feudal privilege is not maintained, it would spell ruin for society, society would not be able to function, no one could make any money, and people will be less happy. Feudal privilege is nowhere to be found in the logos by which it is defended. It is not the Great Chain of Being, whereby - society, money, and people be damned - such is the law of nature, the law of God, and the law of being. It is bourgeois utility, Reason, and justice. Likewise, when the rightist engages in the defense of modern gender norms, they do not do so as men engaged subjectively in the sacral reality of gender norms, but as evolutionary psychologists, scientists, etc. - referencing impersonal statistics, data, etc.

They do not imperil themselves in the embrace of the sacred they supposedly seek to restore, defend or uphold, in contrast to the partisan guerrilla (like a Hezbollah fighter or Sandinista). Rightists are not hypocrites. They just don’t, themselves, believe what they say they do. They believe it is necessary for others, for the masses, for general stability. For the maintenance of their revenues in rent and interest. Hence the debauchery, decadence, and libertine nature of most ‘rightists.’ Today, look no further than the anime loving degenerate. As a matter of fact, today, there are no ‘Rightists’ to speak of. The degenerate NeoNazi is, aside from the bad-manners of having any public presence, are Leftists proper. All of their edginess and depravity, often with the use of Darwinist or biological analogy, is rooted in the exact same metaphysics of the Open Society, employing grotesque, shocking ideological gore as a form as a pornographic tool to ‘smooth’ political space into the purity of its modern form.

The anime degenerate ‘Neo-nazi’ stands ‘directly opposed’ to the leftist only as the contrasting plane on the same möbius strip. The real discontinuity at the heart of modern politics - is ‘smoothed over’ into a perfect continuum. Thus, such nihilistic degenerates have now taken the form of the ‘compatible Right,’ often offering themselves in the criminal employ of leftists and liberal elites, to do the dirty work the former are not willing to. It is precisely here that apparent coalescence is achieved between ‘left and right,’ apparently doing what the syncretic third positinists only dreamed of. Right-Wing subjectivity stands apart from the established order it takes for granted (while defending) as a cynic and transgressor. Leftists, as did De Sade (perhaps among the first leftists in history?), only attempt to purify and distill the essence of this transgression: Such that the private vice of the rightist is the public virtue of the leftist. Yet with the degenerate neonazi, this private vice becomes an open secret - making them effectively indistinguishable from leftists.

Furthermore, since Leftism is in fact nothing more than the ideologization (and therefore domestication) of change (rather than actually being the politics of change), its existence implies a rather awkward, but increasingly unavoidable fact: That Leftism is actually Right-Wing. Right partisanship never manifested in any overt form throughout history. Right politics have only existed at the level of established orders. Right orientations in politics never result from any impassioned revolutionary change, but from apparently unavoidable historical outcomes (like the ‘two-steps-back’ NEP policy in the early Soviet Union). Right politics do not imply any change imposed by political partisans, but the inevitable continuity of some existing status quo. In the historical example of Fascism, the banal political continuity of Italian and German state institutions were accompanied by only apparently revolutionary pageantry. Yet these also doubled as primitive forms of information, representing the pure and distilled ideology of this inertia of liberal modernity, which imposed upon the senses the affect of change.

The true heir of fascism, is none other than Leftism itself. Fascism, like leftism, establishes the dead form of modernity as a pinwheel - a swastika - actively and voluntarily preserving it at the expense of its own real technomic premises, and therefore emanating an affect of revolutionary change. If there is any model worthy of representing the ‘political spectrum’ (which does not actually represent political difference, but rather the political homogeneity of the modern state), it is precisely that of the swastika, as it cannot tilt right without also moving left. The dead form of modernity cannot be preserved, without also emanating the veneer of change. This shocking fact is already self-evident throughout Europe and Ukraine. To call leftists fascists would be superfluous, for leftism is already far more fascist than fascism could ever possibly have been. All the genocidal intent, violence, terrorism and bestiality of fascism is amplified, with far more viciousness, brutality and efficiency in leftism, a fact which is sure to become evident to all in the years to come.

Yet the contrary has also held true in regards to the Right. There does indeed exist some continuity between the prevailing ideas of today’s partisans and the ideologies of the historical Right. Yet that is chiefly because the latter have completely changed into forms of information. As forms of information, right-wing ideologies have come to represent partisanship because they, in a completely independent way, attempt to reground (and basically repeat) the essence of modern order. By re-presenting modern order, even if in an apparently identical way, they create an independent basis for political subjectivity. What is so silly about people like Jordan Peterson is how - as the most milquetoast ‘centre-right’ ‘conservative’ of the status quo, he accidentally represents something based - which is the minimum of a politico-ideological subjectivity misaligned with the establishment. Watching Jordan Peterson is a vector in the direction of ‘radicalization’ - because he is an accidental conduit of malign sovereignty, grounding the validity, truth, or value of thoughts in something other than the legitimate authorities (accredited professors, experts, mainstream media talking heads, etc.).

So-called ‘Rightist’ ideologists are thus today split between Azovites and the accidentally based. The more spontaneous rightist consciousness is, the more potent the partisan element within it. The more impassioned by the contradiction posed between its independence and the modern state, the more it gives expression to a form of based partisanship. Yet as a form of nihilism, perversely indulging in the purity of modern political formalism, it is indistinguishable from leftism. The former ‘Rightists’, insofar as they can ever be effective political agents, will inevitably become some kind of left-wing partisan in their actual alignment. The modern Right, as a form of ‘ideological partisanship’ is condemned to historical extinction, given the impossibility of any permanent modern order. Hence, the Right-Wing death squads in Latin America were ultimately fulfilling the leftist Rockefeller agenda for ‘progressive globalist change’. Meanwhile most of the world’s nationalists waged anti-colonial and anti-imperialist partisan liberation wars, which attracted the sympathy of some of the forces of the European New Right.

Rightists will therefore inevitably serve as a tool for the ‘progressive’ status quo, or eventually become left-wing partisans of some kind. All the forces of the right within the postwar period were assimilated into either faction, and the forces of the contemporary right will likewise undergo a similar process of assimilation. Actual Right-Wing politics is always the solidification of leftism. The Straussians who would become the neoconservatives of the Bush era were Right-Wing. But they were Right-Wing only insofar as they gave some permanent form to the ‘free and open West.’ To be a ‘Right-Winger’ meant to defend the ‘Western values’ of gay rights, feminism, tolerance, political equality, democracy, etc. - something which appears rather awkward from the perspective of the historical Right. But in actual fact, this is all Right-Wing politics really amounts to: Giving solidity, generality and form to the ‘progressive’ and ‘leftist’ cultural and political policies of the bourgeoisie. Judeo-Christian civilization must, after all, be defended against the Asiatic horde!

That is because Right-Wing politics refers to nothing more than the pure and undistilled political power of the bourgeoisie. It is not an ideology, it is a reality. The reign of modern order consists in the reign of ‘techne’ (as Heidegger pointed out), it is the order of disorder, the order of nihilism, abstraction, negation and spiritual devastation. It is established order, false order, purported order. All politics is Right-Wing that entails the moment of its preservation, securitization, and prolonging. By contrast, while the partisan is revolutionary, they move in the embrace of the eternal, and move like a fish through the waters of the people. Its politics of order are not contrived from the temporal interests of an already condemned regime, but take their sanction from the starry sky above, boundless and eternal heaven. The partisan is the true conservative revolutionary, suspended in the embrace of the eternal, the eternal fire of Heraclitus, which cannot be apprehended in any one-sided way, but only as the unity of opposites - and there, true, sacral order (kosmos), the order for which the destruction of reality is only a moment in the becoming of, can be perceived - not justified, not apologized for, not instrumentalized - but grasped.

If reality is smashed into pieces, one cannot simply put the pieces back together to make reality whole again. The smashing has now proven that it is itself part of the whole of reality. And so true political struggle occurs along the lines of the reconciliation, not any mere contradiction between ‘change’ and ‘order,’ ‘destruction’ and ‘conservation,’ - but how change is resolved into order, and how destruction is itself conserved. The end of history has entailed, therefore, the end of the political Left and Right Wing: The former taking its final form in partisanship, and the latter in leftism itself. The ‘Left’ is by nature something malign. The existence of a ‘Left’ is a misfortune, a relic of the catastrophic modern age that humanity now struggles to recover from. The partisan will thus not only lead to the destruction of leftism, but render ‘Left-Wing’ politics obsolete and superfluous, as the development of civilizations hurdles forth in harmony with true, sacral order into the annals of the future. Politics will no longer have to be defined by change itself, but by what it is changing into - positive being, rather than modernity’s empty negation, will become the object of humanity.

For the MAGA movement, the most fatal threat lies in the exact opposite ‘reconciliation’ Agents of deception like Ron DeSantis, alongside the supposed ‘rightward shfit’ of CNN now do what the Lincoln Project Republicans couldn’t, and that is prevent the MAGA takeover of the Republican Party. Neoconservatism is making its most vicious, final, and potent return - reconciling the ‘leftist’ chaos of the past decade into a new ‘Western’ order defined by genocidal designs upon China and Russia. As Europe approaches its most severe energy crisis, and China continues to overthrow the power of Wall Street and the City of London, the final gasp of ‘Right Wing’ politics and leftism alike will take the form of something we are already witnessing in Ukraine, and that is a merger of the leftist woke agenda, neoconservative hawkish aspirations toward China & Russia, and the faux veneer of a revived America (‘build back better’). A complete takeover of the Hitlerite kind is all but now inevitable, which will attempt to satisfy the patriotic aspirations of the MAGA movement into consensus for war, a war which will seek to preserve the power of the bankers and globalists.

Xi Jinping of China was recently named the ‘greatest threat to the open society’ by George Soros. And while many believe that China is allied with the globalists, that is only because they had attempted to use it, following China’s reform and opening up, to prolong their economic reign. They underestimated and did not take into account that the Communist Party had outsmarted them, and it is now readying itself and scrambling itself for an all-out-confrontation. All the typical fake ‘conservative’ jingoism and rhetoric will then be propagated by the ruling establishment - between ‘Western civilization’ and ‘the Asiatic Chinese,’ between ‘freedom loving Americans’ and the ‘Communist Chinese.’ All of this is nothing short of opportunism seeking to dupe and extinguish the partisanship of the MAGA movement, and hijack it into a vehicle for the same globalists it is, in its heart of hearts, attempting to fight against. They realize that attempting to enforce woke values by force hasn’t work, so they are going to start pretending to be conservatives to dupe the people into fulfilling the same ends.

For our part, the Communists disdain to conceal their aims. We plainly believe that the MAGA movement requires its own political party. While we remain sympathetic to Republican candidates genuinely aligned against the establishment, the majority of the Republican Party remains firmly entrenched and in the hands of the same globalist ruling class. We hope the great leaders and figures of the MAGA movement will endure the coming re-alignment, and join forces with all genuine partisan forces into forming a real working class third party. Trump, for his part, while having been a real political outsider, is being blackmailed, is embroiled in politically-motivated lawsuits and is being targeted by the FBI. Whatever happens to Trump, the spirit of the MAGA movement must survive, because 2016 was only the beginning. We believe the MAGA movement has the potential to be turbo-charged into a revolutionary movement by, of, and for the American working class. There is no other choice for us American MAGA Communists.

We will face many difficulties and obstacles in the road ahead. People may not immediately agree with us, and that is fine. We will go where the MAGA movement goes, because we sincerely believe in its truest aspirations. It is the duty of American Communists to stand by the people, and become genuine fighters for the people, regardless of how well their ideological message is at first received. We have no other belief than belief in the power of the American working class. We will win over the MAGA movement, or we will become politically extinct. There is nowhere else for us to go. We have no interest in winning the support of insulated and self-content leftist scum, who are the prostitutes of the bourgeoisie. Our faith lies with the people alone, and so MAGA Communists now make it their goal to go down to the people, and fight alongside them in a common, partisan struggle against the ruling class.

A spectre is haunting American politics, and it is the specter of MAGA Communism. No matter how much we are slandered, attacked deplatformed and censored, we aren’t going anywhere. MAGA Communism is rising. And soon enough, all other ‘communists’ and ‘socialists’ will even abandon these labels, and become outright Azovites. The meaning of Communism is going to, soon, be completely redefined in this country. And we have no problem at all leaving leftists behind.

Many months ago, the Infrared community was made aware of Geoff Young. It was principally his seemingly unique positions on the Ukraine war earned him our attention - we also took a liking to some of his slogans, like ‘Abolish the CIA.’

There was, however, one fatal drawback about Geoff Young’s political existence, and that was the fact that he was running on the Democratic ticket. Thus, I continued to postpone responding to his campaign organizers reaching out to me, because I had already vowed, live, that I would never, ever support Democrats. I had to think about how I could have Geoff Young on, without signaling any promotion or support for his campaign.

I was told that Geoff Young had filed several lawsuits against the Democratic Party before, and has experience dealing with their corruption. So I was open to the idea of bringing him on the stream to talk about that. Still in this new era of politics, with a looming American civil war, I don’t trust Democrats. The Democrats are increasingly a Hiterlite party, and are now the official domestic political vanguard of imperialism.

Of course, I didn’t want to make any of this public, because I didn’t want to myself contribute anything to damage his campaign or his prospects to victory. Why should I be the one to do that? I disagree with Young, but I don’t want to wreck his life, since I didn’t think he was a bad person. And if his strategy prevails (which I don’t think it will), why should I be the one to get in the way? I also didn’t want to contribute to any unnecessary hostility, meanness, or antagonism. So I simply decided to ignore Young, and let him go his own way.

Young, however, continued to interact with my tweets, becoming more persistent and hostile as the days would go by.

Young Attacks Haz

Young then decided to start outright attacking me, realizing I probably wasn’t going to bring him on my show. Leftists were also DMing him talking shit about me, etc. - so he probably felt pressured to denounce me in some capacity.

He first started accusing me of “undermining other leftists” instead of “undermining Imperialism.”

I simply don’t have patience for this level of senility. Geoff is still living in the 1970’s, and he is effectively demanding I pull him into the present day, where it is an indisputable fact that American leftists are themselves the vanguard of US imperialism. He is simply not up to date as far as the political realities today.

Geoff thinks that running as a ‘peace Democrat,’ as a toothless, pacifist hippie is what undermines imperialism. He is like a senile old man who took too much LSD at Woodstock and still thinks it hasn’t ended. He does not actually address the underlying ideological, political and cultural forces that establish consensus for US imperialism among the urban petty bourgeois, professionals, students, and youth.

He also attacked me for defending myself against Ben Norton. He thinks this sowed ‘disunity,’ because he still thinks Norton works for the Grayzone - not knowing that Norton resigned from the Grayzone, stole the passwords and Adsense revenue from its Youtube channels, and rebranded as a woke leftist, defending soft-power imperialism but pretending to oppose the hard-power kind.

Norton broke with the Grayzone over his position on lockdowns, mandates, and the Canadian Freedom Convoy. Norton believed that Trudeau was more progressive than the ‘fascist’ Canadian Truckers. Of course, Geoff didn’t bother to investigate any of that.

That is since Geoffrey has not read the Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, which state “No investigation, No right to Speak.” He decides to speak and run his mouth without knowing anything.

An increasing level of evidence began to mount that Geoffrey M. Young took the capitalist road.

Young Crosses the Line

Whatever. All that can still be ignored.

But Young decided to cross the line. When he was actually informed of the context of Ben Norton’s denunciation, he doubled down. He was informed about how Norton was justifying the death of Daria Dugina by calling her a ‘fascist,’ and that therefore, he was justifying the murder of people who he calls ‘fascist.’ Young didn’t seem to find that significant

Again, Young the Senile still thinks we are living in the 1970s and is recalling the Cold War history of Latin America. But he outright disrespects the victims of Ukrainian state terrorism by defending their Western apologists, downplaying the unprecedented significance of the way they rationalize and justify murder. I don’t care of Young is a clueless, bumbling old idiot. There is actual malice underlying his idiocy:

Why Infrared will NEVER Endorse Democrats

Young thinks that the unprecedented threat posed by the importation of Azovite terrorism to the United States, the Democrats today serving as the vanguard of US imperialism, the criminal nature of Democrat-led support for Ukrainian Nazis, etc. can all be overlooked since:

There we have it. The 10%.

Want to know why I would have never endorsed Young? Because of that 10%. The polarization of American politics is only going to accelerate, and the members of both parties will be compelled to take a side. Even if Young was elected into Congress, he will vote with his fellow Democrats, and sacrifice the anti-imperialist agenda. He will do this and justify it in the name of that 10%.

I know this, because every single other ‘true leftist’ elected into congress ended up the same way. When you’re elected into congress, you have to make choices, and decide who you’re going to work with. Do you really mean to tell me Young isn’t going to work with his fellow Democrats, sidelining the anti-imperialist agenda in the name of that precious 10% of ‘abortion and the environment?’ Of course he will.

Even if Young wasn’t a bad person, he would have to do that. It doesn’t matter how good a politician’s position appears. What matters is which organization, which party they are answerable to. Individuals by nature, are social beings. They will inevitably be compelled to the pressures of whatever group, organization or collective they find themselves in. Young even appears especially malleable. The poor old man can’t even help resist the social dynamics of twitter, and ultra-leftists are jerking him around in every which direction to recite the esoteric works of J. Sakai:

As funny as this is, it shows just how much he will cave to the pressures of congress.

Young’s electoral prospects may have significantly increased because of his denunciation of me. He is blowing up on left twitter and becoming very popular among leftists. I for one am not going to try and get in his way. I am all for political chaos. If Young is elected, that is certainly going to be interesting.

If anything, I have done Young the best service I possibly could have, by giving him the opportunity to oppose me. The only way he is getting elected is if he emphasizes he’s pro-abortion, in tandem with the nationwide conman Democrat strategy.

He couldn’t possibly win Democrat votes by emphasizing an anti-imperialist, anti-establishment and populist position.

Maybe he will win. Stranger things have happened. But if he does, what social base is going to keep him in check, as far as his supposed anti-imperialist positions are concerned? Which discipline and of what organization is he going to have to answer to? The retards liking his tweets?

I rest my case. He will answer to his electoral base alone. His electoral base will not give a fuck about anti-imperialism at all, they will only care about the precious 10% (abortion and the environment). In fact, he will probably be pressured to support the Ukro-Nazis.

Maybe I’m wrong. But if I were a betting man, I wouldn’t be betting the good name of Infrared on him. I think he’s either going to fail to get elected, or if he’s elected, he’s going to sell out.

Buckle up, because the collapse of the American state is underway. We just don’t have time for losers like Young.

We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are “free” to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!

Lenin

A definitive split has taken form in the so-called ‘Patsoc’ online community. For those unfamiliar, the label ‘Patsoc’ is a broad designation given by Western leftists to those who continue to uphold one of the core-tenets of Marxism-Leninism, which is socialist patriotism, while rejecting the latest liberal trends of the mainstream left (dubbed by ‘patsocs’ as the ‘synthetic left.’).

At first glance, it seems absurd to be giving this any attention. After all, this is just terminally online nonsense! We represent a niche of a niche of a niche of the population, have no real movement behind us, and thus the actual consequences of such disagreements appear over-exaggerations. To such a reproach, I will cite the words of Stalin in his polemic Anarchism or Socialism?:

It is not who has a larger or smaller "mass" following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the "doctrine" of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved.

Those who point out the absurdity of the ‘online’ nature of the ‘battleground of ideas’ are doing nothing more than posturing and bluffing. They are weak of intellect, weak of principle, weak of purpose, and so makeup for their inability to coherently articulate their ideas, using the most advanced means of communication currently at ones disposal, by pretending like they are participating in some esoteric ‘true’ battleground of ideas offline, that is reserved only for the initiated (i.e. those accepted into their equally online secret group chats).

And of course, the relevance of such disagreements currently confine themselves only to the battleground of ideas. There is no ‘real’ Communist movement, or ‘real’ Communist political struggle in the United States at the moment. The practical purpose of this article is thus twofold:

1. To make clear where Infrared stands, so that the dead-weight, social-democratic ankle biters can fuck off and stop pretending like we are ‘part of the same community’ or ‘movement.’

2. To definitively respond to the various philistine ‘critiques,’ better understood as the incessant bitching and whining, by the Menshevik ‘patsocs’ since, in their lack of basic manhood, they refuse to debate about the issues they have decided to transform into primary contradictions.

Thus by the end of this article, it should be made clear that this ‘split’ is quite definitive. These ‘patsocdems’ have as much in common with Infrared as do Gonzaloists, Sakaists, anarchists, liberals - or just about any other segment of the Baizuo. Their incessant ankle-biting, bitching and moaning makes clear that anything anyone ever thought we had in common was just a misunderstanding. We have nothing in common.

There is no ‘Patsoc’ community. There are revisionist social democrats, and there are Communists. Frankly, I am relieved the ‘cringe section’ of the ‘Patsoc’ phenomena has decided to turn against us so openly. We never wanted to be associated with these cringe nerds and social-democratic cuckolds in the first place, but were forced to since the same vicious leftists were attacking us. We were united only on the basis of being an island of common civility, respect, etc. amidst the broader ‘mainstream left.’

Civility, and respect, were thrown out the window as soon as their theoretical disagreements turned into outright, vicious personal attacks. I challenge any person seeking a neutral, objective view into the matter, to defend the actions of these utter disgusting, unprincipled scum. Not content with attacking me personally, these vicious cuckolds, in their unhinged soy rage, decided that even uninvolved acquaintances were fair game.

The scum have made clear that their disagreement was not simply theoretical. They harbored such a deep, vicious resentment and hatred of Infrared (and myself personally), that is not rational, but pathological in nature. I challenge any neutral party to look at what they have said, and what they are doing, and tell me these are not people who have been pushed beyond the threshold of sanity, into outright psychosis and derangement. Such is the nature of the frothing-at-the-mouth prostitutes of the bourgeoisie, when faced with the very annihilation of their class in the form of a superior intellect, a superior position, and a superior truth.

They attacked our positions out of nowhere, like any stick-up-the-ass resentful low-T cuck meandering contently in their whining, bitching and moaning. Complaining without cause, without any solution or aim. Just pure, undistilled, butthurt. When their criticisms were calmly, and civilly dismantled, they resorted to outright dismissal and passive-aggressiveness, until the humiliating inferiority of their arguments became so evident that their asshurt went from Squidward Tentacles to Adolf Hitler. And now, they have decided to go the way of Hitler, and completely destroy themselves!

Soviet Revisionism and “The New Class”

The tendency within the so-called ‘patsoc’ community currently positioned against us can be broadly defined as ‘Patriotic Social Democracy’ (PatSocDem).

‘Patriotic’ social democrats are a vestige of Khrushchevite revisionism, and distinguish themselves from the ‘synthetic left’ only on a reactionary basis. Similar to the leadership of the CPUSA, the Communist Party of Canada, and even the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party, their ‘conservatism’ goes no farther than the preservation of the parasitical, professional-managerial and middle-class stratum that makes up the bulwark of the institutions of liberal civil society.

The origins of Soviet revisionism lay in the emergence of a social stratum Sovietologists have identified as the vydvizhensie. In the early years of Soviet industrialization, a practical merger took place between the former technical specialists of the Tsarist era (engineers, managers, scientists, etc.), and Communist cadres ensuring the conformity of the production process with the political aims of the Soviet state. Due to their lack of basic technical knowledge, wreckage in service of foreign powers and the political enemies of the state could proceed unnoticed, carried out by the more technically savvy specialists. Such a scenario was the context of the Shakhty Trial of 1928 and the Industrial Party Trial of 1930.

In response to this dilemma, the Soviet state pursued a policy of quickly educating a select group of working-class and peasant Communist party members in technical expertise, so as to replace the former specialists and eliminate the threat of industrial sabotage. During the period of the first five year plan, while former specialists continued to be purged, they were increasingly replaced with newly graduated Communist specialists, termed the vydvizhensie (promoted workers). These vydvizhensie would form the basis of the Soviet elite until the very end of the USSR, and included such figures as Khrushchev himself.

However, already by the mid-1930s, a contradiction increasingly began to rear itself between the Soviet industrial workers, newly replenished in their ranks from the great peasant mass with each passing year, and the newly promoted vydvizhensie that would come to oversee the production process. Often possessing a petty-bourgeois, bureaucratic and often even abusive method of administration, the vydvizhensie had been, paradoxically, themselves educated within institutions that were themselves dominated by the vestiges of bourgeois culture. Thus their method of administration, the range of their technical knowledge, as well as their attitudes toward the industrial workers were restricted by a type of bourgeois-consciousness.

The vydvizhensie could be defined by a kind of American-oriented pragmatism toward matters of culture, combining the technical expertise of formal specialists with Communist political will only in the crudest, unreconciled manner. Technical knowledge was to be a mere instrument, on the other hand the Communist political will that was meant to instrumentalize them would be treated with a degree of cynicism, itself bereft of the same objectivity and certitude the ‘promoted workers’ had in their newly acquired expertise. As with any newborn stratum, they were at the same time fraught with ambiguity. The point is not that all members of the new vydvizhensie could be characterized by this tendency, the point is that insofar as they constituted a definite new class, set against the great majority, they were epitomized by such tendencies.

A point should briefly be made that, at the same time, many of these vydvizhensie were disposed of an authentic proletarian consciousness, sought to deepen the advancement of genuinely proletarian sciences, and possessed the Promethean aspiration to raise up the whole of the Soviet peasant-and-worker mass to such a status that would render the vydvizhensie (as a class) superfluous. But such a disposition could hardly characterize the likes of Khrushchev and his co-conspirators. It is from their class that the Soviet state was infiltrated from within by the forces of the international bourgeoisie. Likewise, a similar phenomena had actually also emerged in the ‘advanced capitalist West.’ A new stratum, corresponding with the rise of the American New Deal and European social democracy, combined technical expertise with liberal civil conscientiousness in a similar manner.

In contrast to the structural revolutions that were overseen by the ruling elites of the capitalist West, the Soviet social revolution occurred under the auspices of a real proletarian dictatorship. Thus, while giving birth a social strata that bore similarities to the ‘new class’ of the West, the Soviet era under Stalin was characterized by the continual elevation of the great masses of the people against not only those forms of social privilege which were the remnant of the Tsarist era, but even newer ones that newly emerged after the first five year plan - including that of the vidvizhensie, and the remnants of the older technical specialists that merged with them. The great Stakhanovite movement of the mid-1930s for the first time pit the new Soviet industrial workers (that drew from the peasant stratum), with the sanction of Stalin’s leadership, against the vydvizhensie.

According to the consensus of Sovietologists, the vydvizhensie comprised the class base of the new ‘Stalinist dictatorship.’ Their preponderance among party, political and administrative leaders following the Second World War is given as evidence of this. Often overlooked, however, is the manner by which the Stakhanovites - the industrial worker true believers which rose against the managers and technical specialists - emerged as the true base of Stalin’s own leadership. It is actually for this reason that they came to epitomize the worst excesses of the so-called ‘cult of personality’ according to the renegade and revisionist Khrushchev. It is, however, no matter. Stalin’s overall distrust (noted by Mao) of the peasantry, which was the bedrock of phenomena like Stakhanovism and other tendencies positioned against the vidvizhensie, led to an overall curtailment of this Stalinist populism by the end of the Great Purges.

This, however, would not lead the vydvizhensie to forgive Stalin for some of the most dangerous and excessive periods of the Great Purges, when many of those who rose into prominence came to feel the sword of Damocles hanging over their own head. While the Great Purges, in the main, did not in any way target the vydvizhensie as a social stratum, it was dangerously close to doing so, and it showed the possibility of as much was a feature of Stalin’s rule. Stalin was not loyal to this new, privileged stratum of the people - but to the Soviet people as a whole, despite his mistrust of the peasants. Coupled with events like the Lysenko affair, it was clear that Stalin did not represent the exclusive interests of this stratum, and this thus placed them in danger of being replaced in a manner not dissimilar to the way they replaced the previous generation of bourgeois intelligentsia. Stalin's terror, following the Great Purges and especially after the Second World War, would be felt especially by the upper-stratum of the vydvizhensie, who at every moment nervously feared they would be the next to be targeted.

The Stalin era was characterized by a gradual, yet revolutionary devolvement of political, social, and economic powers from exclusive elites to a more broader strata of the people, from the efforts to acculturate workers and peasants, the Soviet constitution of 1936, to future plans for a devolvement of party functions to Soviet democracy. At every turn, exclusive, privileged, and established social strata, coveting a cessation of this revolutionary process, dreamed of an alliance with the international bourgeoisie that would relieve them of the anxiety of this most uncertain social future the proletarian dictatorship had in store for them. Stalin himself could not bring the development of this class struggle under the proletariat to its fullest conclusion, at least not within his own lifetime. However, the development of this class struggle would proceed not within the Soviet Union, but within the world’s largest future Communist state - the People’s Republic of China.

Khrushchev’s secret speech cemented the process under which the vydvizhensie would be transformed, from an incipient, acculturated class that drew from the ranks of one of the earliest recipients of socialist acculturation - to a type of incipient bourgeoisie aligned with global American imperialism. It was bourgeois in the same way Fredrich Engels and Lenin would characterize the upper-stratum of the trade union movement, together with the new middle-classes as bourgeois, not in the sense that they directly engaged in the process of accumulation - but that their interests have come to be aligned with those of the bourgeoisie. The new class possessed the same quality of urbanity, social abstractionism, cosmopolitanism, cynicism with the bourgeoisie due to its structural estrangement from the broad masses. Not only bourgeois subjectivity, but the very germ of a new, future bourgeois class was taking shape, which would only be later realized in the form of the so-called oligarchs following privatizations.

In any case, Khrushchevite revisionism firmly aligned itself with the forces of international social democracy, and a new global nexus, stretching from the Scandinavian countries, the American Democratic Party, the British Labor Party, to (most importantly) India (including the so-called ‘non-aligned movement’) increasingly took shape as a soon-to-be global vanguard of Anglo-American imperialism, the final geopolitical form of capitalism. Soviet anti-imperialism became merely vestigial, primarily confining itself to factions of the security apparatus. The process of the destruction of the Soviet state was underway. This laid the definitive class context of the Sino-Soviet split, where Mao, cognizant of the rise of the vydvizhensie and a similar stratum of Soviet-trained Chinese specialists, bureaucrats and cadres, would wage a fierce struggle against that stratum which, if allowed to be victorious, would see to the ruin of the proletarian dictatorship and capitulation to global imperialism.

The Victory of Social Democracy

The ‘bourgeois’ character of not only this new class, but the actual bourgeoisie itself does not bare in common with the traditional bourgeoisie the quality of atomistic, selfish, scrooge-like individualism and the individual form of privacy, but rather a socialized form of privacy.

Social Democracy here acquires special significance, since it was historically the first political manifestation of the interests of this ‘new class,’ being an instrument of the financial and monopoly bourgeoisie - which has transformed from a definite social class (i.e. capable of being joined, etc.) to a dynastic, almost heritable and exclusive stratum. Following the collapse of the international capitalist system in 1929, the derivative valorization of the falling rate of profit through debt rescued not the capitalist mode of production, but an existing ruling class faced with the prospect of political revolution and economic ruin. Consequentially, the ruling class of owners proper, as a class foreclosed the means of its replenishment from the ranks of the people, establishing a more or less artificially socialized economy under their aegis: A socialism under the auspices of an almost conspiratorial, select elite of financial aristocrats.

Private property has since taken on a social form. Even CEOs, CFOs, the epitome of some of the wealthiest segments of society are but aggrandized salaried professionals, and ownership, to the extent that it is accessible to the broad strata, takes either the form of divisible stocks (themselves a type of currency) or what amount to derivative leases, either as mortgages, securities, titles, and liquid assets (the range of use, so restricted and regulated, that ‘ownership’ proper ceases to be a meaningful designation). Even the form of ownership by the dynastic remnants of the capitalist class (Rockefellers, Morgans, et. al) is diversified and devolved to, rather than single individuals possessed of singular ownership in title, networks and circuits of control spanning a whole range of financial institutions, assets, corporations, brands, and land. The class antagonism does not posses the clarity it once had, between haves and have-nots, it is rather a division cut across the array of a fundamentally socialized mode of production, having at its real center polarities, streams and cycles of capital investment, etc. which together represent planned, yet decentralized supply chains.

The political form corresponding to all of this, is of course social democracy. Liberalism, either in the form of laissez-faire free trade or central industrial policy, corresponded to the form of the traditional capitalist mode of production before 1929. It is not only the quantitative increased socialization, centralization, and monopolization of capitalist society - but a qualitative leap from a private-individual to (seemingly paradoxical) private-social mode of production - that gives rise to social democracy as the superstructural form of American unipolar globalism. Social democracy can be defined as the institutionalization of economic sociality, within the framework of formal, bourgeois democracy. Social relations acquire their own department, their own bureaucracy, etc. as a supplement to the traditional bourgeois formal state. This is not only as a sphere of the implementation of policy, and not even the direction and control of production itself - but also defining the conditions of production (the regulatory, welfare, etc. state).

Additionally, and beyond the sphere of statehood, the ruling-class socialists - known as the Fabians - merge with social democracy through the private, philanthropic creation of a civil ‘open society’ (popper) - a network of institutions, NGOs, think tanks, academia, media complexes, etc. which also premise conditions of production in their own way. The institutionalization of sociality itself, the final enclosure (which encloses the essence of humanity itself, hence, whispers of transhumanism) , bares in common that original institutionalization of means of production into private property, and so represents the highest development of Anglo-Saxon capitalism (which now reduces itself to a pure superstructure of a mode of production that has outmoded it). The production of surplus-value, or profit, appears entirely derivative - that is since profit has long deviated from the surplus-value of classical political economy. Value, according to Marx, has always been social. Yet derivative profits are formally social profits, the form being a measurement of social needs, or data, either in the direct form (big tech) or the financial (i.e. quarterly reports of a given enterprise, measuring the popularity of platforms products, etc. among consumers).

The New Class has not replaced the capitalist class, it has rather replaced the civil society out of which the capitalist class had once emerged, and which is itself the artificial creation of the capitalist class. It conceives itself not as a particular class, a particular stratum, but all society as such. It is Hegel’s universal class, only of hermaphrodites, for whom division is inconceivable. I can’t believe these deplorable oppose vaccine mandates, what is wrong with them? Why aren’t they like us, society? This institutionalized parody of civil society, this Potemkin civil society, has its genesis in the definite form of monopoly capital. The ruling class has sealed its own premises, and thereby has sealed the possibility of any real capitalist competition. The chaos of competition is in fact a crisis of geopolitics. It threatens not only the individual members of the ruling class, but the entire civil society created by them. It only suffices for the smallest germ of raw, wild, non-domesticated civil society to split the atom of the entire state, to comprise the egg of an entirely new state, new society, and new universe. What were events like Waco, if not this? What is MAGA, et. al, if not this?

The new class need not ‘own’ anything. It, at the very least, owns a place in this Potemkin civil society, within which it is entitled to a definite stream of revenue, much like a tumor owns nothing on its own, except a place on the body of the living. It may not comprise necessarily wealthy people, but people who, for whatever reason, have their material interests aligned with the reproduction of these particular conditions of their existence. What unites the new class - from CEOs to tenured professors - consists not in relative degrees of wealth or assets, but their common parasitism. Their labor does not exist as a form of capital, and not even a cost of production for the fulfillment of profit alone - but a social ends in itself, a necessity determined socially, either politically, philanthropically, culturally, or, in the case of the CEO, in a privately social manner, i.e. the socius of the corporation. Labor, has not simply assumed the form of the production of impersonal production, but the labor of sociality itself, the labor that gives rise to the form of the socius, much in the same way that it gives rise to the form of impersonal economic value. The new class:

[…] do not confront Matter, freed from it by the voluntary sacrifice of Knights Templar of the Proletariat. They gobble up and desacralize trophies obtained by subterranean Vikings in a terrible shaft with darkness of the utmost depths.

It is not merely the parasitism of human labor, but the parasitism of human labor as from about the dark heart of sociality itself, that defines the present epoch and the ‘universal class’ that has come into being on its basis. Applying the universal bourgeois principle equality to the socius itself, and more particularly to culture, the interests of society are given expression - never in any universal, singular form - but through social movementism. The universal equality of culture and of all cultural phenomena, must be established in the elevation of various ‘oppressed’ groups - the disabled, sexual minorities, ethnic minorities, women, fat people, et.c - as sublimated forms of sociality itself. Sociality, in conformity with the universal principle of bourgeois equality, has as its content nothing at all. It is the universal equality of nothing. Only in the inequality of social-cultural phenomena does it acquire content - or definite form, as the sublimation of ‘injustice:’ the polytheism of the rights of man. Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, the theosophists, etc. knew well that polytheism is nothing more than a-theism, the mere division of an otherwise empty dharma.

Social democracy, then, loses its determination as a single form of politics, or as a single movement. It occludes itself as the invisible reality of the state (united with its civil society), and culture, not politics becomes the decisive site in which the social antagonism, still mysterious in its current manifestation for the so-called ‘Marxists,’ is given primitive representation. The culture war is a proxy not for competing socializations, but between the institutionalization of sociality, and sociality in its real basis. It is upon this basis that the ‘left-right’ distinction is made in the United States. The left, on the one hand, represents the ‘all-out-drive’ for institutionalization - whereas the Right, on the other, represents not only the rejection of this institutionalization, but alternative formalizations (of the socius). The Right, taken generally, is a mere rejection of the status-quo. But taken in its particular instances, it is comprised of various cults, organizations, communities, dogmas, which ultimately fail in giving positive expression to the socius, in a manner that rivals the status quo. Hence:

You can only lose the culture war.

The Right succeeds only in giving general expression to a rejection, a resistance, which assumes its final form in the nation, or the country. But the patriotism of, say, the MAGA movement is not the institutionalized patriotism of social democracy, but a patriotism of a darker kind, a darker logos, a darker socius. It is a passion of a socius which refuses to be institutionalized. It is, in sum, a type of primitive, backwards socialism, which is reactionary only in the sense of its vanity. The singular, and common socius of the community of labor, the definite ground and context of class struggle itself, is wanting of some positive expression. That is since its positive expression is a fact of its actual, material, economic reality. Notice, for instance, that Trump’s presidency had no consequence in challenging the forces of the ruling class and its Potemkin civil society. On the contrary, establishing itself in opposition to his presidency, this civil society underwent the most rapid development in its history, save for under Nixon.

The ‘synthetic left’ is a mere extension of the political ruling class. It itself has no political reality, and serve as kinds of shock troops for the real political state. A different kind of left, however, has survived as a remnant of the late 20th century, as a type of independent social-democratic left. It found expression in the Bernie, Corbyn, Syriza, etc. movements throughout the world. This is the left of ‘alter-globalization,’ of ‘another world is possible,’ etc. - and it is principally defined by the view that somewhere in the development of social democracy, a mere misstep was taken. A new institutionalized socius must be established, on the basis of morality, compassion, justice, equality, fairness, etc. This ‘left’ can be broken down into two segments.

The first, and most prominent, consists of an incipient professional class, and finds overrepresentation in the environmental movement, activist NGOs, the so-called ‘progressive wing’ of the Democratic Party, etc. - these ‘leftists’ now comprise the vanguard of the ruling class agenda, and have transformed what was once a veneer of independence into an internal inquisition, to ‘shake up’ the old, antiquated institutions of bourgeois society - make them more ‘equitable', ‘fair,’ etc. - and thus it reflects that stratum which enters into the ranks of the ‘new class’ in an incipient manner, at the same time bolstering and strengthening it. It is the Jesuitical wing of Democratic Party and its so-called ‘cathedral.’

The second has its basis in those downwardly mobile and increasingly declassed, or at the very least, once-aspiring members of the ‘new class,’ who find it necessary to ‘replace’ the artifice entirely. If the artificial society created by the ruling class is the Matrix, they merely dream of a new software. Their rallying cry: Patch the code, save the Matrix! For them, the class struggle has become obsolete, in the sense that no fundamental social antagonism exists within the contemporary ‘socialism.’ The class struggle confines itself to a mere theoretical abstraction, and a type of identity-politics so as to artificially interpellate the lower-crusts of civil society - the service sector, in particular - with a political identity. Their attitude to the actual, colloquial working classes is one of condensation: They need only be led along by the petty-bourgeois craft-unionization of the service sector, led by the embittered, failed professionals, so that their discontent might be quelled.

They do not recognize the antagonism the institutionalization of the socius itself poses for this working class, much in the same way that the bourgeois socialists of the past did not recognize the antagonism the institutionalization of private property as such posed for the proletariat. Thus, even ‘identity politics’ and the social-movementisms of social democracy are themselves hideous abominations for them: They prove an inadequacy internal to social-democratic institutionalization. They take offense to identity politics: How dare you divide the working class! Only there is no real working class here, only an artificially contrived identity of its own, which serves as a repository for the grievances of those social-parasites that failed to make their way into the upper-crusts of the new class! And thus, they are Utopians as much as they are bourgeois socialists, for they conceive in their own socius a nirvana of pure socio-cultural equality, whose subject they interpellate as ‘the working class.’

All social antagonism will disappear, the culture war will dissolve, so long as everyone - who fits an abstract, arbitrary criterion that itself finds no independent, phenomenally united expression - conforms to the theoretically contrived definition of ‘the workers.’ We can see, of course, who the ‘workers’ are for these social democrats. They are the professionals, the office workers, the tech engineers, etc. - for this ‘working-class consciousness’ is at the same time an auto-erotic one. The reason is absolutely clear: If the workers simply consist of those who fit a theoretically contrived definition, in reality, the actual ‘subject’ of such a politics are just going to be the people more likely to be theoreticians. If the only reality of the unity of this stratum is in theory, such a theory could only possible unite the glasses-wearing nerds who define their interests based on theory. This is the actual reason for why the ‘workers’ always end up being professionals. Because professionals, being mental laborers, are more likely to adopt an identity based on theory itself, rather than actual material reality. These pathetic, limp cuckolds stare into the mirror, and see this ‘true working class subject,’ and extrapolate the particular conditions of the satisfaction of their own fantasies, with those necessary to resolve the social antagonism of all society.

But this socius is not simply empty and devoid of form. It, like the populist Right, acknowledges the country as a primary unity of the people, above the private social identities created by the status quo. But it does so in a manner opposite to MAGA, that is, not as the negative darkness underlying artificial society, not as the dark socius, but as the supreme incarnation of its smiling logos. The country, the nation, is that of an institution. It is the responsible patriotism of a responsible class - the patriotism of federal employees. It is a farcical type of populism, a Peter Coffin populism, which seeks to address the entire country (since, according to it, 95% of people within it constitute the ‘working class’) in the same way Obama did: Not as the country as it actually is, but as it is expected to be according to the lofty ideals of its state-institution. These ‘patriotic social democrats,’ merely giving expression to the same Soviet revisionist orthodoxy, simply justify their socialism within the continuity of the American state institution, pathetically apologizing for both and giving authentic expression to neither.

Their patriotism is the same as the patriotism of the CPUSA’s leadership, of the leadership of the Communist Party of Canada - a middle-class, civically responsible patriotism which seeks to raise the banner around which the new class may preserve its interests. Where, for the former, such a unity is necessary against ‘fascism,’ for the patriotic social-democrats it is a unity necessary for the general survival of their parasitic class. They reject the notion of the ‘fascist threat,’ since to do so would be an acknowledgement that their class, in fact, is not universal. And so, they merely pretend as if there is no social antagonism (which they dismiss, as a whole, as the ‘culture war’ or ‘aesthetics’), and that the ‘working class’ must merely unite against the ‘capitalists,’ whom, by the way, they choose not name at all, but yet again designate as a theoretical abstraction: Presumably, all those who resist their ‘Borg-like’ attempt to assimilate all society into the singular form of the NuMaleCuckold (the “inclusive working class”).

Why can’t weee be friends, why can’t weeee be friends? Come now workers, unite with us, the culture war is over!

The ‘Patriotic’ Social Democrats.

The ‘patriotic’ social democrats can be summed in the following way: as socialist cuckolds. They have declared their love, and their loyalty to the artificial ‘socialist’ civil society created by the Rockefellers, Morgans, etc. al (which they unite as ‘the country’) - to this googley-eyed reflexive fortress set against actual society, the position of the engineer, the bureaucrat, and the social worker. But they do not seem to mind the ‘man’ fucking their beloved, whose loyalty their beloved actually belongs - which is the actual (not theoretical) ruling class, which plays artificial civil society like playing the sims.

And so ladies and gentlemen, we elect to break off from our ranks entirely these ‘patriotic’ socialist cuckolds, as a gesture of basic manhood. Immense, irreversible social ruin and destruction awaits the ‘artificial civil society’ of the bourgeoisie, and it cannot be salvaged - not under the banner of ‘progressive anti-fascism’ nor under the banner of ‘the united working class.’ It awaits destruction for no there reason than that it is unreconciled with its real, material premises, and as a matter of fact, exists at their expense. It is the parasitism of the so-called ‘deplorables’ and those ‘toxic elements’ that defines the ‘civic patria’ of the socialist cuckolds, these abject hipster Baizuo which differ from the synthetic left like a pathetic cuck differs from the wife they are begging to take them back. They are social democrats who want their cake and want to eat it too. Like the CPUSA leadership, which resents the ‘Sakaist’ tendencies bellow their ranks, they want their social democracy without addressing the consequences of their social democracy.

In fact, the Sakaists are more honest, more principled, more brave, than these ‘patriotic social democrats.’ The Sakaists, in their romantic derangement, take the bourgeois principle of equality to its fanatical conclusion, as an indictment on every aspect of society itself. Everything, then, becomes a micro-aggression, and a slight in violation of this equality. But this is only the honest conclusion of social democracy itself, for which the socius can only have an abstract, institutional, discursively premised existence, and thus, become divisible only according to the common, abstract measure of equality. The middle-class ‘patriots’ are nothing more than hypocrites, the rancid corruption, and elevation of their particular interests in the name of ‘universal association’ could not be clearer. Was this not the corruption of the Communist Party of Canada? The party excused every transgression by members close to party leadership, and defended itself on the basis of ‘combatting liberalism.’ What, if not liberalism, you hypocrites, led you to denounce the Canadian truckers as fascists!?

On the one hand, they want to reign and establish forms of association on the basis of the social-democratic principle of equality and the ‘universal working class,’ on the other hand, they cannot help but assert their own particular, private, class, etc. interests in the most shameless and corrupt manner. This hypocritical middle class, which wants its cake and wants to eat it too, then has the audacity to dare claim it merely defends itself from ‘liberalism’ and ‘identity politics:’ While itself having given rise to the entire basis of identity politics and liberalism! Patriots, they are, for a hollow patria! The ‘patsocdems’ have arrived at their patriotism only in the most contemptible, hypocritical and venal manner: As an excuse for being unable to defend the particularity of its pretended universality. It aspires toward universal institutionalization, it aspires toward the extension of ‘acceptable’ civil society to every inch of the country, and whereupon it is forced to be cognizant of itself as particular, rather than universal, it nervously, greasily, smilingly, admits its ‘patriotism:’ The patriotism of common parasites.

The ‘patriotic social democrats’ may not admit to the defense of any given institution of civil society, but their patriotism, their socialism, goes no farther than the imagination of some given institution. They repeat the primal sin of social democracy, which is the inability to cognize sociality outside the form of a fixed institution - beyond which lies nothingness, within which lies the furthest horizon of meaning. Hence their basic derangement. Because myself, and the Infrared community have signified a position outside the bounds of a hypothetical institution, i.e. that cannot easily be translated into an immediate form of ‘praxis’ (institutionalization), we have become worse than nothing, we have become enemies primed for extermination. They must destroy us, because we exist beyond the threshold of their sanity - to regain their sanity, they must, in an insane way, commit pathologically to destroying us. We do not establish a ‘safe space socialism’ for which information goes no farther than private sociality - for we are not socialists, but Communists, and not private - but substantive, common sociality is the object of our aim.

The future in store for the ‘patriotic’ social democrats cannot be any clearer: As soon as the delimitation of their phoney patria becomes clear in the coming war of aggression against China, as soon as ‘the working class’ unites (a false, artificial, contrived unity) around the coming fascist war effort, the ‘patriotic social democrats’ will do as the civically responsible public sector employees will, and rally to the ‘banner of the bourgeoisie.’ After all, it is their civic duty. They share in common the same fate as the synthetic left, the neo-straussian right, and the progressive-wing of the Democratic Party, and that is playing their own special role in crafting an ideology worthy of the coming fascist aggression against China. This may appear, for now, exaggerated. After all, to their credit, the ‘patriotic’ social democrats possess anti-imperialist pretensions. But as soon as it becomes clear that ‘anti-imperialism’ must necessarily ‘divide the working class,’ given that the professional new class will prove itself to be at its vanguard, all of that will be thrown out the window.

The ‘Dividing’ of the ‘Working Class’

The PatSocDems accuse us of ‘dividing’ the working class, since

1. We recognize the usefulness of concepts like the Professional-Managerial Class, and insist that they, as a class, are enemies of the working class

2. We insist upon distinctions within the working class, between productive and unproductive, and afford special recognition of productive laborers as the vanguard of general labor

3. We reject the craft-unionism of the service sector, of brewmeisters and baristas, etc. as ‘working class movements’

4. We reject the characterization of farmers, truckers. etc. as ‘petite-bourgeois.’

According to the PatSocDems, the proletariat - the working class - is strictly defined by those who live off the sale of their labor alone. This is, after all, typical of how Marxists, including Marx and Engels, had defined the proletariat of their era. Yet the opportunist PatSocDems do not take into account that this was before the transformation of the commodity form itself, the form of private property itself, and the changes in the relations of production that have occurred since then.

They have elected to reduce relations of production solely to the question of ownership of its means. That is despite the fact that a great deal more than ownership characterizes the actual relations and social distinctions underlying a given mode of production. There is also, for one, relations to the products of production, streams and sources of revenue, etc.

The idiot philistine, shit for brains ‘PatSocDems’ have highlighted the significance of ownership without even understanding the reasoning behind its significance for Marx and Engels. For one, relations of production, for Marx and Engels, are principally defined by a general social division of labor - all forms of private property are merely derivative from this division of labor. The general, and social nature of labor is for Marx presupposed as a fact of human nature:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.

Relations of property, as a matter of fact, are merely the legal form of these social relations:

At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto.

If the social production of the existence of men and women, and the relations corresponding to this social production are primary, and the legal forms secondary or superstructural, and if ‘property relations’ merely reflect these material relations in legal terms, it follows that ownership itself is not the basis of differing relations to production. Private property, for Marx, is after all an institution, and labor is, according to Marx, itself the essence of private property. It is overall unsurprising that social-democrats would rigidly define relations of production strictly according to the superstructural form taken on by them, for the whole enterprise of social democracy can be summed as the definition of sociality itself according to the institutional form that is meant to represent it.

The primary separation and division of labor, between mental and physical - and likewise, between relations to the conditions of labor (i.e. nature, or land) and labor itself, comprise the basis of private property as an institution. The geographic form of this division of between town and country. According to Marx, forms of ownership are determined merely by the existing stage of the division of labor - the relations of individuals to one another with reference to the material, instrument, and product of labour. That is the material of labor (labor as such,) the instruments of labor (means of production) and the products of labor (commodities, or revenues).

The paradoxical form of ownership corresponding to the capitalist mode of production corresponds, according to Marx, to the generalization both of labor, as well as the estranged form of labor - private property (i.e. generalized commodity production). This generalization is nothing more than the abstract genera, the abstract form of a given nation, or even humanity as such - so far as it is blinded, alienated towards its determinate being. However, the determinate quality of this generalization has itself become institutionalized - in the form of the national-industrial economy, the welfare-state, the regulatory state, the public-health state, etc. and so the blind universality of exchange-value is given both vision and particularity, so far as the range of the commodity-form, however general, is confined to socio-formally defined channels of exchange. If the nature of the generalization of labor has changed, it follows that the nature of the division of labor, and the relations of production have also changed.

If the nature of private property, or the form of ownership has underwent alteration - and its certainly has in an era of wide scale socialization of the means of production - it does not follow that we must blind our eyes to clearly distinct relations of production that have followed. We are told, according to these patriotic cuckolds, that CEOs and professional athletes are ‘working class’ only for the fact that they ‘own’ only their labor. Despite the fact that they bare an entirely different relation to production, to general, material, objective labor, to the very source of value itself. In truth, what this one-sided notion of ‘ownership’ neglects is the paradoxically social nature of private property which characterizes present day forms of ‘ownership’. A Google employee, for example, does not ‘own’ their workplace. Yet neither does the CEO of Google own the company! It is quite clear that a type of social, yet private ownership characterizes the relationship between these salaried parasites and their company. They have carved out a stake, by their employment alone, within a definite, private stream of parasitically accumulated revenue which they entitle themselves to.

All that suffices is to give consideration to labor and labor-power not in an individualistic sense (which the social democrats, possessed of bourgeois-consciousness, cannot help do), but labor in its broad, social and material sense. It is a basic truism of Marxism that labor within the traditional form of capitalism acquires the quality of generality, but this generality is not given, or somehow not itself determinate and particular. As a matter of fact, it is through the tendency of the rate of profit to fall that for Marx, the determinate nature of general labor becomes clear. It likewise doubly clear, in the form of the bourgeois state’s response to this tendency after 1929. The real, as opposed to abstract conditions of production, are never felt by the ruling class more than in the breakdown of capitalist production itself, or similarly in conditions of total war. In order to understanding the meaning of the working class within present conditions, it is necessary to consult Marx on the question of what constitutes labor in the first place:

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be.

Of course for Marx, such a relation between man and nature is social. That is not to say institutionally mediated, but representing a definite threshold between man in general, i.e. a given society, a given community of labor and nature, both in terms of the knowledge, techniques, and instruments employed in relation to it, as well as between men themselves (in their organization) and toward the products of labor. This threshold, being socially defined, establishes a general relation between man and the conditions of production - such that labor reduces itself to a definite simple quantum, a quantum which is merely compounded in skilled labor. Skilled labor, at first glance, increases the value of labor from the perspective of capital, being itself more valuable than a given quantum of simple labor within a given period of time.

Yet paradoxically, because of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, skilled labor does not produce any more, and it perhaps produces even less, surplus value taken at the aggregate level, as one of the manifestations of over-accumulation or over-production. But what defines this simple quantum of labor, is nothing eternal, or natural, but a given historically defined threshold in relation to both nature and the products of intercourse with it. Surmised more aptly, such thresholds are defined, within established economic scholarship, as Kondratiev waves:

As a hypothetical tendency posited by economists, k-waves are ‘industrial revolutions’ which are presumed to reset, or be countervailing forces to the falling rate of profit, establishing a new threshold for the extraction of labor-values, by reseting the definition of the ‘quantum of simple labor’ according to new paradigmal relations to nature - in the form of generalized technological revolutions. The question of the validity of this hypothetical model, or what relation it bares to a broad historical rate of profit will here not be given any consideration.

The broader point is that the paradigms, or thresholds corresponding to them not only represent the general tendencies of leading industries, but also transformations in the way polities relate to their constituent political subjects, or citizens. At least within the current, hypothetical ‘k-wave cycle,’ or ‘socialist mode of production’ (whichever suits your fancy), simple labor is in part politically determined, as the relationship not only between techno-scientific knowledge, nature and labor, but also in terms of the regulatory paradigm of the state. Because simple labor is always historically relative, it does not refer to any ‘natural’ or ‘instinctual’ level of skill. It is for this reason that general labor within 21st century America includes a degree of technical education, or, at the very least a high-school diploma.

The form of general labor that emerged in the postwar period, is also a form politically entitled with a set of regulations, benefits, and other conditions. These do not, as third wordlists allege, simply compound the simple labor of third-world workers since, however much Americans had benefited from imperialism, the American state comprises a definite threshold of opposition toward nature, and therefore a definite, very real, very material, and very substantive form of production, which is social in nature. On the one hand, a definite technical expertise of production, and on the other, a definite form of simple labor in relation to that production. It is on this material basis that the whole of the so-called ‘service economy,’ as well as other spheres of production, remain both derivative and parasitical, so far as they are taken in any material sense.

This appears to emulate, however, the arguments of the physiocrats, and the question of what threshold consists of the most materially base one, appears arbitrary in comparison. The physiocrats, after all, argued that all material production was derivative from the agricultural kind, and represented mere alterations of the products of the soil, mere alterations in form to one and the same substance. The problem, however, for Marx was by no means the ‘materialistic’ substantialism of the physiocrats:

It was their great merit that they conceived these forms as physiological forms of society: as forms arising from the natural necessity of production itself, forms that are independent of anyone’s will or of politics, etc.  They are material laws, the error is only that the material law of a definite historical social stage is conceived as an abstract law governing equally all forms of society.

As far as Marx was concerned, the great error of the physiocrats consisted not in the view that the forms of production were actually material, defined by a definite relationship to nature - only that for them, this relationship could not come to terms with the way in which, after capitalist modernity, they undergoes transformation. The error of the physiocrats can thus be summed as a kind of undialectical materialism. Marx, for his part, viewed human labor as the substance of value, but how he goes about defining the manner by which labor comes to produce value is by no mean arbitrarily defined by ‘mere employment:’

The determination of the value of labour-power, as a commodity, is of vital importance.  This value is equal to the labour-time required to produce the means of subsistence necessary for the reproduction of labour-power, or to the price of the means of subsistence necessary for the existence of the worker as a worker.  It is only on this basis that the difference arises between the value of labour-power and the value which that labour-power creates — a difference which exists with no other commodity, since there is no other commodity whose use-value, and therefore also the use of it, can increase its exchange-value or the exchange-values resulting from it.

It is the error of the individualist social democrats that this is applicable to all forms of labor, despite the fact that even during the time within which Marx lived, different forms of labor, according to the various degrees of skill, according to their relation to the production of actual material wealth, and commodity production, etc. - expressed different relations to the value of labour-time. There has been some scholarly debate about the original intentions of Marx - spanning from Capital Vol. I-II, about whether or not the substance of labor-value was individual and expressed in terms of the labour-time required to produce the means of subsistence of a given individual worker, or those means of subsistence both relative and general within a given nation, but as definitively proven by Capital Vol. III regardless of this original intention - this labor-value in question is socially, not individually defined. That is since the law of value can only find ultimate and material expression at the aggregate level of production, owing to the average rate of profit across industries due to competition.

It should be recalled by Marx the difference between productive labor from the standpoint of capital and productive labor in general:

Only the narrow-minded bourgeois, who regards the capitalist form of production as its absolute form, hence as the sole natural form of production, can confuse the question of what are productive labour and productive workers from the standpoint of capital with the question of what productive labour is in general, and can therefore be satisfied with the tautological answer that all that labour is productive which produces, which results in a product, or any kind of use value, which has any result at all.

Nowhere does this difference become as accentuated as the present day, where productive labor is treated as a ‘job like any other’ despite actually participating in the process of production in general (that is not, however, to even suggest that other forms of labor are actually productive from the standpoint of capital, they are rather productive from the standpoint of capitalist consciousness). Yet it is in the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, where the discontinuity of the transformation of labor-values into prices of production, that the difference between real, material production in general, and the formal production from the standpoint of capital (price) becomes evident. This is the first, truly scientific, proof of the social nature of labor, not only as it is given expression in the commodity form (as the Neo-Kantian German schools insist), but as an actual, material substance. The Kantians, on the one hand, elevate sociality, while neglecting material substance. The empiricist, or English school on the other, neglects sociality, while elevating material substance. Both however assume an individualistic view of labor insofar as it is taken as a material substance.

No matter the degree of socialization which has occurred objectively at the site of the material relations of production, social democracy - as an ideology and as a definite political superstructure - remains bourgeois, in the strict sense that only individuality possesses material substance. Sociality, for the bourgeois-consciousness, is merely a consenting association between individuals, rather than a substance of individuality itself. Hence the veering from the individualist narcissism of identity politics, to the hyper-discursive and hyper-institutionalizing tendencies which characterize the bourgeois consciousness of the present day. If labor is conceived in a social rather than individual substance, it follows that it is defined not by a particular form of labor, but as a general form. On the one hand, lies the individual - on the other, lies the definite organization of the means of material production, not the least of which is included the regulatory state. Only insofar as these means of production confront the individual as a relatively average, common individual, does the form of labor acquire generality.

This average, commonality, it has already been established can be defined in political terms - by the regulatory state, by the entitlements befitting of a given citizen of a given nation. These all comprise and form together the total productive capacities of a given society. Missing, however, in almost all hitherto Marxist accounts of general labor concerns labor as the substance not only of forms of value, but of established forms socialization. It has already been made clear by Marx himself, that sociality in its material reality, concerns relations to production. And that these relations of production are, in turn, determined by the relations to the material, instruments, and products of labor - labor, of course referring to a definite threshold by which human activity (taken in a social sense, as the combined productive powers and knowledge of a socius) transforms nature. What then, for the bourgeois ‘socialism’ that has taken form? In other words, if sociality undergoes institutionalization, reification and formalization under victorious social democracy, what relation does this bare to actual, real, essential, and material sociality?

Herein lies the fundamental enigma of the class struggle within socialism, social democracy, the Sino-Soviet split, etc. - which concerns the institutionalization, or form of sociality - as it enters into contradiction with real, material sociality. If social democracy establishes a farcical, artificial civil society, and succeeds even in the privatization, or economization of sociality, it necessary follows that a definite relationship to labor must also be established. 20th century Soviet state socialism, from the perspective of the current mode of production, merely appears as a form of primitive accumulation, not merely separating individual laborers from their means of production, but separating them from their original, material conditions of socialization. Of course, the class struggle under the proletarian dictatorship re-establishes an organic relation between the broad strata of the people and their original ‘means of the social production’ - however the victory of revisionism had, at least for the Soviet Union and its allies, put a halt to this struggle (it, however, manages to re-emerge in today’s Russia).

The PatSocDems charge us with reducing the question of class relations to the ‘culture war.’ They neglect the simple fact that, the reason the relation these segments of society bare to the culture war is such an effective proxy for their actual relations to production, is because they also serve as proxies for their relation to the production of material sociality itself, or the very genesis of the socius. The reason a construction worker, or a miner, is less likely to be a woke SJW than a barista, isn’t a fucking mystery. All it takes is common sense to understand that: The former understands the real, material conditions of social relations - the latter, taking them for granted, dwells within artificially and institutionally contrived social relations. The former understands what reality actually is, just in the form of their labor. The latter does not care what reality actually is, but aspires to determine what reality should be according to discourse, institutional change, etc. - the real worker knows with first-hand experience that actual, material reality is unaltered by this nonsense.

It does not have anything to do with their proximity to ‘whiteness,’ ‘males,’ ‘heteronormativity,’ or ‘culture.’ It has everything to do with their proximity to the real conditions of actual material production, not only of material things, but also of social relations themselves. This is material not simply because of some eternal quality of nature - so the charge of physiocraticism is just fucking retarded. It is material because these conditions of production are disposed of the least amount of liberty in terms of the determination of their form. There are a million different fucking cappuccinos you can make. But real, material production occurs at the site of necessity. It is also charged that, this yet again neglects how the industrial production that prevailed during Marx’s era was also ‘derivative’ from agriculture, and was disposed of more ‘liberty in form’ than agricultural products were. This neglects the fact that, despite this appearance of ‘greater freedom,’ production still occurred on the basis of the necessities of production itself, that is, the valorizing process of capital that is the basis of modern industry.

In other words, the production of commodities, so far as they represent the valorization of capital, are commodities produced for the purposes of production itself, and therefore commodities which obey the necessities not of whim, aesthetic, taste, etc. - but ultimately of production for purposes of the accumulation of capital. This is in contrast to the ‘service’ economy, for which, production as such for purposes of capital accumulation is presupposed - what remains are decentralized interfaces for the planning of production, measured in the patterns of consumption of goods, i.e. not much Burger King vs. McDonalds by way of production, but drastic differences in profitability will be down to consumption patterns according to taste, aesthetic, form, etc. - and these patterns, in turn, will affect the determination of the material production underlying them (i.e. less horse-meat will be produced if the public chooses McDonalds, etc.).

The argument is furthermore made that, this neglects how exchange-value exists independently of use-value, and how the value of labor-power is defined by its generality, and not particular forms of labor. But material production is not simply a ‘use-value’ or a ‘particular form of labor,’ it is the determinate form of labor’s generality itself. If ‘use-value’ has actually come to define the nature of exchange-value, this only reflects the way in which society has itself, in some sense, already organized production according to use-value to some degree, or at least, in some sense as a condition for the more derivative accumulation according to profit. Derivative finance, the last refuge of antisocial capital accumulation, must presuppose a determinate, social form of production as a condition of its existence.

Coupled with this emergence of production according to use value, or the paradoxically determinate nature of exchange-value and abstract labor, lie the supposed ‘private ownership of instruments of production’ which define the modern working class. The PatSocDems allege that since farmers may ‘own’ their own instruments of production, land - and that since industrial workers may own their own tools, etc. - this constitutes them as ‘petite-bourgeois,’ since, of course, the petite-bourgeoisie is defined by small-scale accumulation. This neglects the fact that these ‘private’ instruments of production are mere augmentations of general labor, and emerge as a necessity only insofar as general labor assumes determinate form. Put differently, this ‘private’ ownership is merely a ‘private’ ownership of the conditions of general labor itself, and they have taken on the quality of (fixed) ‘property’ only insofar as these definite conditions have themselves been established as general, universalized, necessary, acknowledged, etc. conditions. Just inasmuch as the threshold defining a quantum of simple labor is relative, so too are the conditions, both economic, political and material, of the conditions of the sale of this simple labor relative.

Since these instruments of production are not themselves valorized, or turned into a form of capital by the worker, the charge of them giving workers a ‘petite-bourgeois’ quality reflects only that idiocy proper to social-democratic retardation (for which the 19th century form of ownership is the furthest horizon in discerning material relations to production). They represent the generalization of compound labor, they are augmentations and mechanizations of simple labor, which the worker is possessed of in the same way they are, following the postwar period, possessed of a definite entitlement to the fruits of social wealth accorded by the polity. This is their stake not simply in the state, but in the material form the social relations to production have taken, which include (and yet are not reduced to) the technical apparatus of production. It is their land, their piece of the pie of industrial production, which is itself subordinate to the aims of industrial production. It is, most paradoxically (and I can already hear the retards throwing a fit at the mere thought of it) - a proletarian form of ownership.

These are the ‘mechas’ for which the term ‘mecha-tankie’ was derived. They represent the social independence of the working class. This is not simply an independence of the individual, it is the independence of the working class from the artificial sociality of social-democracy and its corporate safe-space environments. It is the form of concrete universality, rather than pretended institutional universality of the working class, for which our new Mensheviks - the PatsocDems - aspire to create by attempting to initiate ‘the workers’ as one, undifferentiated mass into their little sects. Like the Mensheviks, who sought to fully loosen the terms of party membership to the whole ‘social mass’, solely to disguise the interests of petty bourgeois intelligentsia, the PatSocDems seek a broad, undifferentiated notion of ‘the working class’ so as to disguise the dominance of professionals and the new class within it.

They charge us, ‘mecha-tankies,’ with ‘dividing the working class.’ But as just demonstrated, this so-called working class does not need us to divide it, for it is divided in actual reality, not only in terms of productive and unproductive, but in terms of the degree of their proximity to the material production of sociality itself.

A question, however remains: Is it not the case that the heavy industries have ceased to epitomize the conditions of general labor? Is it not the case that a great deal of these industries have fallen under the sway of craft-unionism, and thus represent not a general, but exclusive stratum?

The General Demands of the Emancipation of Labor

An entirely new, intuitive, sensible meaning to the ‘emancipation of labor’ can now be intelligible, for the general demands of the emancipation of labor do not simply include demands of pay-raises, or little less ‘craft-unionization’ of useless, bullshit jobs: But emancipation from the artificial sociality of social democracy, emancipation from bullshit jobs, emancipation from useless, wasteful, and unproductive work.

Constituent members of the ‘new class’ cannot, of course, but strictly defined, as is the metaphysical understanding of class distinction. Grey areas undoubtedly exist between the core of the working class and this ‘new class,’ and these grey areas are primarily felt in the so-called service sector. However, so far as their class character is concerned, it suffices only to introduce the following criteria for ‘service sector’ employees:

Is the emancipation from their bullshit job in their material interest? Would they get behind, under proper conditions, the general demand for a reduction in labor hours, the universalization of real jobs, and the elimination of the service industry? If the answer is yes, then they are disposed of a proletarian character, and would form natural allies of the productive working class. If the answer is no, they are parasitical prostitutes of the bourgeoisie, whose unproductive parasitism exists for their own interests rather than the interests of consumers, or the bourgeoisie itself. Such a question appears arbitrary. But in it will be revealed, as a general tendency, the class struggle within the ‘service sector,’ which reveal not arbitrary differences in individual taste, but sectoral distinctions. Fast food workers are likely to say yes. Onlyfans ‘service’ workers are likely to say no. This is basic common sense.

The parasitism in question, so far as it concerns the service industry, do not concern the individuals at a material level, only the form of their employment. Were it not for an economic parasitism upon the productive working class, the form of their employment would not exist. But so as it concerns their material production, this is, of course, not the case. It is precisely because the forces of production have acquired such a degree of development, that bullshit jobs have come into existence, in part, to serve as a great time-waster for the majority of the people. Already a great abundance of wealth exists, solely owing to the development of the forces of production, not only to satisfy the needs of the current population, but a great deal more. Parasitism is taken, not from the perspective of scarcity or malthusianism, but of differing forms of the organization of life.

It has already been shown that the generality of labor corresponds to a definite threshold between the instruments of production on one hand, and the average conditions of the laborer on the other. However, bullshit jobs, service sector employees, etc. appear to comprise a great majority of the stratum of society. And in every colloquial sense, the majority are indeed defined as ‘working class’ - they struggle, day-by-day, to get by and put food in their table through working. Even the colloquial cultural expression of this work, bares the mark of some generality - clocking in and clocking out from 9-5, appears to indeed be a general conditions of labor, however unproductive and however ueless, wasteful, etc. - within today’s society. By contrast, the heavy industries, which comprise the bulwark of productive laborers, appear to be specialized, exclusive, and by no means general.

Such is not, of course, a mere appearance. The general conditions of labor, as they had existed in the immediate postwar period - when almost any, average person could graduate high school and acquire a high-paying industrial job - appear to have been altered fundamentally. Yet now that it can be established that none of these ‘service sector’ forms of employment, insofar as they are taken within the general conditions of the shop floor, can epitomize the general conditions of labor, and since we have established, moreover, labor as being defined by a definite threshold in relation to nature and material production, the only explanation that suffices is the following: The service industry has emerged as a newfound form of the enslavement of the broad strata of the people, and the prospective sons and daughters of the productive working class. The manner by which they participate in production, even as laborers, is as consumers, only, their daily torments, and daily grind, themselves sadistically factor in this ‘productive consumption.’

The basic patterns of the generalized way of life - the form of commute, the psychological, even physiological (health) status, and general immiseration and pauperization, which characterize this mass of ‘unproductive workers,’ all appear to ‘productively’ produce a type of raw material, in the form of data, that forms as a valorized interface for production. Data is the new oil, which gives ‘energy’ to the production process in the form of revealing the different ways of life, lifestyle patterns, choices, etc. - which, for the great mass of ‘unproductive workers’ are themselves determined not by arbitrary taste, but, by in large, by necessity. Rather than leisurely, passive consumers, their consumption is active, in the form of artificially contrived conditions of life, which guide the production process and give coherence to the supply-chains within it. This much appears paradoxical since, on the one hand, material, substantive production occurs on the basis of necessity, whereas consumption, on the other, occurs on the basis of taste.

But insofar as consumption restricts itself to the daily grinds of survival, consumption itself gives rationale and purpose even to material production, itself subjected to definite laws of necessity, on the basis of both a twisted form of artificial scarcity (pauperization), as well as fulfilling definite ways and forms of life which are defined by the necessities of the artificially contrived conditions of life itself. It is as though current society is one, sick twisted type of Squid Game, where the ruling class watches as the majority of the people scramble to make a living out of nothing, and for no other reason than to satisfy some sadistic voyeur. But the voyeur in question is not an individual, or even group of people, it is a stratum of parasitic social engineers and ‘creative’ professionals - who set the broad strata of the people against the nothingness which awaits them beyond the threshold of their artificial institutions. The people must scramble to make a living out of nothing, only since the Fabian Socialists, the social democrats, the vydvizhensie, have decided nothing exists beyond their own artificial and institutional form of sociality.

The necessity of a dignified way of life, and a dignified form of labor means nothing to them since, all labor is the same, so far as they are concerned, as a mere instrument of socialized production. They have neglected, and have turned away from the fact that labor itself is the wellspring not only of material wealth, but of material sociality and material relations of production itself. The great mass of unproductive workers faced with their uncertain future, may awaken to true working-class consciousness only when they begin to see ones and zeros in the place of the simulation within which they now search for meaning in vain. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the true red pill - the red pill that the majority of workers, are in fact, working for no reason, and are the victims of a vicious cycle which serves no purpose other than to provide algorithms, lacking of human, and authentically social purpose, some way to direct and plan the process of real, material production.

It is for this reason that the productive working class represents the general demands of labor, for it occupies the Zion of real, material labor, however antiquated its institutional form (i.e. in the form of the regulatory state, the establishment unions, etc.). It is this working class that the Canadian Trucker Convoy, the Dutch Farmers, and even the core of the MAGA movement which represents the general interests of general labor, only since they represent the only real, necessary form of labor itself. The general demands of labor can only begin from the perspective of these material forms of labor, even insofar as they may come at the expense of many occupying its stratum. For instance, the general demands of a revived labor movement - elimination of the ‘service industry,’ reindustrialization, universalization of material labor, drastic reduction of labor-hours in the work-day, dignified, high-quality jobs for all - may very well come at the expense of the upper-stratum of the unionized ‘industrial working class,’ but that is no matter. For it is the type of labor, and not even necessarily the limited, parochial or narrow interests of those comprising it, that counts.

In summation, it is in the interests of general labor - the broad stratum of the population, both productive and unproductive - that the interests of general labor find representation in, and from the perspective of, actual, productive, material forms of labor. The patriotic social-democrats, by contrast, seek to give representation to ‘general labor’ in the form of service employees. They claim this is on behalf of those employees, yet in reality, it is on behalf of the very beneficiaries of their enslavement, the institution-mongering vidvizhensie which establishes these forms of employment as a tool of social control, institutionalization, and behavioral regulation. Have they not, additionally, taken advantage of this, in the way in which these unproductive workers, already struggling to get by, can be fired and dismissed on a whim, due to being ‘canceled,’ etc?

The bulk of a revived working class movement may very well include those struck with the misfortune of service work. But they will participate in this movement not as service workers, but as aspiring general laborers, who seek a dignified, real, material job, and in addition, a mecha, that proletarian form of ownership, to go with it.

At this point can the true Republic of Labor emerge triumphantly, and the habits of consumption proceed according to the authentic necessities of social life, and the development of man’s latent scientific, aesthetic, and productive powers. Rather than having ‘data’ sucked parasitically from the soul of the McDonalds worker on the basis of being grinded between useless and unproductive bullshit jobs just to survive, data will spring forth, and be produced, on the basis of work as life’s prime want.

The general demands of the emancipation of labor are Communist, not socialist, They do not concern artificially or institutionally contrived forms of sociality. They concern the dark heart of sociality itself, the commons proper, of a given country or civilization. They concern the material essence of sociality, which lie in the relations of production - which themselves, in term, have their basis of production in general, human labor. The class struggle of the future will be a sacred war, a war that is the last line of defense of humanity itself against the globalist elites who are making their final push in the complete and final separation of the productive working class from its means of production, a separation that is sure to guarantee centuries of slavery for the entire strata of the population.

These productive workers, immiserated in debt, their ‘mechas’ being leased, and no longer being owned by them, are waging their last stand. The whole of the working class must rally behind them. Their ‘mechas’ are in need of repair, and the working class is in need of mechas. The united, common interests of the working class will not proceed on the basis of a ‘rainbow’ coalition that amalgamates the various diverse craft-based interests of workers - but a singular, undivided movement of the working class that inscribes upon its red banner the general emancipation of labor.

Communist Party USA 2036

The singular, and common socius of the community of labor, the definite ground and context of class struggle itself, is wanting of some positive expression

- Myself, earlier in this very text

Of course, the general demands of labor will not magically find coherence in the spontaneous amalgamation of the people, but requires a definite political party, a definite form of association, different from the social-democratic institution, to give expression to their interests.

One of the greatest sites of contention between myself and the PatSocDems lies in the CPUSA 2036 strategy, which more or less establishes as the primary goal not the achievement of socialism, not the achievement of revolution, etc. - but the very modest goal of being able to acquire hegemony within the Communist Party USA, so as to establish it as the premier party of the American working class, inscribing within its program the general demands of the emancipation of labor.

We are reproached with the view that we seek to ‘wait’ for 14 years, rather than ‘do anything else.’ The socialist cuckolds then proceed to argue that rather than join the Communist Party, which is led by liberals and Democrats, everyone should join the ‘Socialist party’ they recently decided to pull straight out of their ass, much like the PCUSA was. Of course, there are a number of ironies to note here. Firstly, we are charged with being ‘overly online’ and possessing ‘delusions of grandeur’ for thinking our we could every affect reality in any shape or form with the help of our information channels. On the other hand, the retard socialists believe that they can establish a definite, material organization solely on the basis of an ideological view, a mere agreement of ideas.

Ladies and gentlemen, this reflects nothing more than the bourgeois conception of sociality, according to which common organization is founded on the basis of mutually consenting, and agreeing individuals. All that suffices is that individuals share ‘the same ideas’ as the socialist cuckolds, to be a member of their organization. Should we hold our laughter! What difference does this bare, from the endless cycle of sectarianism so characteristic of American Marxists? Of course, insofar as ideological disagreements are taken as the premise of definite formal association, sectarianism and splits are the inevitable result. Moreover, the notion that one can create a party from thin air, purely because of the formation of entirely-online cliques is the epitome of irony, considering that I, and we, have bene charged with the view of doing the same thing (despite the opposite being true).

In truth, part of the reason a date so far in the future, beyond the view that the Communist Party must be future-oriented, beyond attempting to conjure a science-fiction and futuristic aesthetic (and aesthetics, of course, matter a great deal - for beyond technical science, aesthetics form the other part of the expression of human activity) - to reflect the degree of learning necessary for ideologically-charged partisans to posses the discipline, the Asiatic discipline in fact (since sectarian individualism is quite American), of working within organizations with whom there exist a diversity of different interpretations as to its purpose. The essence of Communist association lies not in ideological agreement, but in the purport of an independent party of the proletariat however much this purport is not reflected by the actions of its leadership or even the party as a whole. It is only insofar as it becomes impossible for this purport to be made a reality, that the justification for a new party arises.

The PatSocDems claim that the PCUSA proves such a justification. I beg to differ. The PCUSA consisted of an expelled, and singularly identifiable club. Of course the party leadership of the CPUSA could easily dispose of such a club. Just imagine, if all of the Infrared followers in CPUSA formed just one club! How easy it would be for us to be purged! The error of the PCUSA and the PatSocDems is that they possessed an insufficient appreciation for the role of centralized and decentralized information technologies in being able to unite tendencies without immediately realizing those tendencies into definite forms of association. Infrared can exist as a broad tendency in the CPUSA, because Infrared as a tendency only finds unity in digital space. There is no need for it to find unity ‘in actual reality’ - this would constitute a form of LARP, and indeed, would make me guilty of the charge of believing a ‘twitch streamer can lead the revolution.’ OF course a ‘twitch streamer’ cannot lead ‘the revolution.’

All I can do, is provide coherence, aesthetic, identifiable, discursive, signified, and virtual - to a broad tendency. An ideological tendency cannot, by itself, replace the necessity of material and real-world organization. Infrared, obviously, only exists on the internet. But the project of Infrared was designed with the purpose of only existing on the internet. The realization of the consequences of the tendency created by it, can only be reflected in an actual, real, material organization - said organization, at the moment being the Communist Party USA.

This is in contrast to the social-democratic cuckolds, who merely repeat the folly of social-democracy and Menshevism in attempting to establish an entirely brand new party and organization solely on the basis of the ideological agreement between the individual members, a plan that is obviously destined and doomed to failure and sectarianism to anyone with the minimum of foresight. They overestimate THEIR OWN significance as mere influencers, however small their reach (due to their failure, which is itself explicable because of their lack of charisma, ugliness, and weakness of intellect) - as being able to create not only a party, but a party-movement solely because they have the same ideological tendency. Hold your laughter! These are the same undisciplined, depraved and deranged retards who decided that they were going to partake in the most vicious, all-out-war against Infrared because of some minor, obscure theoretical difference. You meant to tell me they have the discipline and maturity to form their own political party, which is obviously going to have to tolerate not only a wide array of differing theoretical interpretations, but differing ideological tendencies?

In fact, I have only elected to formalize the ‘split’ with these ‘patsocs’ precisely because they have shown an inability to possess the discipline of recognizing and distinguishing primary from secondary contradictions. This inability, in and of itself, is wanting of some kind of explanation - and it is since this is in fact for them a primary contradiction, because mecha-tankies not only represent a different ideological tendency to the patsocdems, but the interests of an entirely different class, and an entirely different political position. They have proven as much in their vicious, unprincipled attacks, which are surely to come back to bite them in the ass in the very near future.

In any case, in recognizing a distinction between the ideological tendency of Infrared, and the independent party of the working class - which has established itself as such by the nature of the very purport of its existence, its founding, and even its history - an entirely new form of sociality, however small and modest in its reach, and in its significance, one entirely different from social democracy, is given expression. This is a reflexive form of sociality which no longer considers the institution as the fundamental horizon of social being. It is reflexive in the senes of not being strictly identical with material relations of production (any attempt to be, would be an anarchist folly). Yet in contrast to the institutional, discursive form of sociality corresponding to social democracy, it does not indict the material reality of sociality, which exists beyond the premises of its formalization, as nothing. Despite the charge, Infrared is not really a cult in any real capacity. We do not establish some exclusive form of sociality, beyond which is satan, nothingness, or ‘reaction.’

We make common cause with a whole range of different articulations and interpretations of the socius - from the MAGA movement to the Schiller Institute (‘Larouchites’). We even, to a great extent, partake in an open exchange of ideas, disposed of a genuine spirit of curiosity and humanistic inquiry. We recognize the difference between every reflexive social form, and the real, material relations of production themselves, and how the latter cannot be premised by the former, but themselves arise on its basis. The aim to revolutionize the Communist Party, and to transform it into a party of the working class, is not a form of entyrism. It is the first manifestation of the cognizance that our specific interpretation of the truth of the socius, our specific horizon of meaning, is not necessarily synonymous with the material form of its organization. The taqqiya practiced by Infrared members in the CPUSA is not a form of deception.

It is just a recognition that Infrared does not really belong in the party proper. It makes no difference. So long as members of the party, stay true to the material aim, rather than the ideal form of its expression on my livestreams, the work will proceed unimpeded. Infrared is just a virtual tendency, given only virtual expression, of a very real material possibility - the possibility that the Communist Party may yet again one day be the premiere party of the American working class. This is what both the PatSocDems and the Baizuo in the CPUSA do not understand. There is no ‘secret apparatus of control’ trying to ‘hijack’ the CPUSA in a conspiratorial way. The way in which Infrared, this online community, gives expression to ideas, is simply not understood by the Boomers of CPUSA, who barely know how to send emails. They do not understand that ideological tendencies are given expression, coherence, and reality only in a virtual way in the 21st century, and are not immediately based upon a specific protocol of substantive organization.

The contradiction between virtuality and actuality is a basic acknowledgement of dialectics, and is an advance from leftist sectarianism in the same way quantum mechanics is an advance from classical physics. Hitherto, and primarily owing to insufficiently developed means of communication, every ideological tendency had to metastasize into a direct form of association between individuals in the real world, whose conditions of association were not actually determined by material reality, but by the dictates of that ideological tendency. ‘We’ must do this and that, and the ‘form’ of how we do it, must be subordinate to this aim. They put the cart before the horse, and thus behave in the most infantile, adolescent manner. In reality, the Communist Party is not simply an ‘organized form’ of some idea. It is, by its very historical purport, the independent party of the working class, and it bares the acknowledgment of the betrayal of social democracy in its very name.

It is NOT a ‘socialist’ party, because socialism now reflects the interests of the bourgeoisie and its prostitutes, socialism has already prevailed and become dominant, as private property itself is now ‘social.’ The Communist Party, more or less, was formed as the purport, as the acknowledgement of the fact that socialism has betrayed the American working class.

We do not claim that our CPUSA 2036 initiative will be successful. It may very well fail. But at least, in failing, we will, for the first time, have learned something new. But you cannot say we are ‘terminally online.’ If we were ‘terminally online’ we would not recognize the difference between the actual organized form party (which, for example through electoral campaigns, obviously requires offline organizing), and this virtual ideological tendency.

Virtuality and Online Ideological Tendencies

Epilogue

I saved this retarded criticism for the very end, because it’s so fucking stupid it can just be quickly dismissed without even having to think about it very much. Another accusation leveled by the PatSocDems is that Haz, by virtue of making a living off of streaming, could not possibly have anything to do with any working class movement. And that Infrared’s community, allegedly, are not from working class backgrounds.

The latter is not even true, but even if it was, it wouldn’t even matter. Here is what Lenin had to say about this question of ‘individualizing’ the class background of intelligentsia or ideologists:

Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is — either bourgeois or socialist ideology.

He further elaborates:

This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge

So Lenin makes it crystal clear that even if I was a fucking factory worker or something, it wouldn’t make a difference, because I would not be participating in the info-war, or the ‘ideological struggle’ as a factor worker, but as just another socialist intellectual. That is because Lenin recognizes a discontinuity between ideas and material reality, between the reflexive determination of classes, and individuals engaged in the determinate reflection of class struggle through ideas. Obviously, most individuals, in history who are socialist theoreticians, will not derive from working class backgrounds.

Maybe such backgrounds will play a part in forming the sentimental, intuitive reasons for their ideologizing. It is not matter because it has no decisive significance as far as judging the content of a given ideological tendency. Otherwise, Engels, Marx, etc. - almost, literally almost every socialist leader in history - cannot be said to have been disposed of working-class consciousness or the proletarian class line. The significance of an individuals social background will only ever rear itself in an equally social way. If I, for example, had views that were commonplace among other streamers or YouTubers, or Law Students, you could probably extrapolate that they reflect the reality of that stratum as a social stratum. But this is just not the case.

The auto-erotic LARPers, who are mostly failed careerists who now have to work shitty jobs because they podcast sucks so fucking much they can’t live off of it, always love to up-talk their suffering as ‘true workers,’ to make up for their inability to actually hold in their own in the actual ideological struggle.

The second charge is probably even more retraded, which is that, even if that is granted, Infrared ‘still does not reach the workers.’

Dumbass, no one is going to ‘reach the workers’ from the perspective of the general interests of labor, in a direct way. That is because the degree of socialization has increased so much, that addressing people’s actual labor, at their workplaces, will not be sufficient enough to address their labor insofar as it is disposed of a general quality. There might be exceptions to this, like the Amazon Labor Union, but that still lacks the decisive and necessary political dimension which can articulate the interests of general labor as a whole.

The only way workers are going to be reached, is in a rather indirect way: By increasing the power, reach, and ranks of the party of the working class, which can itself increase its means of communication, and define itself by ever increasing forms of contact with the broad strata of working people through electoral campaigns and other political or general initiatives, etc. - this process is one I am, for my own part, doing the best I can to set in motion in the best and most efficient way that I can. But ultimately no, no one is going to ‘reach the workers’ on the basis of their specific ideological tendency. Only an organization, a definite, material organization and party can ‘reach the workers.’

We are not even at stage 1 yet. Stage 1, is just uniting an ideological tendency, uniting ideologists - who themselves must volunteer and direct their efforts to joining a definite organization (not premised by the conditions of their ideology). Only at the point of stage 2 - when there is developed a robust POLITICAL PARTY of the working class - can one speak of ‘reaching the workers.’

Most left-wing retards never even get past stage 1. They are just a bunch of individualistic, ideological fanatics, that constantly form groups and sects on the basis of ideas alone. It never occurs to them that they will never ever reach workers at all, until they acknowledge that there is a difference between the working class and the reflexive apparatus which articulates its interests: Which means recognizing there must be a deeper basis of social association, beyond mere ideological or individual agreement. This is the beginning of proletarian, rather than bourgeois political association. Bourgeois association is based on the consenting agreement of atomic individuals. Proletarian association is based on the acknowledgement of a deeper, material social unity that premises individuality itself - and this is only given formal expression in the party.

Again, the same retards will reproach me with ‘no, but u.’ No, you fucking idiot, Infrared followers bullying you on discord, ratioing you on twitter, or not inviting you to their group chats isn’t the fucking same thing as forming a literal political sect on the basis of our ideas. All of that bullshit is just virtual and on the internet. We are not LITERALLY forming a real-life Infrared party and then behaving this way in real life. Who is behaving this way in real life, within the CPUSA? No one! Because they know there’s a fucking difference between the internet and real life, which is why they are in the CPUSA in the fucking first place, despite that that is a party taken over by liberal boomers who don’t know what a PDF is.

You can’t fucking both say we are ‘terminally online,’ ‘doing nothing’ and at the same time bitch and moan at us for not trying to LARP our internet antics in the real world. In the real world, you actually have to buckle down and deal with the reality of actuality. But since reality is dialectic, and not metaphysical, there are potentialities, and virtualities that haunt every instance of actuality - and those, in today’s society, take form on cyberspace alone. Meanwhile the liberal boomers in CPUSA and Communist Party of Canada are trying to be ‘hip and cool’ and repeat all the aura, attraction, mystique, excitement and libidinal energy of ambiguous internet ideological tendencies within the confines of their dusty ass wooden PTA meeting rooms, it’s just fucking stupid and pathetic.

The internet is for one thing - which is to discern virtual ideological tendencies and cohere definite aesthetics and overall senses.

A party is for another, which is to get down to business and engage in the actual material work of building the party, which is what great people like Steve Estrada and those working on his campaign did.

The retards who confuse these two things are the ones who critique Infrared for being ‘terminally online’ and ‘not doing anything in the real world.’ And why? Because they fucking suck ass at doing both, they are shitty internet influencers and shitty IRL organizers because they don’t fucking know how to separate the two. A lot of energy from IRL organizing gets sucked out by the pathological monkey-games of recognition, aestheticization, validation, virtual ideological tendencies - and a lot of coherence in being able to present themselves online in an attractive way to zoomers, is lost on the basis of often time-wasting ‘organizing’ which they think is a substitute for actually making your message viable to people.

Both are necessary. Obviously, real life shit is more important and primary. But you cannot set about to do anything in ‘real life’ until you get your shit down in virtual space. Until you know how to properly separate the two, you aren't doing shit ‘in real life’ but wasting your own time, then hiding behind this as a way to virtue signal the Calvinistically virtuous yet pointless suffering you just partook in. As if we are supposed to give a fucking shit that you broke your back distributing paper pamphlets to peoples cars like an absolute fucking retard who doesn’t even know how to send email in 2022. Dumb fuck, shut the fuck up and fuck off with all that. I have literally heard leftists tell me that the proximal warmth of human bodies, when accosting strangers on the street, is the decisive reason information has to primarily be spread in real life rather than on the fucking internet where you can reach millions. Its so fucking irrational and stupid its not even worth addressing in greater detail.

In any case, as for the PatSocDems, they are no different. Bunch of fucking losers who have no future and no prospect for success whatsoever besides ankle-biting Infrared. They aren’t going to get anywhere with their shitty ‘socialist party’ and so they are already preparing for an entire future of just trying to wreck our shit. That’s fine, join the rest of the leftists and glowie fucks doing the same, we don’t give a shit you fucking losers. Just, something tells me you are among our least formidable enemies. You have wholly disgraced yourselves, and all you can do now is join some section of the Baizuo, or the Democrats. The fact that your ‘tendency’ is even being dignified with an essay should not flatter you. This essay is an exorcism, meant to purge anyone or any tendencies remotely associated with yours from anything to do with Infrared.

Communist patriotism is not ‘Patriotic Social Democracy.’ We are patriots, not in the sense of an institution, but in the deep sense of the country, as the real, material form of a general community of labor. Your ‘patriotism’ is that of Joseph Biden, ours is of Joseph Stalin. It is really that simple.

For months, you have heard, on the part of the baizuo (Chinese term referring to politically correct Western leftists) ‘Marxist-Leninists’ that ‘patriotic socialism’ is a form of chauvinism comparable to the social chauvinism of the Social Democrats who voted for war credits.

Each of these online hucksters took turns LARPing Lenin’s indignant and fiery polemicizing against Kautsky and other western social democrats - only directed at ‘patriotic socialists’ such as myself, Caleb Maupin, Jackson Hinkle, Peter Coffin, and others. They accused us of neglecting - among other things - the national question, the chief significance of imperialism for revolutionary strategy as outlined by Lenin, the difference between the ‘nationalism’ of oppressed nations and the ‘nationalism’ of oppressor nations, etc.

These are all fine phrases and claims. But there is only one way to distinguish an authentic diamond from a fraudulent piece of plastic - and that is pressure. Diamonds are made under pressure, its imitators are destroyed by it. Pressure is what Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement of special military operations in Ukraine - and the subsequent fiery storm of panic that erupted on both mainstream and social media - graced our so-called ‘true Marxist-Leninist’ opponents the burden of proving themselves worthy of withstanding.

The pure contingency of a real world-historical event unfolding before our eyes - that has not yet been consolidated by a discourse, ideology, or narrative - exposes ones true position behind all the phrase-mongering and virtue-signaling. Scratch a ‘Marxist-Leninist’ and you find a liberal. And boy, did Putin’s announcement have claws! Suddenly the posturing of these baizuo ‘MLs’ collapses. We go from a supposedly refined analysis of the relationship between imperialism and the class struggle, to the most rank ultra-left (which is, most inevitably, itself a right-deviation) opportunistic phrase-mongering about the ‘universality of class struggle’ amidst ‘inter-imperialist war.’

Recent events were a test that separates the frauds from the real-deal. So how did the popular ‘Marxist-Leninist’ influencers fare? Let’s check on Hakim:

‘Two capitalist nations are struggling with one another.’ Let us put aside the utter fucking stupidity of this description. The left has long went from recognizing capitalism as a mode of production, to a type of moral defect (namely, the phenomena of profiteering). Russia, whose nationalized oil industry is the lynchpin of its entire economy, is called ‘capitalist’ since it has not yet ‘abolished the commodity form’ or instituted ‘nation-wide’ CHAZ.

That is not to imply Russia is socialist in the sense strictly relevant to a proletarian dictatorship. But simply ‘capitalism’ is not a useful description. ‘Capitalist markets’ in the strict sense are mostly obsolete in the 21st century. This analysis does not betray any understanding of how Russia’s economy works, in what way it is caught in the web of definite global financial institutions, and all geopolitical, et. al implications. Traditional spontaneous, wild and chaotic capitalist production does not prevail in any part of the world.

Capitalism, or ‘capital,’ in the strictly modern sense of being used as a pathological description of the ‘true essence behind things’ is basically made-up hippie bullshit. ‘Why is all this bad shit happening? It’s capitalism, man, capitalism!’ But capitalism is superfluous. Capital is an epicycle of geopolitical metaphysics. If it is worshipped as a god by Western elites, it is probably worshipped directly, as Moloch or something else. Capital itself is not the essence, the ritual is. Capital determines nothing, since it has been reduced to a global geopolitical-institutional arrangement. An arrangement the forces of world anti-imperialism are blowing to smithereens as we speak.

Hakim tells us:

He is alluding to the notion that this is, in fact, an inter-imperialist war, and that the ‘duty of the working class of both countries’ is to oppose 'their respective governments. And only with a little bit of pressure, the ‘Leninist’ part of ‘Marxist-Leninism’ undergoes total surgical mutilation, with flawless operational success. That ultra-left stupidity which neglects the national question, and neglects the significance of anti-imperialism disappears, and we arrive at the view that class struggle has no form, that there is no dialectic of forms, that the form and content of class struggle are one and the same.

Behold the alchemical transformation of proletarian class struggle:

One Earth. One class struggle. Nevermind all geopolitical, national, civilizational, et. al contradictions, nevermind contradictions that pertain to forms - there is only one contradiction, namely the class struggle, whose form and content always and directly coincide.

Let’s just call a spade a fucking spade: Hakim is engaging in a type of bold-faced opportunism. He is trying to say that there is some kind of equivalence between the position of Russia and the United States (and thus by extension NATO, and the Ukrainian government) in the 21st century. His position is a slap in the face of Russian Communists, whose position is not only decidedly behind the Russian government - it is the position of the Russian government, which the Communists already play an extremely significant role in! It only deviates from the government’s position insofar as it is even more radical.

Russian Communists have long called upon the Russian government to recognize the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. They themselves had drafted the resolution for the Russian government to recognize them. But instead of sober, respectful analysis of the situation, Hakim has decided to get whipped into a frenzy by the astro-turfed and psychologically-engineered atmosphere of panic and shock across social media. It reminds me (Haz) personally of how all the ‘principled leftists’ responded to the night of Donald Trump’s 2016 election. I never forget that night, and never will.

It was one of those moments that exposed how full of shit these people are. Sure, months or years later they coped themselves into some kind of ‘sober position.’ But on that night, their naked and ugly liberal selves were exposed in full view. It was an embarrassing orgy of ideological betrayal the ‘radical left’ all mutually agreed to pretend never happened since they were all victim to it. Not me. It never crossed my mind to join in that liberal hysteria. I remember what a fool these ‘radical leftists’ made of themselves on that night with pristine detail.

I guess Hakim’s opportunism, after being exposed for what it is pathologically, deserves to be dissected theoretically too. When ultra-leftists decide to stake out some relevance amidst any news-worthy event, what they basically do is critique the ideological construction of the subjects involved. They explain that the problem is how the media describes ‘Russians’ and ‘Ukrainians,’ when the true subject is ‘the working class.’

Who is the working class? What is this working class? What form does it take, what is its actual, substantive reality? Alas, it has none. It is a purely ideological subject - it refers to a social formation defined entirely by its commitment to affirming certain ideological precepts. They aren’t talking about any actual, material class of people within Russia or Ukraine. They are talking about ‘all those who decide to define themselves by my Utopic caricature of humanity, rather than the real thing.’ The real problem with Putin is that he doesn’t agree with my ideology.

The real problem with all subjects involved is that they are not exhibiting commitment to my ideological precepts. Defining the essence of a subject in terms of their willful conformity to something is called moralism. Western leftists (and Hakim is a western leftist, even if he does live in Iraq - which itself is questionable), ultra-leftists, these are all moralists.

No serious Marxist-Leninist could ever refer to a ‘working class’ as a geopolitical subject. This is a Trotskyist form of psychopathy that was thoroughly rejected by both Lenin and Stalin. Through decades of experience, it has been proven that the proletariat is an essence of the people as a whole; and that Communists are an orientation within a broader popular front, over which they seek to gain hegemony (rather than premise the terms of). The people, of course, are not global, but specific to a country. The universalism of class struggle is the universality of a shared essence, a shared content, but by no means does this shared essence imply a shared form. Even premodern civilizations could recognize a shared humanity across different forms. That doesn’t make these differences unimportant, or even inessential to the essence itself.

And further, the proletarian subject is not neatly defined within the ranks of the people (defined against establishments, monopoly capital, imperialism, etc.), - it is rather an aspect, an essence of the people given intelligibility by Communists. That is not to say it is created by Communists from scratch, it is an aspect of the whole people Communists alone can acquire definite scientific consciousness of.

Such is the dialectic view, held by Lenin and all Communists who followed in his footsteps. It is especially true for Mao, for whom the proletariat were not even geographically or sociologically distinguished from the broad people in any intelligible way at all, but rather existed strictly as a tendency within the peasant mass, a tendency wrought out during the cultural revolution.

Where does this leave Russian Communists in relation to Russian geopolitics?

Russia is presently governed by a type of popular front, which is united against American unipolar imperialism. ‘Imperialism’ here, does not simply refer to a ‘bigger bully.’ It refers to a definite system, of a definite web of definite financial institutions, NGO-complexes, trade-relations, currency-regimes, etc. whose socius (or society) is the global establishment, commonly referred to in populist vernacular as ‘the globalists’ or ‘the globalist elite.’ A combination of the rotten vestiges of the British Empire and the postwar American bretton-woods system have produced this ‘elite’ which stands, as a class, as the final culmination of imperialist monopoly capital.

To speak of a ‘Russian imperialism’ is pure philistinism. There is no real ‘system’ represented by the popular front of Russian sovereignty. The nationalization of Russia’s gas industry has already provided the foundation for an alternative path of economic development. But the truth is, an independent, sovereign Russian ‘system’ has not been established. Russia has, for a long time, remained trapped in a global institutional financial system whose centers are based in London and New York. That is only starting to change with the rise of China, and the emergence of a new, counter-hegemonic global economic system.

The more Russia fights for its sovereignty, the more it fights for its independence from global American imperialist monopoly capital, the more it is confronted with the question of adopting a new, Russian economic system. Here begin Russia’s competing politico-ideological orientations: From liberals to Communists to technologists, all possess competing visions of Russia’s new beginning. The Communists remain the most powerful counter-hegemonic and anti-imperialist movement within Russia, and they have benefitted from every blow to American imperialism, and every blow to Russia’s reliance on the US-led global financial system.

Putin’s recent speech, criticizing the policy of Bolsheviks and Soviet Communists, was made in the context of a very fast growing domestic Communist party (which has made great gains among the youth especially, setting to rest the long-held view that it was a party of nostalgic boomers). This has probably intimidated the Russian status quo as a whole. But Putin himself represents no particular interest. He represents no intelligible class, or even state of affairs per se. He is a Russian centrist, who represents the bare minimum of Russian sovereignty under the conditions notwithstanding. But circumstances of a radical break with the West, give way to a powerful vacuum, one that Communists are sure to possess a great role in filling with their alternative and illiberal views about economic development.

Russian Communists, thus, are critical of Putin because they perceive him as not being anti-Western enough, and as too conciliatory to the globalist elite. In their view he should have done what he is now doing in Ukraine much sooner, actually.

Hakim makes the mistake of assuming we live in some neatly-defined system where every power has finished business with its own destiny. Thus there is ‘American’ and ‘Russian’ imperialism, thus there is ‘American’ and ‘Russian’ capitalism. But there is no indigenous Russian capitalist system - the extent to which Russia is tied to capitalism, is the extent to which it is tied to globalist monopoly capital and more specifically global financial institutions. Russia, qua Russian sovereignty, that is to the extent that represents an alternate polarity, implies an uncertain future. Putin’s nationalization of the energy industry was the first step in establishing this new polarity.

So-called ‘Marxist-Leninists’ have not independently rediscovered the essence of the insights of Marx, Lenin, et. al - they are pseudo-intellectual LARPers who fantasize about re-creating the exact scenario in which Lenin arose to world-historical significance. The situation is analogous to the first world war, they tell us, because ‘big powers’ are involved. Such is the brilliance of baizuo ‘Marxism’! Nevermind that the first world war was fought by a common ruling class, tied to common international financial institutions, nevermind that no global system had consolidated itself, nevermind that no equivalence to definite polarities had arisen - when ‘big powers’ fight each other, this is supposedly analogous to the first world war!

Western ‘Marxist-Leninists’ allege that Russia, upon the fall of the Soviet Union, has returned to its pre-Communist past. Such is their ignorance of basic history. Soviet Communism has made irreversible contributions to the contemporary of Russian civilization, not only culturally, but as it concerns the material, infrastructural and economic foundation of life. The Russian national identity as such remains a continuation of the one rediscovered after the Great Patriotic War, which embraces the multi-ethnic civilization before Peter the Great’s westernizing reforms. Until that point, so-called ‘Russian nationalism’ was nothing more than a fantastic perspective of a long Germanized ruling elite, and was insufficiently distinct from pan-Slavism.

Even the tamest contemporary Russian conservatism, thus, takes the Soviet contribution to Russian civilization and national identity as its premise. Russian ethno-nationalism, meanwhile, is a pro-Western and liberal phenomena, which is firmly aligned against the current popular front government. In no way can it be said that Russia has returned to its ‘Tsarist past.’ During the days of the Romanov dynasty, Russia continually found itself indebted to foreign banks, and French banks in particular during the 20th century. It was not a sovereign state in the modern sense, it was a comprador state of the international bourgeoisie whose economic interests were enforced through the repressive state apparatus of the gangsterized Russian autocracy.

The circumstances Russia now finds itself in are entirely unique. Russia is no longer socialist in the Soviet sense, but neither has it returned to the pre-socialist past. It is not simply a ‘capitalist’ state, anymore than China is.

But is war not a very bad, terrible thing?

Hakim, like the rest of the baizuo ‘Marxist-Leninist’ frauds, has simply fallen for the astro-turfed propaganda on social and mainstream media. As if this writing, full-scale deployment of Russian troops has not occurred. Civilian infrastructure is barely, if even at all, targeted by Russian attacks. We are nowhere even close to anything like a total war, unless NATO decides to intervene. Is this, ladies and gentlemen, what sobered Marxist analysis looks like in the age of social media? Whip yourself up into a frenzy about the end of the world, and a ‘great war,’ without understanding anything?

We can’t be surprised, because the entire basis of Baizuo ‘Marxism-Leninism’ lies in this type of sensationalist tailism. Their commitment to wokeness, identity politics, and political correctness stems from the same psychologically-engineered astro-turfing operations, and institutionalized social engineering. The ‘whiff’ of progress, whose detractors are denounced as ‘reactionaries,’ amounts to little more than mass-media legitimation. If CNN is promoting a social agenda, it must be ‘progressive.’ If the mass media is saying something, it must be ‘progressive,’ and one need only add a ‘Marxist’ sounding spin to be ‘revolutionary.’

If all of reddit has reached a consensus, and have updooted posts to the top of the website, this means the direction of the tide of history has been revealed. This is how these retarded bird-brained ‘Marxist-Leninists’ think. They cannot go against the narrative. They cannot go against the discourse or the consensus. They risk being ostracized, or looking like insane conspiracy theories if they do. When has someone like Hakim ever took a stand against the mainstream consensus of twitter, reddit, or elsewhere? Never!

Let’s see what the next famous ‘Marxist-Leninist’ breadtuber, whom we have already exposed as a fraud, Luna Oi had to say about the events:

NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR.

And with that, we have taken a one-way trip from Hanoi, Vietnam to a Portland, Oregon anarchist squat. I’m sure her American anarchism husband had no part in booking that flight, that would be a very sexist and misogynistic assumption. So, Luna Oi, voicing her entirely independent and indigenous Vietnamese opinion, claims they ‘do not support any war’ and only support ‘class war.’

Luna, was it a class war, or a national war of liberation that the Viet-Minh waged against France and later America? The irony is hilarious. Here we have an influencer whose entire career has been selling their Vietnamese identity as a source of legitimation of their otherwise indistinguishably American leftist opinions, and yet they express no self-awareness about what has actually given Vietnam significance for Marxism-Leninism in the first place. The Vietnamese war against both South Vietnam and the American occupiers was far more than a ‘class war’ (if it even was at all), it was a popular war of democratic and national-liberation.

Which is precisely the type of war Russia is waging in Ukraine, not only within the context of liberating the peoples of the Donbass, but the Russian polarity itself on a global ,geopolitical scale. Some may scoff at this view, after all, Russia is much more powerful than Ukraine, and itself is the ‘aggressor.’ This isn’t even true, since Ukraine was the first to cast a stone against the newly recognized Donbass Republics. But even if it was:

When North Vietnam initially invaded the South, the South was more poorly equipped, and logistically weaker than the North. Did this mean North Vietnam waged a war of aggression against the South, because it was more powerful? No, because imperialism is not defined by differences in power, but geopolitical relationships to a definite international system of monopoly capital.

It’s sad that I, an American, have to explain the basics of Vietnamese history to illustrate how absurd the Trotskyite and anarchistic claims of Luna Oi, who is allegedly indigenous to Vietnam (but with recent findings on Hakim, who knows these days…) but here we are.

It’s hard to even believe I have to write this. This is just basic fucking shit. They want to invoke the Zimmerwald Left and Lenin, yet Lenin is known for having railed against those ‘socialists’ who refused to recognize any positional difference between different nations, between oppressor and oppressed, and remarked that:

This division is not significant from the angle of bourgeois pacifism or the philistine Utopia of peaceful competition among independent nations under capitalism, but it is most significant from the angle of the revolutionary struggle against imperialism.

Aren’t these the dogmatic ‘Marxist-Leninists’ whose only reading list extends to dogmatically reciting the classics? How is Hakim and Luna Oi’s opportunism not equivalent to the social-democratic posturing about ‘pacifism?’ Did Lenin not decry the ‘pacifists’ for refusing to understand that the revolutionary war is, indeed, not just confined to the class war, but also to national wars of liberation? This is all very basic, primary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism 101.

But suddenly, we all join hands, and say ‘no war but class war!’ Absolutely disgusting, rank opportunism.

For our part, we won’t forget this. We will always bring up how the baizuo ‘Marxist-Leninists’ decided to drop all ideological pretenses and become outright bourgeois pacifists the minute they were put under the slightest pressure, by being exposed to an authentic world-historical event in all its shocking, immediate contingency. Don’t forget how these frauds reacted.

Their credibility as Marxist-Leninists is now indisputably gone.

Insufferably pseudo-intellectual hucksters like Roderic Day remind us that not brilliance, but the willingness to tweet, share, and publicize oneself, even if it consists in the most amateur of theorizing (if you can even call it that) is the surest guarantee of exposure and clout among the Anglo-American left. People like Roderic, Hakim, Luna Oi, GenZeDong redditors and countless others have absolutely no grasp of Marxism-Leninism or theory. They do, however, have a willingness to share their thoughts publicly, which has earned them a large following.

Roderic, et. al had the misfortune of attempting to undertake a critique of the views of the Infrared Collective. This was clearly a mistake, as, unlike the bluffer and huckster Roderic, we’re a media collective that actually know what we’re talking about. Bellow, you will witness one of our members dismantle some of the most common ‘criticisms’ of so-called ‘socialist patriotism’ coming from Roderic and the brilliant undergraduate students of GenZhou. Initially, this substack was not to be released. Yet now, with Canada’s Freedom Convoy likely to make inroads into the United States, we could not have picked a better time to release it.

Roderic, and several other brilliant Marxist Tweeters have accused our position of Tailism. Let us actually educate the audience about what this word actually means.

The first accusation of tailism was in reference to Lenin’s What is To Be Done, which criticizes the economist for never advancing beyond trade unionist consciousness, and criticizes those who tail behind the most advanced sections of the proletariat and instead pander to their reactionary elements and sentiments. But the question of which elements were ‘backward’ and which were ‘advanced’ was not in regards to how ‘woke’ they were, but their position in relation to the political class struggle. It was called tailism because it reified the tail of what was an objective worker’s movement, and this tail referred to its most spontaneous elements even after they had, as a result of its development, matured into a political form.

Yet the political form of the party arose in response to and in regards to the ground of the worker’s movement, even in its earliest stages. Tailists were not guilty of pandering to ‘backward views,’ but to reifying spontaneity and substituting it for the responsibility of the class-conscious party-form. On the one hand, this actually loses any connection to an authentic spontaneity (having been reified), and on the other absconds the party-form. What Roderic is effectively suggesting, is that the authentic working class movement has somehow culminated in his person, or his leftist friends, as the ‘most advanced segments of the working class’ and the political class struggle. Should we hold our laughter? The truth is, in countries like America there is not yet any meaningful distinction between head and tail (evinced by the fact that so many Anglo-Americans, like Roderic, don’t know their head from their ass), since anything remotely close to a worker’s movement has not yet acquired the form of a political class struggle.

For our part, we have promoted the Communist Party of the USA precisely so that the primitive and spontaneous forms of working-class consciousness that now exist, may acquire the definite form of a political party which stands as the spiritual (Lenin) organ of the proletarian class struggle. The accusation of tailism is baseless. It results from some kind of whig-historical perversion of its original meaning, according to which the ‘tail’ refers to those not yet educated about neopronouns or something, rather than a definite segment of a definite, and real, working class movement and political class struggle. Roderic doesn’t have a fucking clue about what he’s talking about. Tailism is not about being politically correct or not, it is about the role of the party in the working class movement; whether the latter acquires political, rather than strictly economic form or not. No ifs or buts about it, it’s that simple. And no, woke cultural bullshit is not a real form of politics.

The view that woke cultural bullshit and ‘political correctness’ represents the ‘head’ or spiritual organ of the working class is itself what we have contested. We do not simply insist upon the materiality of the working class as opposed to the spirit, we contest the view that Roderic and other Baizuo have taken spiritual leadership of the working class at all. Their sanitized wokeness and unhinged, wholly bourgeois moralism has nothing in common with any advanced ‘proletarian consciousness.’ Proletarian consciousness is not measured by airy-fairy bourgeois morality, but by the tactical cunning forged in struggle, the steel that is tempered in it. It does not mean who virtue signals the most or who expresses the most woke, moral (according to the latest corporate or big tech trend) view. It is consciousness of the world-historical mission of the proletariat.

It is not simply that we think their scolding of workers for not being educated enough is futile and will get nowhere. Their education is itself the education of the bourgeois ideologist, and not the working class. As Lenin said, frauds like Roderic think they are the shining, bright head of movement. In reality, they are less than shit of the movement, as this implies they have any relation to a movement whatsoever - they are shit of the nation, the shit of the society, the shit of humanity. They are not accultured in the basics of literature, of what Lenin calls the treasures of mankind. People like Roderic are philistines, they completely flatter themselves even according to their own illiterate definition of ‘tailism:’ In what universe are people like Roderic the representatives of some kind of accultured, educated segment? This guy doesn’t know shit about anything, a complete pseudo-intellectual fraud and clown.

Let us be clear: We reject American leftism. We reject Baizuo ideology, we reject political correctness, we reject their false morality, their views on race, gender, sexuality, oppression, power, culture, et. al all together - we reject it wholly and fully. We do not simply think it can be ‘saved for later.’ We spit on it, reject it, as completely false and unworthy of the basic dignity of serious thought. He who initiates himself into the morality of corporate big-tech, is a prostitute of the bourgeoisie, they have not adopted this ‘advanced and progressive’ ideology because it is worthy of consideration by thought or even by material intuition - but because they are submitting to the authority of the status quo and don’t want to be ostracized by their fellow mindless cucked career-climbing peers. Roderic laughably accuses us, the Infrared Collective of tailism? Any one of our members can give him a lifetime worth of education, and he still wouldn’t have enough time to catch up with us!

And even the so-called ideology of patriotic socialism, furthermore, could not be any further from these accusations. To begin with, in the context of contemporary American politics, it is extremely novel and is promoted only by a handful of influencers. It would be curious to see which segment of the masses already hold the beliefs that we are “pandering” to, according to Roderic. That most Americans, across national and ethnic lines, are patriotic, is a given. What is not a given, however, is that socialism is the true form of patriotism. In the context of America, where the name of socialism has been run through the mud by synthetic lefitst(inheriting the agenda of the CIA) and patriotism ceded to right wing figureheads, it is at first an unlikely union and a scandalous affair.

But perhaps, Roderic, sensing the populistic nature of socialist patriotism, sensing that what is now a single spark, will tomorrow be a prairie fire, has decided that it must be condemned as reactionary pandering(to a future audience). But what character will this future audience hold? Historically, who might stand to benefit from a class based alliance between the different nations and peoples of America? When the Black Panthers partnered up with the Young Patriots were they committing the error of tailism? Were the members of the rainbow coalition the kind of “reactionary” masses that we are being accused of pandering to?

That socialism is the true form of patriotism, and that patriotism is the true form of socialism, while common amongst Communist internationally and historically, is a novel insight that gives proper form to the real sentiments of the American people.

As opposed to merely parroting the false expression of patriotism pushed by the elites, and taken for granted by the left, we are distilling it’s true form. Far from appealing to reactionary or chauvinist sentiments, we take the position that to truly love one’s country and one’s people means to focus on the development of that country and not on state building abroad. It means to do right by those nations historically oppressed within one’s country, and the understanding that this is mutually beneficial for all parties involved. All of this was either directly stated or implied by the video, Socialist Patriotism: America vs. America, that Roderic was responding to when he accused us of tailism. It is news to me that honoring the promise of 40 acres and a mule, and respecting the treaties made with Native American tribes(along with other forms of recompense) is a form of tailism. Roderic never quite addressed any of these things in the midst of all his accusations, so I’m curious as to what connections he made between the two. This segment of our video, goes suspiciously unaddressed by him. 

For those who think that this position, of an anti-imperialist socialist patriotism is contradictory, I need only direct you to Marx himself, who in agreement with me, states in the Communist manifesto,  “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle.” 

Stalin elaborates on this, “The period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the building of socialism in the USSR is a period of the flowering of national cultures that are socialist in content and national in form.” And as it should go without saying, this was true also for Russian culture, not only for those nations that were oppressed by the Russian empire.

Mao, also concurs here, “Similarly, in applying Marxism to China, Chinese communists must fully and properly integrate the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution, or in other words, the universal truth of Marxism must be combined with specific national characteristics and acquire a definite national form if it is to be useful, and in no circumstances can it be applied subjectively as a mere formula.”

It is indisputable, that the claim that the form of socialism is patriotic, is very deeply rooted within the Marxist-Leninist canon. The form of socialism is always grounded within the particular realities of the countries in which it arises, within its  history, its culture, it’s people, its people's way of life, their rituals and so on. How can this be the case if socialism is a rejection of one’s people and one’s country? It cannot be the case. Love for one’s country and one’s people is a precondition for socialism in the first place.

Now if we follow the logic of Roderic and his clique, that this only applies to oppressed countries with a clean history, how come this applied to Russia? Who, while oppressed, was also at the same time the oppressor of many nations. And, according to the logic of the anti-patriot crowd, if historical tragedies are a basis for the rejection of one’s history wholesale, how is it that Chinese Communism is deeply based in the Chinese historical heritage? Why was Mao inspired by and associated with Qin Shi Huangdi and legalism? Why is it that there has been a revival of Confucianism under Xi Jinping? A basic knowledge of history would show that the extent to which successful Communist have learned from their history and taken pride in their history, is in no way related to the extent to which that history was tragic.  And even the most rudimentary knowledge of Tsarist Russia and the USSR would reveal that they were not reducible to merely an “oppressed” country.  In Lenin’s Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism, he lists Tsarist Russia in a chart of the colonial possessions of the  “six great powers.”

Very basic knowledge for anyone who is familiar with the work of Lenin, it really makes one have their doubts about the knowledge of the people claiming to be the experts of Marxism-Leninism in the West.  And not only were the Bolsheviks patriotic,  they also did not liquidate Russian history, art and culture on the basis of it’s colonialism, but instead remained firmly rooted in it’s achievements. According to the logic of the anti-patriots this should have resulted in chauvinism, and yet they were the first really existing force of anti-imperialism. To reduce any country's history down only to it’s crimes, while also throwing out it’s treasures, is a form of barbarism. Just as Russia, while formerly a colonial power, was not defined by this, neither is America. We American Communist must root ourselves in the same revolutionary history that made Communist across the world proud.(Another position taken in our Video, that Roderic has never properly responded to)

The same America that Roderic and others reject as nothing more than barbarism, Lenin praised for its revolutionary tradition,”The American people have a revolutionary tradition which has been adopted by the best representatives of the American proletariat, who have repeatedly expressed their complete solidarity with us Bolsheviks. That tradition is the war of liberation against the British in the eighteenth century and the Civil War in the nineteenth century.” Lenin, Letter to American workers, 1918. Yet another reference from our video that he suspiciously never addressed, despite all his claims of duhringism and tailism. Why doesn’t he accuse us of Marxism and Leninism? Did our repeated references to Marx, Lenin and to Marxist Leninist simply escape his view despite how good of an eye he had for our 3 second reference to Heidegger? What is clear with Roderic is that his conception of our position is highly dishonest and fraudulent.

What we are actually guilty of, is our failure to pander to and virtue signal to the Ultra Leftist fanatics who have desecrated the name of Communism.

These Ultra Leftist have their class basis in a strata of social parasites. They are among the most reactionary segments of the American populace, who, like Marx described, “manifests itself also in the ruling class as the division of mental and material labor, so that inside this class one part appears as the thinkers of the class(its active, conceptive ideologists, who make the perfecting of the illusion of the class about itself their chief source of livelihood)[..]” Marx, The German Ideology.

It is Roderic, who is most guilty of tailism. He uses socialism as a vehicle for the reactionary beliefs of these social parasites, and does the ideological work of the bourgeoisie. The same conception of settler colonialism and land back rhetoric, that Roderic’s position takes for granted, is being used to promote US aggression against China(another point of our video, Roderic in his all encompassing criticisms, failed to respond to).

Sound suspiciously close to Adrian Zenz accusations about Han settlers in Xinjiang? Not enough on the head for you? What about this person who suggests that Han “settlers” must either have a phobia of Uighurs, leave Xinjiang, or join the very separatists that the US so greatly hopes to destabilize the region?

Roderic has built his brand on being anti-imperialist, against aggression towards China, perhaps even as being Pro-China, and yet his ideology is being put to use perfectly by UK and US imperialists in an attempt to destabilize China. So, perhaps, it is he who is guilty of tailism, who lags behind the working class and feeds them the ideology of the bourgeoisie. My prediction is that when he really comes to terms with the emergence of the multipolar world and the rise of China, when China is no longer an orientalist fantasy for his enjoyment, he will explicitly support the United States’ aggression.

The Anti-Duhring

Even more laughable than his accusation of tailism, is his repeated references to Duhring, and the claim that we inherit his “social conservatism.” It makes one wonder if he’s ever read the Anti-Duhring, or has ever read Engels at all.

To start with, the claim that Duhring was socially conservative in general, is a claim that can be easily debunked. What Roderic means to say is that Duhring was a German chauvinist, something that has a very different meaning, and no connection at all to the question of patriotism, other than the fact that historically it has sometimes falsely wrapped itself up in the same robes.

Here is a quote from the so called “conservative,” Duhring, “In the free society there can be no religious worship; for every member of it has got beyond the primitive childish superstition that there are beings, behind nature or above it, who can be influenced by sacrifices or prayers” {D. Ph. 286}. A “socialitarian system, rightly conceived, has therefore ... to abolish all the paraphernalia of religious magic, and therewith all the essential elements of religious worship”. This is the “conservatism,” that Engels criticized for his inability to, “[..]wait until religion dies this, its natural, death.” Engels, Anti-Duhring.

What we find most consistent in Duhring’s beliefs, is neither social conservatism nor social progressivism, but rather right wing and left wing utopian excesses of all kinds. From his ideal conception of how the family should work to the details of how he envisions academics will function in a new socialist society.  What all of these positions share in common, is like Roderic, Duhring starts from the position of what ought to be and creates an idealized vision of the world based upon what he believes a socialist society should be like. 

Duhring’s (chauvinistic)belief that a future socialist society would have a pedagogy that removes dead languages, and only teaches foreign languages in a very limited capacity, has more in common with Roderic’s landback fantasies, than our grounded position of land reform. While entirely different in the substance of their beliefs, both Roderic and Duhring share the same utopian conception of socialism, where one starts from what they believe to be Ideal and moral for socialism, and imposes it onto reality. Materialists do not impose their idea of the Good upon reality, but as we said in the video, “Find the Good in the real.” As materialists we start from reality. In contrast to the Utopian socialism and the Idealism that Engels spends so much time criticizing Duhring for, that Roderic so closely inherits, we inherit the scientific socialism of Engels.

It is curious that Roderic accuses us of being Nietzscheans for pointing out the moralism of him and the landback crowd, when it is actually Engels, in the anti-duhring that he references so often, that attacks Duhring precisely on the account of moralism!

“Firstly, he saves himself the trouble of explaining the various forms of distribution which have hitherto existed, their differences and their causes; taken in the lump, they are simply of no account–they rest on oppression, on force. We shall have to deal with this before long. Secondly, he thereby transfers the whole theory of distribution from the sphere of economics to that of morality and law, that is, from the sphere of established material facts to that of more or less vacillating opinions and sentiments. He therefore no longer has any need to investigate or to prove things; he can go on declaiming to his heart's content and demand that the distribution of the products of labour should be regulated, not in accordance with its real causes, but in accordance with what seems ethical and just to him, Herr Dühring.” Engels, Anti-Duhring

It is not that injustices do not exist in capitalism generally, and in America specifically. We have never shied away from the historical tragedies of the United States, nor the modern day oppression experienced by black people, indigenous people, and other minorities in America. It is merely that recognition of these facts are not a replacement for science, and it is not on the basis of morality that one reaches scientific conclusions. As Engels states, “From a scientific standpoint, this appeal to morality and justice does not help us an inch further; moral indignation, however justifiable, cannot serve economic science as an argument, but only as a symptom.” Engels, Anti Duhring.  Before Roderic gives us his fairy tales about what a morally just future for America would look like, it would do him some good to first gain a real and scientific understanding of America’s objective realities, objective realities that no amount of white guilt will alter, transform or make disappear.

Before moving beyond Roderic, it’s important to point out to his readers, how fraudulent he has been. After all this time accusing Infrared of inheriting Duhring, it turns out that it is he himself who has inherited Duhring’s idealism, Duhring’s utopianism, and Duhring’s conflation of moralism with science. For him to reference the anti-duhring, all the while not knowing that this writing was dedicated to drawing a distinction between scientific socialism and his utopian moralism, is a great scandal that should be a cautionary tale for anyone looking up to people like Roderic as figures of authority. 

Addressing R/GenZhou

Recently a post appeared on the educational division of the Genzedong reddit, r/GenZhou. The reddit post makes three main points, that nationalism(which they seem to use as a stand in/replacement for patriotism) is essential for wars of national liberation but the US has no such war, that the claim that patriotism alienates the workers is “erroneous” because of minorities and those who live in US territories, and finally that the US was never a pure and good republic and so like the USSR renounces the old Russia for the new Russia, the US must renounce the old USA for the new America.

Aside from the out of place references to historical materialism, used only to make the argument sound more authoritative and having more to do with a moralistic view of history than a dialectical one, there were also many many other mistakes made in these arguments.

National Liberation

To start with, for preciseness, it’s important to clarify that patriotism and nationalism are not the same thing. We are not of the position that America is a nation-state, or that America as a country is reducible to one nation. Patriotism refers to love for one’s country, not merely one’s nation, and some countries encompass more than just the nation. We’ll be replacing their usage of the term nationalism with patriotism from here on out just to avoid confusion. 

Their first claim, that socialist can only be patriotic in the context of national liberation,  is initially very wrong, and as proven by both the words of Mao and by the actions of the Bolsheviks, to be untrue. 

This can be seen from the often misinterpreted quote by  Mao, “ Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but also must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the "patriotism" of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler. The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more complete the defeat the better.... For the wars launched by the Japanese aggressors and Hitler are harming the people at home as well as the people of the world. China's case, however, is different, because she is the victim of aggression. Chinese Communists must therefore combine patriotism with internationalism.”

At the start of the quote,  Mao makes clear, without condition, that Communist who are internationalist must be patriots. He does not claim that it is only in the case of national liberation, or only x, y, case, but claims it as a general truth. Where Mao is often dishonestly interpreted here is when people reference his attack against the “patriotism”  of, “the japanese aggressors and of Hitler.”  However it is clear here that he is not saying that Japanese Communist and German Communist should not be patriots, but quite the opposite, he is claiming that the so-called “patriotism” of Japanese aggressors and of Hitler is NOT patriotism to begin with. This is why he puts it into quotes, to show that he does not regard this as true patriotism. He then goes on to distinguish this from “our patriotism.”  If Mao is saying that Communist who are internationalist must be patriots, and that the “patriotism” of Hitler and the Japanese aggressors is not true patriotism, the logical conclusion of him saying that the Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatist, is that revolutionary defeatism is the true patriotic position. Shockingly similar to the position we have expressed in respect to America.

The next example is the position of the Bolsheviks in the first world war. Lenin evoked love for the great Russian nation and advocated for revolutionary defeatism on this basis. There is no contest being offered on this account. Instead they claim that this revolutionary defeatism was unique to this specific context, and not something to be applied more generally. Instead of elaborating on this, they go ahead to list wars of national liberation,  to no avail and becoming no closer to actually addressing our position on account of it. It is interesting however that they point to the example of the Bolsheviks as unique in their revolutionary defeatism, when it was Mao himself who said that the Japanese and German Communist were revolutionary defeatists and must do all they can to ensure their defeat in WWII. I suppose we are just as guilty as Mao was, in the belief that revolutionary defeatism can be applied to more context than merely Russia in WWI. In fact, implied by the split between the Bolsheviks and the other social democratic parties of Europe, the implication is that these parties should have been revolutionary defeatist as well, and that their decision to support their respective countries in WWI was a grave betrayal of Communism. So it is very odd that this post insist on the idea that revolutionary defeatism is unique merely to Russia.  I’m also curious as to what they offer as an alternative. Is the alternative that one must condemn their country and on this basis be defeatist? And how do they think this will be more effective than those who are revolutionary defeatist precisely on the basis of championing their country, their culture, and their people who too suffer from the adventurist wars of their imperialist leaders? And not only is it a question of effectiveness, how can this be the Communist position? As established earlier, the form of Communism relates at first specifically to a determinate working class, a determinate people ie. the people of one’s own country.

The real scandal here, however, is not only that historically is it not true that Communist have only been patriotic in the context of national liberation, it is also not true today. How is it that one can live in the 21st century, where the most advanced Communist party of the world refers to it’s socialism as Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and still think this has only to do with national liberation? They ignore an entire era of world history, and a great achievement of Chinese socialism, namely the elaboration upon Marx and Stalin, that socialism must be rooted in determinant peoples, civilizations, nations and cultures and see this as merely necessary to combat national oppression. Perhaps, if you want to be generous to their position, you can say that even when China had better relations with the US and was neither at war nor in cold war, because of US unipolarity and global imperialism they were still under a state of oppression. The jump of logic, however, is that socialism with chinese characteristics, and the blatant patriotism of both the Communist Party and of the Chinese people, is merely a response to this, and is instead not a continuation of genuine sentiments that have existed for hundreds of years and a unique world historic development of socialism. It is curious that Chinese intellectuals and the Communist Party of China itself has not reduced it to such, but our enlightened crowd at r/GenZhou feels justified in doing so. As opposed to orientalist fantasies about the victim status of countries where socialist are patriotic, we at Infrared actually humble ourselves before the example of both 20th century and 21st century Communist abroad, and their contributions to socialist history and socialist theory.

Let us see how Jiang Shigong, Chinese Communist philosopher, and advisor of the Communist Party on Hong Kong affairs understands Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, “But the idea of ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’ means that socialism does not really have a fundamental developmental model, and instead consists of a handful of basic principles and ideas.  These principles and ideas must be continually explored and developed in practice following the advance of time.  ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’ is not adding Chinese characteristics to an already defined ‘socialist framework.’ Rather, it uses China’s lived experience to explore and define what, in the final analysis, ‘socialism’ is.  For this reason, ‘socialism’ is not ossified dogma, but instead an open concept awaiting exploration and definition.” (Philosophy and History)

I just find it really curious that when contemporary Chinese Communist elaborate upon Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, they don’t at all argue that it’s basis is purely national oppression, and on the contrary see it as a genuine development of socialism rooted in the Chinese experience. Should American socialist be arrogant and refuse to follow in the example of the more advanced Communist Party of China? Should we refuse to use the unique history of America to contribute to the advancement of socialism generally and it’s rediscovery in America specifically?

It’s interesting that the end of this section of the reddit post claims that our position is solely based in the 20th century experience of socialism(which is an odd criticism, considering the majority of the historical experience accumulated by Communist was in the 20th century), when Socialism with American Characteristics  is perfectly aligned with the era of Xi Jinping and of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.

It’s even more interesting that they use the fact that the current state is crumbling under its own contradictions, and its empire falling apart, as a critique of our “20th century” ideas. When would revolutionary defeatism be more effective, than when one’s ruling elite is losing ground and both their state power and their empire is failing? When else would the American people have a more revolutionary significance? If anything, this is the entire point, we are at a unique place in American history, where it is our duty as Communist to lead the American people through the death of their state and the falling of their empire. It is our duty to show the failures of the current establishment and of its imperialist adventurism, and build a base of alternative political power. And it is from love for the country and of her people,  that this duty arises. In short, patriotism.

Alienating Workers(Oppressed Minorities)

The second section of this post claims that we believe that denouncing the USA will alienate the working class. Before we get into their criticisms of this claim it is important to be precise about the distinctions between country and state. 

It is not our claim that the current form of American statehood must be championed, nor that failing to do so will alienate the working class. It is our claim that America as a country, which is distinct from its current form of statehood, must be championed because a country is it’s people and their unique ways of life. So to start with, this is a fallacious argument attacking a self styled strawman of our position.

Another distinction must be made, that is the distinction between America as a country, and American national realities. We do not claim that America is itself a nation, only that it has national realities(including for example the distinct reality of black Americans). In our video, we reference the black belt when talking about the quasi-national realities of the American people.  There is a very basic distinction between country and nation, that somehow all of these educated marxist-leninist fail to see. To use an example, there are some countries like China, where the country and the  super-identity associated with it ie. Chinese, goes beyond the specific nations that exist within in China such as Han, Manchu, Uighur etc. 

In a way that is historically distinct from countries like China, America is also not a nation-state. This is why when Marx says that socialism is national in form, the true insight of this is not limited merely to the level of the nation(which in the context of a nation state, can be more easily swapped with country), but rather that the form of socialism is particular, rather at the level of a nation, a country, or an entire civilization.

So when they say that we put the, “United States as a head above all other nations as an exceptional nation with cultural traditions that go beyond racial and national boundaries.” This is slander, in the first place we never claim that the United States is a nation. In the second place we never speak of patriotism as being unique to only one national group in America(something they seem to take for granted), but as concerning the people of the country generally. In the third place, we acknowledge explicitly the national realities of black Americans and indigenous Americans, and though it is less mentioned in the video, also of Latin Americans. 

Even on this account alone, the second section of this post can be dismissed as slander, falsehood and having no basis in our position. However, there is another distinction I wish to make, the distinction between the barebones of the American Republic and the overgrowth of the American deep state, two party system, military industrial complex, oligarchy and special interest groups. 

While it is not our position, that the current American state must be championed, it is also not our position that it’s purely formal aspects such as the Constitution must be abandoned. We must differentiate this, the purely formal aspects of the American Republic, and it’s aforementioned overgrowth. When r/GenZhou mentions the the United States it collapses all of these distinctions into one.

Unlike in Russia and China, where no formal republic existed prior to revolution, America already has a formal republic and a democratic constitution. Because of this distinction, unlike in Russia and China, where the fundamental foundations and institutions of statehood had to be recreated, the same is not the case in America. Like Engels, we don’t believe that Communist in America must  attempt to get rid of the constitution but instead must wield the constitution against the bourgeoisie in alliance with rural populistic forces. “In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat – that is, with the agrarian National Reformers.” Engels, The Principles of Communism

Instead, revolution in America must come at the expense of the deep state, the oligarchs, the two party system, the military industrial complex and the American Empire generally, which has no basis in the American constitution. By getting rid of the swamp, we reveal the barebones of the American Republic, paving the way for the proletarian dictatorship which will never again allow the American state to betray the American people. 

Getting these clarifications out of the way, despite that their criticism’s are a complete strawman, we shall still address them even further(as an exercise to thoroughly show their falsehood).

Their argument follows that many of those that denounce the US, are those oppressed by the US ie. national and ethnic minorities within America. The argument continues that we call for these people to fall in line with American patriotism, despite their grievances.

To begin with, the idea that minorities in America have anti-patriotic sentiments, while partially true, is still not representative of the majority opinion even within many of these groups.

As can be seen, 67% of Hispanics take pride in the American flag, and even amongst Black Americans, 59% do. So, even at the most fundamental level, the idea that we are alienating minority workers with our patriotic position is unfounded. That said, it is still self-evident that Black Americans are less likely to be patriotic or even more generally to feel at home in this country. It is also self-evident that Black America has its own distinct national reality. This is why, not only do I support Black nationalism, but the Infrared collective in general has always supported Black nationalism, and Black independent sovereignty should that come to represent the collective will of the Black people.  We also hold the same position in regards to Native Americans. From this it can be seen that the claim that we, “[...]asks imperialised groups and communities to forget the struggles they fought so hard to win, to ignore past atrocities and simply accept the United States[...]” is blatantly not true.

“This white-centric viewpoint is wholly un-Marxist and directly opposed to the principle of National self-determination, a principle we as upholders of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin hold dear!”

By consequence, the above quote is also very silly, considering we have explicitly stated our support for the national self-determination of historically oppressed nations in America. Maybe it has been forgotten, but the actual position we have been debating against was the absurd land back position that there is no uniquely American reality, that natives have sovereignty over all the land of America and so on. We have rejected this claim, not national self determination.

“Not to mention the question of Hawaii and Puerto Rico, American territories in the pacific and Alaska as well, all of which are occupied territories the US has no business in being[...]”

Yet again, baseless lies and slanders. We explicitly in our socialist patriotism video, make distinct the legitimate territorial claims held by the people in American territories, from the general claim that America as a whole belongs entirely only to indigenous people.

Despite that all of these accusations have been based on lies and thin air, I will also add as a response, that black nationalism and American patriotism do not come at each other's expense. While the patriotism of Black nationalist concerns the Black nation and not the American country, as shown by the example of the Black Panther Party it can still find an ally in patriotic Americans(ie. The Young Patriots). According to Jeff Bezos landback leftists it should be a scandal that it was the patriots who allied with the Black Panthers. Before they come to an understanding of this apparent contradiction, they should neither say a word about Black nationalism nor a word about American patriotism.

Lastly, they accuse us of making the American war of Independence unique amongst democratic revolutions. Let us say it is not unique, would that at all hurt the veracity of our arguments and our position on it, which is supported by Marx, Lenin, and Mao amongst others? And, let us continue with the line of thought that it is not unique, would this somehow mean it is not significant in the context of American Communism? They claim that it has no influence on 21st century American revolutionary politics. Insofar as this is true it is precisely the reason why contemporary American “revolutionaries” have been so unsuccessful. If Mao could draw inspiration from Qin Shi Huandi, the first emperor of China and look back thousands of years for wisdom, why is it that American revolutionaries cannot look back a few hundred? Why did 1776 all of a sudden lose revolutionary significance today, when less than a hundred years ago Mao was studying George Washington? It is very odd and arbitrary where they decide to draw the lines.

This was all taking for granted that the American revolution, historically, was in fact not unique and was merely another democratic revolution. There is a great irony here though, one that I’m surprised that they themselves did not see. The American revolution was not merely a bourgeois democratic revolution, it was also the first major modern decolonialist revolution of national liberation. And so all the phrase mongering about national liberation that ultra-leftist do, first gained meaning in the American revolution of independence. It would go on to inspire many other national liberation movements. In that it has been replicated by other countries, it is not unique, in it’s earliness, it is. 

This just goes to show how little these synthetic leftist actually know about phrases such as “national liberation.”

Republic of Illusions

u/Means-of-production concludes his final section of attacks against our video with a shocking display of ignorance and stupidity.

Their basic argument is that because the founding of America and it’s preceding history was impure, it was not a real republic or democracy, and that to insist so would be to reject “historical materialism.” 

I guess I have to be the first to inform this user, but historical materialism is not when you categorize historical epochs based upon their moral purity, nor even their moral consistency. It fundamentally has nothing to do with that. Whether America’s founding fathers truly believed in democracy or not, whether they were personally hypocritical or slave owners, all of these things that they hold to be decisive in a historical materialist understanding of America, has absolutely nothing to do with historical materialism nor even historical significance more generally. 

As opposed to the moralistic view of history, that the character of a historical era is decisively determined by how much states and leaders lived up to their values and ideas, historical materialism is the scientific understanding of history from which one looks at the objective reality and it’s dialectical transformations. This is why Engels in The Principles of Communism(as referenced earlier) claimed that America already had a democratic constitution, and that this constitution should be turned against(not abolished) the elites. This is why Marx and Engels have no problem making an objective distinction between bourgeois democracies(for which initially slave owning was an aspect) and ancient slave societies. And it is in fact, only in the context of modernity and bourgeois democracy, that one can understand the unique barbarism of the enslavement of the black peoples. It is precisely because this revealed an internal contradiction within western modernity, that the contradiction would be later put into motion by Lincoln and the Union army, and that slavery would be abolished. To say that there was only slavery and genocide, and that there was no republic that these things came into contradiction with, completely misses the point. It is precisely on the basis of there being a real republic, that slavery represented an internal contradiction in respect to America in the first place. 

This search for a real republic, beyond what has actually existed in history, is a utopian conception of history not at all scientific. The meaning of being a republic is nothing more than the actual historical experiences of republics, not a mental reconstruction of what a morally consistent republic might be. If they follow this idealistic and utopian logic to it’s ends, these same people will soon start to claim that there has never been a real socialism, due to the contradictions and problems internal to it.

Someone with a materialist view of history can see that it is not that America was “never a republic” but that a republic is itself not a pure self-same category free of contradictions. They can see that the great evil of modern slavery is precisely a contradiction that belongs to the early stage of the development of modern republics. And furthermore, that it is the same democratic ideals upon which republics are founded, that anti-slavery revolutions would themselves also find their basis. In other words, the problem is at the same time the key to it’s solution. This is the historical materialist view, where through internal contradictions, history finds development and revolutionary moments of reconciliation.

[…] molded in the criminal brains of the leader of the Paris Commune and sanctified in the brains of an oriental fanatic, Nicolai Lenin. - 1930’s Taryn raising the alarm bell on the famous Red-Brown Duginist Nazbol, Huey Long.

The rumors were embarrassing enough for the Communist Party. Now, they openly platform the paranoid delusions of Taryn Fivek, the infamous wrecker of the Worker’s World Party, who has now moved on to wreak havoc within the Communist Party.

Taryn is known for possessing the paranoiac fantasy that the ideas of Rasput-I mean, Aleksandr Dugin, have managed to somehow infiltrate segments of the Western left. The rise of the so-called ‘red-brown’ alliance - which Taryn associates with the likes of Jimmy Dore, Slavoj Žižek, Glenn Greenwald, and Caleb Maupin - all stem from the nefarious and magical influence of the renowned Russian thinker. Taryn is known to be the main enemy, within the Communist Party, of any trace of ‘socialist patriotism.’ In her view, this basic Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy must be flung overboard, due to the uniquely evil nature of the United States as a country founded by slave-owning white, cis-gendered and ably-bodied males.

Echoing the sentiment of the 1619 project (endorsed by the National Committee), Taryn believes that the founding of the United States was essentially reactionary - and that in fact, the British Empire was at the time of the declaration of independence ‘progressive.’ How very democratic! Only, for all her fixations on the threat of ‘patriotic socialists’ infiltrating the party, it is Taryn that shamelessly and uncritically repeats a time-and-tested tradition unique to this country: That of philistine snake-oil salesmen fearmongering about mystical and malign threats from the orient. Taryn repeats the uniquely American historical tradition of attributing to social and cultural phenomena the ideas of intellectuals they haven’t read - either because they’re too dim-witted, lazy, dogmatically philistine, or all three.

From the red scare of the 1920s and 50s, to the fear-mongering about ‘cultural Marxism,’ ‘postmodernism’ and now ‘critical race theory,’ Taryn effectively carries on the torch of American grifters drawing from the vast intellectual content of fringe (often academic) trends so as to induce feelings of hysteria and paranoia in their target audiences. Naturally, this fear-mongering always contains with it a grain of truth - there is an infinite wealth of intellectual content to always present out-of-context, and the paranoid mind takes care of the rest.

Could it be? Dugin directly speaks about grand Eurasian ambitions, surely he is responsible for the Russian geopolitical strategy we now witness!

The idea must be responsible for the reality, because they mirror one and another. What the dim-witted American philistine cannot seem to come to terms with, however, is that thinkers like Dugin take the very same reality as their own object, that Taryn tries to. Dugin is just as much an innocent bystander speculating about the same reality Taryn attributes him causal responsibility for. Paranoiac philistines cannot possibly grasp this openness of ideas and ideation before material reality, since, in their idealism (which is inevitably and always paranoid), material reality is itself conditioned by ideal forms.

Dugin’s ideas, Taryn alleges, are responsible for the new generation of Left-Wing figureheads who prioritize the struggle against liberalism and ‘democracy’ instead of the ‘fascist threat.’ And by liberalism and ‘democracy,’ we know Taryn could not possibly be referring to any abstract ideals.

Surely she doesn’t mean that, since such ideals have already long been abandoned by the ruling class! That is not only in terms of their actions, which was true even for the period of classical liberalism stemming from the 19th century up to the Great Depression, but even formally. Let us recall Stalin’s last speech, delivered to the Communist parties of the world:

Earlier, the bourgeoisie presented themselves as liberal, they were for bourgeois democratic freedom and in that way gained popularity with the people. Now there is not one remaining trace of liberalism. There is no such thing as "freedom of personality" any more, - personal rights are now only acknowledged by them, the owners of capital, - all the other citizens are regarded as raw materials, that are only for exploitation. The principle of equal rights for people and nations is trodden in the dust and it is replaced by the principle of Full rights for the exploiting minority and the lack of rights of the exploited majority of the citizens. The banner of bourgeois democratic freedom has been flung overboard.

After the creation of the deep state (which we can imagine the leaders of the Communist Party view as a ‘fascist myth’), the rule of the military-industrial complex, the rise of three-letter agencies capable of acting with total impunity, the transformation of bourgeois-democracy into the shameless and open dictatorship of the Wall Street financial class and the complete abandonment of the democratic principal of the right to the self-determination of nations with the United States’ foreign interventions, which possess zero democratic sanction and which even violate the US Constitution - can we not laugh and scoff at the notion that there remains any semblance of ‘bourgeois democracy’ to defend?

The NGO-Think Tank-Media-Academic complex, the self-anointed brahmins of democracy, entirely unelected network of social engineers, ideologists, public policy influencers and lobbyists - maintains only the veneer and appearance of democracy. It only excuses the various transgressions against American formal democracy by the deep state, and calls this ‘the defense of democracy.’ To point out the violation of democracy, the violation of law and the constitution itself ‘threatens the legitimacy of democracy.’ By pointing out how the ruling class has abandoned any semblance of democracy, one risks being targeted by the likes of Taryn and other brahmins of democracy as a ‘Duginist’ or ‘fascist’ menace to democracy.

It is clear what they mean by democracy: White lies and unspoken truths! Who better undermined the sanctity of democracy than Julian Assange, who pays the price for his ‘crime against democracy’ to this day for exposing otherwise concealed war crimes and the way the Democratic National Convention (democratically) stole the nomination from Sanders. Russian agent! Duginist! Fascist! How dare one challenge the smokescreen of democracy, nevermind the real thing!

Indeed, perhaps there remains a core foundation of ‘bourgeois democracy’ within the United States. But it is precisely the so-called ‘red-brown’ figureheads, in addition to libertarians like Ron Paul - who set this foundation against the veneer of democracy projected by the mass-media-academic-NGO complex, or the Brahmins of liberal democracy. It is precisely the so-called ‘reactionaries’ and ‘red-brown crypto-fascists’ which attempt to defend any semblance of principled, formal democracy against the excesses of the deep state and the ruling class, which regularly transgress, openly and shamelessly - the core foundations of the republic and of democracy. It is precisely the Jimmy Dores and Glenn Greenwalds which elect to defend the civil liberties of the people against the ‘defenders of democracy.’

But what of Dugin, and his critique of liberalism and democracy? What relation could Dugin possibly possess to the likes of, say, Jimmy Dore or Caleb Maupin?

Dugin and His Relevance

Let us peer into the origins of the so-called ‘red-brown’ alliance and the fundamental reason liberal fanatics have raised the specter of ‘Duginism’ against the resurgent populism we now witness in the United States.

The Russian people first became acquainted with ‘democracy’ and ‘liberalism’ (in its current form) in the aftermath of the Russian constitutional crisis of 1993, when Boris Yeltsin democratically dissolved the Supreme Soviet and Russian Parliament (without any constitutional sanction) by use of military tanks, heavy projectile ammunition, and assault rifles. What followed was the near open dictatorship of the Russian oligarchs and the Westoxificated former Soviet managerial class, ecstatic and drunkenly fanatical about the promises of enlightened Western liberalism. In this glorious triumph of democracy and liberalism, an entire civilisation was nearly destroyed, the will of the Russian people broken, and mortality rates came to rival wartime conditions.

Naturally, one comes to understand the context that gives rise to Dugin’s fierce critique of modernity, liberalism and democracy. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question of which way forward for the Russian people inevitably came to the fore of every independent-minded Russian intellectual. Although Dugin recognized Communism as an alternative and heretical form of modernity, he viewed the collapse of the socialist bloc as proving its ultimate unviability. Traditional Soviet Marxism-Leninism was not equipped to make sense of the new era. After all, it was incapable of preventing the overthrow of the Soviet Union itself! It was not enough, for Dugin, to challenge the catastrophe that was Western liberalism and so-called ‘democracy’ for Russia. He found it necessary to go to what he considered the very roots of this evil, namely Western modernity itself.

Within Russia, a multitude of different political tendencies came to find a sense of unity in their struggle against the liberal dictatorship of the 1990s despite their ideological differences. Self proclaimed monarchists, Communists, and ultra-nationalists joined together in their struggle against the democratic looting and robbery of their country, the democratic suffocation of their people and the democratic surrendering of Russia to American imperialism. The cold war, which was the fundamental axes around which ideological differences had been defined, was over. Ideological differences began to dissolve into a heap of confusion, and a more fundamental opposition - between authentically popular forces on the one hand, and an establishment aligned with global American imperialism (and its aforementioned ruling class, institutions and networks) - was starting to become intelligible.

Amidst this confusion lay a lack of ideological and theoretic clarity. A more broad historical meta-narrative and meta-politics became necessary that pierced through the narrow and now-relativized ideologies of the 20th century. Martin Heidegger, who Taryn criminally mentions only in passing as a ‘Nazi’ (as if that is even a fraction of what has propelled him into significance in the Western canon) would present a similar question as the over-arching question of being, now known as the school of ontology. In short, the ideologies of the 20th century dealt only in the language of particular beings, but not being as such. They lacked the self-awareness to situate themselves within a reality more fundamental than described within the narrow confines of the ideology itself. Enter Aleksandr Dugin, the most renowned Russian disciple of Heidegger, who sets this question on a new basis within the context of Russia’s unique historical and geopolitical situation.

As a discipline of Heidegger, Dugin was able to recognize the material and objective reality of Russian civilization and geopolitics beyond ideology. The Soviet Union was a strictly ideological project, that took Marxist-Leninist ideology as the sole foundation of its existence. Yet even after having officially abandoned Marxist-Leninist ideology with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the deeper reality of Russian civilization that inherited Soviet geopolitics continued to persist, proving that Soviet realities were not entirely conditioned by one particular ideology. Here lies almost the entire basis of the mystique and terror Dugin’s likeness evokes in Western liberals trapped within the confines of classical modernity: Dugin, following Heidegger, recognizes the fundamental and latent ambiguity of material being, as something that gives rise to a multitude of ideologies - while being conditioned by none of them. This material ambiguity is nothing short of chaos, which the whole of rationalistic modern philosophy, beginning with Descartes, set about to foreclose any acknowledgement of (an attempt first challenged by Marx).

This is something Taryn, in her neurotic idealism, could not possibly understand about Dugin. The more Dugin gives expression to the ambiguity of material reality, the more she paranoiacally casts this immanent ambiguity as the disguise of fascist or Nazi ideology. Paranoia, after all, is a cope in the face of ambiguity. For a lonely person, it’s easier to believe that everyone is conspiring against you than accept the traumatic realization that no one cares about you. In the same way, it’s easier for the liberal to believe people like Dugin - and myself - are secretly fascists rather than accept the loneliness of reality before it gets represented by an ideology. What Dugin does is refuse to privilege ideologies as the most fundamental means by which a thinker may inquire into the nature of being, reality and the world. A certain pragmatism is even inherent in the whole field of geopolitics itself: Relationships between geography, statehood and space in the abstract are indifferent to ideologies - they refer to realities that are inevitable notwithstanding them.

The key to the recent fearmongering over the ‘rise of fascism’ lies only in a broader breakdown of Anglo-Saxon liberalism, or more specifically the transition into a new historical era. American ideologists are coping with the decline of their empire - the recent fearmongering over ‘fascism,’ Russiagate, bizarre delusions like the Havana syndrome, and even Qanon - alongside Taryn’s own witch-hunting over ‘Duginists’ - all represent an attempt to finding meaning amidst the destruction of American unipolar globalism. The liberal American mind cannot comprehend the end of the unipolar world order - they have to impose the idea that Russia and China are conspiring to take America’s place. It cannot accept the breakdown of the establishment in resurgent populism, it has to impose the idea that fascist ideas are secretly behind the phenomena. This pattern reflects an inability to be reconciled with the loss of an idol; the idol being the Eidos of rationalistic modernity, the Substance of Spinoza - the object of modern metaphysics. Today’s anti-fascism is mere copium in the face of materially political chaos…

Materialism and Mao Zedong Thought (MZT)

Amidst Taryn’s deranged and venomous pile of dogshit screed the leaders of the Communist Party decided to embarrass themselves by publishing, we find only a single attempt to ground the attack on Dugin in Marxist phraseology. You see up until that point, Taryn had based her attacks in explicitly and shamelessly liberal language. Let us read the brilliance of Taryn’s words, the pre-eminent Marxist philosopher of our time, and her critique of Dugin:

Therefore, when it comes to what must be rejected from Communism, Dugin says the first and primary rejection must be of historical materialism, along with “materialist reductionism and economic determinism.”

Taryn elects to one-up her ideological enemies (that is, ourselves) by pointing out that Dugin has made negative comments in regards to materialism, an obviously integral and essential component of Marxism. Further, she attributes the short-comings of Dugin’s thinking to this explicit rejection of materialism. Ladies and gentlemen, we are walking in the midst of intellectual giants! Witness the brilliance of Taryn:

Dugin say bad thing about thing Marxists seem to talk about a lot. Since Taryn Marxist, everything bad about Dugin is because he say bad thing about thing Marxists talk about. Everyone brainwashed by dugin: ‘Na-na-na-na boo-boo, Dugin signal against Marxist word u ar less authentic Marxist then me!!!

Yet the problem is twofold: One, by materialism, Dugin does not, whether he believes it so or not, mean the materialism of Marx. Secondly, from an actually informed Marxist perspective, Dugin can only be challenged as being too materialistic, that is, vulgarly and one-sidedly materialistic and not dialectical. It is typical, upon expounding the tenants of Soviet Marxism-Leninism into the language of philosophy, for Soviet and Russian thinkers to interpret materialism strictly in the terms of French materialism or Spinozism. There is ample historical precedent for this, too. The great Soviet philosopher Evald Ilyenkov, a faithful adherent of orthodox Soviet Marxism-Leninism, could go no farther in his conception of materialism than that of Spinoza’s substantialism. All modern philosophy is incapable of conceiving the brilliance of dialectical materialism - it wavers between the one-sided materialism of Spinoza, or the idealism of Kant.

The dialectical materialism specific to Marxism-Leninism has never been successfully expounded into the terms of modern philosophy (the tradition of Marxism itself, after all, began with a definitive break with modern philosophy). It has remained a science whose province has always been practical and political rather than contemplative and speculative. So-called ‘reactionary’ and conservative (including religious) critiques of materialism have in mind that reduction of all being to substance, the reduction of every essence to sensuous and already measurable realities. Marx, in his critique of German idealism, never returned to this one-sided and vulgar materialism of a “metaphysically disguised nature separated from man” and moreover did not, by the word material mean a substance. Material better translates to essential, and for the first time in the history of thought, Marx conceives of an essence that is itself essential rather than formal, that is to say, the real essence of form; the materiality of the ideal.

Every philosophical conception of essence beginning with Plato conceives of essences as forms, ideals or discrete definitions of thought that possess privileged significance in the determination of reality - but for Marx, the essence is itself the essence of forms, ideals, and definitions of thought. Reducing this essence to a specific form of material reality - like ‘economics’ - entirely misses the point, and only repeats the error of idealism. For Marx, to inquire into the nature of the essence, or of material reality is the province of practical science - no dogmatic or readymade form of what material reality is, is to be presumed. The material essence is not a substance, since it is not already latent with phenomenal or ideal form. Thus Marx’s materialism is referential rather than metaphysical, it points toward a way of relating to the world without prescribing the content of this relation. For instance, Marx writes that man is the highest essence for man. But what does he mean by man?

Does he mean Feuerbach’s ideal man for himself? No, for the question is itself a matter of practical inquiry. What man is, Marx writes, is the world of man, state, society. It is the ensemble of the social relations. Material reality is something one can only point toward, but knowing what it consists in is itself the province of science. To work for humanity, to participate in the world of humanity, is to take man as the highest essence for man. An essence is not a hidden appearance, but the appearance whereupon it passes through its opposite, returns and arises again from its own premises. And the entire purport of materialism is that: Such premises cannot be dictated by the terms of the appearance or the form itself. According to the vulgar materialists, a one-sided material essence determines appearances without regard for them. All returns to the abode of Substance. For the materialism of Marx, the material essence is the reconciliation and sublation of all appearance and form. It is the real process of their reproduction, a process that is by no means readily evident in its output (hence the significance of criticism).

For this same reason, no ideology - including materialist ideologies like Soviet Marxism-Leninism - is capable of grounding its own truly material premises. This is precisely one of the dilemmas Soviet Marxism-Leninism in its mature stages was confronted with: On the one hand, Marxism-Leninism is materialist - on the other hand, materialism cannot be reconciled with the way in which Soviet Marxism-Leninism (nevertheless itself being an ideology) attempted to consolidate and fully ground its own premises, up to the very structure of the Party and Soviet statehood. For Soviet philosophers like Evald Ilyenkov (who ranks among the mightiest thinkers of the 20th century), this dilemma was expounded in the form of the contradiction between the cosmological forces that give rise to the thinking spirit, and the latter’s attainment of universal self-consciousness. The parallel is clear; Ilyenkov represents real geopolitical, social, and historical forces in the form of cosmological nature, and represents Soviet Marxist-Leninist ideology in the form of the thinking spirit, or Hegelian self-consciousness in general.

For Ilyenkov, the dilemma takes the form of the second law of thermodynamics. The thinking spirit is the highest culmination of the development of matter, yet the arrow of time points in a direction no longer conducive to this development. The thinking spirit arose from conditions of less entropy, and in the heat death of the universe, all cosmological development ceases entirely. Facing this, Ilyenkov arrives at the provocative conclusion, illustrating the relationship between Soviet ideology and its material premises: Thinking beings, in the highest point of their development, will assume as their cosmological duty the unleashing of a cosmic catastrophe; an act of all-encompassing apocalyptic self-immolation that will at once lead to the fiery rebirth of the cosmos, reversing the process of matter’s thermal decay. In this collective act of self-sacrificial heroism, the thinking spirit may yet again give rise to the conditions that enabled its own development in the first place - spirit, then, may condition the development of matter as matter had conditioned the development of spirit.

It is often believed that the late Soviet period is primarily defined by decay and the replacement of sincere ideological belief with cynicism. On the contrary, it was marked with the same eschatological-apocalyptic anxiety that can be found in the works of Ilyenkov. Struggling to reconcile its founding ideological mission with the geopolitical realities that would come to actually define it, the real vigor and ideological power of the Soviet Union was such that its mere existence evoked the atmosphere of a world that was always on the precipice of thermonuclear annihilation. Gorbachev’s uskoreniye (acceleration) was in actuality a desperate attempt to forestall and slow the winds of fate. The Soviet Union was destined to become something that its leaders were not equipped to adjust themselves to or make sense of; they had inherited a geopolitical monstrosity which they were too weak, corrupt and complacent to be worthy of. As with Ilyenkov’s thinking spirit, for Soviet Marxism-Leninism to be reconciled with its premises would amount to nothing short of the destruction and rebirth of the world anew (i.e. the destruction of the postwar global order and the end of American hegemony).

It is precisely these material premises that Dugin’s work seeks to give pure and undiluted expression, freed from the dogmatic straightjacket of official Soviet Marxist-Leninist ideology, specifically in a traditionalist and even mystical form. Following Heidegger, poetry and mythos are the privileged mediums for the expression of an authentic material being freed from the reductive presuppositions corresponding to the seinsverlassenheit (forgetting of being) unique to Western rationalistic modernity. For Dugin (like Soviet Marxism-Leninism itself), following Russian Orthodox eschatology, the dialectic between the ideal and material takes only singular form, and moreover the form of a final sublation located only in the end-times (i.e. like the Soviet ‘reaching of communism’ or ‘global proletarian revolution’). On the one hand lies the dark, boundless depth of eternity, and on the other the golden, peerless radiance of logos. This dualism is a common theme of Dugin’s works: from his famous distinction between Atlanticism and Eurasianism, Thalassocracy and Tellurocracy, the multiple and the One, etc. Yet these pairings remain entrenched within the vernacular of a dark, subterranean insight into the true essence of material being, bellow the watchful eye of the high-minded liberal, rationalistic modernity.

We must not go down the path of Icarus; we must return to the lowlands, along the path of Orpheus (it is possible that we must turn and look at what they did with Eurydice …); return, but illuminated by light, pierced by fire, consumed by lightning. Only then will we be able to understand the secret dimension of Heraclitus the Dark: all is one – logos is chaos. Darkness is light. THERE is here.

Pseudo-Marxist dimwits like Taryn, for whom Marxism is nothing more than an encyclopedia of virtue-signaling and career climbing, interpret all language that falls outside the rigidity of Anglo-Saxon ‘science’ as ‘idealist,’ but for someone minimally educated in the history of idealism and materialism - it is not idealism, but a one-sided materialism that Dugin is guilty of. As already pointed out by thinkers like Georges Bataille and their predecessors (Nietzsche), it takes no great effort to recognize that modernistic materialism is actually idealist. Modern (English empiricism & French substantialism) materialism attempts to straightjacket material reality to definite ideal forms, effectively attempting to condition any relation to the material world according to a rigid ideal (that of the form of measurement, or a pre-defined notion of materiality; substance). Although this relation has produced results, it does not afford real precedence to material content over form (here lies the key to the entire crisis of modern science, specifically in the realms of physics and biology). A philistine could not possibly be a materialist - it is only through acculturation, through absorbing the treasures of mankind and possessing well-rounded literary sense, that one can give true expression to material being, which does not conform to the narrow parameters set by modern science & logic.

Dugin’s shortcomings parallel the shortcomings of late Soviet Marxism-Leninism itself: only it is but its scandalous and occult obverse. Soviet Marxism-Leninism confined itself to an official ideology - Dugin’s writings confine themselves to their real material premises (i.e., in the form of geopolitics, the unconscious realities of Russian civilization, etc.). Dugin’s principal scandal for Marxism-Leninism has only ever been an insistence on the precedence of a material reality not conditioned by a particular ideology. It is common to view Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory as a re-branding of the fascist Third Position (as to be expected from an ignoramus philistine, Taryn precisely attempts to draw this conclusion, and fails pathetically). But the third position was merely a rejection of capitalism and ‘Communism.’ The Fourth Political Theory is not principally defined by merely rejecting the others, but by opening an inquiry into the real origins of 20th century politics itself, freed from the ideological prejudices inherent in them. The key lies not in the rejection, but the relativization of all three ‘political theories:’ that there is a reality more fundamental than can be described within their terms.

A certain agnosticism is inherent in the ‘Fourth Political Theory.’ All prior theories are definite, determinate and particular: Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism. The name of the Fourth remains ambiguous and left for further inquiry. The entire point is for there to be a fourth, discovering its content is the entire purport of the project. However, what if this ‘Fourth Political Theory’ is none other than Marxism-Leninism itself? What if it is precisely and only Marxism-Leninism, and its specifically dialectic materialism, which enables the possibility for reconciling its own ideology with its real material premises? Dugin was only ever exclusively familiar with Marxism-Leninism in its officiated, stagnant late Soviet form, but never did he - and other Russian thinkers of the late Soviet period - absorb the brilliance of Mao Zedong Thought’s contribution to Marxism-Leninism, the same brilliance to which Chinese Communism’s vitality and success owes itself to. The overwhelming majority of Soviet thinkers ignored Mao’s re-invigoration of Marxism-Leninism entirely, insisting that the choice lied only between stagnant, official Soviet Marxism-Leninism or Western liberalism. Yet given the way in which China was able to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union, Mao Zedong Thought is self-evidently at the very least worthy of examination.

To paraphrase Alain Badiou, Mao’s principal contribution was the introduction of a notion of infinity to Marxism. Not only the adoption of a fourth, but a fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. political theory are already integral to the constantly self-revolutionizing, self-reforming and self-restructuring nature of Chinese Communism. The context that gave rise to Mao, who ranks among the greatest political leaders in the history of mankind, lied not in the commitment to an ideology, but in the commitment to a people, culture and civilization. The primary material context that defined Mao’s political life was never premised by ideology, but by the aspirations of the Chinese people, and the rejuvenation of their 5,000 year civilization. In a sense, Mao was a ‘Duginist’ before Dugin was ever even born. Mao was already well-acquainted and deeply immersed in the geopolitical, literary, civilizational, traditional, unconscious, demotic, national, even mystical etc. realities that had to be scandalously exhumed by Dugin. The overwhelming majority of Mao’s literary education, for example, came not from the modern West, but from the classics of Chinese literature.

Forcing the ideology of Marxism-Leninism to confront, survive, and re-adapt to its real, material premises in the Chinese people defined the entirety of Mao’s political life and the life of the Communist Party of China to this day. Mao’s On Contradiction already evinces a materialist view on the contingency of ideology and politics in the face of material reality: This is clear in the distinction between primary and secondary contradictions. For Mao, in the midst of the Japanese invasion of China - ideological and even internally political differences are relegated to secondary significance (much in the same way that they were in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse and in the so-called ‘red-brown’ alliance!), the unity of the country against Japanese aggression becoming the primary contradiction. This is not the unity of shared ideas or ideals, but a unity based on the material and geopolitical conflict between the Chinese nation and Japan. For Mao, this conflict is objective, whereas the differing political ideologies are subjective articulations of this objective conflict. It was Mao’s view that Marxism-Leninism would prove itself the best equipped interface with the objective conditions, but that had to be proven in the wilderness of material reality (war), not presumed.

Dugin’s error lies in his rejection that the contradiction - between official ideals and the deeper, darker esoteric truths of reality - itself takes determinate form, and reproduces itself across the whole fabric of being. Yes, Marxist-Leninist ideology cannot condition its real premises - but neither can one go about giving expression to these premises without acknowledging what it is they premise. Dugin remains agnostic about this, which is why his thinking, despite its brilliance, creativity, and insight - never transitions into a science, that is, a form of thinking that produces real knowledge (as opposed to ambiguous sense) and practical insights. For Mao, that Marxism-Leninism cannot condition its own premises is already a superfluous insight, an insight that is already contained within the essence of Marxism-Leninism itself. Materialist dialectics are precisely about reconciling the contradiction between content and form, the content being nothing more than the very essence of the contradiction itself. The entire body of knowledge and insight proper to Marxism-Leninism consists not in officiated dogmas, but a repository of accumulated wisdom in the face of these precise contradictions.

Marxism-Leninism is not just an ideology, it is an index of definite concrete and historical experience. It is a repository of practical, working insights that are pragmatic in nature, and which do not necessarily lend themselves to a given ideological orientation. The insights of Marxist-Leninist science are pragmatic and objective, what one makes of them is the province of a competing multitude of ideological orientations. Hence at any given stage of the history of the Communist Party of China, there remain right, left, and center orientations, with the party’s survival depending on the victory of the left-orientation (not to be confused with ultra-left). Xi, for example, has initiated this ideological orientation in the form of a spiritual and moral revolution in culture, literature, arts and media. What Dugin does not understand is that, notwithstanding the multitude of political ideologies that material reality gives rise to, ideology plays a part in affecting the determinate form of material being. This is proven by how, despite Marxism-Leninism being officially abandoned, Russia and other former Soviet states remain unconsciously affected by it, from culture to intuitive ways of thinking.

This does not mean that Marxism-Leninism can replace or condition geopolitical, civilizational, national, cultural, etc. realities, only that Communism (led by Marxist-Leninist parties) has irreversibly affected, and become a part of those geopolitical, civilizational, national and cultural realities - even well after being abandoned ideologically. This is precisely what Dugin misses in his critique of modernity: Yes, modernity was the greatest apocalypse experienced by mankind - but the only path to the revival of the great Asiatic land empires lies not in rejecting or resisting it, but rendering it superfluous and merely a single chapter in a vastly older story, feats which the Soviet Union and China had actually accomplished. Dugin does not think beyond the threshold of apocalypse - and perhaps that is not necessarily a shortcoming. It is an inherent feature of Russian literature to remain permanently enamored by an apocalypse always on the horizon, forestalled only by the katehon. Such a perspective has produced some of the most brilliant, beautiful and insightful works in the history of mankind. However so far as Marxism-Leninism is concerned, it could not confine itself to the narrow Soviet perspective - but this does not mean it has been outmoded.

Marxism-Leninism has no meaning in the 21st century, insofar as it has not integrated the contributions of Mao Zedong Thought. And nowhere outside of China has any Marxist-Leninist party successfully integrated these contributions. Psychotic perversions of Mao’s thinking, which can be found in Western Maoism, ignore the rich depth of the Chinese civilizational context that informed Mao’s thought. As for the official Communist Parties that have survived, not once have they humbled themselves before the lesson of the Soviet Union’s collapse. The Communist Party of the United States, which the philistine Taryn writes on behalf of, has yet to acknowledge the contributions of Mao Zedong Thought over thirty years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union! In its arrogant inertia, it appears the Communist Party would rather dissolve than accept the Chinese side having been vindicated after the Sino-Soviet split. It clings to a corrupted and liberalized form of Soviet Marxism-Leninism that has been entirely defanged of its occult cosmo-apocalyptic tendencies. The party is ruled by a pro-Gorbachev wing that clownishly pretends Gorbachev’s treachery has not been already been proven indisputably catastrophic.

This same decadence, corruption and inertia is also responsible for the Communist Party’s erroneous conception of the Popular Front and Anti-Fascism, which underlies the entirety of Taryn’s rallying call to the mental pygmies, weaklings and traitors of the party against the ‘patriotic socialists,’ ‘red-brown infiltrators,’ ‘Duginists’ and ‘fascists.’

The Real Origins of the Popular Front

Taryn writes:

Dugin says that in the 21st century there is no “left” and “right,” only those who oppose the status quo and those who support it. He clears out these historically rooted distinctions because his intention is to consume the left completely, to negate it. He wants to wear the skin of the Communist Party like the mystical huckster he is to summon his neofascist demons.

Let us, for a moment, put aside the fact that Dugin has not once made pretense to ‘wearing the skin of the Communist Party’ (?). Let us, for a moment, put aside the fact that here Karen - I mean Taryn - evinces all the Anglo-American racism typical of the paranoiac white-supremacist whose eyes bulge with venomous, hateful fear of the Asiatic-Slavic Rasputin ‘conjuring up his demons.’ This is typical American racism: When one does not understand the other, you simply accuse them of sorcery.

This is precisely what we witnessed during the Russiagate scandal, where liberal white Karens like Rachel Maddow went on live television, with a deranged, twisted look on their face - and screamed about the ‘Russian sorcery’ that stole the election from their idol crooked Hillary. We can imagine that Taryn imagines a similar situation is imminent as regards to the very powerful position she acquired within the Communist Party - Rasputin-like sorcerers are going to ‘conjure demons’ and remove her from her position, just as they stole the power from Hillary.

Dugin has no intentions with the Communist Party of the United States, Taryn - I can assure you of that. The person you are looking for is actually me. It is I, alongside the rest of the Infrared collective, who have the fullest intention to restructure the Communist Party. We have made no secret of this, nor the methods within our employment - so there is absolutely no need to talk about ‘conjuring demons’ and ‘mystical sorcery’. And the reason I have revealed our plans so openly, is because we already made sure of the fact that there is nothing - and I mean nothing - you can do to stop us.

However, Taryn’s broader point speaks to a very clear liberal pathology in regards to ‘fascism,’ namely an association of fascism with ‘ideological ambiguity.’ The famously illiterate Youtube streamer called Vaush - who amasses an audience of around 5,000 concurrent viewers - when pressed with the question of how to define fascism, will often say that fascism is intentionally un-definable. By fascism, liberals like Taryn and Vaush are referring not to an actual ideology, but an affect of ideological chaos. Liberals believe that political phenomena is ultimately premised by ideals, principles, axioms, concepts, rational precepts, etc. - this rigidity of the object, which I have before termed as the ‘Anglo-Box’ - is further ‘practiced’ in ‘reality’ within institutions and establishments.

Institutions and establishments are not actually real societies, but parodies of the real society. Social-engineering is very easy within the confines of institutions; it’s much easier to ‘change culture’ in academia than on the street, because there people’s behavior is conditioned by consciously legislated rules. By contrast on the street, people’s behavior is determined by factors which cannot be premised by ideals. This is why the label of ‘fascism’ is much broader in scope then mere political phenomena for liberals. Every expression of human spontaneity, every manifestation of the unconscious, every instance of chaos - is crucified as ‘fascist.’ For some, even eating meat is ‘fascist.’ After all, from the perspective of idealist ethics, the way we consume food is quite scandalous. We kill animals for food, and only later make up rational justifications for why. The truth, however, is that why we do it isn’t premised by ideals in the first place.

Fascism, one is told, is ‘ideologically un-definable,’ inherently vague and ambiguous, since it is not consistent with any precepts. One thus must take refuge not only in the liberal institutions, which are at the very least ‘definable’ and ‘consistent,’ - one must pass beyond the threshold of cuckoldry, and excuse the transgressions of these liberal institutions, and the ways in which they themselves violate their own principles, in the name of ‘protecting democracy from fascism.’ One must rally behind an un-electable establishment which has no sanction even by the liberal institutions themselves, but is a dirty secret everyone is supposed to look the other way in the midst of. All this, to defend us from ‘fascism!’ Labeling political opponents as domestic terrorists, COVID authoritarianism, violations of the right to political expression by big tech platforms accountable to no one - all to defend us from fascism! Fueling the drums of war against other countries - turn a blind eye, it’s all to protect us from fascism!

This, ladies in gentlemen, is the lesson the traitors running the Communist Party have drawn from the popular front: Enabling the transition from liberalism to something actually comparable to the conditions out of which arose fascism, all in the name of anti-fascism! Witness the paranoid mind of Taryn, Vaush, et. al who label all instances of vague, intuitive, spontaneous anti-establishment and populist sentiment as ‘fascist’ - they take the very fact of its ideological vagueness not as a deficiency of their description, but on the contrary as proving it! For them, vagueness is not an indication of a definite material contradiction that takes precedence over ideological narratives, but the indication of a secret, super-ideology that is so powerful it manages to avoid disclosing its existence in any discrete way. If the irony is not dawning upon readers, that the Communist Party has premised its paranoiac ‘anti-fascism’ on the basis of the history of the popular front, allow me to spell it out clearly:

The popular front was precisely an acknowledgment - which was principally necessary among Western Communist Parties - of materially political contradictions that take precedence over ideology! No ideals, principles, precepts, concepts, or even ideological common-ground united the forces of the popular front, nor could they. What rather united them was a common structural positioning, and a contradiction between a rotting establishment teetering on the brink of open dictatorship and authentically and genuinely popular forces. The popular front was genuinely supposed to be popular, that is, representing the material will of the people at the expense of ideological purity. If there is any ‘ideological vagueness’ to be found, the historical popular front is the greatest example of it. Populism was an integral notion to its original conception and most of its execution. Today, most people interpret the ‘popular front’ as an attempt to rally behind a liberal establishment, and defend it against the ‘threat of fascism.’ Yet this is nothing more than a falsification of history.

Within the American context, the New Deal coalition had freshly risen to power as the literal successor of the People’s Party (the epitome of American populism) in the early 1900s. It shook up the then existing form of the American establishment by representing a broader strata of the population than had ever been given representation in the government. The anglophile ruling class found itself being ruled by cabinet members hailing from families and backgrounds of small farmers, from the very heartland of the country. Roosevelt, contrast to the Democrats of today, was an authentically popular president who shook up, rather than represented the then status-quo. The predecessors of the deep state, and the dynastic families of the current American establishment opposed him bitterly. In 1933, military officer Smedley Butler uncovered a plot by this same establishment - including none other than Prescott Bush, grandfather of neoconservative George W. Bush ( an ‘anti-fascist’ hero who ‘bravely stood up to Trump to defend our democracy’) - to execute a coup against Roosevelt and establish a fascist dictatorship directly answerable to Wall Street.

Notwithstanding the various contradictions faced by the Roosevelt’s government - including the political emergence of the professional managerial, later conflicts with populists like Huey Long, etc. - it is necessary to establish this context so as to point out that the anti-fascism of the 1930’s has nothing to do with today’s ‘ANTIFA.’ The ‘fascist threat’ was not coming from populist forces challenging the establishment, but from the very rotten core of the establishment itself. The popular front was not a concession to the status quo, it was a concession to national populism: That there was a material contradiction at hand that could not be premised by the terms of ideology, and that the goal of Communists was to seek to lead by example, as the most effective representatives of the popular forces - rather than establish the terms of struggle on ideological terms. This was all superfluous for the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union who had already risen to power on the basis of taking this for granted, but it was a genuine breakthrough against the dogmatic ultra-left infantilism and sectarian factionalism that had plagued Western Communists since the demise of the Second International.

The ideological ‘vagueness’ associated with fascism consists in nothing more than the self-destruction of the classical liberal order in the aftermath of 1929, which gave rise to a general atmosphere of meta-politics. All political factions became relativized in the midst of this historical change, hence fascism’s appearance of novelty. But fascism was not some ‘mystical,’ atavistic resurrection of the wealth of substantive realities long kept at bay by the cold abstractionism of liberal modernity, but the final conclusion of the latter - an abstract negation for itself. Far from representing the chaos of ‘occult’ or ‘demonic’ forces, fascism was nothing more than liberalism plus emergency powers, powers that completely transgressed the foundations of 19th century classical liberalism while at the same time safeguarding them from the ‘chaos’ of ‘Asiatic-Jewish Bolshevism.’ In actual fact, Taryn’s ‘anti-fascist’ pretenses bare more in common with the pathology of anti-Semitism, which recoils at the liquefying chaos by imposing a false sense of order (that is, a Jewish conspiracy), than with the anti-fascist popular front of the 1930s.

Despite being objectively outmoded by the winds of history, fascism was the attempt by the Anglo-liberal order of the 19th century to secure its foundations absolutely against the chaos of material change. Fascism aspired to resolve the entire scandal of modernity, that is, the inability for the Cartesian cogito, or modern rationality, to ground its own premises. Anti-semitism, as well as European colonialist racism, depicted non-Europeans as ‘subhumans’ who ‘contaminated’ the purity of abstract liberal modernity, who represented the chaos of material antecedence which obstructed the ability for modern Forms to ground their own premises and establish its own history. ‘Civilization,’ for fascists, was synonymous with totalizing subordination to the abstractly contrived precepts of modernity: The ultimate safe space for what was the equivalent of today’s SJWs, white liberal Karens, and institutionalized social engineers. This is why for all its aesthetic pretenses, fascism was never able to establish itself as a popular, rural movement. Its only rural basis lied in monopoly landowners - beyond this, its rank-and-file were urbanized to the core.

By contrast, the popular front was - in tandem with Stalin’s resurrection of Russian civilization and elevation of the Russian peasant as the primary subject of Soviet politics and culture (and it is this which is meant by democratic, not conformity to liberal institutions!) - authentically national. The triumph of Stalin and the complete repudiation of Trotsky took the principal form of the way in which Communist parties the world over, and especially in the postwar period, began to embrace the national culture, tradition and history of their respective countries. It is with the popular front that Communism, for the first time, became deeply national in the cultural and demotic sense. This veneration of national culture did not simply extend to perceived ‘modern’ aspects. Figures like Ivan the Terrible, Alexander Nevsky, Martin Luther, Vlad Tepes, etc. became celebrated as national heroes by ruling Communist parties. And nowhere did the popular front gain as much sweeping significance as in China, forming the definite context out of which arose Mao Zedong Thought in the first place.

The idealist confusion of the present Communist party strictly arises from the erroneous view that the popular front was united by an opposition to an ideology, rather than a definite political phenomena. It is not the ideological details of fascism that were of any significance to Communist theorists of the popular front - it was a new political stage the established liberal order was entering to, that discarded the most minimally democratic liberties outright and shamelessly. The bourgeoisie as a class ceased to possess any material incentive to defend or uphold any semblance of democratic order - the task fell upon popular forces to do so instead. But this democratic order was not the ‘idea’ of democracy, political correctness, or the veneer of democracy - but the formally plain rights guaranteed to the people by the state: Basic liberties like free expression, political association, and due process. Yet these are rights that are being curtailed today not by ‘fascist populists,’ but by the liberal status quo itself! And again, the most passionate defenders of these plain, formal rights are precisely those condemned as ‘red-brown infiltrators’ by the likes of Taryn.

The ‘anti-fascist’ pathology of today’s liberals has permanently sealed off the foundational critiques of modern liberal capitalism that Marxism itself arose out of. Instead of viewing ambiguous thinkers like Dugin, et. al as fascists - why not recognize them for what they are: Belonging to the very broad canon of spontaneous, non-Marxist socialists & Communists. The Communist manifesto describes nearly half a dozen different socialist tendencies in its time, the most prevalent of which being reactionary - feudal and petty-bourgeois tendencies. Communism, or socialism - in its spontaneous, unelaborated and unscientific manifestations - represent vague, inconsistent, dissipated, and even obscurantist rejections of the prevailing order and establishment. This does not mean they can be dismissed as ‘fascist,’ as fascism was the tool of an entrenched industrial, imperialist and international financial bourgeoisie. It was not an authentically spontaneous or popular phenomena.

The popular front was precisely an acknowledgement, by Western Communists, of the need to recognize the meta-political realities ushered in in the aftermath of 1929. A reality more fundamental than premised by specific political ideologies became clear, namely the minimum of formal, democratic rights. But as to their actual content, they are profusely national in character, democracy referring not to some ‘abstract’ or ‘ideal’ people, but the people as they really and actually existed, inclusive of all their historical traditions and national character. The defense of these rights against fascism was not in the name of defending the ideology of liberalism, but defending the rights of the people. This is why it was called the ‘popular front’ and not something like the ‘liberty front.’

How does today’s Communist Party, by contrast, interpret the significance of the popular front? In purely ideological terms, as a need to ‘rally behind the Democrats’ against the threat coming from the ‘right’ or the ‘Republican party.’ There was far more merit to this argument during the Bush era of the United States, when the Republican party was led by neoconservatives who did indeed threaten the democratic rights of the people through the Patriot Act, increased surveillance, etc. Yet even this would have still been a completely erroneous conception. After all, the Clinton and Obama administrations arguably did more to make inroads in encroaching upon the constitutional rights of the American people than Bush did. Indeed, not any principled politico-theoretical error, but purely ideological pathology can be blamed for the Communist Party’s revisionist veneer of maintaining ‘continuity’ with the Popular Front; a pathology related to the emergence of mass-media in general.

As pointed out by theorists like Jean Baudrillard, the era of mass media has imposed a new relationship between individuals and reality, including the reality of politics. Politics is indistinguishable from the appearance of politics, democracy from the appearance of democracy, etc. - and with the rise of mass media there has emerged an ‘ideological bloc’ instantiated in what is today known as the establishment. The intuitive clarity of concepts like the ‘professional-managerial’ class stem not so much from the technical functions carried out by members of this class, as much as the work they do to enforce ideological cohesion and consistency. They are the ‘brahmins of democracy,’ who assume the enlightened role of projecting a veneer of democracy and knowing when to look the other way in the midst of its contradictions. They uphold a discourse of collective lies (political correctness, wokeness, etc.), in the name of ‘defending’ democracy against disorder, chaos, instability - and ‘fascism.’

Taryn wants us to believe that corporate America has merely ‘hijacked’ authentic ‘democratic’ struggles and pushes its ‘white-washed’ progressive agenda due to popular pressures ‘coming from bellow.’ Should we hold our laughter? What popular pressure? There is nothing more outrageous, unpopular, and scandalous to the American public than the so-called ‘progressive agenda’ being pushed by corporate America and the media. Big tech platforms have to resort to forms of mass censorship in order to repress authentic popular expression in regards to them. YouTube even had to, hilariously, remove the dislike counter because of how ‘popular’ the wok- I mean ‘democratic’ agenda is among the American people. Leftists nervously respond to this with anxiety about how ‘popular’ fascism truly is, fueling their anti-popular, Menshevik sentiments. But the truth is, these are the sincere and authentic democratic sentiments of the people, and any honest person electing to interpret them can see that imposing upon these sentiments the conclusion of ‘fascism’ is an act of grotesque bad faith.

Indeed, the ‘popular pressure’ Taryn is referring to has always been imposed from above. If corporate America’s ‘progressive agenda’ came from bellow, why do you not find enthusiastic supporters of this agenda among the ‘lowest’ segments of the people in the chain of corporate America’s information-institution complex? The more rural people are, the more they possess reservations, skepticism, and outright hostility to all manifestations of the so-called ‘progressive agenda’ - the more educated, urbanized and institutionalized they are, the more they are on board with it. And why? Because the latter are the prostitutes of corporate America, while the former more or less don’t have to make a living through demonstrations of ideological conformity or loyalty to it. A rural American can say ‘kiss my ass’ to the ‘progressive agenda’ and still feed their family. Yet if one of these purple-haired urban kulaks so much as questions the so-called ‘co-opted’ progressive agenda, they will have no way of funding their expensive Vegan diet or monthly subscription to Chapo Crap House. Does that sound like ‘democratic pressure’ from bellow, to you?

She, alongside the leadership of the Communist Party, interpret ‘democratic struggle’ as the uninterrupted continuity of time under the reign of the establishment. ‘Progress’ simply means the latest fad, ‘reactionism’ means attempting to interrupt the continuity of the ever-evolving corporate agenda disseminated by mass media. Such is the cuckolded, shameful and cowardly line the Communist Party is attempting to enforce on bond of expulsion! And yet there exists real precedent for this erroneous conception of ‘progress’ and ‘democracy:’ It is none other than the essential split and distinction between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party. The majoritarian Bolsheviks - who wagered their faith in the ‘backward’ Russian masses, and the minoritarian Mensheviks, who believed that the duty of Communists lied in tailing the urban bourgeoisie, so as to ‘protect’ the ‘progressive and democratic’ movement from the ‘reactionaries.’ The Communist Party repudiates the very same Bolshevik line, that gave rise to the existence of the Party in the first place!

Democracy - Bolshevism verses Menshevism

The Communist Party has made a habit of excusing its treachery, its prostitution to the Democrats and its tailing behind the agenda of corporate America in the name of defending ‘small d democratic struggles.’

Taryn writes:

Some even see the January 6th fascist riots at the Capitol as an effort to overturn the bourgeois democratic process, and they become excited. They see history in motion and think it’s good news. They say that the worker is fed up with bourgeois democracy! What they want to put in its place is not perfect, but they imagine it could be negotiated on. Whatever this new system is, it must be better than liberalism, whatever that means to those who say it.

Absolutely fucking nobody who has expressed sympathy to the events of January 6th, has framed this sympathy in terms of ‘opposing bourgeois democracy.’ I challenge Taryn to produce a single example of a fucking person of any significance on the left doing this. Just one! You will find that she can’t, because she’s making this fucking bullshit up to set up the context for her argument:

‘We need to be pearl-clutching liberal Karens because January 6th was an assault on bourgeois democracy, and while bourgeois democracy is bad, it’s better than fascism!’

Instead of just saying this stupid bullshit, she has to set up a complete strawmen of leftists ‘celebrating the destruction of democracy.’ The only people who are, to the laughter of the American public, framing January 6th in terms of ‘democracy’ are the Democratic party and their lickspittles, including the leadership of the Communist Party. There is probably not a single fucking person who attended the January 6th protest, who believed that they were ‘undermining democracy.’ There is not a single person who expresses the minimum of sympathy or outreach to the protesters there, who does this on the basis of thinking that democracy was going to be overthrown.

So heaped-up in the ideological narratives of the Democrats, that Taryn has not even bothered to pay attention to the fucking rhetoric of the other side. January 6th didn’t happen because Trump’s movement believed that it was time to overthrow democracy, but because they - sincerely and genuinely - believed that it was the Democrats who had undermined democracy by rigging the election in favor of Biden. Now, regardless of what you think as to the factual merit of this allegation, the fact stands that in contrast to actual fascist movements, the protesters at January 6th genuinely did believe they were protecting the constitution and the democratic will of the people. Is this simply because they whimsically decided to reject the results of the election?

Or perhaps, the sentiment, even if mistaken, can actually be forgiven. What reason did Trump’s supporters have to trust the media, and ‘trust the process’ being carried out under their auspices? Wikileaks, a great ‘fascist menace to democracy,’ revealed the way in which the Democrats rigged the primaries in favor of Hillary. The ‘credibility’ of the established process was already destroyed by the way in which the media, the institutions, and the Democrats unfairly targeted and lied through their teeth about Trump for the entire duration of his four year term. This led to a process of all trust being broken with the establishment - and rightfully so. The American establishment has repeatedly transgressed American democracy, the constitutional rights of the people, etc. - and rules at its expense. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that the status quo has no basis in any democratic legitimation.

The Democrats claim that January 6th was an ‘assault on democracy.’ In reality, it was an assault on a ‘symbol’ of so-called American democracy, the Capitol. In no substantive or materially political sense was ‘democracy’ at any point ever imperiled. A mob of protesters threw a party in the Capitol building. Boo hoo! The veneer and prestige of ‘sacred democracy’ was challenged. Nevermind the actual reality of democracy having already been trampled upon by the successive Clinton, Bush, Obama, etc. administrations. Nevermind the reality of democracy being dissolved by the emergence of a corrupt establishment, which rules on the basis of open corruption. The real problem, the so-called leaders of the Communist Party want us to believe, is that images of protesters running around in the Capitol hurts their feefees! This is the sweeping materialism of Taryn and other leaders of the Party, who replace sober materialist analysis with wishy-washy ideologically liberal sentimentality.

However the ways in which Taryn and the Communist Party use the word ‘democracy’ does appear very curious. Taryn appears to equate ‘democracy’ with ‘liberalism,’ and moreover, ‘democracy and liberalism’ with ‘the corporate-media-academic-Democratic Party complex.’ Both of these equivocations reflect her embarrassingly air-headed ignorance of the meaning of these words historically, and specifically by Communists. Lenin, for example, in no way equates ‘democracy’ with ‘liberalism.’ In his analysis of the Black Hundreds, Lenin identified a certain ‘democratic’ current. Did he mean a ‘liberal’ current? Did he mean a ‘forward-thinking’ or ‘culturally-progressive (by Corporate america’s standard or otherwise)’ current? Let us see:

[…] Bishop Nikon, quoting a letter from a peasant, does write: “The land, bread and other important questions of our Russian life and of the region do not appear to reach either the hands or the hearts of the authorities or the Duma. These questions and such solution of them as is possible are regarded as ‘utopian’, ‘hazardous’, untimely. Why do you keep silent, what are you waiting for? For moods and revolts for which those same ‘undernourished’, hungry, unfortunate peasants will be shot down? We are afraid of ‘big’ issues and reforms, we limit ourselves to trivialities and trifles, good though they may be.”

That is what Bishop Nikon writes. And that is what very many Black-hundred peasants think. It is quite understandable why Bishop Nikon had to be removed from Damn affairs and Duma speeches for such statements.

Bishop Nikon expresses his Black-Hundred democracy in arguments that are, in essence, very far from correct. The land, bread and all other important questions do reach the hands and hearts (and pockets) of the “authorities” and the Duma;

As you can see, Lenin does not identify ‘democracy’ with any of the qualities presumed by Taryn in her stupid shitty article. Lenin identifies ‘democracy’ with the way in which Bishop Nikon attempts to give expression to the authentic aspirations of the demos, or the Russian peasants - namely in the form of the question of land reform. The entire essence of the Bolshevik-Menshevik split lies in Lenin’s unique view of democracy. The Mensheviks identified democracy with the continuity of ‘historical progress’ that began in Western Europe, and saw the urban reformers of the Cadet party - as well as the the urban petite-bourgeoisie and big bourgeoisie - as the basis of the ‘democratic movement’ within Russia. In other words, just like Taryn, the Mensheviks viewed any challenge to this ‘movement’ to be ‘reactionary,’ since time only flows in one direction, the direction of ‘progress.’

Lenin had a different, dialectical view of historical time. In his work 1899 work ‘The Development of Capitalism in Russia,’ Lenin viewed the ‘democratic veneer’ of the urban bourgeoisie as just that - a veneer which disguised the impotence of their class in the face of Tsarism. To exhume the future, Lenin did something that is awfully reactionary by today’s Communist Party’s standards: He looked to the most backward and under-developed segment of the Russian Empire, the peasantry, in order to predict how capitalism would come to develop. In other words, he more or less completely ignored the urban bourgeoisie and urban petite-bourgeoisie as worthless parasites with absolutely no historical future, and immediately decided to ‘go down to the countryside’ (influenced by Herzen and the Narodniks) to derive the long-term political strategy of the Russian Social Democratic Party in relation to the overthrow of Tsarism.

‘Stageists’ believed that Russia first needed a ‘bourgeois-democratic’ revolution before socialists could rise to the task of their true historical mission. Lenin, in his genius, rightfully castigated this as an undialectical view of historical time. ‘Progress’ is not led by the ‘most advanced’ sections of society, but arises from within the most backward, since the most backward are not yet consolidated or established, but dwell in circumstances of oscillating, historical chaos. The class antagonism was not strictly to be found in the already-established differentiations that were to be found in the cities, but within the interstices of the peasants in the countryside. Lenin, in other words, made a wager upon chaos while the Mensheviks played it safe tailing behind the already-established urban liberal bourgeoisie. He would have been castigated as a fascist by the likes of today’s Communist Party, if only for the reason that he assumed the ultimate populist, anti-establishment position without regard for being consistent with any dogmatic ideological precepts (which are by nature undialectical).

For Lenin, the essence of the democratic revolution lied not in the enlightened, educated urban bourgeoisie toppling the Tsar - a laughably unlikely scenario - but in the peasant striving for land reform. Democratic revolutions not only establish all citizens as equal before the law, they imbue the state with the character of the people, and set each individual on a new basis - the basis out of which capitalist class distinctions arise. Some sell commodities, and others sell their labor, the very source of commodities. However given the power of the Russian landed nobility, land reform was the only path to this ‘democratic equalization,’ which paradoxically was not even possible on capitalist terms. Lenin rightfully recognized that the democratic revolution was not to be a ‘stage’ that would ‘precede’ the socialist one, but one that would occur simultaneously with it, in an alliance of the proletariat and the middle-peasantry. An alliance with the urban bourgeoisie was opposed not in the name of ideological purity, but because they were in fact a reactionary class who gained all of their wealth under the rule of Tsarism - the aspiring small bourgeoisie in the countryside, meanwhile, had everything to gain by a democratic revolution.

The Communist Party precisely repeats the error of Mensheviks, by identifying the ‘democratic struggle’ with the already-established avenues, institutions and outlets of ‘liberal-democracy:’ leading to the utterly stupid conclusion that the woke cultural agenda is today’s equivalent of ‘democratic struggle.’ They do not elect to go down and seek the material essence and origins of things, but teeter-totter at the level of the most superficial appearance. They have not even so much as interrogated the question of: Is there an equivalent, within the United States, of a land-owning monopolist class that obstructs democracy? Of course there is! Lenin identified it in his work Imperialism, the Highest Stage - proving that ‘bourgeois democracy’ never actually ‘overcame’ feudalism, and that aspects thought to be unique to the latter merely re-emerged in new ways. Lenin recognized that Imperialism had already destroyed the basis of bourgeois-democracy among the bourgeoisie. What is the basis of the ‘bourgeois-democracy’ Taryn seeks to ‘defend’ against fascism? And why are her sentiments echoed by the deep state, the mainstream media, corporate America, and the most rotten sections of the imperialist bourgeoisie?

They frame all struggle between the ‘reactionary rednecks’ of Trump’s movement and the ‘enlightened urbanites’ of ‘bourgeois democracy.’ They completely ignore, cast off, and are blind to the more ambiguous developments in rural America, shown in the article bellow:

https://theconversation.com/populist-alliances-of-cowboys-and-indians-are-protecting-rural-lands-114268

Or the disconnect and break Trump’s movement now has with Trump himself over vaccines, a contradiction not dissimilar to the one Lenin identified among the Black-Hundreds. If Trump’s movement is today the equivalent of the Black-Hundreds of the past - which is already a stretch - then to repeat Lenin’s stance would not be to fear-monger over them as the foremost threat to the party, the movement and the people, but to scoff at them as vain, misguided romantics condemned to failure. Which is precisely what Lenin did! In writing about the treacherous alliance between the Mensheviks, and the urban-liberal Cadet party, Lenin says:

Under such circumstances, the cries about the Black-Hundred danger are the result either of absolute ignorance or of hypocrisy. And it is those who conceal their real aims and act behind the scenes that must play the hypocrite. The Mensheviks are raising an outcry about the Black-Hundred danger in order to divert the workers’ attention from the game they, the Mensheviks, are playing, or did play recently, by joining the petty-bourgeois bloc and bar gaining with the Cadets.

Are ‘cries about the Black-Hundred danger’ not eerily reminiscent of ‘cries of the fascist danger of Trump?’ The difference lies only in the fact that while the black-hundreds were a tool to prop up the Tsarist establishment, MAGA genuinely was a populist challenge, however misguided and inconsistent, to the status quo. And even then, Lenin was still able to not place the ‘danger’ of the Black-Hundreds as the principle or primary contradiction facing the socialist movement. He even recognized ambiguously democratic currents within the Black-Hundreds - a socialist doing this for the Trump movement would risk immediately getting labeled as a ‘red-brown’ or ‘fascist'.’ Moreover, to say that the Communist Party has ‘joined’ with the Democrats is already too generous, when the Communist Party has made itself even less than a prostitute of the Democrats (a prostitute is at least paid for services rendered), but an outright unwanted lickspittle which the Democrats themselves consider an embarrassment.

It is clear what the democratic struggle amounts to in the present American context, drawing from the lessons of Lenin: Going down to the country, and establishing a broad coalition of popular forces united by their opposition to the increasingly undemocratic and extra-constitutional establishment. The two-party duopoly is no way an immortal or invincible feature of ‘American democracy,’ and its foundations have already been entirely shaken by Trump. The time for an authentic third party of the people, which any competent Communist Party would preponderate hegemony over due to the uniquely correct insights derived from the science of Marxism-Leninism, has now come. The rise of Silicon Valley and the so-called ‘big tech’ monopolies pose the greatest danger to any semblance to the foundations of the republic and any semblance of democracy, that is, the formal rights and liberties of the people, since fascism swept Europe in the 1930s. The struggle to restore the democratic-republic and a defense of the liberties of the people from the deep state-establishment is the principal task of Communists within America.

The Democratic establishment has already allied itself with the Ukrainian junta propped up by the fascist thugs of the maidan, aggressively positioning itself alongside NATO against Russia to complete Hitler’s genocidal vision of enslaving, exterminating and subjugating the ‘Asiatic Slavs,’ and now seeks to whip the American public into a frenzy for war against China over the Taiwan province. The sweeping and long-term ambitions of the world’s elite were made clear in Davos, as we already witness them make preparations for their ‘Great Reset.’ The forces of production have already transformed - is the superstructure of ‘bourgeois-democracy’ (and not in Taryn’s sense, but in the real sense) going to survive it? Have the prerequisites not already been made for the open dictatorship of the ‘tech elites’ and totalizing repression of the people? All of this happens while the Communist Party elevates the squabble over toilets and abortions as the epitome of ‘democratic struggle,’ while denouncing any trace of populist sentiment as ‘fascist’ and ‘reactionary.’

But beware! The bogeyman of Dugin! Red-browns! Fascists!

Epilogue

Liberalism’s Self-Destruction

A degree of confusion may arise as to the significance of ‘liberalism’ and the corresponding Communist stance.

Karl Kautsky famously remarked, and I am paraphrasing - that Communists oppose liberalism from the perspective of presupposing its achievements, while reactionaries oppose liberalism ‘from the past.’ This is more or less the sentiment shared by all Western Communists, despite being entirely undialectical and untrue.

As Domenico Losurdo pointed out, the question of liberalism is not a question of any ‘progress’ to be situated within a vector of historical time. Liberalism itself is inherently contradictory, and comes with it a double-edged sword. Often times, forms of resistance against liberalism were forms of resistance against liberalism in its most anti-human, genocidal and bloodthirsty of manifestations. Phenomena like modern slavery, sanctioned by liberalism - as Losurdo points out - were the most barbarous, savage, and inhuman in the history of mankind. The notion that liberalism represents ‘progress’ in the history of humanity does not belong to Marxism, but to the whig conception of a linear, progressive history.

In reality, liberalism does not so much represent ‘progress’ as it does a certain inevitability, that inevitability being the abstract negation corresponding to the rise of bourgeois subjectivity - which humanity experienced as a complete apocalypse, from the land-enclosures of England to the barbaric genocides of colonialism. The way in which Communism sublates liberalism does not lie in ‘supporting’ liberals or accepting manifestations of liberalism, but by sublating the essence of what makes liberalism inevitable: namely the development of the forces of production. By mastering the science of the forces of productions, the anti-human catastrophe which is historical liberalism can be avoided entirely - which it has, in countries like China. Russia, for its part, is still suffering from ‘progressive liberalism’ that nearly destroyed the country entirely in the 1990s.

However it’s also mistaken to confuse ‘liberalism’ in its broader historical sense, with the ‘liberal globalism’ of the 21st century. Dugin’s analysis here is quite insightful: Historically, liberalism ‘opened’ avenues of freedom at the expense of repressive traditions, parochial cultures, archaic laws, antiquated morality and pre-existing norms. By the time of the counter-culture, when more or less everything is ‘on the table’ and the people of the West are free to do whatever they want, liberalism entered a new stage of its development - namely, that of ‘totalitarianism.’ The very same ‘freedom’ guaranteed by liberalism has turned against it: This freedom, for example, manifests in people’s preferences for a more traditional lifestyle, religious expression, and ability to not have to be politically correct.

In this new stage of liberal psychosis, which is surely laying the ground for a real fascism of the 21st century, liberalism is attempting to finally fully ground its premises by annihilating any trace of human, substantive content. Even humanity in the literal sense is becoming challenged with the rise of transhumanistic ideas (which will surely remain only ideas - the scientific capabilities are extremely over-exaggerated). Unconscious norms and realities are now decried as manifestations of secret structures of patriarchy and white-supremacy - liberalism is no longer synonymous with freedom, but forced affirmation. Liberalism itself, after all, gave rise to this contradiction: Having exhausted its historical mission, the last obstacle to liberal freedom, turned out to be liberalism itself.

Yet in contrast to Dugin’s view, there is a way to preserve liberal freedom without entering into the 21st century genocidal liberalism of the modern West. That is precisely what states like Russia, China, and others have already done. Their ‘illiberalism’ does not lie in the repudiation of 19th century liberalism, but its sublation into a higher form of statehood, a form of statehood that is the inheritance of 20th century Communism’

Identity politics

Finally, Taryn and the Communist Party make a point of privileging the question of ‘black lives matter’ as the principal political question, and matters of race the foremost integral components of the ‘democratic struggle.’ This again stems from their racist, patronizing view toward those groups within the United States that are not represented by the state. Stemming from a lack of materialist analysis, they do not place to the fore the land question, which is almost single-handedly responsible for the racial antagonism has persisted within the United States up to the present day. Moreover, the hostility of the Communist Party toward authentically popular black nationalist leaders and organizations - while heaping praise upon the corporate and George-soros sponsored ‘black lives matter,’ eliminates the whole of their credibility so far as questions of ‘racial oppression’ are concerned.

The Communist Party has nothing to do with America’s black people, has no leadership over America’s black people and no popularity. Point, blank, and simple. As for the emphasis on the point of America’s ‘multi-racial’ working class, what exactly is the point? Not even Trump’s movement cares to depict itself as exclusively ‘white,’ so where does this liberal idiocy come from?

It comes straight form the paranoiac fantasies of the identarian liberals, who, in their obsession with race, elect to chase ghosts where there are none. Certainly the media’s over-emphasis on Charlottesville, etc. has led to the view that Trump’s movement is inevitably ‘white-supremacist.’ The truth is that Trump’s movement is very racially ambiguous. It has led to an unprecedented degree of support for the Republicans party among the black population, and Latinos make up a very strong component of MAGA even in counties close to the Mexican border, in Texas. Needless to say, a deeper, superior materialist analysis is necessary than the one copy-and-pasted straight from the mouths of the commentators of MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, and other academic philistines and parasites. By no means does their assessment reflect the reality on the ground.

A new beginning, beyond the false polarization of the Democrats and Republicans, and their respective discourses, is necessary. Materialism, after all, begins with the sobriety of accepting the possibility that everything you already think about the world - is wrong.

Luna Oi, a pathological crybully with an exaggerated victim complex, is an established Youtube content creator with over 55,000 followers on twitter. Naturally, the majority of you will possess a bias in their favor. They are more well-known, more well-liked, and more well-established. This means they can make up whatever they want, and my ability to defend myself will be severely handicapped.

I will simply look bad, based on whatever narrative they spin about me - solely because I’m not as well known. There’s not much I can do about this except wait. Over the passage of time, as I become more well-known and vindicated in my position, many of you will inevitably apologize to me for your mischaracterization. I want to make it clear I won’t forgive you. That’s because whatever future the American left has, it doesn’t need people like you.

Still, I’m not going to allow this crybully and her defenders to get away with their false mischaracterizations and narrative of the events. So let’s begin.

The ‘Debate’ Over American Patriotism

All of this has to be placed within a so-called ‘debate’ among American leftists on twitter over the question of American socialist patriotism. It started with a tweet by Jackson Hinkle, in which he claimed that being an American patriot is in no way incompatible with being a Marxist-Leninist and anti-imperialist. The foremost representatives of this position consist in Jackson, Caleb Maupin, myself and Peter Coffin.

As far as the so-called ‘debate’ is concerned, most of the American left on twitter were just chasing ghosts and strawmen. The overwhelming majority of the American left, otherwise known as Baizuo (as they are called in China) received this pretty standard position with hostility. Despite the fact that from a historical perspective, it had always been the norm in the United States, and remains the norm among Communists throughout the world. It is the peculiar nature of the American left alone, about which we will speak more of later on, that, over the course of decades since the New Left, rendered this position marginal and obsolete.

When confronted with the ‘controversy,’ Communists from around the world - from Latin America to China and Eastern Europe - were quite aghast that it could even be controversial that Communists must, by default, be patriots. Some were confused and thought that perhaps ‘patriotism’ was being used opportunistically as a cover for some kind of apologia for American imperialism. But when shown that all myself, Jackson, Caleb and Peter Coffin were saying is that American Communists, while remaining fervent anti-imperialists and showing solidarity with all international elements resisting US imperialism, must also be patriots who possess a love of country and people, they were extremely confused that this was being met with so much hostility.

Why is it that the American left, or Baizuo considers itself an exception to what is a basic, default and standard norm for Marxist-Leninists around the world? The answer can be found from the brothers Grimm fairy tale called Rumpelstiltskin. In this fairy tale, a monster with the power of immortality basically possesses one weakness: Their name. If they are named, they are defeated. The same holds true for the disease that is Americanism or American exceptionalism: Only if American leftists are named, only if this pretense to global universalism is particularized, is it able to be defeated. Authentic American patriotism is not only ‘compatible’ with the anti-imperialist position, as far as American Marxist-Leninists are considered it is the greatest weapon against American global unipolarity.

Luna Oi’s Fraudulent Pretense to American Identity Politics and use of American ‘Standpoint Epistemology’

Enter the well-known crybully and fraud that is Luna Oi, who decided to enter the debate. Luna Oi is a highly privileged Vietnamese Youtuber with an audience primarily consisting of white American leftists. She’s married to an white American anarchist man. You may think this is an irrelevant ‘personal attack,’ but he - known as Noncompete - is ideologically active, and regularly co-streams with Luna and has his own channel with 100k subscribers. Needless to say, they collaborate ideologically, inform and shape one and another’s views. And since Luna has an English speaking and primarily American audience, such an exchange is obviously unequal: She has entered the American left, Noncompete has not entered the Vietnamese left.

Her means of making an income consist in participating in and pandering to American leftist discourse, adopting all manner of peculiar views nowhere to be found in Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist literature, in order to fit in with the prevailing trends of and appease the ideological position of her American audience.

Because she is adjacent to American leftist discourse, since it is literally how she makes a living, and for reasons that have nothing to do with Vietnam whatsoever, Luna Oi decided to insert herself in this ‘debate,’ assuming an ultra-leftist and anarchistic position on the question of socialist patriotism:

What is Luna doing? She is making it appear as though her position is coming from a purely ‘authentic Vietnamese Communist perspective’ and is thus representative of Communists outside of America. She is justifying a position held almost universally by white American ultra-leftists on the basis of her particular ‘standpoint’ and ‘identity’ as a so-called ‘Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist.’

It’s quite common for Americans to leverage their marginalized identities in order to gain an edge of their fellow urban petty bourgeois and professional managerial peers, especially in our attention economy, whether for purposes of career-climbing or gaining clout or credibility on the internet. But Luna Oi has set the precedent of people leveraging their status as residents of other countries in order to gain legitimacy and clout among American leftists, particularly self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninists.

Up until now, her fraudulent hucksterism has never been called out, because American Marxist-Leninists have either been too afraid of her (a notorious crybully who smears and slanders her critics) or too afraid of the optics of an American critiquing a Vietnamese woman. I am proud to have been the first to expose this fraud for who she is: An ideologist of American imperialism!

In this particular debate, it’s very easy to fall into the trap of idealistic universalism: Assuming, as the Fraud Luna Oi tried to claim, that it was merely about the American flag in all contexts. Had Luna Oi merely expressed hostile attitudes Vietnamese people possess toward the American flag, she would not have even entered the ‘debate’ in the first place. She engaged in a form of identity-politics opportunism, by entering a debate whose exclusive significance is for Americans and within America, assuming the utlra-left and anarchist position - while making it appear she is doing so from the ‘Vietnamese’ perspective.

But why would a Vietnamese Communist care if American Communists are patriotic in their own country? Would the victims of US imperialism not be relieved when Americans decide to focus on their own country and cease to meddle in the affairs of others? Of course they would be! What else can explain the appreciation forces of global anti-imperialism had for Trump and his message of isolationism? What else explains the fact that anti-imperialists literally say this themselves? As a matter of fact, many Vietnamese Communists in the past, like all Communists fighting US imperialism, even insist Americans be patriotic, for it renders them the most effective anti-imperialists they could possibly be.

The assumption that American unipolar globalism is ‘patriotic' is shared between both the ultra-leftists and the propaganda of the ruling class itself. In reality, it is anything but.

Here is Ho Chi Minh himself. There are probably much better examples, but this was what I found on the first page of a google search, in his “message to the American people”:

Who has caused these sufferings and mournings to the Vietnamese and American people? It is the U.S. rulers. The American people have realized this truth. More and more Americans are valiantly standing up in a vigorous struggle, demanding that the American Government respect the Constitution and the honour of the United States, stop the war of aggression in Vietnam and bring home all U.S. troops. I warmly welcome your just struggle and thank you for your support to the Vietnamese people's patriotic fight. I sincerely wish the American people many big successes in their struggle for peace, democracy and happiness.

Keep in mind, this was in 1966 after the United States had unjustly invaded Vietnam. If anyone had reason to despise the United States in its entirety, it is the leader of the Vietnamese people fighting against American troops himself. Yet nowhere in his message does Ho Chi Minh claim that the American people must ‘demand the abolition and destruction of the United States.’ On the contrary, he applauds those truly patriotic Americans who demand the government to respect the Constitution, the country’s most sacred symbol and founding document, and “honour” the United States.

Nowhere have the forces of anti-imperialism made the unreasonable demand that the progressive and democratic forces within America itself discard and abandon their own flag in their struggle to seize popular hegemony over the American people. Not within Vietnam nor anywhere else. Only the American left itself, in its anarchistic and petty bourgeois ultra-leftism, has made such a ‘demand.’

Now in certain contexts, the American flag obviously does represent US imperialism. How could it not? It is, after all, the flag flown by the American military itself. However the error of American liberal universalism must be avoided. If Iranians and other peoples throughout the world burn the US flag, they are not making the universal declaration that the American people must themselves burn the flag. They are burning the flag because so far as they are concerned, the representatives of the American state and country, are their enemies.

According to the American universalist perspective, every particular form of government, culture, path of economic development, expression of national feeling or attitude is a universal standard and prescription under which all people, regardless of their unique and particular circumstances, must obey.

It is difficult for the American leftists to grasp that Iranians who chant ‘Death to America!’ and anti-imperialist American patriots can possess the fullest solidarity with one and another, precisely because they are themselves unconscious (and often overtly conscious) American imperialists. American ideological imperialism does not consist in respecting the American flag or possessing a love of the country that is America. It precisely consists in the unconscious structure of American universalism, according to which all mankind is subject to a single common prescriptive standard, state, discourse and culture.

Here is what separates idealism from materialism: The idealists believe that American imperialist ideology has its basis in ideas about America, in flags and in patriotism, rather than material, and therefore unconscious structures which elevate the American subject to the universal status.

It is of no consequence whether that standard disguises itself in the form of ‘anti-imperialism’, ‘leftism’ or even ‘Communism’ - the content of the standard is by nature imperialist. It implies a universal state apparatus to interpellate such a ‘universal subject. Here lies the essence of American unipolarity. The American ‘Marxist-Leninists’ have merely replaced American universal human rights, slogans of ‘democracy’ and ‘economic liberty’ with the disguise of Marxism-Leninism.

American universalism is nothing more than the highest stage of Anglo-Saxon idealism, according to the particular arises out of a fixed universal premise. Shoot the arrow, then find the target. Marxist humanist universalism, best epitomized today by Xi Jinping Thought, in contrast to Americanism, recognizes the universal realities of mankind to arise out of and through the wealth of differing concrete and particular realities - which do not follow under a common prescription, standard or discourse.

The unity of mankind does not follow from the prescription of some supposedly universal form of this unity upon it, but from a concrete unity forged on the basis of mutual respect, determinate association and withdrawing all claims to any pretense of knowledge of the other’s essence. What is truly in common, then, may arise authentically and on the basis of authentic mutual recognition.

American leftists cannot make, as an excuse for their own petty bourgeois antisocial paratism and inability to lead the American masses. the anti-American sentiment that prevails among global forces of anti-imperialism or marginalized ethnic minorities within America. These forces, many of whom even taken the American war of independence as an inspiration of their struggle, have every right to be anti-Americans insofar as the official representatives of America engage in ceaseless acts of aggression against them. They can in no way be faulted for their anti-Americanism. But American leftists, and white leftists in particular, possess no right to be anti-Americans, and can be criticized for their anti-Americanism, since it is a form of refusing their own responsibility.

They uniquely possess the duty to seize hegemony over their country, to be even more authentic American patriots than the imperialist deep state and ruling class - since American politics is precisely their problem. The nature of the American government is not the problem of anti-imperialists, defending their homelands against American aggression is. They have their own governments, their own countries and their own homelands to worry about - America has imposed its significance only isnofar as it has engaged in aggression against them.

But American leftists cannot abdicate and surrender their responsibility for the foreign policies of their own country: It is their patriotic duty to take responsibility for the actions of their own country, and seek an end to American unipolarity, imperialist aggression and do right by victims of American imperialism. This requires an ideological revolution on the part of Americans, from unipolar American universalism to a Marxism-Leninism fit for the age of multi-polarity, where they apply the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism to the particular context of the United States, and cease to act as though the latter context is itself some universal site of prescriptive truth.

It appears contradictory only to those who lack any semblance of dialectic thinking that American Marxist-Leninists must, at the same time being the most fervent enemies of American exceptionalism and American imperialism, be American patriots. America is a particular country, insofar as American Marxist-Leninists treat America as a particular country, they combat the very essence of Americanism, according which America is the universal police state of the world. It is not by burning American flags that American Marxists threaten American imperialism, it is by reigning in on American imperialism by seizing it at the level of its own particular material, national and civilisational premises.

Dialectic thinking entails that all things are annihilated on the basis of their own premises, likewise, American imperialism can only be destroyed on the very same basis that had engendered its emergence: The American state and people. No wonder that Trump was a greater anti-Imperialist than all the Baizuo frauds combined!

And Luna Oi is most certainly an even greater ideologist of American imperialism than Donald Trump. She attempted to mish-mash the contexts of the United States with Vietnam, leveraging her particular background as a citizen of Vietnam to bolster the credibility of the antisocial and urban petty bourgeois ultra-left Baizuo, who are in fact the greatest ideological and cultural servants of American imperialism. She implied, in her tweet, that that there exists a ‘universal representation’ (in this case the American flag) that applies in all countries, in all contexts, and in all circumstances, subject to a common and universal moral prescriptive standard.

She makes it appear as if there is a ‘universal discourse,’ prescriptive, standard and morality among Marxist-Leninists in every country - but as every materialist understands, such a ‘universal standard’ implies an equally ‘universal institution’ in which it finds concrete and material instantiation. Perhaps it is the institution of the Marx’s International Workingmen’s association? It no longer exists. What about the Second International? It collapsed over a hundred years ago. Is it the institution of the Comintern? It too, has been dissolved. What about the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, or the IMCWP? Alas, this body has no prescriptive function or power over its member parties.

We are anything but surprised to discover that as a matter of fact, this institution consists in nothing more than the institutions of American unipolarity, in which such prescriptive standards and morality find real application across national and geographical differences. Herein consists the ‘earthly premises’ of the airy-fairy discourse of twitter leftists. Otherwise, what form can international solidarity take, beyond respecting the differences of circumstances and working to learn from one-and-another on the basis of concrete association? How can the contexts of Vietnam and America be mish-mashed, unless both are subject to a common standard, and therefore a common state?

Vietnam is a sovereign country, with its own government and its own people. (Of course, anarchists reject, in principle, the sovereignty of governments). Twitter and Youtube are American corporations, and insofar as they possess international relevance, they serve the interests of American imperialism.

Were we to leave it there, this would be enough to expose Luna Oi as a fraud and an ideologist of American imperialism. But we have not even arrived at the tip of the iceberg: What makes this all the more pathetic, is when we begin to actually evaluate the context that is Vietnam, in comparison to Luna Oi’s false pretensions…

Does Luna Oi’s Position Represent Vietnamese People?

Luna Oi is trying to spin a narrative that ‘she was merely expressing her revulsion, as a Vietnamese woman, to the American flag.’ She is a fucking liar.

Americans might find it easy to believe that it’s very common in Vietnam for people to hate America, hate the United States and hate the American flag. After all, the United States did commit great atrocities and crimes during the Vietnam war. Why wouldn’t Vietnamese people hate the US flag, and hate the United States?

Of course, such a revulsion and hatred would be justifiable, were it not used to denigrate the efforts of American Communists and anti-imperialists fighting within the US. After all, we are not shoving our flag in her face, we are not daring to fly our flag in her country, we just want to do it in ours. Even if she was telling the truth: That the reason she has a revulsion to the US flag is because of the Vietnam war, my criticism would have remained justified. But it happens that Luna Oi is a pathological liar and a fraud, who is deceiving American Marxist-Leninists into thinking that Vietnamese people are anti-American.

The truth is, Vietnam is a notoriously pro-American country.

Favorable attitudes toward the United States are among the highest, as a proportion of the population, in the entire world. Consider the results of the following study:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/30/vietnamese-see-u-s-as-key-ally/

In it, we find that:

About three-quarters of Vietnamese (76%) expressed a favorable opinion of the U.S. in a 2014 Pew Research Center survey. More highly educated people (89%) gave the U.S. especially high marks. Young people ages 18-29 were particularly affirmative (89%), but the U.S. is seen positively even by those who are old enough to have lived through the Vietnam War. Among those ages 50 and older, more than six-in-ten rated the U.S. favorably.

These results are remarkable. Even among those who had survived the Vietnam war, the epitome of American savagery and barbarism, six-in-ten rate the U.S. favorably. Luna Oi never even experienced the Vietnam war, yet the majority of people who did still view the US favorably. Among those her own age, 89% have a favorable view - ranking her opinion potentially representative of a meager 11% of the Vietnamese youth. And that’s only if we assume that their views are as extreme as hers, i.e. that they believe even Americans themselves have no right to fly their own flag in their own country. That’s highly improbable. What we find later in the article is even more shocking:

Looking to the future, Vietnam sees the U.S. as an important ally. When asked about what countries they can rely on as a dependable ally in the future, more Vietnamese chose the U.S. than any other country. Conversely, China is viewed as the greatest threat to the future of Vietnam.

Now, I ask the audience to make particular note of this part of the article, you will find it’s even more relevant to the argument than anyone could have expected.

Some have pointed out that the study is old, because it’s from 2015. Very well! Let’s consult a more contemporary study, from 2017:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/06/26/tarnished-american-brand/

Laughably, in this study, which was conducted two years later, an even greater proportion of Vietnamese people - a whopping 84% - possessed a favorable view of the US. KEKW.

The truth is, Vietnam and the United States are strategic and regional allies, and Vietnam has joined the Untied States’ imperialist efforts to encircle China. One of the reasons the United States is probably seen so favorably in Vietnam, is because among the majority of Vietnamese people, China is seen as the greatest enemy, as a result of decades of conflict following the context of the Sino-Soviet split. Consider this study:

China’s official military budget grew by about 9% per year over the past decade, and few of its neighbors appear to welcome the increase. In South Korea, Japan and Vietnam – countries actively engaged in disputes with China over military deployments or territory in the East and South China seas – nine-in-ten or more think China’s growing military power is a bad thing for their country.

80% of Vietnamese believe China’s power and influence is a ‘threat’ to their country:

Now I recognize the complexities of the situation. Vietnam is its own country, with its own history and its own problems. As far as I’m concerned, whatever problems China and Vietnam possess toward one and another are problems they alone have the right to settle, I - as an American - have no right to take part in such a dispute. But the thing is, the majority of Vietnamese public sentiment welcomes and even invites a US military presence in the South China Sea, in order to deter China in the territorial dispute. My position, as an American patriot, is that not a single American soldier and not a single American naval ship has any right to even exist in Asia. And yet this position would be considered extreme in Vietnam!

Luna claims that it is her Vietnamese background that informs her position on the debate over American socialist patriotism, and the atrocities committed by America in Vietnam. Why then, does she find herself in such an extreme minority among Vietnamese voices? Why then, is American military presence and unipolar power encouraged by the government and the public? It is one thing to merely say that the flag is met with revulsion in Vietnam… But not even the American FUCKING military is met with revulsion!

Her position in no way represents the feelings and attitudes of the Vietnamese public, which are even far to the right of myself, an American patriot!

If Luna’s revulsion to the American flag (which she has every right to be, in her own country) is based on her Vietnamese background, why is the American flag displayed so liberally within Vietnam? Where is the revulsion on the faces of all of these people?

Now I take no issue if Vietnamese people want to burn American flags. They have every right to, and as an American, one of the ways I take responsibility for the crimes of my country is by absolutely respecting the hatred and destruction of its symbols by those victimized by our government. But contemplate the absurdity of Luna Oi’s position:

1) Not only is she saying that Vietnamese people should hate the American flag, she is claiming American socialist patriotism is impossible because of her own experience as a Vietnamese woman

2) All the while, Vietnamese people liberally and gleefully fly this same flag within their own country, and possess among the most favorable attitudes to the United States of any country in the world.

Her claim does not stand: Luna Oi did not live through the Vietnam war, she is not the only person in Vietnam who has had relatives experience it. It’s even absurd having to type that out. According to American standpoint epistemology, we are just supposed to accept whatever she says is true, because it’s her ‘particular standpoint.’ But how does she reconcile her ‘standpoint’ with the facts of the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese people having a wildly different attitude than her?

We could of course, try to consult Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist literature. There, we may find the theoretical and ideological basis for Luna’s position. But alas, we find nothing but emphasis on the importance of socialist patriotism (coupled, of course, with anti-imperialism). Nowhere do we find the view that American Communists cannot be patriots.

This begs the question: If Luna’s view does not come from Vietnam, or the feelings of the Vietnamese people, where do they actually come from?

Why NonCompete Must be Brought Up

Enter noncompete, Luna’s White American anarchist husband.

Many think this is an irrelevant ‘personal attack’ and a form of ‘sexist misogyny’ that I insist upon pointing out his significance. Yet noncompete is not some private partner in Luna’s life. He is, as I said before, ideologically active, and co-streams with Luna - on questions of political, ideological and theoretical significance.

Some may think pointing out her husband’s decisive influence on her world view is a ‘sexist attack.’ I reproach those same people with their hypocritical stance toward Grimes when news first broke out that she began to date Elon Musk. Grimes, who had previously been popular among Leftists for her ‘anti-imperialist’ stance, was condemned for dating Elon - and all of her subsequent new political, social and cultural positions were attributed to the influence of her boyfriend.

As we speak, right now on twitter - the same leftists accusing me of ‘sexism’ for pointing out noncompete are attacking Grimes for posing with the Communist Manifesto in a recent photoshoot, attributing this to the ups-and-downs of her relationship with Elon. What unimaginable hypocrisy.

Let us cast aside all these hypocritical and meaningless pretentions to identity politics and accept the basic truth: It is not unreasonable to recognize that people are influenced by their friends, their partners and their spouses. And in this specific context, the nature of noncompete’s influence must be highlighted: To expose Luna Oi’s fraudulent pretense to representing the authentic Vietnamese Communist perspective.

Luna Oi is entitled to every opinion she has, and deserves to be treated with respect on the basis of the content of that opinion. She can, obviously marry whoever she wants and shouldn’t be criticized for her personal choices in life. What I refuse to respect, however, is her attempt to give credibility to her Baizuo positions on the basis of her own ‘Vietnamese’ identity, attempting to deceive her audience that her positions, in the main, come from Vietnam. She is entitled to voice her opinion like any other American leftist - but she is, in practice, nothing more than an American leftist.

She is not a ‘Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist.’ She is a Vietnamese woman who joined American leftist discourse and culture. She represents only herself, just like any other American leftist. Her Vietnamese background has no decisive significance or relevance as far as the position of American universalism she is espousing: Beyond being used as raw-material to reinforce said position. This is the crux and essence of why she is a fraud: Not because, as some liars are attempting to paint my words into saying, that she has a white husband - but because she is pretending to speak on behalf of Vietnamese Communists.

For those of you who found it outlandish that I accused Luna Oi’s perspective as being influenced and shaped, in part or in whole, by her anarchist husband, I refer you to the following evidence:

This is a bizarre thing to claim for a Marxist-Leninist. It would be a heretical viewpoint within the Vietnamese Communist Party, and within every major Marxist-Leninist party in the world. Marxist-Leninists, from Marx and Engels themselves, to Lenin and Stalin - have made it very clear that the difference between Marxism and anarchism does not rest on some ‘miscommunication’ but is a very real difference.

I suppose it’s merely a coincidence her husband is, himself an anarchist. Wait...

Oh, I suppose it’s another coincidence. In any case, it’s really bizarre that Marxist-Leninist claims that they ‘respect’ anarchism (who have always been sworn enemies of Communists since the October revolution, even attempting to assassinate Lenin - through the Spanish civil war, where they opened the gates to Franco’s armies). Not only do they ‘respect’ anarchism, they do so ‘more than most MLs’ - what?

The majority of Marxist-Leninists exist outside of America. Her own country contains a sizable proportion of those same Marxist-Leninists. She ‘respects’ anarchism, however, more than ‘most MLs.’ Maybe she slipped and meant to say more than most American MLs. But why, then, pretend to speak from a universal position - why does she pick and choose when she wants to confine herself to the context of the American left, as opposed to Vietnam?

But I suppose that has nothing to do with noncompete. We are supposed to believe that in Vietnam, such views are widespread among Communists and among members of the Communist party. Oh, but wait…

Surely, this too, is a coincidence? Why would a Marxist-Leninist say such a weird thing? Where, in Marxist-Leninist literature, does one find talk of ‘flat hierarchy?’ In On Authority, Engels makes use of the simple example of a hierarchy of sailing a ship to point out its importance. I guess according to political correctness, we cannot accept the plain-faced truth and fact that she is saying this bullshit because her husband is an anarchist. Our eyes are lying to us, apparently.

Let’s even assume it has nothing to do with her white American anarchist husband. Does that even make a difference? The views do not originate from Vietnam, but from American ‘popularizers’ of ‘anarchist ideology’ on the internet - be it among her own audience or among other American leftists. Only in Anglo-Saxon countries, or on American corporate internet is it ‘trendy’ to be sympathetic to, interested in or affiliated with ‘anarchism.’

And within the American corporate internet, it is primarily among Anglo-Saxons themselves that you find anarchism to be a popular trend. Need evidence? Take a look at these findings from internet search trends:

Let’s just call a spade a spade. Luna Oi’s stupid ultra-leftist views don’t come from Vietnam and probably were influenced by her husband. Obviously she has found a way to independently accept these views herself and rationalize them, but the difference between her and other Vietnamese Communists is that the latter, in the main, aren’t married to American white anarchists. When faced with Luna Oi’s decisive pretense to being a ‘Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist,’ you cannot, in good faith ignore this decisive fact.

If she doesn’t want people to ever bring it up, she needs to own up to the fact that she only speaks for herself, and needs to stop leveraging identity politics ‘as a Vietnamese women’ to justify her ridiculous ultra-leftist views, when they are indistinguishable from her white American husband.

Let’s be very clear about something: Noncompete has more revulsion to the US flag than probably even the most anti-American Vietnamese Communists. He’\s an anarchists. Anarchists, in principle, reject states, reject nations, and reject flags - most importantly the flag of their own country.

That isn’t because they are authentic anti-imperialists, it’s because they are anti-social, declassed fucking losers who, because of their own mediocrity, harbor great resentment against their families and the society in which they live. Anarchism is the most quintessentially American ideology: It is abstract and ceaselessly indeterminate negation, claiming to be beyond all determinate and concrete realities.

The only successful anarchist revolution in the entire world has been the emergence of the United States as the foremost unipolar power of the world, overturning the customs, traditions, and civilizations of the peoples of the world, destroying states wholesale like a blind and reckless juggernaut, and imposing, wholesale American culture, ideologies and notions of ‘human rights’ upon all peoples, regardless of particular circumstances, conditions and histories.

America is the only state in the history of world that has elevated abstract and indeterminate subjectivity to the status of state power, and it now elevates the whimsical hither and thither of the American public subjectivities, fueled by the wild west that is the spiritual animal kingdom of mass media - from the George Floyd protests to LGBT sentiments - to the status of being premiere global sovereigns that impose their significance with near absolute military might.

What is more anarchist than this? Phenomena that have their basis in thin air, in pure undiluted subjectivity and morality, elevated to the supreme power of the world.

We, American patriots, are patriots precisely because want to put an end to this anarchist madness that is Americanism, to finally deliver the American people to their own substantive and concrete reality, to finally forge a state by, of and for the people, to the people as they really are, and not as we morally demand they be - to the people in their material reality, their history, their tradition. We take as our foremost inspiration the experience of Socialism in China culminating in Xi Jinping Thought, the most advanced form of the development of Marxism-Leninism in the 21st century.

Luna Oi’s Americanism makes itself abundantly clear when she adopts the exact contrary stance: That American leftists must dwell in the unhappy consciousness that is Americanism. She thereby contributes to the emboldening and empowerment of American imperialism more than any agent of the state department can dream of: It is precisely self-denial and self-negation that fuels the ideological apparatus of American imperialism, which is why BLM and LGBT flags, not the American flag, are now its foremost symbols globally.

We are not long from the day that the works of J Sakai will be weaponized against the Peoples’ Republic of China, with the charge of ‘settler colonialism’ being levied against the Han in Xinjiang and Taiwan! The circus that is the American left is a Darwinian vacuum, that selects only for the greatest weapons of American imperialism, which inevitably make their way to the top! Do you think this is exaggerated? Perhaps a bit overblown?

Have a look at this tweet Luna made in January of this year:

Luna claims her views ‘changed’ and that she was ‘misread’ because in the Vietnamese language, there’s a difference between the use of third and first person words or something. Yeah, you can go ahead and believe that horseshit when it’s pretty obvious she pretended to revise her position because she was afraid of losing patreon subs and was being called out by American ‘anti-imperialists’ as well as Chinese anti-imperialists. T

She also lied and claimed she ‘doesn’t remember’ and that she thinks it could be from ‘years ago’ or ‘2019.’ Lol, no, it was from the 23rd of JANUARY of THIS YEAR.

Luna is not merely remaining ‘neutral’ about a confrontation between the US and China, since in such a confrontation, America is an aggressor and China is merely defending itself. For all the outrage she feigns about US atrocities in Vietnam, it is curious that she has no problem enabling and cheering for such atrocities to be committed against the Chinese people.

Such a level of national hatred is contemptible and disgusting, and transgresses all bounds of basic proletarian internationalist decency. She would ‘love’ to see a war that could potentially lead to the deaths of tens, possibly hundreds of millions of Chinese people, this rank agent of American imperialism. If there is any doubt as to whether Luna’s proximity toward the American left corresponds to her objective position of siding with American unipolar imperialism in the world, principally against the People’s Republic of China, let this tweet put all doubts to rest.

In contrast to Luna, fellow Marxist-Leninist patriots will not ‘love’ to see such a war. We would take the revolutionary defeatist position, hoping sincerely for the victory of China and the final destruction of American imperialism. China would undoubtedly aid in the destruction of our own heavily despised ruling class and decadent professional managerial elite, and we would thank them for it. In the meantime, we make it our patriotic duty to struggle against every act of American aggression against China and every possibility of a war against China.

My Tweet and Luna Oi’s Deranged Response:

We finally arrive at the first tweet I’ve ever made in response to Luna Oi, which began this entire ‘argument.’ I always found Luna Oi to be a repulsive and disgusting liar, but always elected to distance myself from her, her community and followers as much as I could. I genuinely hate these people, I hate baizuo and I hate American leftists - especially those who give Marxism-Leninism a Baizuo politically correct coat of paint (i.e. GenZeDong).

I don’t give a shit about Luna Oi and never wanted anything to do with them. The only fucking reason I tweeted at her, is because she was effectively subtweeting me all day attacking ‘American patriotism,’ a view that finds its primary basis in myself and three other influencers, but in no community larger than my own.

Here’s what I tweeted:

Knowing the crucial context, what I said is completely justified. It’s what I said after that apparently constitutes my alleged ‘sexual harassment’ of Luna Oi:

How did Luna spin this tweet? She claimed that I was calling her a sex object. Never in my life have I been more disgusted at being forced into proximity, discursively, with such a person. I want nothing to fucking do with Luna Oi. I think she’s a disgusting and repulsive liar, the idea that I would ever speak about her with such degree of personal proximity makes me sick to my stomach. Such a person, to me, is so fraudulent and disgusting, that I would not even insult them in such a way - I would not even want to discursively engage with them at such a level of detail.

Look at how this disgusting and deranged psychopath responds:

What the literal fuck?

In what way is Luna being degraded as a ‘sex object.’ Again, I will quote the tweet she is responding to:

I guess we should do the most revolutionary thing of all: Leave America, just like Noncompete, and settle and find a spouse in foreign countries. This is the alternative Luna offers to socialist patriotism: Basically becoming a sexpat.

The idea is that, since I am ‘calling’ noncompete a sexpat, this means she is a mere sex object. Even if I was calling noncompete a sexpat, the implication does not follow whatsoever. It could easily imply that HE views her that way, but that she is not one herself.

How the FUCK is it being implied that SHE is a sex object?

At most, what it might imply is that non-compete views her this way. Which again, was in no way essential to the point and has nothing to do with what I was actually saying: Because as it happens, I wasn’t even calling noncompete a FUCKING sexpat!

What I did imply is that Luna thinks that her husband is an ideal model of being an American revolutionary, and that we should follow in his example. But then, it logically follows that we should ‘basically’ become sexpats, since the overwhelming majority of people who do satisfy the criterion of this ‘revolutionary model’ are sexpats!

Logically speaking, in no way is it necessarily true that noncompete is a sexpat: Only that if Americans were to follow his example in significant numbers, they basically WOULD become sexpats, because they would be moving from an individual condition to a general trend, and the general trend, as it actually exists now, is indeed that of sexpats:

White western losers who travel to third worlds countries, primarily in Southeast Asia, in order to live in a place where they may be considered exotic, wealthy and desirable.

It’s crucial to understand the point: As a general trend, people who follow noncompete’s example are sexpats. This is where the phenomena stands as a generality. Noncompete may very well be an exception, but that has nothing to do with my point: My point is that, if followed as a general trend, it would have to be classified as a form of ‘sexpat.’

It is indeed possible noncompete is not a sexpat, and that he traveled to Vietnam for different reasons and met Luna under entirely different circumstances. Sure. In that case, the content and reason for the example he sets can’t be elevated to a generality, because it’s a unique individual circumstance.

But as for the question of what, American revolutionaries must do prescriptively - if we were to take his case as a general model to follow, one would indeed be encouraging people to, basically, become sexpats - to go out of their way to leave this country and settle abroad in developing countries.

My enemies will dismiss this airtight form of reasoning, which is so indisputably solid it can even be rendered in the form of a mathematical proof, as ‘convoluted’ and ‘mental gymnastics.’ But it takes a great deal of effort to explain to stupid people quite plain and simple things. I have to resort to this complicated reasoning only to the extent that my original tweet has been complicated by the Liar and Fraud Luna in such a complicated way.

In sum, I did not call noncompete a sexpat, I said that if he is taken as a bright and shining example of what American Communists should be doing, you would effectively be advocating for them to become sexpats, not because he is himself a sexpat, but because his individual circumstance rendered into a general trend, is precisely what defines sexpats.

If noncompete looks ‘bad’ because his circumstance resembles those of sexpats, that’s not my fucking problem, its his. I personally think each individual should be taken on a case by case basis, but that’s beyond the point. Luna is attempting to make this about herself, in the sense that I am commenting on her sexual life or her sexuality in any capacity whatsoever, calling her a ‘sexpat,’ but nothing is further than the truth.

Luna is only relevant in that tweet insofar as it is implied she holds her husband, an American leftist, as an example in contrast to other American leftists. The point is:

If, Luna, we American leftists are bad Communists for being patriots, and if we cannot be patriots, are you saying we should be more like your husband, who is also an American, like us?

There is zero implication about anything pertaining to her sexuality whatsoever or her being a ‘sex object.’ Even if I implied noncompete himself was a sexpat, which I did not, it has nothing to do her.

As a matter of fact, it might not even have anything to do with how he views her at all! He could still be a sexpat, in the sense of emigrating to Vietnam as a sexual predator, but then ceasing his predatory ways and finding true love or whatever. I have no idea the circumstances of how they found each other nor do I care. Maybe he went overseas ‘in search’ of a partner (which is indeed sexpat behavior) or maybe the circumstance was entirely different.

In any case, Luna is a fucking liar making shit up and spinning narratives in a totally unjustifiable way.

In no way does it logically or necessaarily follow that it is being implied that she is a sex object, that her husband views her as a sex object, or that she is even the decisive variable in the equation that would define her husband as a sexpat whatsoever. It had nothing to do with my fucking point, point blank period. No ifs or buts about it. You cannot in good faith dispute these facts upon giving it the minimum of some basic thought.

She made that bullshit up entirely by herself.

Just when you couldn’t think it could any worse, look at what this lying, depraved, sociopathic and self-aware fucking liar says:

Okay, audience. Maybe you could maintain the bad faith position of agreeing with Luna that, by implication, I imply she is a ‘sex object.’ Maybe you could maintain that, if you were extremely bad faith and /or too stupid to understand what I actually said.

But this?

Can you really justify her bizarre, deranged and unhinged accusation here? That I am ‘weaponizing the trauma of US soldiers and tourists to rape and sex traffic her people'?’ Her being Vietnamese isn’t even essential to the point. If she lived in Thailand, it wouldn’t have made a difference. How am I ‘weaponizing’ this ‘trauma?’ By saying that if American leftists follow in her husband’s footsteps, they are basically becoming sexpats?

Shut the fuck up Luna Oi you fucking liar and deranged psychopath.

But this is a pattern you’ll notice quite often with Luna. Because of feedback mechanisms with her Baizuo snowflake audience, Luna has learned to weaponize self-victimization and exaggerate it to the highest extent, in order to feign sympathy and make her audience feel tasked with the duty of protecting her.

From a psychoanalytic perspective, she is endowing her audience a path to earning recognition, by making them feel like they are being heard and appreciated by ‘protecting’ the delicate and innocent Luna Oi from evil, mean monsters like myself.

The basic formula and trick is that she takes a single minimally critical or hostile response to her views and blows it so out of fucking proportion to the point of invoking indignation in her audience of Baizuo cucks and karens.

She’s a classic crybully, attempting to silence and deter the minimum of any criticism by leveraging the most scandalous and proximate personal details of her own life and own being so as to appear vulnerable to her audience, so as to make it appear that ‘monsters’ such as myself are making her as such.

She is used to this positive reinforcement form her audience of white American cucks, who enable her deranged and infantile behavior. She is like a 150 foot tall crybaby infant waddling their way through a city, leaving wreckage and disaster in her wake while an army of cucks and karens attempt to console and calm her.

She simply should not be on the fucking internet. She doesn’t have thick enough skin, and her cultish audience of deranged cucks enable this. And I know that’s rich coming from me, I guy who always yells at people - but that’s the thing, I just yell, or I take a break. Luna, meanwhile, engages in self-victimization as a ‘woman of color’, making it seem like she is some fragile, delicate little flower who cannot handle the slightest criticism. Then why does she insist on being treated as a serious Marxist thinker, if she insists on being treated like a child?

Take for example her blowing up at this random tweet with 0 likes:

This tweet had zero likes. No one even payed attention to it. Had she blocked this guy and moved on, nothing would have happened. But she turned herself into a victim, and feigned outrage from her gullible cuck/karen audience as if it represented some general trend initiated by me. Imagine if I isolated every retarded comment made about me and used it as an example of some general trend. So fucking stupid, just look at the replies.

Oh! I’m so sorry Luna! You have 55k twitter followers and you found one negative tweet with zero likes! Such a fucking victim!

There are so many examples of Luna blowing shit out of proportion and feigning outrage over the smallest shit, followed by endless replies of her cuck audience tweeting ‘I’m so sorry this happened to you Luna.’ Wow, what a poor victims!

I bet all of the Vietnamese people who live far bellow Luna’s comparatively rich lifestyle would NEVER want to trade places with someone who sits on their fucking ass and panders to American leftists for a living on Youtube, collecting patreon subs for appealing to American idpol fetishizations of lesser-privileged backgrounds, the price of having to face critical twitter comments is just too high!

Grow the fuck up, it’s the fucking internet you fucking cowards. You are not being victimized because you are being called out for your fraudulent hucksterism on fucking twitter, just log off.

I deal with constant hate, harassment and stalking every day - now with Luna’s viewers added to the mix - and I still manage to get on without feigning sympathy from my fucking viewers every fucking day from the smallest criticism. Since when do ‘serious Marxist-Leninists’, who are supposed to be tough minded and thick skinned revolutionaries, start crying and feigning outrage over fucking tweets on Twitter? Since when does this warrant such outpouring of sympathy? Especially given what I fucking tweeted and her disproportionate crybully response?

It’s afterwards that everyone started to lose their shit. They started to lose their shit, keep in mind, because they didn’t understand the critical fucking context behind the encounter in the first place. In the same tweet thread:

Oh no, so horrible, so sexist, so racist, so vile! The adjectives keep on coming, when will they run out? So fascist! Nazi! Evil! And like that, all of left twitter erupted in a storm of indignation and outrage, how dare he! Here are some of the hilariously dishonest and fraudulent narratives that got spun because of this:

‘Haz is saying that inter-racial marriage is bad!’

‘Haz is saying that POC women are cheaper and less valuable than white woman!’

‘Haz is saying that POC women are not allowed to date white men, what an incel!’ ‘

‘Haz is sexually harassing Luna!’

‘Haz is claiming that Luna is a sex slave!’

No you fucking stupid worthless braindead NPC scumbag fucks. I neither said nor implied anything of that fucking sort. Every single fucking narrative you spun about me is a LIE.

It was Luna who brought up ‘identity’ politics in the first place, by trying to claim that ‘no woman of color’ will ever trust me. I was merely cancelling out her fraudulent appeal to identity politics, by pointing out the fact that her fucking husband is white. I was not denigrating her as a human being, I was responding to the appeal she was making to her identity as a ‘woman of color. ‘

This appeal was clearly fraudulent, because the position that was in dispute, in the first place, renders her background as a ‘woman of color’ absolutely inessential: If this is about her being a woman of color, why is her position fucking indistinguishable from her white anarchist husband?

The added context makes it very clear what I meant: Her position is that of American universalist subjectivity, something that originates in white people and white men, her audience is mainly American and white, her husband is a white anarchist - however you look at it, the authority upon which she draws from is, in actual material reality those of white, American masters - the irony is that the authority she is PRETENDING to draw from, is that of ‘woman of color.’ If you want to cry about the word ‘master’, replace it with ‘authority’ and it’s the same thing!

The fact that I deleted the tweet makes it look worse. But I only fucking deleted it because it touched a huge nerve among both white men who were outraged that their access to ‘woman of color’ appeared to be challenged, and woman of color who probably felt guilty about dating white men (being woke and virtue signaling against white people, a very well-known phenomena - the more they virtue signal hating white people, the more they likely have envious feelings toward whites). These people exist in multitudes, and were threatening to report the tweet. I had to choose between my account and the tweet, and I chose my account. But to be clear, I don’t regret tweeting it and take back nothing.

Both of these people - white men and the ‘woman of color’ outraged because they felt exposed (lol), took it so personally that it was very easy to feign outrage and make it seem like what I said was some unspeakable evil.

The thing is, I don’t care about who people choose to date. I don’t give a shit that your boyfriend or husband is white, why would I? What I refuse to do, is submit to the authority of white men (American white leftists) under the disguise of the ‘authentic feelings of woman of color.’ I’m 100% Arab on both sides of my family, despite many people claiming I’m white or I’m half white. Why should I allow Luna to use ‘woman of color’ to cover for ideologies and views that are not only indistinguishable from, but in fact serve the interests of white male members of professional managerial and urban petty bourgeois classes?

You may think my tweet was too harsh and hyperbolic, because I used the word ‘master,’ which has connotations of total domination. I will apologize for that, when Luna apologizes for calling me a creep, which was even more harsh and exaggerated than what I said. She is allowed to call me a creep, but I can’t point out her hypocrisy in attempting to weaponize identity politics and so-called ‘woman of color’ while disguising the views of white Baizuo men?

If she did not want me to point out the irony of her having a white husband, she should not have attempted to appeal to identity politics by talking about ‘woman of color,’ plain and simple, no ifs or buts about it. I would have never brought it up in the first place, had she not attempted to weaponize her identity and her background to give support to the positions of the American WHITE left.

All the outpouring of projection and clear internal psychological distress reading into that tweet is not even worth my time to address, it’s absolutely irrelevant and has nothing to do with what I said. This is the context that informed what I said:

1) Luna’s views do not come from Vietnam but from the institutions of American unipolarity, and therefore white supremacy.

2) Her target audience, cucks she scams into giving her money are primarily white and American

3) She has an ideologically active white anarchist husband, to whom we can easily attribute many of her views and we can easily identify as a great source of influence upon her.

In the tweet, it seems like I a am saying all ‘woman of color’ white date women have ‘white masters’ just because they’re dating white men. But when you add the entire context that formed the basis of the encounter in the first place, you find that this isn’t the case: I’m not accusing her and ‘woman of color’ like her of having ‘white masters’ JUST for dating white men, but for the necessary context of espousing the views that originate with and are indistinguishable from those of white leftist men. And I wouldn’t have pointed that out, either, were it not for the fact that SHE attempted to weaponize her identity as a ‘woman of color’ and speak for all ‘woman of color’ in the first place.

Because there’s a crucial detail here: Not all woman of color carry water for white men. She had no right to speak for ‘woman of color’ in general, because she happened to be a ‘women of color’ whose views are indistinguishable from those of any baizuo American leftist man, like her husband.

Most Arab men like myself, and most other non-white men, are not baizuo. We hate political correctness and we hate American leftists. We are unashamed of being men. We will not be bossed around by any politically correct ‘woman of color’ trying to impose the authority of white political correctness on us. Cry about it.

Epilogue, addressing common stupidities re ‘Patriotism':

Many attempt to point out the irony of my condemnation of the ‘white left,’ when in fact, I, as an American Communist, seek to win over and reach the white American working class. There is no irony, only a lack of dialectic thinking:

Politically correct Baizuo epitomize the very essence of whiteness, whereas the majority of white people in America, who are working class people, have a less proximate relation to ‘whiteness.’ Whiteness is defined by the absolute formal purity of the subject of Anglo-Saxon metaphysics - but the overwhelming American working class whites have a sense of substantive culture, family, belonging, tradition, spontaneity, and human-ness.

The essence of whiteness is being a snowflake: The tough minded and down to earth white Americans who comprise the broad strata are not sensitive snowflakes. White prejudices and racism may preponderate among many of them, but in contrast to the Baizuo, it does not absolutely define them - they are more than that. Conversely, the Baizuo white leftists are ONLY white. That’s all they are.

They are a parasitic and cancerous outgrowth of the American people, and specifically white American people, and every expression of white guilt, white self-hatred and identity politics they appeal to - including fetishizing indigenous people and claiming the United States must be destroyed - is a form of class warfare by the urban petty bourgeoisie against the rural working class.

This is the plain spoken truth of the matter. The dispute is not between white people and ‘people of color.’ The dispute is between the petty bourgeois urban and professional-managerial white Leftists, footsoldiers of the Democratic party - who represent the quintessential essence of whiteness itself - and the American working class. Each people contain the seeds of their own class struggle.

Right now in America, white people comprise the majority, but by no means are those who feel a sense of belonging to this country exclusively white. Insofar as non-white people do not possess a sense of belonging to this country, it is their duty as Marxist-Leninists to seize hegemony over their own people, win the independence and self-determination of their own people (with the solidarity of the American Communists), and wage the class struggle within their own country-to-be.

Otherwise, the only manner by which white American leftists can show solidarity with non-white victims of American white supremacy is by winning hegemony over their own country. That basis alone will not earn the trust of nonwhite and non-American people, but the first step to earning that trust is acquiring power, upon which basis determinate relations of mutual-respect can be proven in practice.

Luna Oi herself could not fathom the ‘irony’ that I was critiquing her for pandering to American white leftists, all the while it appeared I was appealing to America’s white working class majority:

It’s almost as if the whole point is that you are appealing to the American left, who are precisely defined by the unprecedented extent of their remoteness and lack of proximity to the American people. It’s almost as if the entire point is that a class struggle exists within and among Americans, between the Baizuo leftists and the broad strata of working people! It’s almost as if the power of American unipolar imperialism lies in the American establishment, and not the American people, whose ambiguity allows for the possibility of the engendering of counter-hegemonic forms (precisely in accordance with MZT).

The materialist analysis allows one to understand that American imperialism corresponds to the American establishment, and thus, the urban American left (urbanity taking as its premise not the authentic being of the people, but rational, calculated and often state or corporate-based reflexivity).

In order to ‘pander’ to a people, you have to pander to their established forms, rather than give authentic form to their real content. Luna engages in the former behavior, by pandering to the established and reflexive form of the American people in the form of the American Left - I merely give the American people the materialist benefit of the doubt, that they may be open to the possibility to an alternative to the establishment, principally as it takes the form of the two-party system.

I think Communists can give authentic expression to the interests of the American people better than the establishment can - since the establishment is ideal and the American people are material, materiality is always latent with possibilities unaddressed and un-consolidated by the ideal form. Yet in order to engage with the American people, one has to engage with their material realities. Among which being the state of which they form a part, in its actual material reality.

Yes, many crimes are committed in the name of the American flag. But is that all it means? Do the American people respect the legitimacy of the American flag, because of ideal prejudices of Luna Oi and other American leftists, or is there a deeper, more fundamental material reason? Do they necessarily and materially believe that the American flag MUST stand for American imperialism and all the crimes of America’s history, or might it be more ambiguous? Might it also mean an acknowledgement of a common country, a common history, a common tradition, and a common principle - that is a Republic by, for and of the people?

Communists such as myself, following the precedent of all Communists in history, choose to elect the latter view, following from the teachings of Mao Tse-Tung, to possess trust and faith in the people.

On the issue of ‘land back’ vs. land reform:

Quickly, and for the thousandth time. Luna Oi the Fraud is making it out to seem that myself and other American patriots who oppose ‘land back’ oppose indigenous people being given back land. We don’t, we’re against the empty virtue signalling slogan called ‘land back,’ which bases the pretense to such a transformation on the basis of morality and not concrete political realities.

We are, following the example of all Communists in history, in favor of general land reform, which is not simply based on morality but the material interests of the population of which we constitute a part and which is decisive for enacting its possibility in the first place. Through general land reform, all the particular demands and concerns of indigenous, black. et. al people can be met, why not?

The point is that ‘land back’ is an empty slogan, a worthless form of phrase-mongering that merely entails white people holding reality to an impossible and maximal standard of ‘giving all land back to indigenous people, OR EVERYTHING IS BULLSHIT!’ type of stupid derangement. Land reform means the general redistribution of economic space, or land, to the American people and is thus an opporutnity to do right by indigenous people wronged through broken treaties as wel as black peoples who were never given 40 acres as a mule as promised.

But ‘land back,’ in the context in which this PHRASE is used, is an empty form of virtue signalling in which white leftists make a demand of something on the basis of pure morality, without addressing the material premises behind the political and demotic forces that would make the enactment of such a demand possible in the first place. A typical form of anarchistic stupidity, and it’s no wonder that the lying, cowardly Fraud that is Luna Oi is pushing for it so hard.

We’re not ‘against’ land back. If it was something that was actually going to happen, we’d be for it. We know it’s not going to fucking happen, the only thing that’s going to happen is that white leftists are going to virtue signal in a cringe and disgusting way. We are not concerned just with hypotheticals about what ‘should’ happen but what can and WILL happen.