Destruction of a Fake "Marxist" Professor, Colin Bodayle.

Textbook case of an "Intellectual Yet Idiot"

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.