On the 'Patsoc' Split
'Patsocs' are no more. All that remains are Mecha-Tankies and Mensheviks
We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are “free” to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!
A definitive split has taken form in the so-called ‘Patsoc’ online community. For those unfamiliar, the label ‘Patsoc’ is a broad designation given by Western leftists to those who continue to uphold one of the core-tenets of Marxism-Leninism, which is socialist patriotism, while rejecting the latest liberal trends of the mainstream left (dubbed by ‘patsocs’ as the ‘synthetic left.’).
At first glance, it seems absurd to be giving this any attention. After all, this is just terminally online nonsense! We represent a niche of a niche of a niche of the population, have no real movement behind us, and thus the actual consequences of such disagreements appear over-exaggerations. To such a reproach, I will cite the words of Stalin in his polemic Anarchism or Socialism?:
Thanks for reading Infrared - Essays! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
It is not who has a larger or smaller "mass" following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the "doctrine" of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved.
Those who point out the absurdity of the ‘online’ nature of the ‘battleground of ideas’ are doing nothing more than posturing and bluffing. They are weak of intellect, weak of principle, weak of purpose, and so makeup for their inability to coherently articulate their ideas, using the most advanced means of communication currently at ones disposal, by pretending like they are participating in some esoteric ‘true’ battleground of ideas offline, that is reserved only for the initiated (i.e. those accepted into their equally online secret group chats).
And of course, the relevance of such disagreements currently confine themselves only to the battleground of ideas. There is no ‘real’ Communist movement, or ‘real’ Communist political struggle in the United States at the moment. The practical purpose of this article is thus twofold:
To make clear where Infrared stands, so that the dead-weight, social-democratic ankle biters can fuck off and stop pretending like we are ‘part of the same community’ or ‘movement.’
To definitively respond to the various philistine ‘critiques,’ better understood as the incessant bitching and whining, by the Menshevik ‘patsocs’ since, in their lack of basic manhood, they refuse to debate about the issues they have decided to transform into primary contradictions.
Thus by the end of this article, it should be made clear that this ‘split’ is quite definitive. These ‘patsocdems’ have as much in common with Infrared as do Gonzaloists, Sakaists, anarchists, liberals - or just about any other segment of the Baizuo. Their incessant ankle-biting, bitching and moaning makes clear that anything anyone ever thought we had in common was just a misunderstanding. We have nothing in common.
There is no ‘Patsoc’ community. There are revisionist social democrats, and there are Communists. Frankly, I am relieved the ‘cringe section’ of the ‘Patsoc’ phenomena has decided to turn against us so openly. We never wanted to be associated with these cringe nerds and social-democratic cuckolds in the first place, but were forced to since the same vicious leftists were attacking us. We were united only on the basis of being an island of common civility, respect, etc. amidst the broader ‘mainstream left.’
Civility, and respect, were thrown out the window as soon as their theoretical disagreements turned into outright, vicious personal attacks. I challenge any person seeking a neutral, objective view into the matter, to defend the actions of these utter disgusting, unprincipled scum. Not content with attacking me personally, these vicious cuckolds, in their unhinged soy rage, decided that even uninvolved acquaintances were fair game.
The scum have made clear that their disagreement was not simply theoretical. They harbored such a deep, vicious resentment and hatred of Infrared (and myself personally), that is not rational, but pathological in nature. I challenge any neutral party to look at what they have said, and what they are doing, and tell me these are not people who have been pushed beyond the threshold of sanity, into outright psychosis and derangement. Such is the nature of the frothing-at-the-mouth prostitutes of the bourgeoisie, when faced with the very annihilation of their class in the form of a superior intellect, a superior position, and a superior truth.
They attacked our positions out of nowhere, like any stick-up-the-ass resentful low-T cuck meandering contently in their whining, bitching and moaning. Complaining without cause, without any solution or aim. Just pure, undistilled, butthurt. When their criticisms were calmly, and civilly dismantled, they resorted to outright dismissal and passive-aggressiveness, until the humiliating inferiority of their arguments became so evident that their asshurt went from Squidward Tentacles to Adolf Hitler. And now, they have decided to go the way of Hitler, and completely destroy themselves!
Soviet Revisionism and “The New Class”
The tendency within the so-called ‘patsoc’ community currently positioned against us can be broadly defined as ‘Patriotic Social Democracy’ (PatSocDem).
‘Patriotic’ social democrats are a vestige of Khrushchevite revisionism, and distinguish themselves from the ‘synthetic left’ only on a reactionary basis. Similar to the leadership of the CPUSA, the Communist Party of Canada, and even the rank-and-file of the Democratic Party, their ‘conservatism’ goes no farther than the preservation of the parasitical, professional-managerial and middle-class stratum that makes up the bulwark of the institutions of liberal civil society.
The origins of Soviet revisionism lay in the emergence of a social stratum Sovietologists have identified as the vydvizhensie. In the early years of Soviet industrialization, a practical merger took place between the former technical specialists of the Tsarist era (engineers, managers, scientists, etc.), and Communist cadres ensuring the conformity of the production process with the political aims of the Soviet state. Due to their lack of basic technical knowledge, wreckage in service of foreign powers and the political enemies of the state could proceed unnoticed, carried out by the more technically savvy specialists. Such a scenario was the context of the Shakhty Trial of 1928 and the Industrial Party Trial of 1930.
In response to this dilemma, the Soviet state pursued a policy of quickly educating a select group of working-class and peasant Communist party members in technical expertise, so as to replace the former specialists and eliminate the threat of industrial sabotage. During the period of the first five year plan, while former specialists continued to be purged, they were increasingly replaced with newly graduated Communist specialists, termed the vydvizhensie (promoted workers). These vydvizhensie would form the basis of the Soviet elite until the very end of the USSR, and included such figures as Khrushchev himself.
However, already by the mid-1930s, a contradiction increasingly began to rear itself between the Soviet industrial workers, newly replenished in their ranks from the great peasant mass with each passing year, and the newly promoted vydvizhensie that would come to oversee the production process. Often possessing a petty-bourgeois, bureaucratic and often even abusive method of administration, the vydvizhensie had been, paradoxically, themselves educated within institutions that were themselves dominated by the vestiges of bourgeois culture. Thus their method of administration, the range of their technical knowledge, as well as their attitudes toward the industrial workers were restricted by a type of bourgeois-consciousness.
The vydvizhensie could be defined by a kind of American-oriented pragmatism toward matters of culture, combining the technical expertise of formal specialists with Communist political will only in the crudest, unreconciled manner. Technical knowledge was to be a mere instrument, on the other hand the Communist political will that was meant to instrumentalize them would be treated with a degree of cynicism, itself bereft of the same objectivity and certitude the ‘promoted workers’ had in their newly acquired expertise. As with any newborn stratum, they were at the same time fraught with ambiguity. The point is not that all members of the new vydvizhensie could be characterized by this tendency, the point is that insofar as they constituted a definite new class, set against the great majority, they were epitomized by such tendencies.
A point should briefly be made that, at the same time, many of these vydvizhensie were disposed of an authentic proletarian consciousness, sought to deepen the advancement of genuinely proletarian sciences, and possessed the Promethean aspiration to raise up the whole of the Soviet peasant-and-worker mass to such a status that would render the vydvizhensie (as a class) superfluous. But such a disposition could hardly characterize the likes of Khrushchev and his co-conspirators. It is from their class that the Soviet state was infiltrated from within by the forces of the international bourgeoisie. Likewise, a similar phenomena had actually also emerged in the ‘advanced capitalist West.’ A new stratum, corresponding with the rise of the American New Deal and European social democracy, combined technical expertise with liberal civil conscientiousness in a similar manner.
In contrast to the structural revolutions that were overseen by the ruling elites of the capitalist West, the Soviet social revolution occurred under the auspices of a real proletarian dictatorship. Thus, while giving birth a social strata that bore similarities to the ‘new class’ of the West, the Soviet era under Stalin was characterized by the continual elevation of the great masses of the people against not only those forms of social privilege which were the remnant of the Tsarist era, but even newer ones that newly emerged after the first five year plan - including that of the vidvizhensie, and the remnants of the older technical specialists that merged with them. The great Stakhanovite movement of the mid-1930s for the first time pit the new Soviet industrial workers (that drew from the peasant stratum), with the sanction of Stalin’s leadership, against the vydvizhensie.
According to the consensus of Sovietologists, the vydvizhensie comprised the class base of the new ‘Stalinist dictatorship.’ Their preponderance among party, political and administrative leaders following the Second World War is given as evidence of this. Often overlooked, however, is the manner by which the Stakhanovites - the industrial worker true believers which rose against the managers and technical specialists - emerged as the true base of Stalin’s own leadership. It is actually for this reason that they came to epitomize the worst excesses of the so-called ‘cult of personality’ according to the renegade and revisionist Khrushchev. It is, however, no matter. Stalin’s overall distrust (noted by Mao) of the peasantry, which was the bedrock of phenomena like Stakhanovism and other tendencies positioned against the vidvizhensie, led to an overall curtailment of this Stalinist populism by the end of the Great Purges.
This, however, would not lead the vydvizhensie to forgive Stalin for some of the most dangerous and excessive periods of the Great Purges, when many of those who rose into prominence came to feel the sword of Damocles hanging over their own head. While the Great Purges, in the main, did not in any way target the vydvizhensie as a social stratum, it was dangerously close to doing so, and it showed the possibility of as much was a feature of Stalin’s rule. Stalin was not loyal to this new, privileged stratum of the people - but to the Soviet people as a whole, despite his mistrust of the peasants. Coupled with events like the Lysenko affair, it was clear that Stalin did not represent the exclusive interests of this stratum, and this thus placed them in danger of being replaced in a manner not dissimilar to the way they replaced the previous generation of bourgeois intelligentsia. Stalin's terror, following the Great Purges and especially after the Second World War, would be felt especially by the upper-stratum of the vydvizhensie, who at every moment nervously feared they would be the next to be targeted.
The Stalin era was characterized by a gradual, yet revolutionary devolvement of political, social, and economic powers from exclusive elites to a more broader strata of the people, from the efforts to acculturate workers and peasants, the Soviet constitution of 1936, to future plans for a devolvement of party functions to Soviet democracy. At every turn, exclusive, privileged, and established social strata, coveting a cessation of this revolutionary process, dreamed of an alliance with the international bourgeoisie that would relieve them of the anxiety of this most uncertain social future the proletarian dictatorship had in store for them. Stalin himself could not bring the development of this class struggle under the proletariat to its fullest conclusion, at least not within his own lifetime. However, the development of this class struggle would proceed not within the Soviet Union, but within the world’s largest future Communist state - the People’s Republic of China.
Khrushchev’s secret speech cemented the process under which the vydvizhensie would be transformed, from an incipient, acculturated class that drew from the ranks of one of the earliest recipients of socialist acculturation - to a type of incipient bourgeoisie aligned with global American imperialism. It was bourgeois in the same way Fredrich Engels and Lenin would characterize the upper-stratum of the trade union movement, together with the new middle-classes as bourgeois, not in the sense that they directly engaged in the process of accumulation - but that their interests have come to be aligned with those of the bourgeoisie. The new class possessed the same quality of urbanity, social abstractionism, cosmopolitanism, cynicism with the bourgeoisie due to its structural estrangement from the broad masses. Not only bourgeois subjectivity, but the very germ of a new, future bourgeois class was taking shape, which would only be later realized in the form of the so-called oligarchs following privatizations.
In any case, Khrushchevite revisionism firmly aligned itself with the forces of international social democracy, and a new global nexus, stretching from the Scandinavian countries, the American Democratic Party, the British Labor Party, to (most importantly) India (including the so-called ‘non-aligned movement’) increasingly took shape as a soon-to-be global vanguard of Anglo-American imperialism, the final geopolitical form of capitalism. Soviet anti-imperialism became merely vestigial, primarily confining itself to factions of the security apparatus. The process of the destruction of the Soviet state was underway. This laid the definitive class context of the Sino-Soviet split, where Mao, cognizant of the rise of the vydvizhensie and a similar stratum of Soviet-trained Chinese specialists, bureaucrats and cadres, would wage a fierce struggle against that stratum which, if allowed to be victorious, would see to the ruin of the proletarian dictatorship and capitulation to global imperialism.
The Victory of Social Democracy
The ‘bourgeois’ character of not only this new class, but the actual bourgeoisie itself does not bare in common with the traditional bourgeoisie the quality of atomistic, selfish, scrooge-like individualism and the individual form of privacy, but rather a socialized form of privacy.
Social Democracy here acquires special significance, since it was historically the first political manifestation of the interests of this ‘new class,’ being an instrument of the financial and monopoly bourgeoisie - which has transformed from a definite social class (i.e. capable of being joined, etc.) to a dynastic, almost heritable and exclusive stratum. Following the collapse of the international capitalist system in 1929, the derivative valorization of the falling rate of profit through debt rescued not the capitalist mode of production, but an existing ruling class faced with the prospect of political revolution and economic ruin. Consequentially, the ruling class of owners proper, as a class foreclosed the means of its replenishment from the ranks of the people, establishing a more or less artificially socialized economy under their aegis: A socialism under the auspices of an almost conspiratorial, select elite of financial aristocrats.
Private property has since taken on a social form. Even CEOs, CFOs, the epitome of some of the wealthiest segments of society are but aggrandized salaried professionals, and ownership, to the extent that it is accessible to the broad strata, takes either the form of divisible stocks (themselves a type of currency) or what amount to derivative leases, either as mortgages, securities, titles, and liquid assets (the range of use, so restricted and regulated, that ‘ownership’ proper ceases to be a meaningful designation). Even the form of ownership by the dynastic remnants of the capitalist class (Rockefellers, Morgans, et. al) is diversified and devolved to, rather than single individuals possessed of singular ownership in title, networks and circuits of control spanning a whole range of financial institutions, assets, corporations, brands, and land. The class antagonism does not posses the clarity it once had, between haves and have-nots, it is rather a division cut across the array of a fundamentally socialized mode of production, having at its real center polarities, streams and cycles of capital investment, etc. which together represent planned, yet decentralized supply chains.
The political form corresponding to all of this, is of course social democracy. Liberalism, either in the form of laissez-faire free trade or central industrial policy, corresponded to the form of the traditional capitalist mode of production before 1929. It is not only the quantitative increased socialization, centralization, and monopolization of capitalist society - but a qualitative leap from a private-individual to (seemingly paradoxical) private-social mode of production - that gives rise to social democracy as the superstructural form of American unipolar globalism. Social democracy can be defined as the institutionalization of economic sociality, within the framework of formal, bourgeois democracy. Social relations acquire their own department, their own bureaucracy, etc. as a supplement to the traditional bourgeois formal state. This is not only as a sphere of the implementation of policy, and not even the direction and control of production itself - but also defining the conditions of production (the regulatory, welfare, etc. state).
Additionally, and beyond the sphere of statehood, the ruling-class socialists - known as the Fabians - merge with social democracy through the private, philanthropic creation of a civil ‘open society’ (popper) - a network of institutions, NGOs, think tanks, academia, media complexes, etc. which also premise conditions of production in their own way. The institutionalization of sociality itself, the final enclosure (which encloses the essence of humanity itself, hence, whispers of transhumanism) , bares in common that original institutionalization of means of production into private property, and so represents the highest development of Anglo-Saxon capitalism (which now reduces itself to a pure superstructure of a mode of production that has outmoded it). The production of surplus-value, or profit, appears entirely derivative - that is since profit has long deviated from the surplus-value of classical political economy. Value, according to Marx, has always been social. Yet derivative profits are formally social profits, the form being a measurement of social needs, or data, either in the direct form (big tech) or the financial (i.e. quarterly reports of a given enterprise, measuring the popularity of platforms products, etc. among consumers).
The New Class has not replaced the capitalist class, it has rather replaced the civil society out of which the capitalist class had once emerged, and which is itself the artificial creation of the capitalist class. It conceives itself not as a particular class, a particular stratum, but all society as such. It is Hegel’s universal class, only of hermaphrodites, for whom division is inconceivable. I can’t believe these deplorable oppose vaccine mandates, what is wrong with them? Why aren’t they like us, society? This institutionalized parody of civil society, this Potemkin civil society, has its genesis in the definite form of monopoly capital. The ruling class has sealed its own premises, and thereby has sealed the possibility of any real capitalist competition. The chaos of competition is in fact a crisis of geopolitics. It threatens not only the individual members of the ruling class, but the entire civil society created by them. It only suffices for the smallest germ of raw, wild, non-domesticated civil society to split the atom of the entire state, to comprise the egg of an entirely new state, new society, and new universe. What were events like Waco, if not this? What is MAGA, et. al, if not this?
The new class need not ‘own’ anything. It, at the very least, owns a place in this Potemkin civil society, within which it is entitled to a definite stream of revenue, much like a tumor owns nothing on its own, except a place on the body of the living. It may not comprise necessarily wealthy people, but people who, for whatever reason, have their material interests aligned with the reproduction of these particular conditions of their existence. What unites the new class - from CEOs to tenured professors - consists not in relative degrees of wealth or assets, but their common parasitism. Their labor does not exist as a form of capital, and not even a cost of production for the fulfillment of profit alone - but a social ends in itself, a necessity determined socially, either politically, philanthropically, culturally, or, in the case of the CEO, in a privately social manner, i.e. the socius of the corporation. Labor, has not simply assumed the form of the production of impersonal production, but the labor of sociality itself, the labor that gives rise to the form of the socius, much in the same way that it gives rise to the form of impersonal economic value. The new class:
[…] do not confront Matter, freed from it by the voluntary sacrifice of Knights Templar of the Proletariat. They gobble up and desacralize trophies obtained by subterranean Vikings in a terrible shaft with darkness of the utmost depths.
It is not merely the parasitism of human labor, but the parasitism of human labor as from about the dark heart of sociality itself, that defines the present epoch and the ‘universal class’ that has come into being on its basis. Applying the universal bourgeois principle equality to the socius itself, and more particularly to culture, the interests of society are given expression - never in any universal, singular form - but through social movementism. The universal equality of culture and of all cultural phenomena, must be established in the elevation of various ‘oppressed’ groups - the disabled, sexual minorities, ethnic minorities, women, fat people, et.c - as sublimated forms of sociality itself. Sociality, in conformity with the universal principle of bourgeois equality, has as its content nothing at all. It is the universal equality of nothing. Only in the inequality of social-cultural phenomena does it acquire content - or definite form, as the sublimation of ‘injustice:’ the polytheism of the rights of man. Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, the theosophists, etc. knew well that polytheism is nothing more than a-theism, the mere division of an otherwise empty dharma.
Social democracy, then, loses its determination as a single form of politics, or as a single movement. It occludes itself as the invisible reality of the state (united with its civil society), and culture, not politics becomes the decisive site in which the social antagonism, still mysterious in its current manifestation for the so-called ‘Marxists,’ is given primitive representation. The culture war is a proxy not for competing socializations, but between the institutionalization of sociality, and sociality in its real basis. It is upon this basis that the ‘left-right’ distinction is made in the United States. The left, on the one hand, represents the ‘all-out-drive’ for institutionalization - whereas the Right, on the other, represents not only the rejection of this institutionalization, but alternative formalizations (of the socius). The Right, taken generally, is a mere rejection of the status-quo. But taken in its particular instances, it is comprised of various cults, organizations, communities, dogmas, which ultimately fail in giving positive expression to the socius, in a manner that rivals the status quo. Hence:
You can only lose the culture war.
The Right succeeds only in giving general expression to a rejection, a resistance, which assumes its final form in the nation, or the country. But the patriotism of, say, the MAGA movement is not the institutionalized patriotism of social democracy, but a patriotism of a darker kind, a darker logos, a darker socius. It is a passion of a socius which refuses to be institutionalized. It is, in sum, a type of primitive, backwards socialism, which is reactionary only in the sense of its vanity. The singular, and common socius of the community of labor, the definite ground and context of class struggle itself, is wanting of some positive expression. That is since its positive expression is a fact of its actual, material, economic reality. Notice, for instance, that Trump’s presidency had no consequence in challenging the forces of the ruling class and its Potemkin civil society. On the contrary, establishing itself in opposition to his presidency, this civil society underwent the most rapid development in its history, save for under Nixon.
The ‘synthetic left’ is a mere extension of the political ruling class. It itself has no political reality, and serve as kinds of shock troops for the real political state. A different kind of left, however, has survived as a remnant of the late 20th century, as a type of independent social-democratic left. It found expression in the Bernie, Corbyn, Syriza, etc. movements throughout the world. This is the left of ‘alter-globalization,’ of ‘another world is possible,’ etc. - and it is principally defined by the view that somewhere in the development of social democracy, a mere misstep was taken. A new institutionalized socius must be established, on the basis of morality, compassion, justice, equality, fairness, etc. This ‘left’ can be broken down into two segments.
The first, and most prominent, consists of an incipient professional class, and finds overrepresentation in the environmental movement, activist NGOs, the so-called ‘progressive wing’ of the Democratic Party, etc. - these ‘leftists’ now comprise the vanguard of the ruling class agenda, and have transformed what was once a veneer of independence into an internal inquisition, to ‘shake up’ the old, antiquated institutions of bourgeois society - make them more ‘equitable', ‘fair,’ etc. - and thus it reflects that stratum which enters into the ranks of the ‘new class’ in an incipient manner, at the same time bolstering and strengthening it. It is the Jesuitical wing of Democratic Party and its so-called ‘cathedral.’
The second has its basis in those downwardly mobile and increasingly declassed, or at the very least, once-aspiring members of the ‘new class,’ who find it necessary to ‘replace’ the artifice entirely. If the artificial society created by the ruling class is the Matrix, they merely dream of a new software. Their rallying cry: Patch the code, save the Matrix! For them, the class struggle has become obsolete, in the sense that no fundamental social antagonism exists within the contemporary ‘socialism.’ The class struggle confines itself to a mere theoretical abstraction, and a type of identity-politics so as to artificially interpellate the lower-crusts of civil society - the service sector, in particular - with a political identity. Their attitude to the actual, colloquial working classes is one of condensation: They need only be led along by the petty-bourgeois craft-unionization of the service sector, led by the embittered, failed professionals, so that their discontent might be quelled.
They do not recognize the antagonism the institutionalization of the socius itself poses for this working class, much in the same way that the bourgeois socialists of the past did not recognize the antagonism the institutionalization of private property as such posed for the proletariat. Thus, even ‘identity politics’ and the social-movementisms of social democracy are themselves hideous abominations for them: They prove an inadequacy internal to social-democratic institutionalization. They take offense to identity politics: How dare you divide the working class! Only there is no real working class here, only an artificially contrived identity of its own, which serves as a repository for the grievances of those social-parasites that failed to make their way into the upper-crusts of the new class! And thus, they are Utopians as much as they are bourgeois socialists, for they conceive in their own socius a nirvana of pure socio-cultural equality, whose subject they interpellate as ‘the working class.’
All social antagonism will disappear, the culture war will dissolve, so long as everyone - who fits an abstract, arbitrary criterion that itself finds no independent, phenomenally united expression - conforms to the theoretically contrived definition of ‘the workers.’ We can see, of course, who the ‘workers’ are for these social democrats. They are the professionals, the office workers, the tech engineers, etc. - for this ‘working-class consciousness’ is at the same time an auto-erotic one. The reason is absolutely clear: If the workers simply consist of those who fit a theoretically contrived definition, in reality, the actual ‘subject’ of such a politics are just going to be the people more likely to be theoreticians. If the only reality of the unity of this stratum is in theory, such a theory could only possible unite the glasses-wearing nerds who define their interests based on theory. This is the actual reason for why the ‘workers’ always end up being professionals. Because professionals, being mental laborers, are more likely to adopt an identity based on theory itself, rather than actual material reality. These pathetic, limp cuckolds stare into the mirror, and see this ‘true working class subject,’ and extrapolate the particular conditions of the satisfaction of their own fantasies, with those necessary to resolve the social antagonism of all society.
But this socius is not simply empty and devoid of form. It, like the populist Right, acknowledges the country as a primary unity of the people, above the private social identities created by the status quo. But it does so in a manner opposite to MAGA, that is, not as the negative darkness underlying artificial society, not as the dark socius, but as the supreme incarnation of its smiling logos. The country, the nation, is that of an institution. It is the responsible patriotism of a responsible class - the patriotism of federal employees. It is a farcical type of populism, a Peter Coffin populism, which seeks to address the entire country (since, according to it, 95% of people within it constitute the ‘working class’) in the same way Obama did: Not as the country as it actually is, but as it is expected to be according to the lofty ideals of its state-institution. These ‘patriotic social democrats,’ merely giving expression to the same Soviet revisionist orthodoxy, simply justify their socialism within the continuity of the American state institution, pathetically apologizing for both and giving authentic expression to neither.
Their patriotism is the same as the patriotism of the CPUSA’s leadership, of the leadership of the Communist Party of Canada - a middle-class, civically responsible patriotism which seeks to raise the banner around which the new class may preserve its interests. Where, for the former, such a unity is necessary against ‘fascism,’ for the patriotic social-democrats it is a unity necessary for the general survival of their parasitic class. They reject the notion of the ‘fascist threat,’ since to do so would be an acknowledgement that their class, in fact, is not universal. And so, they merely pretend as if there is no social antagonism (which they dismiss, as a whole, as the ‘culture war’ or ‘aesthetics’), and that the ‘working class’ must merely unite against the ‘capitalists,’ whom, by the way, they choose not name at all, but yet again designate as a theoretical abstraction: Presumably, all those who resist their ‘Borg-like’ attempt to assimilate all society into the singular form of the NuMaleCuckold (the “inclusive working class”).
Why can’t weee be friends, why can’t weeee be friends? Come now workers, unite with us, the culture war is over!
The ‘Patriotic’ Social Democrats.
The ‘patriotic’ social democrats can be summed in the following way: as socialist cuckolds. They have declared their love, and their loyalty to the artificial ‘socialist’ civil society created by the Rockefellers, Morgans, etc. al (which they unite as ‘the country’) - to this googley-eyed reflexive fortress set against actual society, the position of the engineer, the bureaucrat, and the social worker. But they do not seem to mind the ‘man’ fucking their beloved, whose loyalty their beloved actually belongs - which is the actual (not theoretical) ruling class, which plays artificial civil society like playing the sims.
And so ladies and gentlemen, we elect to break off from our ranks entirely these ‘patriotic’ socialist cuckolds, as a gesture of basic manhood. Immense, irreversible social ruin and destruction awaits the ‘artificial civil society’ of the bourgeoisie, and it cannot be salvaged - not under the banner of ‘progressive anti-fascism’ nor under the banner of ‘the united working class.’ It awaits destruction for no there reason than that it is unreconciled with its real, material premises, and as a matter of fact, exists at their expense. It is the parasitism of the so-called ‘deplorables’ and those ‘toxic elements’ that defines the ‘civic patria’ of the socialist cuckolds, these abject hipster Baizuo which differ from the synthetic left like a pathetic cuck differs from the wife they are begging to take them back. They are social democrats who want their cake and want to eat it too. Like the CPUSA leadership, which resents the ‘Sakaist’ tendencies bellow their ranks, they want their social democracy without addressing the consequences of their social democracy.
In fact, the Sakaists are more honest, more principled, more brave, than these ‘patriotic social democrats.’ The Sakaists, in their romantic derangement, take the bourgeois principle of equality to its fanatical conclusion, as an indictment on every aspect of society itself. Everything, then, becomes a micro-aggression, and a slight in violation of this equality. But this is only the honest conclusion of social democracy itself, for which the socius can only have an abstract, institutional, discursively premised existence, and thus, become divisible only according to the common, abstract measure of equality. The middle-class ‘patriots’ are nothing more than hypocrites, the rancid corruption, and elevation of their particular interests in the name of ‘universal association’ could not be clearer. Was this not the corruption of the Communist Party of Canada? The party excused every transgression by members close to party leadership, and defended itself on the basis of ‘combatting liberalism.’ What, if not liberalism, you hypocrites, led you to denounce the Canadian truckers as fascists!?
On the one hand, they want to reign and establish forms of association on the basis of the social-democratic principle of equality and the ‘universal working class,’ on the other hand, they cannot help but assert their own particular, private, class, etc. interests in the most shameless and corrupt manner. This hypocritical middle class, which wants its cake and wants to eat it too, then has the audacity to dare claim it merely defends itself from ‘liberalism’ and ‘identity politics:’ While itself having given rise to the entire basis of identity politics and liberalism! Patriots, they are, for a hollow patria! The ‘patsocdems’ have arrived at their patriotism only in the most contemptible, hypocritical and venal manner: As an excuse for being unable to defend the particularity of its pretended universality. It aspires toward universal institutionalization, it aspires toward the extension of ‘acceptable’ civil society to every inch of the country, and whereupon it is forced to be cognizant of itself as particular, rather than universal, it nervously, greasily, smilingly, admits its ‘patriotism:’ The patriotism of common parasites.
The ‘patriotic social democrats’ may not admit to the defense of any given institution of civil society, but their patriotism, their socialism, goes no farther than the imagination of some given institution. They repeat the primal sin of social democracy, which is the inability to cognize sociality outside the form of a fixed institution - beyond which lies nothingness, within which lies the furthest horizon of meaning. Hence their basic derangement. Because myself, and the Infrared community have signified a position outside the bounds of a hypothetical institution, i.e. that cannot easily be translated into an immediate form of ‘praxis’ (institutionalization), we have become worse than nothing, we have become enemies primed for extermination. They must destroy us, because we exist beyond the threshold of their sanity - to regain their sanity, they must, in an insane way, commit pathologically to destroying us. We do not establish a ‘safe space socialism’ for which information goes no farther than private sociality - for we are not socialists, but Communists, and not private - but substantive, common sociality is the object of our aim.
The future in store for the ‘patriotic’ social democrats cannot be any clearer: As soon as the delimitation of their phoney patria becomes clear in the coming war of aggression against China, as soon as ‘the working class’ unites (a false, artificial, contrived unity) around the coming fascist war effort, the ‘patriotic social democrats’ will do as the civically responsible public sector employees will, and rally to the ‘banner of the bourgeoisie.’ After all, it is their civic duty. They share in common the same fate as the synthetic left, the neo-straussian right, and the progressive-wing of the Democratic Party, and that is playing their own special role in crafting an ideology worthy of the coming fascist aggression against China. This may appear, for now, exaggerated. After all, to their credit, the ‘patriotic’ social democrats possess anti-imperialist pretensions. But as soon as it becomes clear that ‘anti-imperialism’ must necessarily ‘divide the working class,’ given that the professional new class will prove itself to be at its vanguard, all of that will be thrown out the window.
The ‘Dividing’ of the ‘Working Class’
The PatSocDems accuse us of ‘dividing’ the working class, since
We recognize the usefulness of concepts like the Professional-Managerial Class, and insist that they, as a class, are enemies of the working class
We insist upon distinctions within the working class, between productive and unproductive, and afford special recognition of productive laborers as the vanguard of general labor
We reject the craft-unionism of the service sector, of brewmeisters and baristas, etc. as ‘working class movements’
We reject the characterization of farmers, truckers. etc. as ‘petite-bourgeois.’
According to the PatSocDems, the proletariat - the working class - is strictly defined by those who live off the sale of their labor alone. This is, after all, typical of how Marxists, including Marx and Engels, had defined the proletariat of their era. Yet the opportunist PatSocDems do not take into account that this was before the transformation of the commodity form itself, the form of private property itself, and the changes in the relations of production that have occurred since then.
They have elected to reduce relations of production solely to the question of ownership of its means. That is despite the fact that a great deal more than ownership characterizes the actual relations and social distinctions underlying a given mode of production. There is also, for one, relations to the products of production, streams and sources of revenue, etc.
The idiot philistine, shit for brains ‘PatSocDems’ have highlighted the significance of ownership without even understanding the reasoning behind its significance for Marx and Engels. For one, relations of production, for Marx and Engels, are principally defined by a general social division of labor - all forms of private property are merely derivative from this division of labor. The general, and social nature of labor is for Marx presupposed as a fact of human nature:
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
Relations of property, as a matter of fact, are merely the legal form of these social relations:
At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto.
If the social production of the existence of men and women, and the relations corresponding to this social production are primary, and the legal forms secondary or superstructural, and if ‘property relations’ merely reflect these material relations in legal terms, it follows that ownership itself is not the basis of differing relations to production. Private property, for Marx, is after all an institution, and labor is, according to Marx, itself the essence of private property. It is overall unsurprising that social-democrats would rigidly define relations of production strictly according to the superstructural form taken on by them, for the whole enterprise of social democracy can be summed as the definition of sociality itself according to the institutional form that is meant to represent it.
The primary separation and division of labor, between mental and physical - and likewise, between relations to the conditions of labor (i.e. nature, or land) and labor itself, comprise the basis of private property as an institution. The geographic form of this division of between town and country. According to Marx, forms of ownership are determined merely by the existing stage of the division of labor - the relations of individuals to one another with reference to the material, instrument, and product of labour. That is the material of labor (labor as such,) the instruments of labor (means of production) and the products of labor (commodities, or revenues).
The paradoxical form of ownership corresponding to the capitalist mode of production corresponds, according to Marx, to the generalization both of labor, as well as the estranged form of labor - private property (i.e. generalized commodity production). This generalization is nothing more than the abstract genera, the abstract form of a given nation, or even humanity as such - so far as it is blinded, alienated towards its determinate being. However, the determinate quality of this generalization has itself become institutionalized - in the form of the national-industrial economy, the welfare-state, the regulatory state, the public-health state, etc. and so the blind universality of exchange-value is given both vision and particularity, so far as the range of the commodity-form, however general, is confined to socio-formally defined channels of exchange. If the nature of the generalization of labor has changed, it follows that the nature of the division of labor, and the relations of production have also changed.
If the nature of private property, or the form of ownership has underwent alteration - and its certainly has in an era of wide scale socialization of the means of production - it does not follow that we must blind our eyes to clearly distinct relations of production that have followed. We are told, according to these patriotic cuckolds, that CEOs and professional athletes are ‘working class’ only for the fact that they ‘own’ only their labor. Despite the fact that they bare an entirely different relation to production, to general, material, objective labor, to the very source of value itself. In truth, what this one-sided notion of ‘ownership’ neglects is the paradoxically social nature of private property which characterizes present day forms of ‘ownership’. A Google employee, for example, does not ‘own’ their workplace. Yet neither does the CEO of Google own the company! It is quite clear that a type of social, yet private ownership characterizes the relationship between these salaried parasites and their company. They have carved out a stake, by their employment alone, within a definite, private stream of parasitically accumulated revenue which they entitle themselves to.
All that suffices is to give consideration to labor and labor-power not in an individualistic sense (which the social democrats, possessed of bourgeois-consciousness, cannot help do), but labor in its broad, social and material sense. It is a basic truism of Marxism that labor within the traditional form of capitalism acquires the quality of generality, but this generality is not given, or somehow not itself determinate and particular. As a matter of fact, it is through the tendency of the rate of profit to fall that for Marx, the determinate nature of general labor becomes clear. It likewise doubly clear, in the form of the bourgeois state’s response to this tendency after 1929. The real, as opposed to abstract conditions of production, are never felt by the ruling class more than in the breakdown of capitalist production itself, or similarly in conditions of total war. In order to understanding the meaning of the working class within present conditions, it is necessary to consult Marx on the question of what constitutes labor in the first place:
Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives play to his bodily and mental powers, the more close his attention is forced to be.
Of course for Marx, such a relation between man and nature is social. That is not to say institutionally mediated, but representing a definite threshold between man in general, i.e. a given society, a given community of labor and nature, both in terms of the knowledge, techniques, and instruments employed in relation to it, as well as between men themselves (in their organization) and toward the products of labor. This threshold, being socially defined, establishes a general relation between man and the conditions of production - such that labor reduces itself to a definite simple quantum, a quantum which is merely compounded in skilled labor. Skilled labor, at first glance, increases the value of labor from the perspective of capital, being itself more valuable than a given quantum of simple labor within a given period of time.
Yet paradoxically, because of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, skilled labor does not produce any more, and it perhaps produces even less, surplus value taken at the aggregate level, as one of the manifestations of over-accumulation or over-production. But what defines this simple quantum of labor, is nothing eternal, or natural, but a given historically defined threshold in relation to both nature and the products of intercourse with it. Surmised more aptly, such thresholds are defined, within established economic scholarship, as Kondratiev waves:
As a hypothetical tendency posited by economists, k-waves are ‘industrial revolutions’ which are presumed to reset, or be countervailing forces to the falling rate of profit, establishing a new threshold for the extraction of labor-values, by reseting the definition of the ‘quantum of simple labor’ according to new paradigmal relations to nature - in the form of generalized technological revolutions. The question of the validity of this hypothetical model, or what relation it bares to a broad historical rate of profit will here not be given any consideration.
The broader point is that the paradigms, or thresholds corresponding to them not only represent the general tendencies of leading industries, but also transformations in the way polities relate to their constituent political subjects, or citizens. At least within the current, hypothetical ‘k-wave cycle,’ or ‘socialist mode of production’ (whichever suits your fancy), simple labor is in part politically determined, as the relationship not only between techno-scientific knowledge, nature and labor, but also in terms of the regulatory paradigm of the state. Because simple labor is always historically relative, it does not refer to any ‘natural’ or ‘instinctual’ level of skill. It is for this reason that general labor within 21st century America includes a degree of technical education, or, at the very least a high-school diploma.
The form of general labor that emerged in the postwar period, is also a form politically entitled with a set of regulations, benefits, and other conditions. These do not, as third wordlists allege, simply compound the simple labor of third-world workers since, however much Americans had benefited from imperialism, the American state comprises a definite threshold of opposition toward nature, and therefore a definite, very real, very material, and very substantive form of production, which is social in nature. On the one hand, a definite technical expertise of production, and on the other, a definite form of simple labor in relation to that production. It is on this material basis that the whole of the so-called ‘service economy,’ as well as other spheres of production, remain both derivative and parasitical, so far as they are taken in any material sense.
This appears to emulate, however, the arguments of the physiocrats, and the question of what threshold consists of the most materially base one, appears arbitrary in comparison. The physiocrats, after all, argued that all material production was derivative from the agricultural kind, and represented mere alterations of the products of the soil, mere alterations in form to one and the same substance. The problem, however, for Marx was by no means the ‘materialistic’ substantialism of the physiocrats:
It was their great merit that they conceived these forms as physiological forms of society: as forms arising from the natural necessity of production itself, forms that are independent of anyone’s will or of politics, etc. They are material laws, the error is only that the material law of a definite historical social stage is conceived as an abstract law governing equally all forms of society.
As far as Marx was concerned, the great error of the physiocrats consisted not in the view that the forms of production were actually material, defined by a definite relationship to nature - only that for them, this relationship could not come to terms with the way in which, after capitalist modernity, they undergoes transformation. The error of the physiocrats can thus be summed as a kind of undialectical materialism. Marx, for his part, viewed human labor as the substance of value, but how he goes about defining the manner by which labor comes to produce value is by no mean arbitrarily defined by ‘mere employment:’
The determination of the value of labour-power, as a commodity, is of vital importance. This value is equal to the labour-time required to produce the means of subsistence necessary for the reproduction of labour-power, or to the price of the means of subsistence necessary for the existence of the worker as a worker. It is only on this basis that the difference arises between the value of labour-power and the value which that labour-power creates — a difference which exists with no other commodity, since there is no other commodity whose use-value, and therefore also the use of it, can increase its exchange-value or the exchange-values resulting from it.
It is the error of the individualist social democrats that this is applicable to all forms of labor, despite the fact that even during the time within which Marx lived, different forms of labor, according to the various degrees of skill, according to their relation to the production of actual material wealth, and commodity production, etc. - expressed different relations to the value of labour-time. There has been some scholarly debate about the original intentions of Marx - spanning from Capital Vol. I-II, about whether or not the substance of labor-value was individual and expressed in terms of the labour-time required to produce the means of subsistence of a given individual worker, or those means of subsistence both relative and general within a given nation, but as definitively proven by Capital Vol. III regardless of this original intention - this labor-value in question is socially, not individually defined. That is since the law of value can only find ultimate and material expression at the aggregate level of production, owing to the average rate of profit across industries due to competition.
It should be recalled by Marx the difference between productive labor from the standpoint of capital and productive labor in general:
Only the narrow-minded bourgeois, who regards the capitalist form of production as its absolute form, hence as the sole natural form of production, can confuse the question of what are productive labour and productive workers from the standpoint of capital with the question of what productive labour is in general, and can therefore be satisfied with the tautological answer that all that labour is productive which produces, which results in a product, or any kind of use value, which has any result at all.
Nowhere does this difference become as accentuated as the present day, where productive labor is treated as a ‘job like any other’ despite actually participating in the process of production in general (that is not, however, to even suggest that other forms of labor are actually productive from the standpoint of capital, they are rather productive from the standpoint of capitalist consciousness). Yet it is in the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, where the discontinuity of the transformation of labor-values into prices of production, that the difference between real, material production in general, and the formal production from the standpoint of capital (price) becomes evident. This is the first, truly scientific, proof of the social nature of labor, not only as it is given expression in the commodity form (as the Neo-Kantian German schools insist), but as an actual, material substance. The Kantians, on the one hand, elevate sociality, while neglecting material substance. The empiricist, or English school on the other, neglects sociality, while elevating material substance. Both however assume an individualistic view of labor insofar as it is taken as a material substance.
No matter the degree of socialization which has occurred objectively at the site of the material relations of production, social democracy - as an ideology and as a definite political superstructure - remains bourgeois, in the strict sense that only individuality possesses material substance. Sociality, for the bourgeois-consciousness, is merely a consenting association between individuals, rather than a substance of individuality itself. Hence the veering from the individualist narcissism of identity politics, to the hyper-discursive and hyper-institutionalizing tendencies which characterize the bourgeois consciousness of the present day. If labor is conceived in a social rather than individual substance, it follows that it is defined not by a particular form of labor, but as a general form. On the one hand, lies the individual - on the other, lies the definite organization of the means of material production, not the least of which is included the regulatory state. Only insofar as these means of production confront the individual as a relatively average, common individual, does the form of labor acquire generality.
This average, commonality, it has already been established can be defined in political terms - by the regulatory state, by the entitlements befitting of a given citizen of a given nation. These all comprise and form together the total productive capacities of a given society. Missing, however, in almost all hitherto Marxist accounts of general labor concerns labor as the substance not only of forms of value, but of established forms socialization. It has already been made clear by Marx himself, that sociality in its material reality, concerns relations to production. And that these relations of production are, in turn, determined by the relations to the material, instruments, and products of labor - labor, of course referring to a definite threshold by which human activity (taken in a social sense, as the combined productive powers and knowledge of a socius) transforms nature. What then, for the bourgeois ‘socialism’ that has taken form? In other words, if sociality undergoes institutionalization, reification and formalization under victorious social democracy, what relation does this bare to actual, real, essential, and material sociality?
Herein lies the fundamental enigma of the class struggle within socialism, social democracy, the Sino-Soviet split, etc. - which concerns the institutionalization, or form of sociality - as it enters into contradiction with real, material sociality. If social democracy establishes a farcical, artificial civil society, and succeeds even in the privatization, or economization of sociality, it necessary follows that a definite relationship to labor must also be established. 20th century Soviet state socialism, from the perspective of the current mode of production, merely appears as a form of primitive accumulation, not merely separating individual laborers from their means of production, but separating them from their original, material conditions of socialization. Of course, the class struggle under the proletarian dictatorship re-establishes an organic relation between the broad strata of the people and their original ‘means of the social production’ - however the victory of revisionism had, at least for the Soviet Union and its allies, put a halt to this struggle (it, however, manages to re-emerge in today’s Russia).
The PatSocDems charge us with reducing the question of class relations to the ‘culture war.’ They neglect the simple fact that, the reason the relation these segments of society bare to the culture war is such an effective proxy for their actual relations to production, is because they also serve as proxies for their relation to the production of material sociality itself, or the very genesis of the socius. The reason a construction worker, or a miner, is less likely to be a woke SJW than a barista, isn’t a fucking mystery. All it takes is common sense to understand that: The former understands the real, material conditions of social relations - the latter, taking them for granted, dwells within artificially and institutionally contrived social relations. The former understands what reality actually is, just in the form of their labor. The latter does not care what reality actually is, but aspires to determine what reality should be according to discourse, institutional change, etc. - the real worker knows with first-hand experience that actual, material reality is unaltered by this nonsense.
It does not have anything to do with their proximity to ‘whiteness,’ ‘males,’ ‘heteronormativity,’ or ‘culture.’ It has everything to do with their proximity to the real conditions of actual material production, not only of material things, but also of social relations themselves. This is material not simply because of some eternal quality of nature - so the charge of physiocraticism is just fucking retarded. It is material because these conditions of production are disposed of the least amount of liberty in terms of the determination of their form. There are a million different fucking cappuccinos you can make. But real, material production occurs at the site of necessity. It is also charged that, this yet again neglects how the industrial production that prevailed during Marx’s era was also ‘derivative’ from agriculture, and was disposed of more ‘liberty in form’ than agricultural products were. This neglects the fact that, despite this appearance of ‘greater freedom,’ production still occurred on the basis of the necessities of production itself, that is, the valorizing process of capital that is the basis of modern industry.
In other words, the production of commodities, so far as they represent the valorization of capital, are commodities produced for the purposes of production itself, and therefore commodities which obey the necessities not of whim, aesthetic, taste, etc. - but ultimately of production for purposes of the accumulation of capital. This is in contrast to the ‘service’ economy, for which, production as such for purposes of capital accumulation is presupposed - what remains are decentralized interfaces for the planning of production, measured in the patterns of consumption of goods, i.e. not much Burger King vs. McDonalds by way of production, but drastic differences in profitability will be down to consumption patterns according to taste, aesthetic, form, etc. - and these patterns, in turn, will affect the determination of the material production underlying them (i.e. less horse-meat will be produced if the public chooses McDonalds, etc.).
The argument is furthermore made that, this neglects how exchange-value exists independently of use-value, and how the value of labor-power is defined by its generality, and not particular forms of labor. But material production is not simply a ‘use-value’ or a ‘particular form of labor,’ it is the determinate form of labor’s generality itself. If ‘use-value’ has actually come to define the nature of exchange-value, this only reflects the way in which society has itself, in some sense, already organized production according to use-value to some degree, or at least, in some sense as a condition for the more derivative accumulation according to profit. Derivative finance, the last refuge of antisocial capital accumulation, must presuppose a determinate, social form of production as a condition of its existence.
Coupled with this emergence of production according to use value, or the paradoxically determinate nature of exchange-value and abstract labor, lie the supposed ‘private ownership of instruments of production’ which define the modern working class. The PatSocDems allege that since farmers may ‘own’ their own instruments of production, land - and that since industrial workers may own their own tools, etc. - this constitutes them as ‘petite-bourgeois,’ since, of course, the petite-bourgeoisie is defined by small-scale accumulation. This neglects the fact that these ‘private’ instruments of production are mere augmentations of general labor, and emerge as a necessity only insofar as general labor assumes determinate form. Put differently, this ‘private’ ownership is merely a ‘private’ ownership of the conditions of general labor itself, and they have taken on the quality of (fixed) ‘property’ only insofar as these definite conditions have themselves been established as general, universalized, necessary, acknowledged, etc. conditions. Just inasmuch as the threshold defining a quantum of simple labor is relative, so too are the conditions, both economic, political and material, of the conditions of the sale of this simple labor relative.
Since these instruments of production are not themselves valorized, or turned into a form of capital by the worker, the charge of them giving workers a ‘petite-bourgeois’ quality reflects only that idiocy proper to social-democratic retardation (for which the 19th century form of ownership is the furthest horizon in discerning material relations to production). They represent the generalization of compound labor, they are augmentations and mechanizations of simple labor, which the worker is possessed of in the same way they are, following the postwar period, possessed of a definite entitlement to the fruits of social wealth accorded by the polity. This is their stake not simply in the state, but in the material form the social relations to production have taken, which include (and yet are not reduced to) the technical apparatus of production. It is their land, their piece of the pie of industrial production, which is itself subordinate to the aims of industrial production. It is, most paradoxically (and I can already hear the retards throwing a fit at the mere thought of it) - a proletarian form of ownership.
These are the ‘mechas’ for which the term ‘mecha-tankie’ was derived. They represent the social independence of the working class. This is not simply an independence of the individual, it is the independence of the working class from the artificial sociality of social-democracy and its corporate safe-space environments. It is the form of concrete universality, rather than pretended institutional universality of the working class, for which our new Mensheviks - the PatsocDems - aspire to create by attempting to initiate ‘the workers’ as one, undifferentiated mass into their little sects. Like the Mensheviks, who sought to fully loosen the terms of party membership to the whole ‘social mass’, solely to disguise the interests of petty bourgeois intelligentsia, the PatSocDems seek a broad, undifferentiated notion of ‘the working class’ so as to disguise the dominance of professionals and the new class within it.
They charge us, ‘mecha-tankies,’ with ‘dividing the working class.’ But as just demonstrated, this so-called working class does not need us to divide it, for it is divided in actual reality, not only in terms of productive and unproductive, but in terms of the degree of their proximity to the material production of sociality itself.
A question, however remains: Is it not the case that the heavy industries have ceased to epitomize the conditions of general labor? Is it not the case that a great deal of these industries have fallen under the sway of craft-unionism, and thus represent not a general, but exclusive stratum?
The General Demands of the Emancipation of Labor
An entirely new, intuitive, sensible meaning to the ‘emancipation of labor’ can now be intelligible, for the general demands of the emancipation of labor do not simply include demands of pay-raises, or little less ‘craft-unionization’ of useless, bullshit jobs: But emancipation from the artificial sociality of social democracy, emancipation from bullshit jobs, emancipation from useless, wasteful, and unproductive work.
Constituent members of the ‘new class’ cannot, of course, but strictly defined, as is the metaphysical understanding of class distinction. Grey areas undoubtedly exist between the core of the working class and this ‘new class,’ and these grey areas are primarily felt in the so-called service sector. However, so far as their class character is concerned, it suffices only to introduce the following criteria for ‘service sector’ employees:
Is the emancipation from their bullshit job in their material interest? Would they get behind, under proper conditions, the general demand for a reduction in labor hours, the universalization of real jobs, and the elimination of the service industry? If the answer is yes, then they are disposed of a proletarian character, and would form natural allies of the productive working class. If the answer is no, they are parasitical prostitutes of the bourgeoisie, whose unproductive parasitism exists for their own interests rather than the interests of consumers, or the bourgeoisie itself. Such a question appears arbitrary. But in it will be revealed, as a general tendency, the class struggle within the ‘service sector,’ which reveal not arbitrary differences in individual taste, but sectoral distinctions. Fast food workers are likely to say yes. Onlyfans ‘service’ workers are likely to say no. This is basic common sense.
The parasitism in question, so far as it concerns the service industry, do not concern the individuals at a material level, only the form of their employment. Were it not for an economic parasitism upon the productive working class, the form of their employment would not exist. But so as it concerns their material production, this is, of course, not the case. It is precisely because the forces of production have acquired such a degree of development, that bullshit jobs have come into existence, in part, to serve as a great time-waster for the majority of the people. Already a great abundance of wealth exists, solely owing to the development of the forces of production, not only to satisfy the needs of the current population, but a great deal more. Parasitism is taken, not from the perspective of scarcity or malthusianism, but of differing forms of the organization of life.
It has already been shown that the generality of labor corresponds to a definite threshold between the instruments of production on one hand, and the average conditions of the laborer on the other. However, bullshit jobs, service sector employees, etc. appear to comprise a great majority of the stratum of society. And in every colloquial sense, the majority are indeed defined as ‘working class’ - they struggle, day-by-day, to get by and put food in their table through working. Even the colloquial cultural expression of this work, bares the mark of some generality - clocking in and clocking out from 9-5, appears to indeed be a general conditions of labor, however unproductive and however ueless, wasteful, etc. - within today’s society. By contrast, the heavy industries, which comprise the bulwark of productive laborers, appear to be specialized, exclusive, and by no means general.
Such is not, of course, a mere appearance. The general conditions of labor, as they had existed in the immediate postwar period - when almost any, average person could graduate high school and acquire a high-paying industrial job - appear to have been altered fundamentally. Yet now that it can be established that none of these ‘service sector’ forms of employment, insofar as they are taken within the general conditions of the shop floor, can epitomize the general conditions of labor, and since we have established, moreover, labor as being defined by a definite threshold in relation to nature and material production, the only explanation that suffices is the following: The service industry has emerged as a newfound form of the enslavement of the broad strata of the people, and the prospective sons and daughters of the productive working class. The manner by which they participate in production, even as laborers, is as consumers, only, their daily torments, and daily grind, themselves sadistically factor in this ‘productive consumption.’
The basic patterns of the generalized way of life - the form of commute, the psychological, even physiological (health) status, and general immiseration and pauperization, which characterize this mass of ‘unproductive workers,’ all appear to ‘productively’ produce a type of raw material, in the form of data, that forms as a valorized interface for production. Data is the new oil, which gives ‘energy’ to the production process in the form of revealing the different ways of life, lifestyle patterns, choices, etc. - which, for the great mass of ‘unproductive workers’ are themselves determined not by arbitrary taste, but, by in large, by necessity. Rather than leisurely, passive consumers, their consumption is active, in the form of artificially contrived conditions of life, which guide the production process and give coherence to the supply-chains within it. This much appears paradoxical since, on the one hand, material, substantive production occurs on the basis of necessity, whereas consumption, on the other, occurs on the basis of taste.
But insofar as consumption restricts itself to the daily grinds of survival, consumption itself gives rationale and purpose even to material production, itself subjected to definite laws of necessity, on the basis of both a twisted form of artificial scarcity (pauperization), as well as fulfilling definite ways and forms of life which are defined by the necessities of the artificially contrived conditions of life itself. It is as though current society is one, sick twisted type of Squid Game, where the ruling class watches as the majority of the people scramble to make a living out of nothing, and for no other reason than to satisfy some sadistic voyeur. But the voyeur in question is not an individual, or even group of people, it is a stratum of parasitic social engineers and ‘creative’ professionals - who set the broad strata of the people against the nothingness which awaits them beyond the threshold of their artificial institutions. The people must scramble to make a living out of nothing, only since the Fabian Socialists, the social democrats, the vydvizhensie, have decided nothing exists beyond their own artificial and institutional form of sociality.
The necessity of a dignified way of life, and a dignified form of labor means nothing to them since, all labor is the same, so far as they are concerned, as a mere instrument of socialized production. They have neglected, and have turned away from the fact that labor itself is the wellspring not only of material wealth, but of material sociality and material relations of production itself. The great mass of unproductive workers faced with their uncertain future, may awaken to true working-class consciousness only when they begin to see ones and zeros in the place of the simulation within which they now search for meaning in vain. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the true red pill - the red pill that the majority of workers, are in fact, working for no reason, and are the victims of a vicious cycle which serves no purpose other than to provide algorithms, lacking of human, and authentically social purpose, some way to direct and plan the process of real, material production.
It is for this reason that the productive working class represents the general demands of labor, for it occupies the Zion of real, material labor, however antiquated its institutional form (i.e. in the form of the regulatory state, the establishment unions, etc.). It is this working class that the Canadian Trucker Convoy, the Dutch Farmers, and even the core of the MAGA movement which represents the general interests of general labor, only since they represent the only real, necessary form of labor itself. The general demands of labor can only begin from the perspective of these material forms of labor, even insofar as they may come at the expense of many occupying its stratum. For instance, the general demands of a revived labor movement - elimination of the ‘service industry,’ reindustrialization, universalization of material labor, drastic reduction of labor-hours in the work-day, dignified, high-quality jobs for all - may very well come at the expense of the upper-stratum of the unionized ‘industrial working class,’ but that is no matter. For it is the type of labor, and not even necessarily the limited, parochial or narrow interests of those comprising it, that counts.
In summation, it is in the interests of general labor - the broad stratum of the population, both productive and unproductive - that the interests of general labor find representation in, and from the perspective of, actual, productive, material forms of labor. The patriotic social-democrats, by contrast, seek to give representation to ‘general labor’ in the form of service employees. They claim this is on behalf of those employees, yet in reality, it is on behalf of the very beneficiaries of their enslavement, the institution-mongering vidvizhensie which establishes these forms of employment as a tool of social control, institutionalization, and behavioral regulation. Have they not, additionally, taken advantage of this, in the way in which these unproductive workers, already struggling to get by, can be fired and dismissed on a whim, due to being ‘canceled,’ etc?
The bulk of a revived working class movement may very well include those struck with the misfortune of service work. But they will participate in this movement not as service workers, but as aspiring general laborers, who seek a dignified, real, material job, and in addition, a mecha, that proletarian form of ownership, to go with it.
At this point can the true Republic of Labor emerge triumphantly, and the habits of consumption proceed according to the authentic necessities of social life, and the development of man’s latent scientific, aesthetic, and productive powers. Rather than having ‘data’ sucked parasitically from the soul of the McDonalds worker on the basis of being grinded between useless and unproductive bullshit jobs just to survive, data will spring forth, and be produced, on the basis of work as life’s prime want.
The general demands of the emancipation of labor are Communist, not socialist, They do not concern artificially or institutionally contrived forms of sociality. They concern the dark heart of sociality itself, the commons proper, of a given country or civilization. They concern the material essence of sociality, which lie in the relations of production - which themselves, in term, have their basis of production in general, human labor. The class struggle of the future will be a sacred war, a war that is the last line of defense of humanity itself against the globalist elites who are making their final push in the complete and final separation of the productive working class from its means of production, a separation that is sure to guarantee centuries of slavery for the entire strata of the population.
These productive workers, immiserated in debt, their ‘mechas’ being leased, and no longer being owned by them, are waging their last stand. The whole of the working class must rally behind them. Their ‘mechas’ are in need of repair, and the working class is in need of mechas. The united, common interests of the working class will not proceed on the basis of a ‘rainbow’ coalition that amalgamates the various diverse craft-based interests of workers - but a singular, undivided movement of the working class that inscribes upon its red banner the general emancipation of labor.
Communist Party USA 2036
The singular, and common socius of the community of labor, the definite ground and context of class struggle itself, is wanting of some positive expression
- Myself, earlier in this very text
Of course, the general demands of labor will not magically find coherence in the spontaneous amalgamation of the people, but requires a definite political party, a definite form of association, different from the social-democratic institution, to give expression to their interests.
One of the greatest sites of contention between myself and the PatSocDems lies in the CPUSA 2036 strategy, which more or less establishes as the primary goal not the achievement of socialism, not the achievement of revolution, etc. - but the very modest goal of being able to acquire hegemony within the Communist Party USA, so as to establish it as the premier party of the American working class, inscribing within its program the general demands of the emancipation of labor.
We are reproached with the view that we seek to ‘wait’ for 14 years, rather than ‘do anything else.’ The socialist cuckolds then proceed to argue that rather than join the Communist Party, which is led by liberals and Democrats, everyone should join the ‘Socialist party’ they recently decided to pull straight out of their ass, much like the PCUSA was. Of course, there are a number of ironies to note here. Firstly, we are charged with being ‘overly online’ and possessing ‘delusions of grandeur’ for thinking our we could every affect reality in any shape or form with the help of our information channels. On the other hand, the retard socialists believe that they can establish a definite, material organization solely on the basis of an ideological view, a mere agreement of ideas.
Ladies and gentlemen, this reflects nothing more than the bourgeois conception of sociality, according to which common organization is founded on the basis of mutually consenting, and agreeing individuals. All that suffices is that individuals share ‘the same ideas’ as the socialist cuckolds, to be a member of their organization. Should we hold our laughter! What difference does this bare, from the endless cycle of sectarianism so characteristic of American Marxists? Of course, insofar as ideological disagreements are taken as the premise of definite formal association, sectarianism and splits are the inevitable result. Moreover, the notion that one can create a party from thin air, purely because of the formation of entirely-online cliques is the epitome of irony, considering that I, and we, have bene charged with the view of doing the same thing (despite the opposite being true).
In truth, part of the reason a date so far in the future, beyond the view that the Communist Party must be future-oriented, beyond attempting to conjure a science-fiction and futuristic aesthetic (and aesthetics, of course, matter a great deal - for beyond technical science, aesthetics form the other part of the expression of human activity) - to reflect the degree of learning necessary for ideologically-charged partisans to posses the discipline, the Asiatic discipline in fact (since sectarian individualism is quite American), of working within organizations with whom there exist a diversity of different interpretations as to its purpose. The essence of Communist association lies not in ideological agreement, but in the purport of an independent party of the proletariat however much this purport is not reflected by the actions of its leadership or even the party as a whole. It is only insofar as it becomes impossible for this purport to be made a reality, that the justification for a new party arises.
The PatSocDems claim that the PCUSA proves such a justification. I beg to differ. The PCUSA consisted of an expelled, and singularly identifiable club. Of course the party leadership of the CPUSA could easily dispose of such a club. Just imagine, if all of the Infrared followers in CPUSA formed just one club! How easy it would be for us to be purged! The error of the PCUSA and the PatSocDems is that they possessed an insufficient appreciation for the role of centralized and decentralized information technologies in being able to unite tendencies without immediately realizing those tendencies into definite forms of association. Infrared can exist as a broad tendency in the CPUSA, because Infrared as a tendency only finds unity in digital space. There is no need for it to find unity ‘in actual reality’ - this would constitute a form of LARP, and indeed, would make me guilty of the charge of believing a ‘twitch streamer can lead the revolution.’ OF course a ‘twitch streamer’ cannot lead ‘the revolution.’
All I can do, is provide coherence, aesthetic, identifiable, discursive, signified, and virtual - to a broad tendency. An ideological tendency cannot, by itself, replace the necessity of material and real-world organization. Infrared, obviously, only exists on the internet. But the project of Infrared was designed with the purpose of only existing on the internet. The realization of the consequences of the tendency created by it, can only be reflected in an actual, real, material organization - said organization, at the moment being the Communist Party USA.
This is in contrast to the social-democratic cuckolds, who merely repeat the folly of social-democracy and Menshevism in attempting to establish an entirely brand new party and organization solely on the basis of the ideological agreement between the individual members, a plan that is obviously destined and doomed to failure and sectarianism to anyone with the minimum of foresight. They overestimate THEIR OWN significance as mere influencers, however small their reach (due to their failure, which is itself explicable because of their lack of charisma, ugliness, and weakness of intellect) - as being able to create not only a party, but a party-movement solely because they have the same ideological tendency. Hold your laughter! These are the same undisciplined, depraved and deranged retards who decided that they were going to partake in the most vicious, all-out-war against Infrared because of some minor, obscure theoretical difference. You meant to tell me they have the discipline and maturity to form their own political party, which is obviously going to have to tolerate not only a wide array of differing theoretical interpretations, but differing ideological tendencies?
In fact, I have only elected to formalize the ‘split’ with these ‘patsocs’ precisely because they have shown an inability to possess the discipline of recognizing and distinguishing primary from secondary contradictions. This inability, in and of itself, is wanting of some kind of explanation - and it is since this is in fact for them a primary contradiction, because mecha-tankies not only represent a different ideological tendency to the patsocdems, but the interests of an entirely different class, and an entirely different political position. They have proven as much in their vicious, unprincipled attacks, which are surely to come back to bite them in the ass in the very near future.
In any case, in recognizing a distinction between the ideological tendency of Infrared, and the independent party of the working class - which has established itself as such by the nature of the very purport of its existence, its founding, and even its history - an entirely new form of sociality, however small and modest in its reach, and in its significance, one entirely different from social democracy, is given expression. This is a reflexive form of sociality which no longer considers the institution as the fundamental horizon of social being. It is reflexive in the senes of not being strictly identical with material relations of production (any attempt to be, would be an anarchist folly). Yet in contrast to the institutional, discursive form of sociality corresponding to social democracy, it does not indict the material reality of sociality, which exists beyond the premises of its formalization, as nothing. Despite the charge, Infrared is not really a cult in any real capacity. We do not establish some exclusive form of sociality, beyond which is satan, nothingness, or ‘reaction.’
We make common cause with a whole range of different articulations and interpretations of the socius - from the MAGA movement to the Schiller Institute (‘Larouchites’). We even, to a great extent, partake in an open exchange of ideas, disposed of a genuine spirit of curiosity and humanistic inquiry. We recognize the difference between every reflexive social form, and the real, material relations of production themselves, and how the latter cannot be premised by the former, but themselves arise on its basis. The aim to revolutionize the Communist Party, and to transform it into a party of the working class, is not a form of entyrism. It is the first manifestation of the cognizance that our specific interpretation of the truth of the socius, our specific horizon of meaning, is not necessarily synonymous with the material form of its organization. The taqqiya practiced by Infrared members in the CPUSA is not a form of deception.
It is just a recognition that Infrared does not really belong in the party proper. It makes no difference. So long as members of the party, stay true to the material aim, rather than the ideal form of its expression on my livestreams, the work will proceed unimpeded. Infrared is just a virtual tendency, given only virtual expression, of a very real material possibility - the possibility that the Communist Party may yet again one day be the premiere party of the American working class. This is what both the PatSocDems and the Baizuo in the CPUSA do not understand. There is no ‘secret apparatus of control’ trying to ‘hijack’ the CPUSA in a conspiratorial way. The way in which Infrared, this online community, gives expression to ideas, is simply not understood by the Boomers of CPUSA, who barely know how to send emails. They do not understand that ideological tendencies are given expression, coherence, and reality only in a virtual way in the 21st century, and are not immediately based upon a specific protocol of substantive organization.
The contradiction between virtuality and actuality is a basic acknowledgement of dialectics, and is an advance from leftist sectarianism in the same way quantum mechanics is an advance from classical physics. Hitherto, and primarily owing to insufficiently developed means of communication, every ideological tendency had to metastasize into a direct form of association between individuals in the real world, whose conditions of association were not actually determined by material reality, but by the dictates of that ideological tendency. ‘We’ must do this and that, and the ‘form’ of how we do it, must be subordinate to this aim. They put the cart before the horse, and thus behave in the most infantile, adolescent manner. In reality, the Communist Party is not simply an ‘organized form’ of some idea. It is, by its very historical purport, the independent party of the working class, and it bares the acknowledgment of the betrayal of social democracy in its very name.
It is NOT a ‘socialist’ party, because socialism now reflects the interests of the bourgeoisie and its prostitutes, socialism has already prevailed and become dominant, as private property itself is now ‘social.’ The Communist Party, more or less, was formed as the purport, as the acknowledgement of the fact that socialism has betrayed the American working class.
We do not claim that our CPUSA 2036 initiative will be successful. It may very well fail. But at least, in failing, we will, for the first time, have learned something new. But you cannot say we are ‘terminally online.’ If we were ‘terminally online’ we would not recognize the difference between the actual organized form party (which, for example through electoral campaigns, obviously requires offline organizing), and this virtual ideological tendency.
Virtuality and Online Ideological Tendencies
I saved this retarded criticism for the very end, because it’s so fucking stupid it can just be quickly dismissed without even having to think about it very much. Another accusation leveled by the PatSocDems is that Haz, by virtue of making a living off of streaming, could not possibly have anything to do with any working class movement. And that Infrared’s community, allegedly, are not from working class backgrounds.
The latter is not even true, but even if it was, it wouldn’t even matter. Here is what Lenin had to say about this question of ‘individualizing’ the class background of intelligentsia or ideologists:
Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is — either bourgeois or socialist ideology.
He further elaborates:
This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge
So Lenin makes it crystal clear that even if I was a fucking factory worker or something, it wouldn’t make a difference, because I would not be participating in the info-war, or the ‘ideological struggle’ as a factor worker, but as just another socialist intellectual. That is because Lenin recognizes a discontinuity between ideas and material reality, between the reflexive determination of classes, and individuals engaged in the determinate reflection of class struggle through ideas. Obviously, most individuals, in history who are socialist theoreticians, will not derive from working class backgrounds.
Maybe such backgrounds will play a part in forming the sentimental, intuitive reasons for their ideologizing. It is not matter because it has no decisive significance as far as judging the content of a given ideological tendency. Otherwise, Engels, Marx, etc. - almost, literally almost every socialist leader in history - cannot be said to have been disposed of working-class consciousness or the proletarian class line. The significance of an individuals social background will only ever rear itself in an equally social way. If I, for example, had views that were commonplace among other streamers or YouTubers, or Law Students, you could probably extrapolate that they reflect the reality of that stratum as a social stratum. But this is just not the case.
The auto-erotic LARPers, who are mostly failed careerists who now have to work shitty jobs because they podcast sucks so fucking much they can’t live off of it, always love to up-talk their suffering as ‘true workers,’ to make up for their inability to actually hold in their own in the actual ideological struggle.
The second charge is probably even more retraded, which is that, even if that is granted, Infrared ‘still does not reach the workers.’
Dumbass, no one is going to ‘reach the workers’ from the perspective of the general interests of labor, in a direct way. That is because the degree of socialization has increased so much, that addressing people’s actual labor, at their workplaces, will not be sufficient enough to address their labor insofar as it is disposed of a general quality. There might be exceptions to this, like the Amazon Labor Union, but that still lacks the decisive and necessary political dimension which can articulate the interests of general labor as a whole.
The only way workers are going to be reached, is in a rather indirect way: By increasing the power, reach, and ranks of the party of the working class, which can itself increase its means of communication, and define itself by ever increasing forms of contact with the broad strata of working people through electoral campaigns and other political or general initiatives, etc. - this process is one I am, for my own part, doing the best I can to set in motion in the best and most efficient way that I can. But ultimately no, no one is going to ‘reach the workers’ on the basis of their specific ideological tendency. Only an organization, a definite, material organization and party can ‘reach the workers.’
We are not even at stage 1 yet. Stage 1, is just uniting an ideological tendency, uniting ideologists - who themselves must volunteer and direct their efforts to joining a definite organization (not premised by the conditions of their ideology). Only at the point of stage 2 - when there is developed a robust POLITICAL PARTY of the working class - can one speak of ‘reaching the workers.’
Most left-wing retards never even get past stage 1. They are just a bunch of individualistic, ideological fanatics, that constantly form groups and sects on the basis of ideas alone. It never occurs to them that they will never ever reach workers at all, until they acknowledge that there is a difference between the working class and the reflexive apparatus which articulates its interests: Which means recognizing there must be a deeper basis of social association, beyond mere ideological or individual agreement. This is the beginning of proletarian, rather than bourgeois political association. Bourgeois association is based on the consenting agreement of atomic individuals. Proletarian association is based on the acknowledgement of a deeper, material social unity that premises individuality itself - and this is only given formal expression in the party.
Again, the same retards will reproach me with ‘no, but u.’ No, you fucking idiot, Infrared followers bullying you on discord, ratioing you on twitter, or not inviting you to their group chats isn’t the fucking same thing as forming a literal political sect on the basis of our ideas. All of that bullshit is just virtual and on the internet. We are not LITERALLY forming a real-life Infrared party and then behaving this way in real life. Who is behaving this way in real life, within the CPUSA? No one! Because they know there’s a fucking difference between the internet and real life, which is why they are in the CPUSA in the fucking first place, despite that that is a party taken over by liberal boomers who don’t know what a PDF is.
You can’t fucking both say we are ‘terminally online,’ ‘doing nothing’ and at the same time bitch and moan at us for not trying to LARP our internet antics in the real world. In the real world, you actually have to buckle down and deal with the reality of actuality. But since reality is dialectic, and not metaphysical, there are potentialities, and virtualities that haunt every instance of actuality - and those, in today’s society, take form on cyberspace alone. Meanwhile the liberal boomers in CPUSA and Communist Party of Canada are trying to be ‘hip and cool’ and repeat all the aura, attraction, mystique, excitement and libidinal energy of ambiguous internet ideological tendencies within the confines of their dusty ass wooden PTA meeting rooms, it’s just fucking stupid and pathetic.
The internet is for one thing - which is to discern virtual ideological tendencies and cohere definite aesthetics and overall senses.
A party is for another, which is to get down to business and engage in the actual material work of building the party, which is what great people like Steve Estrada and those working on his campaign did.
The retards who confuse these two things are the ones who critique Infrared for being ‘terminally online’ and ‘not doing anything in the real world.’ And why? Because they fucking suck ass at doing both, they are shitty internet influencers and shitty IRL organizers because they don’t fucking know how to separate the two. A lot of energy from IRL organizing gets sucked out by the pathological monkey-games of recognition, aestheticization, validation, virtual ideological tendencies - and a lot of coherence in being able to present themselves online in an attractive way to zoomers, is lost on the basis of often time-wasting ‘organizing’ which they think is a substitute for actually making your message viable to people.
Both are necessary. Obviously, real life shit is more important and primary. But you cannot set about to do anything in ‘real life’ until you get your shit down in virtual space. Until you know how to properly separate the two, you aren't doing shit ‘in real life’ but wasting your own time, then hiding behind this as a way to virtue signal the Calvinistically virtuous yet pointless suffering you just partook in. As if we are supposed to give a fucking shit that you broke your back distributing paper pamphlets to peoples cars like an absolute fucking retard who doesn’t even know how to send email in 2022. Dumb fuck, shut the fuck up and fuck off with all that. I have literally heard leftists tell me that the proximal warmth of human bodies, when accosting strangers on the street, is the decisive reason information has to primarily be spread in real life rather than on the fucking internet where you can reach millions. Its so fucking irrational and stupid its not even worth addressing in greater detail.
In any case, as for the PatSocDems, they are no different. Bunch of fucking losers who have no future and no prospect for success whatsoever besides ankle-biting Infrared. They aren’t going to get anywhere with their shitty ‘socialist party’ and so they are already preparing for an entire future of just trying to wreck our shit. That’s fine, join the rest of the leftists and glowie fucks doing the same, we don’t give a shit you fucking losers. Just, something tells me you are among our least formidable enemies. You have wholly disgraced yourselves, and all you can do now is join some section of the Baizuo, or the Democrats. The fact that your ‘tendency’ is even being dignified with an essay should not flatter you. This essay is an exorcism, meant to purge anyone or any tendencies remotely associated with yours from anything to do with Infrared.
Communist patriotism is not ‘Patriotic Social Democracy.’ We are patriots, not in the sense of an institution, but in the deep sense of the country, as the real, material form of a general community of labor. Your ‘patriotism’ is that of Joseph Biden, ours is of Joseph Stalin. It is really that simple.
Thanks for reading Infrared - Essays! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.