This is just for fun. The most prominent toddler in the sandbox is not going to change when naptime happens.
Also, “patriotic socialism” is one of those brainworms you develop when you never read political theory and just develop your politics by arguing with people on the internet. Gibberish made by children.
Most nominally communist countries resemble patriotic socialism more than the modern reinterpretation of MLism. PatSocs are closer to the true interpretation of those nations’ ideals…
The national question raised by imperialism is vastly different from brain dead “patriotic socialism”
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, which means in imperialized countries it is more urgent to establish a national consciousness than a worker consciousness. MLs sometimes make a workerist error (i.e. the belief that the workers should be the focus to the exclusion of everything else) because they don’t first identify the chief contradictions. In imperialized countries there is a common struggle that unites the imperialized workers and the imperialized bourgeoisie (and the peasantry, the lumpen-proles, etc), which means national consciousness in imperialized countries is a progressive force that unites the masse. That’s been the basis of revolutionary forces from Algeria to Vietnam to China itself, and while working class organizations played a big role in all those cases it was under a national party line.
This is vastly different from trying to build socialism inside of the imperial core, so-called “patriotic socialism”. Here, we are the beneficiaries of imperialism. The superprofits of the empire are redistributed to workers in the imperial core in the form of welfare and reformism and artificially cheap commodities, which prevents a revolutionary class consciousness from ever forming. That also means that national consciousness can only ever be reactionary inside the imperial core, because it fools the workers into thinking they are united with their bourgeoisie against the imperialized masses of the world.
And don’t get it twisted, there are imperialized nations inside of the imperial core as well. The Black Nation, the First Nations, the transnational Latine diaspora, etc. They can hardly be said to be beneficiaries of imperialism, and instead, are superexploited the same as workers around the world. That’s why they fill the sweat shops and the prisons and the morgues.
As for the white working class, the beneficiaries of imperialism, then only by betraying the empire can someone actually call themselves a socialist and have it mean anything. Their patriotism only sides with oppression and empire and all its associated cruelties.
I’m drawing from Mao, Fanon, W.E.B. Du Bois to get to these conclusions. What the fuck are “patriotic socialists” reading? Tweets?
Anyway, all of that is to say, I guess I don’t just do this for fun. It’s also a useful exercise, because by shadow boxing with random encounters on the internet I can organize my thoughts and draw further conclusions I may not have otherwise. Online debate is exercise.
“Patriotic socialists” simply read Stalin. Their patriotism is a return to the ideals of MLs and MLMs, who were taught patriotism inside their doctrine. We can also look at the doctrine of the North Korean Communist Party.
It would be convenient if the ML, like the alt righter, could say that anyone who carries out the logical conclusion of their ideology does not represent it, it would be convenient if they could say that they were just posting online for the memes, but as I have seen Leftists endorse Julius calls for genocide with the same joking manner as the alt-right endorses David Duke, I wonder why the most functional and active portions of the far left are MLs or their logical conclusion the PatSoc.
So where does the line get drawn? Does the leftist actually believe in restorative justice, or do they celebrate the suicide of someone because they were not on their side?
The line gets drawn along the lines of class struggle. Kill the Boer and mocking our enemies when they kill themselves is a reflection of who our enemies are, because leftists don’t actually subscribe to universal humanism like liberals. Leftists are materialists, and if something materially benefits the class struggle then it is good.
Boers are settlers. Republicans are fascists. There’s a pretty clear line.
“Just because they were not on their side” oh honey, this person was part of the party that wants to kill me. It’s sad that someone like this decided to become my enemy, but the enemy party does not get pity it gets the Wall.
“Kill the Boer” is a call for ethnic cleansing. “Settler” is not an ethnicity. Supporting a far-right anti-LGBT person like Malema should not be “Leftist”… but here you are.
Online Leftists love gatekeeping as soon as they need to gatekeep a slightly different leftist. They’re all over social media.
I could throw you some Twitter links for Leftists attacking another Leftist and making fun of her drug addiction and autism, if you want it.
Online isn’t real dude.
The most prominent account on Twitter is a self-described Patriotic Socialist who’s got political weight.
But if you really think online isn’t real life, why are you here
This is just for fun. The most prominent toddler in the sandbox is not going to change when naptime happens.
Also, “patriotic socialism” is one of those brainworms you develop when you never read political theory and just develop your politics by arguing with people on the internet. Gibberish made by children.
Most nominally communist countries resemble patriotic socialism more than the modern reinterpretation of MLism. PatSocs are closer to the true interpretation of those nations’ ideals…
Glad you’re having fun though, I am too ;)
This is where the fun part begins:
The national question raised by imperialism is vastly different from brain dead “patriotic socialism”
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, which means in imperialized countries it is more urgent to establish a national consciousness than a worker consciousness. MLs sometimes make a workerist error (i.e. the belief that the workers should be the focus to the exclusion of everything else) because they don’t first identify the chief contradictions. In imperialized countries there is a common struggle that unites the imperialized workers and the imperialized bourgeoisie (and the peasantry, the lumpen-proles, etc), which means national consciousness in imperialized countries is a progressive force that unites the masse. That’s been the basis of revolutionary forces from Algeria to Vietnam to China itself, and while working class organizations played a big role in all those cases it was under a national party line.
This is vastly different from trying to build socialism inside of the imperial core, so-called “patriotic socialism”. Here, we are the beneficiaries of imperialism. The superprofits of the empire are redistributed to workers in the imperial core in the form of welfare and reformism and artificially cheap commodities, which prevents a revolutionary class consciousness from ever forming. That also means that national consciousness can only ever be reactionary inside the imperial core, because it fools the workers into thinking they are united with their bourgeoisie against the imperialized masses of the world.
And don’t get it twisted, there are imperialized nations inside of the imperial core as well. The Black Nation, the First Nations, the transnational Latine diaspora, etc. They can hardly be said to be beneficiaries of imperialism, and instead, are superexploited the same as workers around the world. That’s why they fill the sweat shops and the prisons and the morgues.
As for the white working class, the beneficiaries of imperialism, then only by betraying the empire can someone actually call themselves a socialist and have it mean anything. Their patriotism only sides with oppression and empire and all its associated cruelties.
I’m drawing from Mao, Fanon, W.E.B. Du Bois to get to these conclusions. What the fuck are “patriotic socialists” reading? Tweets?
Anyway, all of that is to say, I guess I don’t just do this for fun. It’s also a useful exercise, because by shadow boxing with random encounters on the internet I can organize my thoughts and draw further conclusions I may not have otherwise. Online debate is exercise.
“Patriotic socialists” simply read Stalin. Their patriotism is a return to the ideals of MLs and MLMs, who were taught patriotism inside their doctrine. We can also look at the doctrine of the North Korean Communist Party.
It would be convenient if the ML, like the alt righter, could say that anyone who carries out the logical conclusion of their ideology does not represent it, it would be convenient if they could say that they were just posting online for the memes, but as I have seen Leftists endorse Julius calls for genocide with the same joking manner as the alt-right endorses David Duke, I wonder why the most functional and active portions of the far left are MLs or their logical conclusion the PatSoc.
So where does the line get drawn? Does the leftist actually believe in restorative justice, or do they celebrate the suicide of someone because they were not on their side?
The line gets drawn along the lines of class struggle. Kill the Boer and mocking our enemies when they kill themselves is a reflection of who our enemies are, because leftists don’t actually subscribe to universal humanism like liberals. Leftists are materialists, and if something materially benefits the class struggle then it is good.
Boers are settlers. Republicans are fascists. There’s a pretty clear line.
“Just because they were not on their side” oh honey, this person was part of the party that wants to kill me. It’s sad that someone like this decided to become my enemy, but the enemy party does not get pity it gets the Wall.
“Kill the Boer” is a call for ethnic cleansing. “Settler” is not an ethnicity. Supporting a far-right anti-LGBT person like Malema should not be “Leftist”… but here you are.