I understand that some people are skeptical about bourgeois governments policies of mandatory vaccines, but thinking that every decision from up top is unreasonable is a terrible metaphysical take. Mandatory vaccines has been in effect in China, Laos, DPRK, Cuba and Vietnam. That alone should realize on what side these anti-vaxxers are in.
Some sectors of the bourgeoisie also would benefit from a vaccinated population because it would slow the labor shortages of their shitty economy, which means some bourgeois sectors are actually wanting the people to be fully able to work without interruption through vaccination.
I say some sectors because there are obviously other sectors which has benefited a lot from the spread of the pandemic, and therefore wouldn’t think twice of promoting the astroturfing of vaccine and COVID denial. Such is the case of digital retailers (Amazon), pornographic empires (MindGeek), bourgeois social networks (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), video sharing websites (mainly YouTube), streaming services (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, HBO Max), etc.
Contrary to what the anti-vaxxers usually say about “Big Pharma promoting vaccines”, the most profitable companies actually benefit with the pandemic, as we have seen the ten richest billionaires double their profits since the pandemic. What they’re advocating, whether they are aware or not, benefits highly the bourgeoisie.
But of course “Big Pharma” profits from selling vaccines privately or through government deals, we live in a commodity-producing society, this shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. To eat something as essential as food, we need to buy it, which gives profits to supermarket chains and the food industry in general. To live and exist in a capitalist society, you need to inevitably consume and buy products. No one in their sane mind would tell you to boycott buying food to not promote “Big Food” or something. The same goes for vaccines, which has demonstrably proven that they are effective by the decrease in death rates, although they couldn’t prevent contagion efficiently, which in fact benefits the big pharmaceutical industries indeed since boosters and more vaccines would be needed. But this doesn’t mean that mandatory vaccines aren’t necessary to mitigate the large-scale deaths we’ve seen in 2020 and beginning of 2021.
In short,
Fight for mandatory vaccinations, fight petty-bourgeois vacillations
(this was originally taken from a comment in response to a radioactive take from comrade @pimento@lemmygrad.ml)
So it is possible for a government that does not even have the power to institute vaccine mandates to have the power to implement fascist policies like concentration camps? I’m sorry, I just am not following that logic.
And historically speaking, that’s not true. The position of Marxist-Leninists has never been to want a bourgeois government to have more power. It’s the weakness and failure of this government that allows the communists to sweep in and take power.
Any example in history will show you this. The provisional government of 1917 in Russia. The failure of the Qing in China to resist outside forces. The annexation of France and invasion, then downfall of imperial Japan in WW2 which made French Indochina dysfunctional as a colonial government.
Where did you get this from?
From what they said. Makan said the alternative to a government that does not have the power to institute vax mandates is a “pseudo-scientific fascist and Nazi ultra-right force”
Historically speaking, especially today, it is most definitely true that they may ally with certain bourgeois forces. Bourgeois forces are not fascist forces. See: Popular Front.
Sure, in certain situations perhaps. It was Marx’s principle that the proletariat should support a bourgeois revolution first, then a communist revolution could occur. This is what happened in 1917 with the february and october revolutions. I also believe there can be collaboration with a national bourgeoisie in the imperial periphery. But the key concept in these cases is that it is an alliance with a bourgeoisie that is not in power. When you talk about supporting a bourgeois government, necessarily this is a bourgeoisie that is currently in power. Collaboration between a ruling and oppressed class means avoiding revolution.
Bourgeois forces are fascist forces 100%. Fascism is liberalism in decay. It is when the ruling class foments race consciousness to avoid a communist revolution and make a bid for the top of the imperial hierarchy. It’s no wonder the captains of industry in Germany supported Hitler and helped the Nazis concentrate power.
Yes, but not all bourgeois forces are fascist. In addition, the communist party in Germany should have supported the Social-Democrats before Hitler could be installed in power and dissolve what little democracy there was in Weimar Germany. Even Mao sided many times with the Kuomintang.
To your other point previously: vaccine mandates are not giving bourgeois governments more power as they already have the power to do so.
Sure, I should have said fascist forces are bourgeois forces. In the case of China, we know the KMT was not in power, and Mao sided with them against Japanese invasion. So that is not a similar situation to western countries today.
Some argue that KPD should have formed a coalition with the SPD to stop Hitler. That’s not the same thing as support, because in that situation, both parties create a government that they both agree on. And this is what anticommunists say. They accuse the KPD of betraying democracy by not working with the SPD.
But I agree with Stalin. The SPD was not a real resistance to fascism. The SPD was closer aligned to fascism than people recognize. We know the meme. The social democrats killed Rosa Luxembourg. They supported the Freikorps. There’s a history of reasons why they could not be trusted. And in 1933, a coalition in parliament would not have been enough to stop the Nazis anyway.
They don’t have the power to do so. Not in the US. That’s why we don’t have them. Even Biden’s vaccine or test policy through OSHA was overruled by the supreme court.
It is quite similar.
How do you find it similar? It’s not at all similar. This quote from Mao in On Contradiction is important.
In China, the form of the class struggle was objectively different. The principal contradiction was between the imperialist forces and the nation as a whole. To say this is similar to countries in the imperial core, who wage wars of aggression on other countries is laughable. It’s like comparing a butcher to a pig.
They are clearly similar as Mao uses the same tactics that communist movement has used in the United States.
A protracted people’s war? I can’t tell if you are joking…