Part of This Series of Posts:

The terms ‘nazbol’ and ‘red-fash’ or ‘red-brown’ gets thrown around a lot lately, even by self-professed ‘Communists’. The people who use these terms tend to be liberals who slander Communists and want to associate us with the horrors and brutality of fascism, while at the same time denouncing our history as such. This is in great contrast to the brutality that the Soviet had to endure and their heroic sacrifice in defeating the Nazis. While at the same time there are also ‘Communists’ who use this term to slander real Communists.

However while all this is a recent trend on the internet. (With some clowns actually identifying with and filling in the blanks of a meme ideology). In real life the real meaning (it’s real material application) of the term nazbol could not be further from that of the internet. In Russia the nazbol party was not actually a meme fusion of Nazism and Communism, in reality it’s ideology was actually a strange fusion of anarchism, liberalism and some fascist elements with nationalist characteristics and it’s membership was comprised almost exclusively of hippies. It rejected racism with the fascist elements being that it wanted Russia to unite the former U.S.S.R. through conquest (remember that this was the 90’s in the fallout of the U.S.S.R.'s collapse) and that it was a party that emphasised Russian ethnicity over other ethnic groups.

While these terms might originally have been used on the internet as memes to mock both Communism and fascism at the same time, it has also more recently began to be used by radical-liberals online deceptively to suggest that Communists are similar to fascists. Making out that both are ‘totalitarian’ (which is a term invented by the CIA and has been used to suggest that anyone who opposes the established liberal/globalist world order is fascist). According to these radical-liberals, anyone who opposes the unfettered imperialism of the United States is a ‘nazbol’ and any state that dares stand in their way is ‘red-fash’ or ‘red-brown’.

Radlibs such as ‘Vaush’ (who ironically are social-fascists, social-imperialists and even outright imperialists for their support of U.S. imperialist narratives time and time again) try to claim that Russia, China (and other anti-imperialist states) are ‘red-brown’ states, this whole argument is an imperialist argument that sets the precedent for US imperialism in Eastern Europe and elsewhere on ‘humanitarian’ grounds coming from the left. Ironically in Russia all nationalist parties are banned, this includes Nazi groups and nazbol parties, while parties that suck up to the west such as liberal parties are also banned with their leaders going to jail. An example of both would be Alexei Navalny who has a history of using slurs and even violence against minority groups. What is even more ironic is that despite all this Navalny is still pushed by the west and despite all their media fawning over him he enjoys absolutely zero popular support in Russia.

The term ‘red-brown alliance’ was used to dismiss the peaceful protestors of the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis who opposed the rigging of the election against the Communists, and other parties who opposed the austerity of Yeltsin (who was backed the CIA). The police used violence against the protestors killing 147 people. Yeltsin refered to the protestors as a ‘red-brown alliance’. What made this whole situation even worse is that even internationally some Communist parties (such as the CPUSA) used this term and denounced the protestors.

The term is also used to refer to anyone who holds ‘social conservative’ views, radlibs were calling Pedro Castillo a ‘nazbol’ prior to his election as President of Peru, for his previous opposition to gay marriage. All this is despite the fact that historically Communists have been for the most part conservative with regard what we now call ‘social issues’ (prior to the neo-liberal era this term referred to issues such as housing and healthcare). The reason that the western left does this is so that they can completely dismiss mass movmements in the third-world as ‘reactionary’ and beneath them. They focus on social issues in the west so as to distract from their economic failings and failure to reach the masses as a result and so they can push their ‘humanitarian’ and ‘woke’ imperialism on the world under the guise of the left. Ironically these third-world movements are often more progressive on these issues than the western left themselves. Here is a good article which debunks lies from American leftists on this matter.

The people who use this term also use the term so as to protect the ruling class. Whenever we talk about the DoTB (normalised as the ‘Deep State’) or the bourgeoisie (normalised as the ‘Elites’) they cry ‘nazbol’ and assume that we are talking about a certain ethnicity, Jewish people, as they have already due to the use of this term equated us with Nazis. However what is ironic is that they are themselves anti-semetic because they are making the assumption that the elite and the establishment are composed solely of Jews or otherwise that there is no elite, when this could not be further from the truth. They show their true colours and expose themselves for who and what they are.

“Furthermore, [radlib] voices tend to argue that anything resembling Lenin’s analysis of capitalism in its imperialist stage is somehow anti-semitic. [Radlibs] will often claim that references to bankers, international bankers, or globalism is merely a coded repackaging of Nazi conspiracy theories about Jewish global domination. This allegation is absurd, and would render not just all adherents of Marxism-Leninism, but also many liberal critics of globalisation such as Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, and Naomi Klein to be Nazi propagandists” - Caleb T. Maupin

I have demonstrated the complete hypocrisy and malicious intent of those who use this term. It is clear that these are terms that we should avoid as they are used to slander and divide our movement. Given that fascism is the psychosis (breakdown) of liberalism, it should be of no suprise that that the fascism of the future will come from radlibs. We have seen recently their support of big tech censorship (‘conservatives’ are right-liberals while ‘liberals’ are left-liberals, the point is that radlibs are the avant-garde of liberalism) with them even becoming the footsoldiers (similar spiritually as to how the lumpen were the footsoldiers of Bonparte despite him serving finance capital primarily) of the Silicon Valley cartel crackdown on anti-imperialist voices. We have also seen their recent support for the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine (as well as other CIA backed counter-gangs elsewhere). As the U.S. empire continues to breakdown and the quality of life decreases at home and society collapses, we can expect them to become the footsoldiers of imperialism, reaction and further authoritarianism at home, and in a last ditched attempt to hold onto their quality of life and empire, who knows what they could do?

  • enigma@lemmygrad.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Back in 2018, Caleb Maupin attended a Conference by the name of ‘The Alternatives to Globalisation’ which is held every year, of which the key theme of the year was ‘The Strategies of the Multipolar World’. Also in attendence was the ‘Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union’, the youth wing of the Communist Party of Vietnam, along with the PSUV of Venezuela, the Islamic Republican party of Iran and several other anti-imperialist parties and organisations. Caleb was in attendence due to his employment at Russia Today (RT) and was there to offer his viewpoints which he wanted to put out there, rather than them (our viewpoints) not getting heard, because if we don’t get out there and present our viewpoints they simply won’t be seen.

    At the conference he gave a speech which I am sure you would agree with if you listened to. In it he focused on anti-imperialism, the need to fight the ruling order as well as the need for populism in the American Communist movement. It was not a debate, Caleb merely gave his viewpoint while the other speakers sat beside him (two of which were Fourth Positionists, and one who was a fascist, as they were also invited as they claim their viewpoint opposes liberalism and globalism) while an audience below them listened on. This was not Caleb agreeing with them or pandering to them, it was Caleb offering his viewpoint and presenting it in his speech. He also mentioned how he often got called a ‘Duginist’ despite never before reading Dugin’s works, which ended up leading him to read Dugin’s ‘Fourth Political Theory’ and from this he realised he did not agree with Dugin, but not that he completely dismissed Dugin. He saw some good in the idea of the ‘Multipolar World’ and the opposition his idea of ‘Eurasianism’ poses to U.S. imperialism:

    “In principle, Eurasia and our space, the heartland Russia, remain the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution. The new Eurasian empire will be constructedon the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the U.S., and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us. This common civilisational impulse will be the basis of a political and strategic union” - Alexander Dugin

    “The philosophers Locke and Kant described the project of ‘civil society’ in which nation-states were to be abolished. Some individuals could theoretically do without them. This is how the philosophy of cosmopolitanism arose, involving the abolition of nation-states and (as an ideal) the creation of a World Government. This was the birth of globalism albeit in theory” - Alexander Dugin

    “There is another, ‘hidden’, ‘secret’ or ‘implicit’ unipolarity, that is globalism, multilateralism, and the so-called ‘No Polarity’ promoted by the chief of the Council on Foreign Relations. We roughly call this ‘globalisation.’ Globalisation means that all systems, societies, peoples and countries in the world will accept the Western way of progress, development, human rights, democracy, and liberalism. And when this happens, there will be no great differences between the United States, Russia, China, or Africa. Everyone will be ‘equal.’ But in what sense? Everybody will become Americans, Western, and everybody must like liberal democracy and human rights. This is a special kind of globalism. It is not a dialogue between countries, cultures, and civilisations. For example, Russia has proposed Russian values, and China has proposed a Chinese identity. But there should not be any collective identity in this concept of globalisation. Everybody should be equal precisely because everyone should only be statistical individuals - no cultures, no religions, no ethnic roots” - Alexander Dugin

    (Just as a sidenote I have not read Dugin, and I am sure it is the same for the vast majority of people here, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but from everything I have heard and I am aware of) I do not agree with Dugin at all (except in opposition to U.S. imperialism), but it is clear to me that Dugin is presented as a scary, bearded, hairy Russian boogeyman by radlibs. To them he is a ‘Rasputin-like’ figure who they can project all of their Russophobia onto. This is despite the fact that none of them have read any of Dugin’s work (which Caleb did and from this he realised he disagreed with Dugin). Dugin is someone that we should read, so that we can debunk him, due to his prominence in Post-Soviet states. As Mao Zedong said:

    “Oppose book worship; Seek truth from facts; No investigation, no right to speak” - Mao Zedong

    “All erroneous ideas, all poisonous weeds, all ghosts and monsters, must be subjected to criticism; in no circumstance should they be allowed to spread unchecked” - Mao Zedong

    “If you don’t study the negative stuff, you won’t be able to refute it. Neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin was like that. They made great efforts to learn and study all sorts of things, contemporary and past, and taught other people to do likewise” - Mao Zedong

    Dugin is just a Russian conservative, (in the past he was everything from liberal, to fascist, to nazbol) I do not get why us as Communists have to rally around the lies and slanders of radical-liberals. We should oppose them and oppose the ‘Fourth Political Theory’ as well, but we should not make a mountain out of a molehill and we should not spread lies, especially lies about a theorist (however bad) in an anti-imperialist country who has nothing to do with the west except opposition to it’s imperialism.

    Recent video rallying against the lies.