Regardless I don’t see the point of inviting discord between communists, MLs especially, when we should be promoting understanding and coexistence. Dengoid remains an insult and will just shut people off.

I quote Marx here: “Our task is that of ruthless criticism, and much more against ostensible friends than against open enemies; and in maintaining this our position we gladly forego cheap democratic popularity.” http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1850/04/kinkel.html

But he’s made his allegiance clear. His brand of “patriotic socialism” that Maupin also espouses (who met with the founder of nazbol ideology several times) appeals to the far-right, compromising the essence of marxism to placate fascists but here he made it clear he has no compassion at all for communists who don’t follow him as, in his opinion, they are not actual communists.

This attempted character assassination would work except I’m already familiar with the people and movements you mentioned. You mean Dugin? Dugin is worth reading to understand conservative resistance to imperialism. What’s more “NazBol ideology” when you really look into it is basically Social-democrats that have pinched a few ideas from Lenin and tried to incorporate nationalism. It essentially was born out of the 1990s and the sheer confusion of the time. In reality you can fit every single NazBol on earth in one room. They quickly dissolved into the “Other Russia” party showing they were a product of 1990s Russia and that “NazBol ideology” is just another slander against Marxist-Leninists now that communist has become cool.

Just an FYI on this: Black Lenin (Beness Aijo) was in the NazBol party when he was in Russia then joining some other communist parties and he participated in many brave and heroic actions in recent years.

Beness Aijo, an actual “nazbol”, has been out killing nazis in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beness_Aijo

appeals to the far-right, compromising the essence of marxism to placate fascists but here he made it clear he has no compassion at all for communists who don’t follow him as, in his opinion, they are not actual communists.

Do you have compassion for anarchists or trotskyites? But back on topic Haz is not stopping other people doing stuff. He’s criticising them. Bayarea was actively suppressing other communists

I only read the preface because, wow, imagine writing a book over a twitter fight that lasted one evening. But he’s made his allegiance clear.

I’ll have a read of the article he wrote, thanks

Com, if you only read the preface of that you should read the entire thing.

Haz (his Dengism not withstanding), displays why he’s a far superior communist to the ultra lefts afraid of appropriating American patriotism and American symbols.

Here is what separates idealism from materialism: The idealists believe that American imperialist ideology has its basis in ideas about America, in flags and in patriotism, rather than material, and therefore unconscious structures which elevate the American subject to the universal status. It is of no consequence whether that standard disguises itself in the form of ‘anti-imperialism’, ‘leftism’ or even ‘Communism’ - the content of the standard is by nature imperialist. It implies a universal state apparatus to interpellate such a ‘universal subject. Here lies the essence of American unipolarity. The American ‘Marxist-Leninists’ have merely replaced American universal human rights, slogans of ‘democracy’ and ‘economic liberty’ with the disguise of Marxism-Leninism.

American universalism is nothing more than the highest stage of Anglo-Saxon idealism, according to the particular arises out of a fixed universal premise. Shoot the arrow, then find the target. Marxist humanist universalism, best epitomized today by Xi Jinping Thought, in contrast to Americanism, recognizes the universal realities of mankind to arise out of and through the wealth of differing concrete and particular realities - which do not follow under a common prescription, standard or discourse.

The unity of mankind does not follow from the prescription of some supposedly universal form of this unity upon it, but from a concrete unity forged on the basis of mutual respect, determinate association and withdrawing all claims to any pretense of knowledge of the other’s essence. What is truly in common, then, may arise authentically and on the basis of authentic mutual recognition.

American leftists cannot make, as an excuse for their own petty bourgeois antisocial paratism and inability to lead the American masses. the anti-American sentiment that prevails among global forces of anti-imperialism or marginalized ethnic minorities within America. These forces, many of whom even taken the American war of independence as an inspiration of their struggle, have every right to be anti-Americans insofar as the official representatives of America engage in ceaseless acts of aggression against them. They can in no way be faulted for their anti-Americanism. But American leftists, and white leftists in particular, possess no right to be anti-Americans, and can be criticized for their anti-Americanism, since it is a form of refusing their own responsibility.

They uniquely possess the duty to seize hegemony over their country, to be even more authentic American patriots than the imperialist deep state and ruling class - since American politics is precisely their problem. The nature of the American government is not the problem of anti-imperialists, defending their homelands against American aggression is. They have their own governments, their own countries and their own homelands to worry about - America has imposed its significance only isnofar as it has engaged in aggression against them.

But American leftists cannot abdicate and surrender their responsibility for the foreign policies of their own country: It is their patriotic duty to take responsibility for the actions of their own country, and seek an end to American unipolarity, imperialist aggression and do right by victims of American imperialism. This requires an ideological revolution on the part of Americans, from unipolar American universalism to a Marxism-Leninism fit for the age of multi-polarity, where they apply the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism to the particular context of the United States, and cease to act as though the latter context is itself some universal site of prescriptive truth.

It appears contradictory only to those who lack any semblance of dialectic thinking that American Marxist-Leninists must, at the same time being the most fervent enemies of American exceptionalism and American imperialism, be American patriots. America is a particular country, insofar as American Marxist-Leninists treat America as a particular country, they combat the very essence of Americanism, according which America is the universal police state of the world. It is not by burning American flags that American Marxists threaten American imperialism, it is by reigning in on American imperialism by seizing it at the level of its own particular material, national and civilisational premises.

Dialectic thinking entails that all things are annihilated on the basis of their own premises, likewise, American imperialism can only be destroyed on the very same basis that had engendered its emergence: The American state and people. No wonder that Trump was a greater anti-Imperialist than all the Baizuo frauds combined!