…the movement’s most radical orgs and individuals. (Those orgs and individuals include Rage Against the War Machine, the PCUSA, and Scott Ritter.)

WTF? RAWM is full of Libertarians, how could they be considered radical?

They’re doing this because they see a truth which the radlibs refuse to recognize: that most of the U.S. population has a primary material interest not in maintaining the system, but in replacing it with workers democracy. Both the communists and the libertarians in the antiwar movement essentially know this, with the libertarians only having a different idea of what the solution to the workers’ living standards crisis should be.

This shit got me fucked up lol, how could he say that Libertarians essentially understand the need for a worker’s democracy? They are petty bourgeois Liberals.

In his 1983 polemic Settlers, Sakai claimed that the white population won’t develop revolutionary consciousness no matter how much their conditions deteriorate, because they had supposedly betrayed the revolutionary cause during capitalism’s last great period of crisis in the 1930s. This was a lie, told by a wrecker.

He hasn’t read Settlers, white labor has consistently worked opportunistically to uphold the settler system, not just in 30s. Also Sakai doesn’t say White labor won’t develop into a proletariat, but that much of them will choose to die upholding the settler system when revolution comes. Rainer is obsessed with this talking point, another is where he says the American War of Independence was progressive towards Socialism. This analysis hinges on the fact that Marx considered the American independence progress in political emancipation, but as Losurdo points out:

Losurdo: I am critical of some ideas of Marx, but not the enthusiasm with which he greeted the struggle of Lincoln or the Northern Union. In this case Marx was correct. But Marx spoke of the bourgeois revolutions as providing political emancipation. Perhaps he didn’t see the aspect of de-emancipation. We can make a comparison with the middle of the nineteenth century: the U.S. and Mexico. In Mexico, no bourgeois revolution took place. In the U.S. we must say that the American Revolution was a form of bourgeois revolution. Comparing these two countries, we see that in Mexico, slavery was abolished. In the U.S. slavery remained very strong. Why should we say that in the U.S. the political emancipation was greater than in Mexico? I don’t see why.

This can only be considered political emancipation for the settler class, something that Rainer and Marx both failed to understand.

The Panthers were organizing towards the state’s overthrow within the most revolutionary elements of society before neoliberalism was ever implemented. Each successive crime against the working class that neoliberalism has brought, from NAFTA to financial deregulation to the pandemic’s wage cuts, has been an opportunity for the left to renew the project of the Panthers.

Neoliberalism’s role was activated long before the label came. Neoliberalism is just a formulation of colonization and austerity politics, it’s nothing special.

I remain unconvinced by Rainer that the settler petty bourgeoisie will radicalize in such a way to emancipate the Black nation. People like him love to parade the Black Panthers as an example missing out that their revolution was definitely for all colors, but there’s a reason why the Black Communists were in the lead.

Rainer spent so much energy combating MAGA Communism yet he peddles the same ideology without the overt White Supremacist aesthetics.

I say to Rainer Shea the same thing I say to everyone who peddles ‘wrecker’ allegations: show and prove.

I agree.

Wait, this is written by Rainer Shea?

Eww, PCUSA stooge.