• 34 Post
  • 25 Comment
Joined 1Y ago
Cake day: Jul 19, 2020


Socialism isn’t “redistribution”, all systems redistribute wealth. It is a caricature understanding of socialism, as well as one adopted by liberals who co-opt the radical aesthetic and fit into that very caricature, which make people associate socialism with poverty. When in fact socialism is about achieving vast material abundance. It is for this reason that we MUST fight against this notion as what we say, the slogans we use and what we focus on matters. When it comes to wealth, we must focus on how that wealth is created and why that is bad, not that the wealth itself is bad and that must show in our messaging as well as our slogans.

We must focus on building a new, as opposed to focusing on tearing everything down. We must be optimistic, only then can we win the masses and be victorious.

The capitalist class WILL use violence to stop the revolution. The only way to effectively counter violence is violence. Revolutionaries do not want violence, but they must be prepared to defend the revolution from the assaults of counter-revolutionary forces. Violence in revolutions must be used as self-defense when necessary. Excesses of violence must be avoided, the kind arising from anger, disgust and hatred. Torture, no quarter, physical/psychological/verbal/sexual abuse/harassment of POWs, deliberate use of lethal force against unarmed civilian populations, deliberate use of weapons of mass destruction, deliberate targetting of basic infrastructure such as water treatment facilities, power plants, farms, crop lands, food banks, hospitals and schools, posing as humanitarian aid workers and medical professionals to trick the enemy, deliberately devastating the enemy’s local ecosystem, deliberate killing of children and extrajudicial executions should be strictly forbidden and those guilty should be tried in the revolution’s own courts for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

We must focus on building a new, as opposed to focusing on tearing everything down. We must be optimistic, only then can we win the masses and be victorious.

– Brezhnev Economic Reforms:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_"For_Labour_Valour"#:~:text=The Medal "For Labour Valour" (Russian: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Медаль_«,culture_or_the_manufacturing_industry )






















https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Экономическая_реформа_1965_года_в_СССР#:~:text=Экономи́ческая рефо́рма 1965 года в,самостоятельности» путём введения для последних





http://samlib.ru/a/almt/digitalcommunismus.shtml (This article is based on this video https://youtu.be/MtgXRgHJoTM )











  • Collected Works of Yuri Andropov

http://www.law.edu.ru/book/book.asp?bookID=47989 https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Союз_Советских_Социалистических_Республик






https://www.histclo.com/essay//war/com/sov/stalin/agr/sa-pp.html#:~:text=Production-,These household plots were the only form of private,farmers during the Soviet era.&text=The private garden plots were,both their food and income

http://rzd-expo.ru/history/Istoriya stroitelstva BAMa/





https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Territorial-Production+Complex#:~:text=a unit used in a,productive forces of socialist society.&text=A territorial-production complex forms,enterprises within a particular territory

  • Economic Growth Stats That Disprove Stagnation


– Sino-Soviet Splits:















– Links to Mao’s works






Credit to Comrade King for compiling these sources and for creating a youtube playlist version of this which is what changed my mind on Post-Stalin USSR https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaQGRJK0rSbfDH7xlbVRjt7LFMKLo_Lr9

“’In the Romanian capital of Bucharest, at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties (November 1960), Mao and Khrushchev respectively attacked the Soviet and the Chinese interpretations of Marxism-Leninism as the wrong road to world socialism in the USSR and in China. Mao said that Khrushchev’s emphases on consumer goods and material plenty would make the Soviets ideologically soft and un-revolutionary, to which Khrushchev replied: ‘If we could promise the people nothing, except revolution, they would scratch their heads and say: ‘Isn’t it better to have good goulash?’’

‘In the context of the tri-polar Cold War, Khrushchev doubted Mao’s mental sanity, because his unrealistic policies of geopolitical confrontation might provoke nuclear war between the capitalist and the communist blocs. To thwart Mao’s warmongering, Khrushchev cancelled foreign-aid agreements and the delivery of Soviet atomic bombs to the PRC’”

– “They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people. And here let me emphasize the fact — and it cannot be repeated too often — that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace” - Eugene V. Debs

– “I fell in love with my country - its rivers, prairies, forests, mountains, cities and people. No one can take my love of country away from me! I felt then, as I do now, it’s a rich, fertile, beautiful land, capable of satisfying all the needs of its people. It could be a paradise on earth if it belonged to the people, not to a small owning class” - Elizabeth Gurley Flynn

– “You are the non-patriots, and you are the un-Americans, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves” - Paul Robeson

– "Comrade William Z. Foster and the National Committee of the Communist Party of the United States of America:

‘We are glad to learn that the special convention of the Communist Political Association of the United States has resolved to repudiate Browder’s revisionist, that is, capitulationist line, has re-established Marxist leadership and revived the Communist Party of the United States. We hereby extend to you our warm congratulations on this great victory of the working class and the Marxist movement in the United States. Browder’s whole revisionist-capitulationist line (which is fully expressed in his book Teheran) in essence reflects the influence of reactionary U.S. capitalist groups on the U.S. workers’ movement. These groups are now doing their utmost to extend their influence in China too; they are supporting the erroneous policy of the reactionary clique inside the Kuomintang, a policy which is against the interests of the nation and the people, and are thereby confronting the Chinese people with the grave danger of civil war and jeopardizing the interests of the peoples of our two great countries, China and the United States. Beyond all doubt the victory of the U.S. working class and its vanguard, the Communist Party of the United States, over Browder’s revisionist-capitulationist line will contribute signally to the great cause in which the Chinese and American peoples are engaged the cause of carrying on the war against Japan and of building a peaceful and democratic world after the war’" - Mao Tse-tung

– “The Mongols and Han should co-operate closely and have faith in Marxism. All our minority nations should trust each other, no matter what nationalities they are. They must see on which side truth lies. Marx himself was a Jew, Stalin belonged to a minority nation; and Chiang Kai-shek is a Han, a bad one, whom we strongly oppose. We must not insist that only people of a given province can take charge of the administration of that province. The place of origin of a man is irrelevant - northerner or southerner, this national minority or that minority, [they are all the same]. The questions are whether they have communism and how much. This point should be explained clearly to our national minorities. To begin with, the Han was not a big race, but a mixture of a great number of races. The Han people have conquered many minority nations in history and have driven them to the highlands. [We] must take a historical view of our nationality question and find out that we either depend on minority nationalism or on communism. Of course we depend on communism. We need our regions but not our regionalism” - Mao Tse-tung

– “As for people who are politically backward, Communists should not slight or despise them - but should befriend them - unite with them, and convince them and encourage them to go forward” - Mao Tse-tung

– “The objective in the case under consideration is the emancipation of the working class and the revolution (transformation) of society implicit therein. An historical development can remain ‘peaceful’ only for so long as its progress is not forcibly obstructed by those wielding social power at the time. If in England, for instance, or the United States, the working class were to gain a majority in Parliament or Congress, they could, by lawful means, rid themselves of such laws and institutions as impeded their development, though they could only do so insofar as society had reached a sufficiently mature development. However, the ‘peaceful’ movement might be transformed into a ‘forcible’ one by resistance on the part of those interested in restoring the former state of affairs; if (as in the American Civil War and French Revolution) they are put down by force, it is as rebels against ‘lawful’ force” – Karl Marx

– “(Marx) led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a ‘pro-slavery rebellion’, to this peaceful and legal revolution” – Friedrich Engels

– “The draft of the programme correctly puts forward the task of utilising the traditional English institutions (Parliament) in the struggle for socialism. It is well known that the English Communists are being accused that they will establish Soviet Power in England. Hence it is imperative that in the draft of the programme it should be very clearly and definitely stated that the English Communists are not going to delegitimise Parliament, that England shall come to socialism through its own path and not through Soviet Power, but through Peoples’ Democracy that would be guided by people’s power and not by capitalists” – (I.V Stalin, letter to CPGB leader Harry Pollitt on the draft of the party’s British Road to Socialism, September 28th 1950)

– “There is no reason to doubt that in the future that Soviet Union will be true to its policy – the policy of peace and security, the policy of the equality and friendship of the peoples” – I.V Stalin

– “The peaceful coexistence of capitalism and communism is quite possible if there is a mutual desire to cooperate, with a willingness to fulfill the obligations assumed, while respecting the principle of equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states” - I.V Stalin

– “They, these aggressive forces, control the reactionary governments and direct them. But at the same time they are afraid of their peoples who do not want a new war and stand for the maintenance of peace. Therefore they are trying to use the reactionary governments in order to enmesh their peoples with lies, to deceive them, and to depict the new war as defensive and the peaceful policy of the peace-loving countries as aggressive. They are trying to deceive their peoples in order to impose on them their aggressive plans and to draw them into a war. Precisely for this reason they are afraid of the campaign in defence of peace, fearing it can expose the aggressive intentions of the reactionary governments. Precisely for this reason they turned down the proposal of the Soviet Union for the conclusion of a Peace Pact, for the reduction of armaments, for banning the atomic weapon, fearing that the adoption of these proposals would undermine the aggressive measures of the reactionary governments and make the armaments of the reactionary governments and make the armaments race unnecessary. What will be the end of this struggle between the aggressive and the peace-loving forces? Peace will be preserved and consolidated if the peoples will take the cause of preserving peace into their own hands and will defend it to the end. War may become inevitable if the warmongers succeed in entangling the masses of the people in lies, in deceiving them and drawing them into a new world war. That is why the wide campaign for the maintenance of peace as a means of exposing the criminal and machinations of the warmongers is now of a first-state importance. As for the Soviet Union, it will continue in the future as well firmly to pursue the policy of averting war and maintaining peace” – I.V Stalin

– “Alexander Werth: Do you believe that with the further progress of the Soviet Union towards communism the possibilities of peaceful co-operation with the outside world will not decrease as far as the Soviet Union is concerned? Is “communism in one country” possible? Stalin: I do not doubt that the possibilities of peaceful co-operation, far from decreasing, may even grow. “Communism in one country” is perfectly possible, especially in a country like the Soviet Union” – (I.V Stalin interview with Alexander Werth, September 24th 1946)

– “The US and USSR systems are different but we didn’t wage war against each other and the USSR does not propose to. If during the war they could co-operate, why can’t they today in peace, given the wish to co-operate?” - I.V Stalin

– “Let us not mutually criticise our systems. Everyone has the right to follow the system he wants to maintain. Which one is better will be said by history. We should respect the systems chosen by the people, and whether the system is good or bad is the business of the American people. To co-operate, one does not need the same systems. One should respecct the other system when approved by the people. Only on this basis can we secure co-operation. Only if we criticise, it will lead us too far. As for Marx and Engels, they were unable to foresee what would happen forty years after their death. But we should adhere to mutual respect to people. Some call the Soviet system totalitarian. Other people call the American system monopoly capitalism. If we start calling each other names with the words monopolist and totalitarian, it will lead to no co-operation. We must start the historical fact that there are two systems approved by the people. Only on that basis is co-operation possible. If we distract each other with criticism, that is propaganda” – I.V Stalin

– “Liberation wars will continue to exist as long as imperialism exists, as long as colonialism exists. These are revolutionary wars. Such wars are not only admissible but inevitable since the colonialists do not grant independence voluntarily… We recognise such wars, we help and will help the people striving for their independence… These uprisings must not be identified with wars among states, with local wars, since in these uprisings the people are fighting for implementation of their right for self-determination, for independence social and national development” - N. Khrushchev

– “The stated provisions of the Marxist-Leninist theory are they also overturn the notorious formulation of the question of ‘ex-port of the revolution’. It is Marxism, in contrast to all bourgeois ideological concepts, proved that revolutions occur do not occur by order, not because of the desires of individuals, but due to the natural course of the historical process. ‘Of course,’ Lenin pointed out, ‘there are people who think that a revolution can be born in a foreign country by order, by co-announcement. These people are either madmen or provocateurs… We know that they cannot be made either by order or by agreement that they grow when tens of millions of people come to the conclusion that it is impossible to live like this any longer” - N. Khruschev

– “To strengthen the cause of peace in the entire world it would be of great importance to establish strong friendly relations between the two major powers of the world, the Soviet Union and the United States of America. We believe that if the basis of relations between the USSR and the USA was based on the known five principles of peaceful coexistence, it would be truly a remarkable value for all of humanity and it would certainly be healthy to the people of America, no less than the peoples of the Soviet Union and all other nations. The principles are mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence and economic cooperation are now shared and supported by two dozen states” - N. Khrushchev

– “In advocating peaceful coexistence, we of course have no intention of saying that there are no contradictions between socialism and capitalism, that complete ‘harmony’ can be established between them, or that it is possible to reconcile the communist and bourgeois ideologies. Such a viewpoint would be tantamount to retreating from Marxism-Leninism. The ideological differences are irreconcilable and will continue so” – N. Khrushchev

– “When we talk about that in the competition between the two systems, capitalism and socialism, wins the socialist system, then that does not mean at all that victory will be achieved through armed interference by the socialist countries in the internal affairs of the capitalist countries” – N. Khrushchev

– “The system under which some states sell arms to others is not for our invention. France, Britain and the United States have long since been supplying arms to very many countries, and particularly to the countries whose governments take the most hostile attitude towards the Soviet Union. Therefore we have nothing else to do but to act in the same way. We sell arms to countries which ask us to do so and want to be friendly with us. Apparently they buy arms because they fear the countries which you supply with arms. Thus we are doing only the same thing which you have been doing for a long time. If the Western powers want to come to agreement on this score, we are willing to do so. We said this as far back as 1955 in London and made a statement to this effect. The Soviet Union is prepared to reach agreement that no country should sell its arms to any other country” – N. Khrushchev

– “Our enemies like to depict us Leninists as advocates of violence always and everywhere. True, we recognise the need recognise the need for the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into socialist society. It is this that distinguishes the revolutionary Marxists from the reformists, the opportunists. There is no doubt that in a number of capitalist countries the violent overthrow of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the sharp aggravation of class struggle connected with this are inevitable. But the forms of social revolution vary. It is not true that we regard violence and civil war as the only way to remake society. It will be recalled that in the conditions that arose in April 1917 Lenin granted the possibility that the Russian Revolution might develop peacefully… Leninism teaches us that the ruling class will not surrender their power voluntarily. And the greater or lesser degree of intensity which the struggle may assume, the use or the non-use of violence in the transition to socialism, depends on the resistance of the exploiters, on whether the exploiting class itself resorts to violence, rather than the proletariat. In this connection the question arises of whether it is possible to go over to socialism by using parliamentary means. No such course was open to the Russian bolsheviks… Since then, however, the historical situation has undergone radical changes which make possible a new approach to the question. The forces of socialism and democracy have grown immeasurably throughout the world, and capitalism has become much weaker… In these circumstances the working class, by ralling around itself the working peasantry, the intelligentsia, all patriotic forces, and resolutely repulsing the opportunist elements who are incapable of giving up the policy of compromise with the capitalists and landlords, is in a position to defeat the reactionary forces opposed to the interests of the people, to capture a stable majority in parliament, and transform the latter from an organ of bourgeois democracy into a genuine instrument of the people’s will… In the countries where capitalism is still strong and has a huge military and police apparatus at its disposal, the reactionary forces will, of course, inevitably offer serious resistance. There the transition to socialism will be attended by a sharp class, revolutionary struggle. Whatever the form of transition to socialism, the decisive and indispensible factor is the political leadership of the working class headed by its vanguard. Without this there can be no transition to socialism” – N. Khrushchev

– “Some bourgeois leaders raise a howl over the solidarity of Soviet Communists, the Soviet people, with the struggle of other peoples for freedom and progress. This is either naivete or a deliberate befuddling of minds. Detente and peaceful coexistence have to do with interstate relations. This means above all that conflicts between countries are not to be settled by war, by the use or threat of force. Detente cannot abolish or alter the laws of class struggle. No one should expect that detente will cause Communists to reconcile themselves with capitalist exploitation or that monopolists will become revolutionists. On the other hand, strict observance of the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other states and respect for their independence and sovereignty is one of the essential conditions of detente. We make no secret of the fact that we see detente as the way to create more favorable conditions for peaceful socialist and communist construction. This only confirms that socialism and peace are indissoluble. As for the ultra-leftist assertion that peaceful coexistence is the next thing to ‘helping capitalism’ and ‘freezing the socio-political status quo’, our reply is this: every revolution is above all a natural result of the given society’s internal development. Life itself has refuted the inventions about ‘freezing of the status quo’. Suffice it to recall the far-reaching revolutionary changes in the world in recent years – Leonid Brezhnev

– “In 1954 the Chinese Government initiated the celebrated Five Principles of peaceful coexistence. They are mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. Together with other Asian and African countries, we formulated the Ten Principles on the basis of the Five Principles at the Bandung Conference of 1955” – Mao Tse-tung

– "Mao being interviewed in 1938 by Haldore Hanson, a foreign correspondent: “‘You mean to say,’ I commented, ‘that the Chinese Communist party is willing to support a democratic government after this war and does not intend to renew its struggle against the landlords?’ Mao nodded. ‘How then, I asked, do you hope to achieve Communism? How can you build a socialist republic?’ Mao said he hoped that the change from Democracy to Socialism would be evolutionary, not revolutionary. The chief weapon would be education, not an execution ax. ‘But there is no historical precedent for a peaceful introduction of Socialism,’ I protested. Mao smiled and added, 'We are trying to make history, not to imitate it” (Hanson, Humane Endeavour: The Story of the China War, 1939, p. 310)

Thanks comrade I appreciate it!


Globalism is imperialism without borders. …

Land Reform

Land reform is the solution not “Land back” to the American issue of land. Complete nationalisation is also not the answer in the short term. The native people should be included in an extensive land reform program as well as given self determination. Black people should also finally be given 40 acr…

Also to address those who hold some dogmatic idea that “populism” means “mob rule” whatever that is supposed to mean to entail as if it is a buzzword.

“Mob rule” is a slanderous term invented by the bourgeois historians to slander populist leaders and movements throughout history. However what is wrong with it? Real socialism is populist because populism is supposed to mean serving the masses and under a socialist system they themselves are in power. Only socialism has historically, and only socialism can provide this future to the working masses.


Communism is true populism, and real populism is communism, ask any random Chinese person who was, is, and will be the communist party fighting for and they will answer the people. For example populism is redundant in China because it is a given that all politics must be “populist”…

"Thus in the field of private property, morality teaches that theft is to be condemned; While communists do not believe in the sacredness of private property, they do not approve of stealing; It is true that communists by no means recognise the inviolability of private property; the nationalisation of factories is an expropriation of the bourgeoisie; the working class appropriates “the property of others”, trangresses the right of private property, undertakes a “despotic intervention in the right of property” But communists condemn stealing, for the reason that individual thefts by each worker from the capitalists, for his own advantage, would not result in common struggle, but would make the worker a petty bourgeois. Horse-thieves and swindlers will not fight in the class struggle, even though they may be offspring of the proletariat. If many members of the proletariat should become thieves, the class would break down and be condemned; Therefore communists condemn stealing, not in order to protect private property, but in order to maintain the integrity of their class, to protect it from “demoralisation and “disintegration”, without which protection the proletariat can never be transformed into the next following stage. We are therefore dealing witth a class standard in the conduct of the proletariat. It is obvious that the rules we have considered are determined by the economic conditions of society” - Karl Marx

Jason’s argument the other night was moralistic and infantile, at one point he was saying “bad guys”. As if the class struggle is one of good vs bad when the class struggle is something fundamental and comes from the contradiction between differing class interests that are at odds with each other, not some moral good vs bad scenario.

That was not a mistake, he exposed Luna Oi for her pandering to American leftists for money. Which you can read here: https://showinfrared.substack.com/p/exposing-the-fraud-that-is-luna-oi?justPublished=true

This tweet https://twitter.com/LeninBol/status/1444461931897622528 shows how she does not represent the the political line of the Communist Party of Vietnam and her views run counter to the party.

Her hypocrisy shines through here, https://twitter.com/realsteelmuslim/status/1317474377068236802 the dress is actually of Chinese origin and is also worn in Korea, yet it is bad when a Chinese woman wears it yet ok when a white American woman wears it. This is complete hypocrisy.

This https://imgur.com/mVAFNNR shows how she claims to be a Marxist and to be espousing dialectical materialism, yet she seems to be blending in radlib views which run counter to Marxism and simply have nothing to do with it.

Here https://twitter.com/LeninBol/status/1444437496180326401 is why she is wrong about flag burning. and yet she claims that the Vietnamese hate America https://twitter.com/InfraHaz/status/1444038469009948679 even though Pew polls show https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/30/vietnamese-see-u-s-as-key-ally/ that the vast majority of Vietnamese have a favourable opinion of the US.

The hypocrisy of Luna Oi here (that hasn’t already been explained in Infrared’s article above) is that Vietnam have their own natives that were exploited and moved off their land by Vietnamese settlers yet she never talks about that https://twitter.com/SARMseller420/status/1444545261519376386 at all and completely ignores her own country’s problems with their indigenous people such as the Champa, Khmer and the natives of the mountains in the north and west.

This https://twitter.com/Ezra_EX/status/1444763032488316928 is how the baizuo who Luna is pandering to actually view native peoples. She also literally will block anyone who criticises her in anyway https://twitter.com/Ezra_EX/status/1443670346847031322 and is unable to listen to those who disagree with her and downright censors anyone who exposes her.

No authentic Vietnamese Marxist-Leninist would have any of these views or would be pandering to Western leftists for money.

Class Struggle

The class struggle is something fundamental. …

"Socialist Billionaires"

Some people have an incorrect idea that Caleb Maupin wants socialist billionaires. …

Firstly patriotism is not nationalism. However there are many different types of patriotism such as Jingoism (which is uncritically supporting everything your country does) or Chauvinism (which is the oppression of oppressed peoples and seeing your country as superior as well as pushing your values on people), these are extreme forms of patriotism. They are also the most common expressions of patriotism in the United States for obvious reasons. Socialist patriotism (or just patriotism) on the other hand is a love for your people, it does not mean you support your country when it oppresses oppressed groups or that you love the system that oppresses workers and oppressed peoples, it means that you love the people and want to liberate them from the oppressors and the system those oppressors uphold.

Destroying the US empire is just as much in the interests of the American working class as it is in the interests of the Cuban or Afghani people.

Explain the selection of quotes below then:

– “The government of the United States represents, as its army also does, the finances of the United States. But these finances do not represent the North American people; they represent a small group of financiers, the owners of all the big enterprises… who also exploit the North American people. Clearly they do not exploit them in the same mannger that they exploit us, the human beings of inferior races… for we have not had the good fortune of being born from blood, Anglo-Saxon parents. But they do exploit and divide them, they too are divided into black and whites, and they too are divided into men and women, union and non-union, employed and unemployed” - Che Guevara

  • Why do online left people think that patriotism for one’s PEOPLE, means we agree with what our government does/has done? I love my PEOPLE, my COMRADES, and that’s why I want to change my country. This quote demonstrates that it is no different for the United States, just as it wasn’t for Latin America even though it was made up of settler states, nor was it different for the GDR even though they had just suffered under the Nazis before it’s establishment yet they were still patriotic for the people and the progressive elements of the past and built their own socialist states that they were patriotic towards and defended against from the agression of the imperialists.

– "The US flag is your flag, you cannot allow the US ruling class to own the flag. The working class of the US must fight for the flag and once socialism is established it is up to the workers to decide what they want to do with flag and the US as it exists - Fidel Castro (Addressing a group of students who did not want to associate with the US flag while other countries from other countries sat next to theirs)

  • It is clear here what I said in another comment here, that American “communists” never learn because no matter what other communists tell them they must do to suceed and win, they still do the opposite and alienate the masses and without the masses you cannot win because only the masses can make a revolution but if you look down on the masses like Trotsky looked down upon the peasants as inherently reactionary then you will never win them over and your movement will stay irrelevant. Anarchistic actions such as flag burning (Which is understandable for nations oppresed under the boot of imperialism but I am talking about Americans, particularly white Americans in denial) have never brought one ounce of sucess to the American communist movement in the last 50 years. Socialism isn’t just about having ‘correct beliefs.’ If your position doesn’t allow you to build a mass, POPULAR movement of your countrys MAJORITY, then you are not a socialist.

– “Can a Communist, who is an internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but also must be. The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions; The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more complete the defeat the better…” - Mao Tse-tung

  • This quote demonstrates that socialist patriotism is patriotism for the people themselves, not for the genocidal imperialist state and its actions internally or externally against oppressed peoples. It is in the interest of the vast majority of the American people regardless of race to overthrow the American bourgeoisie and free themselves from their chains.

Here are some links on the book settlers because Americans seem to somehow think that it is compatible with Marxism when it is fundamentally at odds and alien to it.





Also when it comes to decolonisation, this article explains in detail actual reals examples of it in action in the world past and present, that are not just empty sloganeering and false virtue signalling.


I am not American, in fact America has had a negative effect on my country with it’s military occupation and corporations but the fact of the matter is that American socialists have to be patriots if they want to win, because only socialism can actually serve the masses, the only groups who benefit form Imperialism are the ruling classes, it is in the interests of the American working class to overthrow their oppressors just as much as it in is in my interest and the interests of the whole world.

Every major communist party across the world (including in the US) opposes flag burning of the American flag by Americans because it is anarchistic and divorces them from the responsibility of themselves having to end imperialism and americanism, of course it is understandable if black or native people oppose the united states project but any communist recognises that they are entitled to self determination and they are still patriotic for america as in the people and if they are not they are patriotic for something.

It is only ever whites who have no patriotism for anything and you can not call yourself a communist if you are not a patriot because being a communist means that you have a deep love for your people and want to see things get better for them. Socialist patriotism does not mean you defend everything the state does, no in fact it means that you oppose it because you have a deep love for the people and to see them do better and free themselves from the shackles of oppression and in the case of the United States them doing so means that the boot of imperialism gets off the neck of the third world. Only then can the world prosper and peace be enjoyed.

The quotes linked above together demonstrate this perfectly, the Fidel quote is particularly striking because it just goes to show how American self proclaimed communists have been doing the same shit of flag burning for 50 years with no success to speak of whatsoever… and it’s no wonder when every communist keeps telling them the same things over and over again.

I have compiled a list of quotes here https://lemmygrad.ml/post/36305 showing the historical support for socialist patriotism by prominent marxists.

– “We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery. From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?” - (Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, January 28th 1865)

– “After studying the Irish question for many years I have come to the conclusion that the decisive blow against the English ruling classes (and it will be decisive for the workers’ movement all over the world) cannot be delivered in England but only in Ireland (- Karl Marx); We are told that the English people contributed to help our enslavement. It is true. It is also true that the Irish people have contributed soldiers to duly crush every democratic movement of the English people from the deportation of Irish soldiers to serve the cause of political despotism under Charles to the days of Featherstone under Asquith. Slaves themselves the English people helped to enslave others; slaves themselves the Irish people helped to enslave others. There is no room for recrimination. We are only concerned now with the fact - daily, becoming more obvious - that the English workes who have reached the moral stature of rebels are now willing to assist the working class rebels of Ireland, and taht those Irish rebels will in their turn help the rebels of Ireland, and that those Irish rebels will in their turn help the rebels of England to break their chains and attain the dignity of freedom. There are still a majority of slaves in England - there are still a majority of slaves in Ireland. We are under no illusions as to either country. But we do not intend to confound the geographical spot on which the rebels lie with the political government upheld by the slave. For us and ours the path is clear. The first duty of the working class of the word is to settle accounts with the master class of the world - that of their own country at the head of the list. To that point this struggle, as all such struggles, is converging” - James Connolly

– “Is a sense of national pride alien to us, Great-Russian class-conscious proletarians? Certainly not! We love our language and our country, and we are doing our very utmost to raise her toiling masses (i.e., nine-tenths of her population) to the level of a democratic and socialist consciousness. To us it is most painful to see and feel the outrages, the oppression and the humiliation our fair country suffers at the hands of the tsar’s butchers, the nobles and the capitalists. We take pride in the resistance to these outrages put up from our midst, from the Great Russians; in that midst having produced Radishchev, the Decembrists and the revolutionary commoners of the seventies; in the Great-Russian working class having created, in 1905, a mighty revolutionary party of the masses; and in the Great-Russian peasantry having begun to turn towards democracy and set about overthrowing the clergy and the landed proprietors” - V.I Lenin

– “We have to give life to Indo-American socialism with our own reality, in our own language. Here is a mission worthy of a new generation.” - José Carlos Mariátegui

Socialist Masterpost of Masterposts Site Now On Independent Domain!

Share around everywhere! This site needs to get out there, it is a useful resource for communists and to win over people…

Well at least it is compact, but this site isn’t so much about appearances but about substance and surely you can agree that it does have substance? Far more comprehensively than any other socialist resource page at that! Also it is not easy to make this many resources be aesthetically pleasing without making it scroll for ages and at that point this resource would have lost it’s value.