I’m a Lithuanian who is living in the UK. Lithuania before the Soviet annexation was a rural and backward peasant state, where there did not exist any form of a communist party, especially compared to its brothers (Latvia, Estonia). Lithuania had a parliament but it was a fascist backing, such that (as you stated) Antanas Smetona was a fascist and he openly admired Mussolini. On top of that, nazi collaboration was a thing and definitely existed in Lithuania against the Soviets (Note that the Baltic people follow the “double genocide theory” bullshit). When Lithuania was annexed, it had a communist party, while Latvia had a communist party since the Bolsheviks, making it one of the earliest communist parties. Lithuania has had a lot of reactionary uptake, including the Forest Brothers, which most of the action take place in, and has killed innocent civilians.

According to Human Rights in the Soviet Union, Lithuanian Nationalism still continued to exist even under the Khrushchev and Brezhnev era of the USSR. The dissolution started with the CIA (obviously) and it was not out of the popularity of the masses. The Lithuanian Nationalists staged a bloody provocation in order to frame a Soviet Attack.. It is clear that Lithuania had its reactionary nationalism even during the Soviet era.

Why do Lithuanians support the modern government? Because they want to. They’re want to act more ‘western’ compared to the great ‘Russian threat’. Western in the sense being distinct from Russia. I have also not been taught of Lithuanian history in the USSR and had to search these things for myself (Hence why I am posting sources). It’s a shame. Lithuania could’ve been a great nation (in the socialist sense) however due to the revisionism of the USSR on top of the Lithuanian nationalism, I cannot call myself a Lithuanian patriot, because I would be associated with the reactionaries that kept this country running and also drowning itself of air as it sends resources to the Ukraine.

That’s so funny to see as a ProleWiki author lmao, but I think it will be taken down soon. Still, natopedia using a prolewiki article as a reference is one of the most funny things to see come out.

Depends on the “anti-dengist”. I believe most “anti-dengists” (Maoists especially) denounce Cuba due to introducing private property, that or Castro never called his revolution “socialist” but rather “bourgeois democratic”, thus Castro cannot be a Marxist-Leninist. This is stupid. Not to mention that Maoists also tend to believe that Cuba is a sugar colony.

I think materialism involves matter, but it does not mean we can reduce everything to simply matter. That’s like saying emotions are just “the product of chemical and hormonal imbalances in our brains”, which is ultimately reductionist because these emotions are a method of expression. You put “consciousness” as an example of idealism even though marxists do not deny the existence of a consciousness, and that a consciousness is material thing. Also, do you think a consciousness is a form of materialism or idealism? Because you do not seem to argue either or in this paragraph.

If it is true that an economist, an cyberneticist, and a marxist have equally valid (supposedly) ways of viewing the world, why there exists such a division? Why do economists follow Neoclassical/Keynesian economics while Marxists still follow (and succeed) the classical economists by upholding the Labour Theory of Value? It is clear that there exists different interpretations, and these different interpretations lead to different conclusions because of different premises and methods.

In the context of marxism, where we fold out materialistic dialectics for lay people to understand, sure, I can understand dumbing down terminology to the layperson so that they can fulfill a better understanding of dialectics. This does not mean we must scrap the entire term all together. Also you did not put any counterpoints to what I said. The meanings of words under Marxism do not correlate with the common meaning, or even meanings under other fields of the natural sciences.

If it is not worth arguing about my interpretation of diamat, then why bring it up to begin with? What is supposedly the issue with my dialectics? What am I being an idealist for? A consciousness existing that is material? That ideas while intangible can also be material given the right circumstances (i.e. Science and Marxism). If you don’t think it’s worth discussing then don’t bring it up.

Lastly, correct thought is needed for correct action isn’t anti-Marxist. Without any revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. If it is true that correct thought isn’t needed for correct action, why do we have theory? Why do we need to impose cultural revolutions under socialism? Why do we care about Marxism, at all? It’s clear that this “correct” thought while not being overall correct, it is the most correct. And that is what Marxism currently is. It is the most correct form of the social (and likely natural) sciences, because it does not disregard the political economy, and thus makes more accurate predictions as a result.

Materialism isn’t just “where everything is matter or energy”. That’s reductionist. Idealists can agree that things are composed of matter or energy, the same as materialists. The idea of a conscious mind isn’t inherently idealist either, as things which are intangible can still be material. Marxists do not deny the existence of a consciousness, instead they acknowledge its existence. The difference between materialism and idealism is how our consciousness interacts with the world. Materialists argue that it is not consciousness that dictates reality, but reality that dictates consciousness. In other words, there can exist things which are independent of our consciousness. Idealists argue the former, stating that consciousness dictates reality. It’s the reason why gods or angels exist within the idealist mind. Idealists believe in the existence of an angel, although it is a product of our minds, and does not exist within reality. Also combining “ideas” with “idealism” supposes that Marxism is also idealist. Science is idealist. Ideas are not inherently idealist, the concept of idea is the formation of our mind, but these ideas can also have some application with reality. Marxism is a set of ideas, it is based on science, which Marxists observe the political economy and form ideas which align with reality.

Your first paragraph doesn’t align with the 2nd to last paragraph. If Marxism is simply a different view, why must we have different views? What makes Marxism different from a cyberneticist? I read your examples and they show vastly different things. And your 2nd to last paragraph shows that clearly. Marxism is different from an economist, a cyberneticist, because it looks at things in a different view within the application of the political economy, something which an economist or cyberneticist cannot do. Also saying “the contradictions are sharpening” is vague. What contradictions? What application of Marxism are we using here? We are referring to change, but there are several types of change, with negations or quantitative to qualitative transformations. All of this seems to be speaking in absolutism, in isolation from what Marxism is supposed to be.

Also saying this:

Ultimately the entire thing is fancy language from the 1800s that should probably be replaced because it’s alienating and bad for propaganda.

Why? Why is it bad for propaganda? We used these terms for centuries now and now we need to change them? The proposed terms are absolutely vague. “Conflict” does not speak of non-antagonistic contradictions (i.e. Proletariat-Peasantry), “tradeoff” does not speak of what dialectics truly is (It’s not always binary, in fact suggesting dialectics is inherently a binary thing is metaphysical). “change” is absolutely vague because of what I said earlier. The term “motion” is always referring to change, a specific type of change. Ultimately dumbing down terminology should be done for beginners, but not for the sake of sacrificing the word itself.

Read the article, it’s clear that CPGB-ML posits that there exists an increasingly “poor” (by what standard?) stratum of the white working class. At the beginning they say the most bullshit things but it becomes then that their wording is that “Trump is no different from other democratic/republican politicians”, like what is this article supposed to be? Are they against immigrants? It may be so given that they state this:

The thrust of this kind of reasoning is that the white working class faces a crisis, not of opportunity, but of values, brought about by welfare programmes that make life too easy on slackers.

What values? Is there any value aside from traditionalism that makes up a white working class? They’re suggesting freeloading, a statement which would not exist on most immigrants whatsoever given that they are paid less than the white working class to begin with.

The reality is that Trump’s followers are a segment of the population whose participation in the labour market is decreasing year by year, whose life expectancy is declining, who are stuck in blighted neighbourhoods by negative activity and among whom there is a significant rise in disability benefits.

And it’s clear that CPGB-ML doesn’t believe in the concept of them being reactionary for the sake of it, where they think the “plight” of a white working person overshadows everything including the actual struggles. Not to mention the inherent ableism that they state, which they state as a person from a privileged, complicit standpoint within the imperial core. CPGB-ML is a transphobic party, that much is clear, and it is also a patsoc party. They seem to critically support Trump only as much as he is a representation of the “white working class”. They’re a shit party. And I hate the fact they exist on this Island.

It is true that they are not worse than the CPUSA. But just because they produce good “takes” doesn’t make them worthy of critical support. They may have good ideas surrounding geopolitics, but their “critical” support (or lack thereof) makes them more prone to chauvinistic stances which are displayed within the takes of the Russian Federation. It may be more correct than the CPUSA’s international stance, but they’re both social chauvinists on different levels.

Let’s not forget that patsocs initially “critically” supported Trump, who was deemed an anti-imperialist (or at least his actions were anti-imperialist) by Hazites, and likely the same by those who follow MWM or Hinkle. Just because the party statement rejects both parties doesn’t mean it won’t likely remain that stance. CPUSA claims to not be a puppet of the democrats yet in their twitter they claimed to be “small d democrats”. Their tailism is a product of their chauvinism, they believe that the masses have nothing wrong with their thoughts, of being transphobic, homophobic, etc. That’s revisionist, and just because they leech the working class from the republican party doesn’t mean those chauvinistic thoughts go away. If anything it may be reinforced.

Also, critically supporting them for the sake of accelerationism is not going to do much. The regard for “chaos” at the cost of trans, gay, and black people would be more costly for them rather than for the cishet whites (or Conservatives to be more specific). This is not a party worthy of support, by any measure, as supporting them is supporting the same social-chauvinistic stances which Lenin initially opposed.

Everytime someone says “Das Kapital”, it is more likely that person is either not a marxist or is beginning to understand marxist theory. Every marxist who cites Capital refers it as Capital, with its volume next to it. “Das Kapital” is just the original text of the German release, which there is an English edition which calls itself Capital, because we don’t call it “The Capital”.

Wow people read. But they don’t actually apply the knowledge. The fact this person refers to “Das Kapital” instead of “Capital” shows their lack of expertise. I bet they haven’t even read all the 3 volumes, which each one of them is about a thousand pages or so. You can claim you have read a “book” if you only read the first 10 pages. That’s literally what they do with Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” book. Despite the book supporting the Labour Theory of Value, liberals claim it to be pro-capitalist because they only read the first 8 pages.

The Communist Manifesto is so easy to read I don’t think anyone should flaunt about it. And then they state that the Jewish Question is more “antisemitic” despite its dual-character nature of presenting both sides, one which defends the Jewish people in its first half, and makes a caricature of the anti-Jewish people in the other. This is what happens when a metaphysical person reads a book which is intended to be read from a dialectical point of view. Deeply unserious. Don’t say you’ve read it until you actually apply the knowledge.

Down wit cis

“Members of the party were average people who didn’t take part in the genocide”

They knew what the fuck they were signing up for. They’re not stupid. I hate the narrative that those who follow conservative/fascist mindsets are sheep, because that isn’t true. If you follow nazism, you are a nazi. That is it. If you follow an ideology which does an action at the expense of oppressed groups, that isn’t “being average”. That’s just taking advantage of privilege. I can’t believe people would dumb down nazis and conservatives as sheep.

Aussig supports the Shining Path. But I don’t think the distinction matters much in this case. She claimed to be a maoist in the discord server.

Edit: This statement is corrected because I’ve later learned that this isn’t true from Aussig. However as I stated earlier, the distinction doesn’t matter much. She’s still an ultra. Everything else is correct.

Aussig is irrelevant in general, but her contributions had lead to the Prolewiki accounts being banned. She just took advantage of the vandalism and used it for her own purpose. I can personally confirm that Aussig is not a sock puppet account, especially given she was participating in the discord server not in the same way as Parabola (Wisconcom). She was a part of the scandal but for different reasons.

I think Parabola made a larger dent into Leftypedia that will take harder to scrub off compared to Prolewiki. Especially given at the rate the articles are being changed (Literally productivity has been cut in half since Parabola is gone, only leaving Harrystein to edit the wiki), we won’t see Leftypedia recovered.

This is because Parabola (Or Wisconcom perhaps) originally introduced the idea of a leftypedia discord server in the matrix server, and so Parabola was the official owner. That means that Parabola has all official access to the discord server since he is at the top.

In my month staying in there, it is a gold mine of bullshit, I have amassed a collection of screenshots which clearly show that leftypedia is a place where left unity cannot happen.

Also, you have posted that link about Harrystein linking it to Wisconcom. I think Parabola is actually Wisconcom, given he made sock puppet accounts after his ban, and I’m one of the few people who can judge his tone and voice in voice chats since I heard it before when I was a part of the study group.

Since Aussig and Parabola are banned, I doubt Leftypedia would stand up again.

I had a conversation with one of the members of the Leftypedia discord server before my ban yesterday (whom I will not reveal the identity of), and they stated that Parabola has stepped down as administrator.

I thought there would’ve been more chaos at the discord server, surprisingly it was the opposite. It seems everything happened at either the editor’s side or at the admin’s side.

What is clear is that Aussig states through paraphrasing their words that:

They said they don’t want Leftypedia to be for all Leftist peoples.

In other words, Aussig has directly stated that leftypedia does not want to be leftypedia. They have banned all “revisionist” tendencies including 3 prolewiki accounts that only existed to tackle the issue with Wisconcom existing on the server.

Leftypedia has become a failed experiment it seems. The split between the Hoxhaites and Maoists (Aussig was a maoist when she entered the server* and I know it from my days in that discord server) is real. I’m not surprised at the very least. Parabola kept shitting on anarchists, even banned an anarcho-egoist (or minarchist, doesn’t matter) because they were reactionary and espoused anti-marxist views.

In the short amount of time I’ve been on that server (which is a month I think, a few days after the server’s creation) it was clear that this server would break down. It’s a funny coincidence that breakdown happened the day after I was banned for being “hostile”.

EDIT: Made corrections, see points marked by a *.

I bet even the editors are laughing over the transcript:

[Editor’s note: Biden appeared to mean Xi here, not Putin.]

How the fuck can you confuse them? Actually I’m not surprised at this point. Biden must have dementia at this point.

deleted by creator

I don’t have it in front of me but I remember a Stalin quote saying something quite different in the case of supporting anti-imperialism in West Asia despite the social conservatism.

And that somehow applies to the United States as well? Two different regions with two different material conditions. Why do you insist on downplaying MAGA Communism and its potential effects? It does bring people toward Fascism by introducing a “Socialist” mask, not unlike the Nazis or more close in representation the Strasserists. Also it’s interesting you didn’t address the Lenin quote. You just said there exists a quote which Stalin said it debunks that. Both quotes can be true simultaneously as they are not mutually exclusive. You still haven’t considered that quote. Again, just because they claim to be “anti-imperialist” does not mean we should support them.

I’ve never suggested supporting these groups, but you respond as if I have and then question my character which has nothing to do with an analysis of the topic at hand.

I accuse you because you seem to downplay these groups rather than uphold them. You forgot the “critical” part of “Critical Support”. Also I never said that marginalised peoples don’t have rights. I said this: “I ask again, do you not want us to have rights?” I address you directly because you seem to want to downplay marginalised groups in the name of “Anti-imperialism”. You claim it to be a “discussion” around the characteristics of fringe political movements, which is incorrect. What you are advocating for is downplaying the fascistic nature of Patsocism even if that is not your very intention.

The other person in this thread communicates without all the hubris while still having the exact same positions you have, I’d recommend looking to their writing for some examples of how to communicate in a way that is actually effective at getting your points across.

I write in a different way from him. That’s perfectly fine. I do tend to accuse you a lot but that’s because I tend to read between the lines more often and tell you what is wrong. I don’t want to become him. Nor will I ever. I don’t understand how that is relevant to our discussion.

I didn’t claim that conservatives will suddenly be cleansed of their reactionary nature by adopting stances that don’t promote war against China or Russia.

Maybe you didn’t, but you did claim that introducing Conservatives to supporting China and Russia would suddenly make them more “anti-imperialist”: “As far as the social conservatism goes, they are appealing to people who already have those sentiments but bringing them into a frame of reference that is anti-imperialist.” Why did I call this removing reactionary sentiment? Because anti-imperialism is inherently progressive (i.e. progresses towards socialism). Yet their reactionary nature still remains.

I’m asking why some MLs here are so scared of what they claim is an irrelevant fringe group for trying to appeal to people that have the same identities as they do to take anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist positions. Wouldn’t that be better than them having imperialist and capitalist positions? Would it be any worse for the US political landscape for them to try?

Let’s just say Conservatives (for some unknown reason) are willing to support China and Russia. Why do they do this? Because they do it for their own benefit. They support China and Russia only, and only because it’s contrarian to the Democrat position of opposing China and Russia. Is it truly anti-imperialist if they do not actually care for the support of a nation? Furthermore, would these positions further cement their conservative positions? It most likely will. Conservatives rarely change their stance, if ever, because they benefit the most from the capitalist system, or they believe in fundamental ideas because they are usually petit-bourgeois or live in rural regions. Of course this is all hypothetical. Most Conservatives don’t even support Communism, and MAGA Communism isn’t a popular trend with Conservatives.

I’m just confused about why you all seem to be so afraid of them to the point that you say they are nobodies but also put a lot of energy into making sure everyone knows how much you hate them.

I’m willing to concede that, yes, the Patsocs (at least in this discussion) are an extremist group. But just because they do little damage doesn’t mean they don’t do damage at all. Overall in the grand scheme of things, they are just a rehash of what Lenin called ‘social-chauvinists’ in Russia. If Lenin needed to tackle the social-chauvinists of the Great Russians, then we must tackle the fascistic nature of the White Settlers. Both are similar (in fact they are the same, with only the difference being location), so we must tackle the latter.

I’ve never met a MAGA communist but I’ve seen a lot of Anarchist and Maoist and DemSoc wreckers co-opt movements and struggles and turn them into popularity contests, social clubs and cults of personality.

Yes. We can tackle both. We must put efforts on both sides as they are left and right deviations (of the extreme kind). Unfortunately you fall into the right deviationist bracket by assuming that Patsocs don’t do as much damage. They can, and often do. Again, struggle against both sides. You forget to understand that MAGA Communists tail behind the masses, following their every word even if it is not right. That is not what marxists do. Marxists must convince the masses of socialism. Tailing behind them won’t work.

Conservatives and Liberals already understand that they live on stolen land

You’d be surprised how even ‘socialists’ make mistakes of people not apparently being settlers just because they were born it. Many Americans think they are not settlers. In fact, they deserve to live on the land they have because they were born in it. For the minority that do think they live on stolen land, they think Settler Colonialism is long gone or something along those lines.

“the people MUST be convinced to believe what I believe because it is correct,” which flatly ignores the material conditions of those very people.

I never said that. I said we must convince the masses that socialism would be more advantageous for them and thus they would be able to support socialism. However with those very people, we must convince them of their settler mindset, and make them understand that they live on stolen land. It is a fact that they live on Stolen Land, yet if they ever feel that their safety is threatened, they are settlers which do not want to support socialism. It is not only I who believe it is correct, but Lenin too. Indigenous people have a right to self-determination.

Just because it is the right position doesn’t mean it will ever take hold in this country

If it won’t ever take hold in this country then the United States would remain a settler nation even under “socialism”. There is no socialism where the oppressor nation continues to exist and oppress the oppressed nations. You’re being defeatist again. In fact you are supporting settlers with this argument. Decolonialism must be supported by all settlers, full stop. If that cannot be achieved, then we will not have socialism. It is not optional to skip Decolonialism. By skipping it, we do not have socialism.

feels like they are trying to channel Lenin

I am just asking you questions regarding your defeatist mindset. Is that a fair question to ask? If not, why?

Whatever is channeling within your post is doomerism. Do you not have a sense of revolutionary optimism? I am not saying we will manufacture a revolution quickly, rather that we need revolutionary optimism such that we can see work being done. Just because you claim to be a materialist, does that mean you must channel your doomerist attitude?

I think it is really foolish to assert that fighting back in and of itself means success is assured.

I never said this. I also never said anything in that paragraph.

I haven’t seen any of the other things you’ve claimed here and have acknowledged this is new content to me

Patsocs tend to poke fun at “wokeists” i.e. LGBT people because they think transgenderism is bourgeois. It has plagued the patsoc movement which we must consider. Again you seem to downplay this. Is it because you do not know? Or is it because you have underlying intentions? I don’t know either way but you are downplaying. I address you directly because that is the purpose of your argument. You seem to downplay marginalised people and downplay Patsocs as well for the name of “anti-imperialism”. If you don’t know anything about Patsocs, read this Prolewiki article as a first basis.

I see Libertarians advocating for microtransactions as it is “how the consumer spends that benefits the corporation” bullshit.

Instead of Libertarians seeing capitalism advancing towards the usual notion of maximising profits, they just see as consumers helping the corporations and thus it should be perfectly legal to do so. Games become worse due to their “efficiency” (efficiency meaning to extract as much profit as possible) by laying off employees, replacing them with contract work, utilising microtransactions, especially if the game is Free to Play. Did this all happen when the consumer spend their game or was it due to the capitalist because he wanted to maximise profits?

The libertarians argue “They should just stop spending if they don’t like the company!” but this doesn’t explain why capitalists make a tendency towards maximising profits. Then they argue about " ““social”” enterprises " and whatnot. In other words, what they explain (i.e. the products consumers buy), doesn’t explain the general tendency of capitalism, nor political economy in general.

This means that these libertarians have nothing to explain. Their arguments don’t explain anything. They don’t explain capitalism. Selective Apathy is nothing more than ignorance. They don’t care about other people, they only care if they are not affected, or if this practice helps them in some way or another. This line of thinking of “I don’t care what you do” can be extrapolated to many horrible ideas that libertarians or liberals can cling on to. We can also argue this is an aspect of alienation, but I made my point. This is just another aspect of individualism.

Again, as a person just hearing about this guy, I am reading his quote and reading what you say he means and it seems to be the opposite of what he says…

I don’t disagree with the quote. What I disagree with is this statement: “If Modern day Western communists lived in Russia they would have tweeted pictures of the Bolsheviks reaching out to the black hundreds and demanded that people cancel them for it.”. Source This is what Smith was advocating for. It is not a question of having a “pretty cemented perspective on this topic” but how words are used. This is not semantics. This is just what reaching out means. What Eddie Smith argues is what I said earlier, so I won’t repeat it again.

As far as the social conservatism goes, they are appealing to people who already have those sentiments but bringing them into a frame of reference that is anti-imperialist.

Not all anti-imperialists should be supported, quote Lenin;

Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism. Source

Supporting conservatives for “anti-imperialism” is not anti-imperialism but rather the opposite. You are directly siding with conservatives rather than the general masses (or in this case the proletariat). You completely ignored my statement which was this:

Then why support them to begin with? Do you not care for trans people (as I am), or feminists (as I am), or black people? All of whom are oppressed because Conservatives don’t want us to have rights?

I ask again, do you not want us to have rights?

If they didn’t somewhat appeal to the “US identity” and all the chauvinism that comes with it, the messages wouldn’t get through the gates, but could they be inoculating progressive ideas into the white working class by not presenting in a way which totally alienates them from even beginning the conversation?

What identity should communists appeal to? The US identity is born out of a white settler identity. That is a fact which most settlers refuse to understand. Just making white settlers support Russia or China isn’t enough to rid themselves of their reactionary nature. Conservatives (and Liberals too) need to understand that they live on Stolen land and thus they need to support decolonisation in full. For a US communist working for a decade, this is shocking to hear. Instead of paralleling communist ideas, convincing the masses that socialism is superior to them, you instead compromise your position with conservatives. There shouldn’t be any compromises when your own ideology is at risk with such compromise.

Next I see you wallow in your defeatism with: “It’s not like we are actually going to organize revolution in the next few years”, “honestly I don’t see anything else really working very well in this country yet”. What is it are you doing then? You see the troubles within your very country yet you don’t fight back? What have you been doing for a whole decade to let yourself wallow in this?

so whats the problem with these guys trying to convince settlers to back off on China and Russia and place the blame with billionaires?

Are they truly going to blame the billionaires? No they will blame the so-called woke left which is what we are. They argue that ideas like transgenderism are bourgeois, and yet you seem totally quiet about this. With anti-LGBT and racist sentiment, you don’t care as long as it is “progressive”.

Speaking of Trump, I haven’t seen anything of these guys saying to vote for Trump, can you show me that?

Many patriotic socialists call Trump “anti-imperialist”. He isn’t. The strategy of Patsocs is that they vote for the Republicans as they are also “anti-imperialist” and back MAGA. However some patriotic socialists argue there are RINOs! So even if I haven’t shown that they will vote Trump, they still argue that Trump is “anti-imperialist” and so is MAGA “Communism” in general.

They seem to have just launched some sort of org recently, I watched Hinkle’s speech from it and he had the crowd of white people cheering Hamas and listening to quotes from Lenin.

“They quote Lenin so they must be anti-imperialist!” I’ve seen many revisionist organisations quote Lenin in part or not at all or leave parts out. This doesn’t mean they are anti-imperialist in any way.

I consider DSA and Bernie to be reactionaries at this point but I can’t say I don’t know many good comrades who went from apolitical -> DSA/Bernie -> MLs and I see the value of that.

I have also seen conservatives scream against Bernie as he is apparently a “socialist”. Good for you that comrades seen Bernie and became MLs. What I care for is the opposite reaction which can also be caused. Conservatives are against Bernie and thus they won’t be MLs, or at best Patriotic “Socialists” or there will be MLs who are sympathetic to the Democrats or Bernie just because he has some “socialist values”. You may not be well in-touch with Patriotic Socialism, but if you are a US communist, please, please understand it is a backwards ideology that must not be supported.