This is something I wrote sometime ago and its a mess and suits this dumpsterfire
If there will be a ml revolution
in us, it will come crossing the
border from south, with sleeper
cells all over us, that will have the
power shut down all businesses,
essentials, emergency services.
Total mexicanisation (not
annexation by mexico but the
taking back of the america by
the central and south america)
of us, with indigenous and black
groups forming the real rainbow
coalition. The left overs of anglo
heritage will be whipped out.
White american trash anarchists
will not have a space in here just
like american patriotic socialists.
These two are also the product of
americanism produced by coco
cola and MacDonald cultural industry.
This thread raises some interesting questions and offers some good answers. But there is a lot of confusion and it is not clear that people are arguing about the same thing.
The Problem
There is clearly no consensus definition of the following words:
patriotism
nationalism
PatSoc
patriotic socialism
The clearest definitions for these words have come from those comments defending patriotism as Marxist.
I do not think we are arguing over nationalism as that question was answered a long time ago by e.g. Stalin and Lenin. Okay, their work may need updating, but updating means building on their legacy, which nobody is really trying to do here. The main references to nationalism are trying to:
a. Argue that Marxists have an agreed notion of nationalism, which can be good in the periphery, and that this is what patriotism means (because e.g. in ex-colonies, it means liberation, etc); or
b. Argue that Marxists have an agreed notion of nationalism, which may be bad in the imperial core, and that this is what patriotism means (e.g. because there it means homophobia, transphobia, patriarchy, etc).
So the question is not:
i. What do Marxists think of nationalism?
The question is:
ii. Are patriotism, patriotic socialists, and PatSocs the same as nationalism and nationalists?
And
iii. To what extent do these terms relate to sexuality, gender, race, colonialism, etc?
Only by answering (ii) can we reach common ground and engage with the same idea. We may then disagree about each others’ conclusions, but at least those conclusions will refer to the same idea.
Therefore it seems necessary to identify agreed definitions for these words. For example: Is PatSoc only relevant to the internet? If so, who gets to claim the label? People who identify by it? Or people who use it to classify their enemies?
Regardless, there is a more important question to answer first:
iv. What is the class character of patriotism, PatSoc, patriotic socialism, and nationalism?
These words will have an abstract class character and a class character that is unique to each country. If we take an intersectional view of class and avoid class reductionism, we may partially answer (iii) at the same time.
Marx and Engels wrote of the class character of socialism in the Communist Manifesto. We must do the same for our subject.
What is the class character of US patriotism?
Zac Cope argues in The Wealth of (Some) Nations that the majority of workers in the global north are labour aristocrats – paid well enough to look the other way on the imperial question, whether petite bourgeois or ‘proletariat’. There’s a lot to say about whether this is true or whether it was true but is now changing.
J Sakai argues in Settlers that the ‘white proletariat’ in the Settler Colony is a myth. Again, we could argue over whether a white proletariat’ has since grown.
Michael Parenti, at least, argues the ruling class has long sought the ‘third worldisation’ of the global north. This statement accepts classes are fluid.
It is difficult to classify the US as mainly this it mainly that. It’s class composition is constantly changing. It also comprises many states with reasonably independent legislatures and different demographics.
The important point for our discussion is that any presentation of the US as mainly labour aristocratic or petite bourgeois seems to accept the vision of the US that is shown in the entertainment and news media – created by the US ruling class.
That is, white, middle class (whatever that means), reasonably well-off, suburbian, liberal, content with the idea of a homogenous US if not with the way that it is governed under the Republicans or Democrats, and the world’s defender of democracy. This vision also includes a one sided view of patriotism, which involves a stripey flag, militarism, and pledges of allegiance.
Is this what the US is? It certainly seems so when the US is viewed through the prism of entertainment and news media. It almost certainly seems so to the millions of people who have been in the receiving end of US ‘democracy’. It probably seems so to many in America, who are subjected to the same images as the rest of the world, but from another angle.
Is this what the US is from the inside? Maybe not.
(Apologies in advance for defining people as ‘not white’. I do not think it will come off as any less racist by trying to list and differentiate all the people who are not included in the ruling class white supremacist vision.)
“The most prevalent racial or ethnic group for the United States was the White alone non-Hispanic population at 57.8%. This decreased from 63.7% in 2010.”
“The Hispanic or Latino population was the second-largest racial or ethnic group, comprising 18.7% of the total population.”
“The Black or African American alone non-Hispanic population was the third-largest group at 12.1%.”
This data is problematic because in trying to recognise ‘diversity’ it presupposes racial difference along biological lines. Still, the data indicates the US is not white.
Nor has the US ever been white.
It’s ruling class and white petite bourgeois segments think it is white. They are delusioned by white supremacism, and could not and cannot see the toil and suffering of indigenous Americans or slaves as part of the US.
To the ruling white supremacists, those workers are always somehow separate to ‘the US’. Unfortunately, this is a pervasive idea. To paraphrase Marx and Engels in The German Ideology, the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class.
The above census data, showing a ‘decline’ in the white population, gives the impression that whites were once the majority. False.
At the beginning, the indigenous Americans were the majority. Afterwards, Africans and indigenous Americans were the majority, perhaps depending on where one draws state / city lines on old maps. At some point, the proportions turned.
What is the US?
Any revolutionary worth the name must be unified with all ‘minorities’, whether defined by class, race, gender, sexuality, etc. Together these people comprise the majority. The US is these people.
The US is not the cis-het white, males of the ruling class, whether depicted as a banker in a suit, a Proud Boy, a lone adventurer protected in a wagon circle, or a struggling, salt of the earth, and slightly racist rural lumpen.
Thus we have:
The US defined by the people who live in it, who built it, who feed each other, and care for each other; and
The US defined by its ruling class.
And there we may have the solution. Patriotism of (1) may be revolutionary. Patriotism of (2) is almost certainly reactionary. I don’t think anyone in this thread would disagree. Reply if you do; I’d like to know what I missed.
If this is correct, it is up to patriotic revolutionaries to decide on appropriate patriotic symbolism. This may mean abandoning the current flag or keeping it.
I imagine that any Marxist would hope the Stars and Stripes eventually go the same way as the Confederate flag. In the meantime, due to the prevalence of the ruling class notion of patriotism, there are likely many people who could be radicalised, but who also respect the flag. It seems a bit self-defeating to exclude these people from the revolution.
Remember, the majority is not cis-het, white, male, and middle class, but to my understanding, all have to praise the flag as children every school day, and must somewhat accept this white supremacist vision of the US. These ‘patriots’ might not lead the revolution, but if the flag brings them along?
Finally: PatSocs
Are PatSocs revolutionary Marxists? It’s beside the point, really, because the label is contested. People identify by it and others use it as a derogatory category. They could be, but they may not be. We would need a class analysis of any given person to decide. And we would first have to ensure that calling a person a PatSoc is not a category error.
I don’t think anyone in this thread would disagree.
Unfortunately, there are many that do. You basically say the same thing as me, that patriotism has class characteristics, and i already gathered a lot of denials of this in Lemmy, and at least 2 bans at reddit and a ban threat here. I don’t see this as a nonissue, since the “antipatriotism” accusation is and always was one of the major tactic of class enemies against us, and it was an effective one. While reversed in AES, served greatly to secure the people’s interests.
Again, i’m not even questioning the USA conditions, since i know it’s more complicated there, but the american exceptionalism being inevitably forced on everyone in such american-dominated internet space like here or especially reddit. That’s why i propose to stop using the word “patsoc” entirely, especially those are apparently just some youtube circlejerk, and start using the good old description of “socialchauvinists” since it’s cleare it what they apparently are (also, few threads later, still nobody could even narrow who are “they”, such nebulous group make it hard to even see entire issue as anything but a hot air)
[Our two options are] The US defined by the people who live in it, who built it, who feed each other, and care for each other; [or] the US defined by its ruling class.
You are creating a false dichotomy rooted in an individualistic understanding of what a nation is. A nation is NOT merely a collection of the individuals in it. A nation is a system, it’s a power structure. We cannot analyze what the US is by looking solely at the people inside it. We must see it as a historically situated society. And as a historically situated society, America is a settler colony.
Any revolutionary worth the name must be unified with all ‘minorities’, whether defined by class, race, gender, sexuality, etc. Together these people comprise the majority. The US is these people.
Tuck and Yang in their piece “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” help us to understand how settler systems absorb “minorities” and integrate them into the colonial project. They explicitly analyze people who are kidnapped from Africa and enslaved in the US, as well their descendants, and show how these people, while certainly not white European bourgeois are never the less engaged in the colonial project because they have to be. Settlerism creates a system of pressures that, once an individual becomes a participant in that system, drive that individual’s interests. Settlers, therefore, represent an entire historical body politic that, regardless of minority status, have systemic interests that are in opposition to the national sovereignty of the indigenous people whose oppression is renewed every single moment the settler colony continues to exist.
A revolutionary socialist state must, of necessity, repress any factions that are opposed to the existence of that state. Therefore, a revolutionary socialist state driven by patriotism for a settler nation, must of necessity repress indigenous movements for national self-direction. This is a clear contradiction and I cannot state this emphatically enough:
THIS IS A CLEAR CONTRADICTION IN THE FORMULATION OF PATRIOTIC SOCIALISM IN AND OF SETTLER COLONIES
If we do not address this contradiction, it is clear that Patriotic Socialism in settler colonies are building a system with an internal contradiction that requires it to maintain the violent oppression of indigenous peoples. It is clear that Patriotic Socialism in settler colonies legitimize the settler colonial form of imperialism as a basis for national self-direction.
The implications of this are that a PatSoc revolutionary state in a settler colony will have the following potential outcomes:
the complete eradication of indigenous peoples
a failure of the state to counter-revolutionaries leveraging the contradiction of oppressed indigenous peoples
a peaceful coexistence with oppressed indigenous peoples
The problem with number 3 is that there is so far no analysis that shows this is possible. Settler colonists have no recognized legitimate claim to national sovereignty. The power of settler colonists to engage in collaboration with indigenous peoples is based entirely on their power to oppress those indigenous peoples, the historical extermination of those peoples and their material society, and a centuries long unbroken chain of systemic oppression.
All analyses of this question have determined that the only non-contradictory path forward is full inversion of the power dynamic - national self-direction must be stripped from settler colonists, including ADOS, “minorities”, and other “non-white Europeans” and handed over entirely to indigenous peoples.
The PatSoc movements within settler colonies simply chooses to ignore this contradiction by assuming they can resolve it after they have power, that the most important thing is to get critical mass of the largest group of people (the settler working class) and establish the revolutionary state. Given the above 2 outcomes, this is clearly factually incorrect and the decision to ignore the contradiction is idealism.
There’s at least one more major error in your analysis.
The important point for our discussion is that any presentation of the US as mainly labour aristocratic or petite bourgeois seems to accept the vision of the US that is shown in the entertainment and news media – created by the US ruling class.
This is an absolute non-sequitur. It is not the case that the entertainment and news media is the cause of the analysis that leads to the understanding of the US as mainly labor aristocrats. You are incorrect that labor aristocracy is equivalent with the upper middle class PMC. Literally every worker in the US, Canada, Scandinavia, and the EU can be described as labor aristocracy. The reason for this is that every single person in these countries, regardless of class, benefits immensely from US hegemony, imperialism, and power projection.
Infrastructure, medicine, fuel, rare earth metals, pollution displacement (from minor to life threatening), plastics, cheap commodities, hot water… literally every aspect of everyday life, from public transportation to private car service, from McDonald’s meals to Michelin Star restaurants, from plastic food wrap to hypodermic needles to Funko Pops to cell phones… ALL of it, including their quantity, variety, availability, cost, utility, and relations between and among it all, ALL of it is predicated on global hegemony through power projection, currently channeled through the European settler colonial nation of the USA, a hegemony that was historically developed by European imperial powers like France, Spain, England, Portugal, and The Netherlands.
The analysis is not based on propaganda. The analysis is based on interests. And the interests of the labor aristocracy are in opposition to the interests of the proletariat of the Global South. When the US loses its hegemony over the world, the price of fuel will increase for Americans almost immediately. Literally every single person the US, regardless of class, will find that this is against their own material interests. And there’s nothing that can be done about it in less than 30 years, because every single residential community is built for cars and every single home is under-insulated and not constructed for passive temperature management. Converting everything to electric will take decades, and even then, doing so still requires access to cheap rare earth materials. When American global hegemony ends, the price of rare earth materials will immediately increase.
There is no escape from this analysis. ALL Americans, Canadians, and Europeans will suffer from the end of US hegemony. Every single one from top to bottom. And this is why the working class in America has been deemed to be Labor Aristocracy. Not because of sitcoms and TV dramas, but because of the material analysis of their interests and how those interests materially incentivize their collective action against the interests of the global proletariat.
Given this analysis, a Patriotic Socialist movement in the US runs the very real risk of becoming a National Socialist movement:
It ignores the contradiction of oppression of indigenous peoples
It ignores the contradiction of the integration of oppressed peoples into the settler project
It ignores the contradiction between the interests of the labor aristocracy and the global proletariat
And given these three contradictions, the clear risk is that of the formation of a reactionary state, driven by the interests of the labor aristocracy, with local and global oppression rationalized by patriotism, armed with history’s largest military distributed in over 800 locations around the globe, with the entirety of Europe and NATO sharing in the interests of the Labor Aristocracy to maintain coercive hegemony.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. I appreciate that you have responded to my question. I don’t disagree with your conclusion, although you seem to have phrased this as if we are not on the same side, which is unfortunate.
Given the threats of bans and purges, there is not much room left to discuss and criticise. I feel that I can safely add and must add, before I am accused of being a ‘PatSoc’:
Any movement that tries to erase Indigenous Americans or other colonised peoples in any sense must be resisted;
On the one hand you assert the right of Indigenous Americans to sovereignty, and on the other hand you reject any form of patriotism within the US. Is this not a contradiction?
There remains no agreed definition of ‘PatSoc’;
I am not from the US;
I was not trying to define ‘nation’;
I was trying to synthesise the discussion in this thread to make sense of the arguments;
There seems to be a real problem of US-centrism in the criticisms of patriotism – again, centred on the view of the US presented in the media as an homogenous bloc, which seems to deny that Indigenous Americans live within the US jurisdiction;
I did not say that class is determined by media representation;
I did not say that labour aristocracy = upper middle class;
It seems impossible for people outside the US to comment on some issues without being pulled into a US-centric framework and criticised (impliedly or explicitly) for falling into one side or the other of a framework they are not necessarily part of; and
Without agreed definitions most of us are still talking past one another.
On the one hand you assert the right of Indigenous Americans to sovereignty, and on the other hand you reject any form of patriotism within the US. Is this not a contradiction?
This is not a contradiction. America is derived from the name of an Italian explorer. The concept of indigenous peoples exists only in contrast to settler. For indigenous people to have sovereignty is not patriotism. There is no civic or cultural nationalism involved here. It is about power, not about ideology. Patriotism is an ideology, that is, it is a set of beliefs instantiated in the minds of a group of people such these beliefs guide their behavior. That is not what decolonization requires, decolonization only requires transference of power.
There remains no agreed definition of ‘PatSoc’
The definition I’m working with - socialism that uses cultural and civic nationalism as an aesthetic and as a framework for prioritizing and deprioritizing aspects of intersectionality.
There seems to be a real problem of US-centrism in the criticisms of patriotism
There’s a lot of reasons for this, but it’s not a problem of analysis but of the mechanics discourse. Patriotic Socialism is a problem everywhere. In settler colonies, especially USA, Canada, Australia, but also inclusive of ALL states that exist on “The Americas”, the problem of Patriotic Socialism runs into the problem of colonization. But the problem of Patriotic Socialism in non-colonial states shows up constantly because it deprioritizes intersectionality to the point of dismissing it as bourgeois ideology. When those types of claims are made, it’s a very clear step in the progression to violent repression of minorities. PatSocs the world over make the argument that we must not demand tolerance, but rather build a big tent and bring into the movement people who would vote in favor of violently oppressing marginalized communities. If it was just aesthetics, no one would have a problem with PatSocs. It’s not just aesthetics. It’s tactics. PatSocs consistently prioritize populist tactics that threaten the safety of marginalized communities because they put forth a theory of action that says larger numbers are more important than ending oppression of marginalized groups.
It’s not just US-centric crticisms, PatSocs are simply arguing that anti-patsoc arguments don’t apply to them if they don’t exist in a settler-colonial state. You can tell they’re disingenuous because they then turn around and argue in another debate that Israeli settlers in Palestine aren’t a problem because the settler colony will eventually dissolve from its own contradictions so in the meantime it’s fine for Palestinians to get mass murdered in the worlds largest open-air prison.
I did not say that labour aristocracy = upper middle class;
You said:
The important point for our discussion is that any presentation of the US as mainly labour aristocratic or petite bourgeois seems to accept the vision of the US that is shown in the entertainment and news media – created by the US ruling class.
I don’t think this is important for our discussion at all, because I think its factually incorrect and pure speculative tripe. Any presentation of the US as mainly labor aristocratic does not, in fact, accept the vision of entertainment and news media. If you think you’re arguing in good faith by latching on to my use of the words “upper middle class”, and then using that framing to completely erase how baseless your original claim here was, you need to re-examine how you engage in discourse.
It seems impossible for people outside the US to comment on some issues without being pulled into a US-centric framework and criticised
Decolonization is a euro-centric framework because Europeans did the colonization. Criticisms of European nationalism have deep roots that are connected to US nationalism because the US is a European colony. To say that Patriotic Socialism in Europe is somehow different that Patriotic Socialism in the US because the US is a settler colony is to ignore that fact that it is European patriotism that created and sustained the US. The critiques of US Patriotic Socialism traverse the ocean and come home to European socialists because the contradictions in Patriotic Socialism exist regardless of what continent you’re on. The demand of European PatSocs to never have to contend with the contradictions of Patriotic Socialism if the critique mentions settlerism is merely deflection and a claim to innocence to protect themselves from the very real criticism that Patriotic Socialism is 100% of the time used, in practice, to rationalize exclusion of existing marginalized communities.
Without agreed definitions most of us are still talking past one another.
It’s not merely definitions, it’s analysis. The people who feel like they are disagreeing on the definition of patriotic socialism are either people who have not engaged rigorously with the theory and historical and contemporary practice of Patriotic Socialism, or they are deliberately trying to obfuscate the analysis with a No True Scotsman fallacy.
In another thread I literally just got done quote-mining on the topic of racism inherent to patriotism itself, esp in the West, and how racist or labor aristocratic splits gave 20th century socialist movements the crumbles.
Might I bring up that amongst the proles; you have those that see the stars and stripes the way most see the nazi flag. I unironically do. Usually when Im out in public, I get a sinister sense of danger when I see the American flag in certain contexts. Protests, rallies, vehicles with the flag flying on them such as pickup trucks, or in people’s yards with varying thin color line bullshit.
But you also have proles that sees the revolutionary potential that we were raised to believe in when seeing the stars and stripes. For many, the flag represents standing up to tyrants and bullies.
Then there is the question of what does it even mean to be patriotic as a revolutionary in America. What is patriotic in the American sense if you hope for and strive for a new society and country that is yet to exist?
Seems like a huge problem of aesthetics. But I honestly can not blame revolutionary folks in America for getting sekf defensive when presented with American trappings and being presented with an American historical narrative of revolution that has been a struggle AGAINST America itself. 🤷
This is why when right opportunist Marxists argue for limiting the Native land sovereignty movement by rhetorically asking “but what exactly will abolishing the United States look like,” or “but what exactly will full jurisdiction for the tribes look like,” they’re not engaging in the kind of materialist analysis they believe they are. They’re actually engaging in an idealist analysis. By ignoring the settler question, and by immediately claiming it’s futile to try to rectify land relations in the wake of colonialism, they’re assuming revolutionary theory on this continent doesn’t need any further innovation, and that history will vindicate their vision for a “USSA.” This isn’t dialectics, it’s dogmatism. Rejecting the idea of properly addressing the colonial contradiction because we don’t yet know precisely what this will look like upon completion is rejecting the core basis of dialectical materialism, which demands that we analyze contradictions in order to find their solutions.
If we were in pre-revolutionary Russia, these same people would be saying it’s pointless to talk of dismantling the Russian empire because we don’t yet have a perfect picture of what will replace the empire. There’s even a historical equivalent from then and there that we can identify: the Mensheviks, who Lenin described as “narrow-minded, selfish, case-hardened, covetous, and petty-bourgeoise ‘labour aristocracy’, imperialist-minded and imperialist-corrupted.” In other words, right opportunists, self-interested actors who sought to gain power by not challenging the existing cultural and social order. They purposely limited their own imaginations to rationalize not opposing the Russian empire, like how our own right opportunists purposely limit theirs to rationalize dismissing a decolonial analysis.
What radicalizes you is coming to terms with the true nature of your government. The patsoc’s are attempting to absorb you and defang domestic Marxism Leninism.
Love of country and national mythology breeds reformism. How will you seek to destroy the bourgeois state if you love it?
I’m not saying that patsoc’s aren’t ML. I’m saying that they aren’t going to be the true ML.
Marxism Leninism is internationalist. The only acceptable nationalism is one centered around the working class. The only acceptable history is a history centered around the working class. They don’t seem to want to address that history. They are more interested in taking the national myth as is.
If attempting to gain control of the bourgeois apparatus is a mistake. How much greater is the mistake of taking within us their national myth.
The United States is uniquely evil. It’s a part of larger context, but it is unique in it’s magnitude. It’s unique in that there is nothing real beyond it’s mythos. Other people existed before capitalism. They existed as an organic people. The United States was manufactured. The real organic people were all killed in a criminal history which is uniquely evil. The absolute whole slaughter genocide, enslavement, and exploitation of the Indians was in uniquely evil. That evil was so great as to change the quality of the West into something truly out of hell.
They say that rather than accepting this and fighting against it in a truly revolutionary act, we should instead whitewash it and attempt to be revolutionary under the superstructure of the bourgeoisie.
How can you be Marxist Leninist while saying that capitalism wasn’t so bad? What is the radicalizing motivation? Was love of country the radicalizing motivation behind the Black Panthers?
But even if the “true ml” needs to be international, just wanting an ml goverment first on your home region is good enough, it was what the USSR did, what china is doing now. We cant force the revolution on other countries, its literally and scientifically impossible, an country embrace the revolution when they want and when they need, we can support it when it happens, but the “socialism on one country” view still is correct at the beggining of an socialist country. If we cant succesfully realise an revolution on our own countries, how can we do this on other countries? Thats why pan-movements exist, baathism is pan arabic and socialist, you could argue it is not “true ml” because its mainly focused on arabic liberation, but does it make the movement less socialist? Just having an socialist arabic union would already be great, if all those countries standed up to unite themselves under communism, it would be great. Its not like we could even think of artificially creating revolutions on other countries.
What i am saying here is, maupin and haz are not wrong for wanting mainly an american revolution, because right now its the best they can do, it would not change anything if they openly stated that they want other countries to also have an revolution, it doesnt depend on them. What does matter would be if they would support an revolution on other countries WHEN it happens, and if they support the existing AES countries, then they would support future AES countries.
I feel that we’re not having the same conversation. Saying that Marxism-Leninism is internationalist isn’t saying it’s the same as Trotskyism or Ultra. I’m not saying or hinting at saying that Socialism in one country is illegitimate. I’m not saying we should be Third-Worldist. Though I think naturally socialism is more likely to develop in the colonized world at the periphery of empire, I think that they will have to fight their own revolutions and form their own governments according to their own national will, just as we have to do the same within our own nations. They don’t need us, but we do need them to weaken the empire enough for us to stand a chance.
Because there is confusion I’d like to try and clarify what’s meant by Internationalism. Internationalism is international proletarian solidarity. Solidarity means that what harms one of us harms us all. At the most local level, it means that if the person I work with is injured or cheated I take it as personally as if it was me who was injured or cheated. At the national level it means that if it happened to someone I never met in another part of the country, I take it as personally as if it was me. Internationally it means that if my country is committing injuries abroad I take it the same as if they were doing it to me. International Solidarity is to view the workers of the world with equal respect.
It seems that you think I meant to say that the problem with patriotic socialism is that they want to focus on American Socialism. Nobody has a problem with Americans focusing on American Socialism. If we could do that, it would be a benefit to us and the entire world. Every Socialist movement in the US took that position. Everybody here wants Americans to focus on American Socialism.
What they don’t want us to do is pretend as much while supporting US imperialism. We shouldn’t associate ourselves with the empire. We shouldn’t protect them by denying their guilt. We shouldn’t endow them with benevolence.
If you’re a socialist, and you understand what Marxism-Leninsism is then why are you adding to socialism something superfluous? Is Marxism-Leninism not patriotic enough? Do you feel it’s missing something that more patriotism would mend? What is the quality of this patriotism? If Marxism-Leninism sees patriotism as national proletarian solidarity specifically opposed the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, your amendment must be trying to add something beyond that.
What you’re saying you want is fine and good. That’s been the standard aim for the last century and a half. What is your patriotism? What is your nationalism? It seems to me, as I’ve already said the comment you’re responding to, that your conception of patriotism is bourgeois patriotism.
Your patriotism is simply this; that the nation is inherently good. While it has made mistakes, so have other nations. Then you follow with the promotion of the standard bourgeois national myth. Sure the United States does bad things, you say, but it’s really not that bad. Sure the United States has a questionable history, you say, but so do other countries.
There’s a problem here that needs to be addressed if you have the time hear it. You’re attempting to compromise socialism in order to make it more acceptable to a larger audience. America has a terrible history of genocide and slavery. The proper way to address the history is to acknowledge them and use them to identify the true nature of the bourgeoisie. The problem with racial identity is that it obscures the bourgeoisie as whiteness. It says to the white man that he should associate himself with the ruling class. When the white man reads history he’s taught to associate himself with the master class.
You, as a patriotic socialist, hear that message and rightly think to yourself that you should have no part in the blame. That’s true. You shouldn’t, but you were never the master class. Your association with it is false. It is of false consciousness. You say to yourself, you don’t want to take the blame, but you’ve already taken the guilt by attempting to erase it. We don’t want you to feel guilty about the crimes of the bourgeoisie. We want you to place the guilt where it belongs in order to help identify the true nature of the bourgeoisie as slaving class, as a genocidal class. We don’t want you to take on the guilt, but we don’t want you to erase theirs. We want you to associate yourself with the slave and with the Indian. That is what Internationalism means.
If you’re a socialist, and you understand what Marxism-Leninsism is then why are you adding to socialism something superfluous? Is Marxism-Leninism not patriotic enough?
Oh and to add, no i dont think my country is “inehently good” quite the opposite, its fucking awfull; no jobs, gerbage goverment, filled to the top with reactionaries, classic capitalistic shithole. My patriotism is; i love my country, but i hate the state that capitalism has let her, so i want to install socialism so it can become an trully good country. Thats it, the goverment right now can fuck off, the elite can fuck off, they dont represent the people, they dont deserve to represent my country, only the brasillian people can represent the country, not an artificial burgeoise that exists by explorating and destroying our country.
And talking about the racial issues part, my country is worse then the US, we dont have an “racial majority” believe it or not, neither we have an cultural majority, my countrie is one of the most diverses in the world, there is people from literally everywhere, and unless you are an immigrant that lives on a small village with only other immigrants, you cant be “pure” here, its impossible. Thats why nazi bullshit failed here, even after we haved the second biggest nazi party, how can you create an elitist idea on a country that doesnt even have an idea of what the majority is? This creates another problem, while we dont say we are an people of white people, with white people culture, and with a single culture, the country created this mentality on the people, our material conditions created rascism, because blacks, indians, mixed people and other minoritys have aways been poor and abused, because they where abused, enslaved or poorer then the white people more then a hundred years ago, and most of them still are, because our society still think that this is normal, we still live with an mentality that has not yet leaved the past, and i dont blame the people, this is what 22 years of neoliberal reactionary dictatorship did to us, without an goverment that did anything meaningfull to fix it after. Only socialism will fix our country,
In addendum, above I said “true socialism.” That was worded poorly. I didn’t mean to say “the true socialism.” I meant to say “the one true socialism.” My post two posts up should have read,
I’m not going to denounce patriotic socialism, but I’m not going to call it ‘the one true socialism’
The original post, the meme, seemed to me to be saying the patriot socialism was the only proper way. I meant to say that I didn’t think they were so wrong as to be considered a fake movement. I also didn’t think that they were so correct as to be considered the only way to think.
Because it was poorly worded I think what I was trying to say didn’t properly come across.
I’d add one more thing:
Something are more culturally heavy than other things. This subject is one. There are similarities between the Americas. There are also major differences. As there are discussions we can have about Brazil that we can have with each other in broad terms. There are ideological signatures and references in language that I would miss. I didn’t grow up in Brazil. I would not understand or begin to see those things because I wasn’t there to know them. This isn’t a conversation to have with broad strokes. It’s referential.
That’s why I assumed you were American. It’s a very American thing. It’s iconography is very much targeting very particular American notions. I referred to the national myth a few times with the assumption you were aware of it.
I don’t know the stories Brazilians tell about themselves. I don’t know how your national identity is built into you from childhood up.
What I’m trying to say is that this would not be an easy discussion to have with you.
I agree, sorry for being overlly angry at you, bad communication and misinformation can ruin an online conversation, thats my biggest problem with online conversations compared to irl ones. Sorry again for sounding rude, hope we can have an better conversation in the future without all of the patsoc dog whistling and badly word sentences. Hope you have an good day!
I am not a “patsoc”, i am not even american, you are putting words in my mouth, i hate the US with every single piece of my body, i despise it as an country, i despise its history, i despise everything it stands as an country. BUT i dont want to see it destroyed, even if i hate it, because it would be hypocritical. It would be the same as if Lenin wanted to destroy the Russian empire instead of turning it socialist because it was an imperialist country, this is what anarchists want, we want to fix said country.
What really bothers me is people treating the US as an special country. No its fucking not, please anybody reading this, stop saying its an “uniquely evil country” its not, its just more of the same imperialist bullshit wanting to dominate the world and failing miserably, spain tried it, the UK tried it, germany tried it, italy tried it, france tried it, japan tried it, dozens and dozens of empires tried to dominate everything around them, and they aways failed, with not a single exception. The US is just the most modern empire, nothing more then that, we should treat it on the same way the soviets treated Nazi germany before and after the war, and talking about Nazi germany, we need to remember that on an matter of year the soviets transformed an country that was ruled for 22 years by the most disgusting and cruel regime to ever exist at the time, that passed through the most brutal war in history, on an socialist country.
Why is the US “more evil” then other countries? People that talk about just balkanizing the US dont want to turn it into a socialist country, they just want to destroy it, and thats wrong. And you people are using the example of giving land back to the indians (with i agree with) but you people need to understand: almost the entire native population on the entire continent is dead, the US almost completelly exterminated them, we cant at best create indian republics or an indian federation with the population that still exist, but we literally cant give entire states to make entire countries just for indians, because there is not enough indians to fill an capital of an state of the US. One thing its Israel, an european-american colony that has succeded in stealing of most of the land of the native palestinians, the difference is; the palestinians are still the majority, while the colonizers are the minority, this is what we call an apartheid state. We can still give the land back to the palestinians and kick out the newer colonizers that are only going there because its an apartheid, but we cant kick out the entire american population from every single US state to give it to the indians, because the indians are just an small minority now.
And just to remember, the US is as much of a colony as every other latin american country, i am from brasil, and i can confirm we killed and stole the land of as much indians as the US did, and so did every other latin american country, we are not innocent, so what now? You also wants to balkanize and destroy my country? Cut it into a bunch of states only to give it to an percentage of the population that is barelly more then half a million? Because i dont, i want to create an country that doesnt divide people by race nor class, an just country where every ethniy and culture are worth the same, where all can work together for an better country.
And going back to Maupin, you people are loving to put things into his mouth and put him in the same bag of a bunch of people he doesnt even say he is a part of, but you dont show any proff of him calling himself a “patsocc”, you dont show proff of him saying that indians should not get any land back, or that black people dont deserve the same rights as white people, or him saying that he aproves anything the US goverment does, want to know what i see this as? Slandering, the same thing liberals and the elite love to say about every communist or communist leader; that they are rascist, homophobic, evil, dictators, all of the cartoon vilain stuff, without showing any actual proff. I might not agree with everything he says, but what you people are doing with him is low, very fucking low, you are all just repeating a bunch of twitter drama to create conflict where it doesnt exist. And your “response” to me sounds extremelly arrogant, you are asuming i am an patsoc AND an american with no proff whatsowhever, putting words in my mouth, and diffamating an person without showing any proff.
Don’t be too upset with me. If I put words in your mouth it was by mistake; but look here, you are doing the same for me. You are telling me I want to balkanize the United States. I don’t want to do that. You are telling me I want to surrender the country to the tribes and submit to whatever government they prescribe. I don’t even think that’s in the realm of possibility. Anyone actually prescribing that is living in their heads. It’s not possible.
It was hard for me to understand if you were disputing something or trying to make an addition. I wasn’t trying to be caustic or strawman you or Caleb.
I don’t really pay great attention to Caleb. I don’t have any major complaints to issue against him. I used to pay greater attention to Jackson Hinckle. The above statements as to what Patriotic Socialists believe were based directly from how he expressed it. I’m working on first hand experience based off of what he said with his own mouth. I’m not basing my understanding of Patriotic Socialism on hear-say.
Likewise I’ve listened to Haz. I have a particularly low opinion of the man. Of those two. I don’t think either of them are too well read. Haz especially is more into false machismo and theater than Marxist-Leninist theory. That’s my opinion. Maybe you like him, maybe you don’t. The topic isn’t worth my time arguing over.
I say only as much to express that my opinions are not merely hear-say. What I say and what I think regarding them comes from the horse’s mouth.
As far a Caleb goes. I’ve heard him on and off for many years. I think he’s right about some of his criticisms. My complaints about him are not the same as many other people’s. I have my own mind. For instance, I think individual blame should remain with the actors. I don’t think the bourgeoisie are victims of capitalism, forced into role. I feel that when Caleb explains the history and development of capitalism he is too apologetic and offers too great a pardon. It’s a mild complaint though isn’t it? I think Caleb is well read. I think he knows what he’s talking about. I also think that he’s a little too toothless. I think his little experiment with Patriotic Socialism is an expression of that obsequiousness. It’s not a big complaint though. I don’t like, I said why I don’t like it above; however, that doesn’t mean I have a negative opinion of him.
A lot of people like Wolffe. I don’t. I think he’s a reformist. As a socialist I have a low opinion of the guy. He has his niche. I think it’s well he fills it. Such is life. So it goes.
I’m hearing what you’re saying. I think there’s a lot of valuable discussion to be had on this or that. There’s points of contention. There’s points of agreement. I’m not trying to bother you or get into some kind of fight. It takes a lot time writing something up, wording it correctly. If there’s nothing gained, if it’s just going to be an irritant then it isn’t worth the time it takes.
Oof, sorry for the rant, the way i readed it sounded a lot like you where being an arrogant person, putting things on my mouth i dont even agree with. This is what lack of communication does to a conversation, sorry for sounding agressive, but i am starting to get really angry at everyone here using “patsoc” as some kind of dog wistle. It remembers me of how kruschev and revisionists used the word “stalinist” or “tankie” on people that where against their revisionist bs. I think we should stop using it all together, relax, review what these words are actually meaning, show actual proff and get some actual info on those people who call themselves “patsocs”, otherwise this comment section is just turning into an shit spyral where one side is just closing their ears, screeching “patsoc” and menacing bans, and the other side cant even express their opinion without getting buried under downvotes and angry comments (btw those people downvoting everything comrades PolandAsAnStateofMind and SaddamHussain are saying are cowards, they dont know anything about “patsocs” they dont know anything about what this situation is all about, but they are still just showing blind hate towards them).
Misconception going on in the comments: the U.S. is not ultra-conservative, its state is and its petty bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie and intelligentsia are. The working class is comprised mostly of progressive non-voters, it’s simply that they’re not represented whatsoever in the political goings-on in the nation, through suppression, gerrymandering, or a state-instilled nihilism. Most U.S. civilians support abortion, yet the state just made it illegal in many states. Most U.S. civilians support healthcare for all, yet we may never see it here, etc. etc. Most U.S. civilians are against war.
Idk, I sure see a fuck ton of people wearing Gruntwear type clothes, “infidel” t-shirts with Amerikkkan flag skulls, thin blue line prop, and people talking about turning whoever the convenient enemy at the time into a glass parking lot or whatever.
Remember that Trump, who openly said he would bring back torture, still got nearly half the votes cast. There are a fuck ton of reactionaries in this hellscape.
Idk where you are, but in the south and vast majority of rural areas, people openly physically attack poc like my spouse for simply being around.
I’ve spent a vast majority of my life in what could be considered the rural deep south (a town of about 300 people), and the rest of it in the rural midwest. I cannot pretend to speak for everywhere, obviously, it’s just my understanding of the U.S. in totality from things I’ve read and from uber-rurality from what I’ve experienced.
“Trump… got nearly half the votes cast.” Indeed he did. By a large margin from the petit bourgeoisie and big bourgeoisie, from small and large business owners, not from your average working joe or whatever like the media (liberal and conservative) likes to present. Remember as well, that he got half the votes cast. Most U.S. Americans do not vote. If the vote were between Clinton, Trump, and no-one by result of absentia, the result would have been no-one. Most U.S. Americans do not vote because they do not see any meaningful difference between the two parties, because they’ve been excluded from voting vis a vi draconian voting repression laws, or have been precluded by structural issues related to voting such as voting not being a national holiday, voting taking too long etc.
In my experience, and not to discount yours comrade, the uber-rural proletariat are ignorant and racist insofar as they like to use racial profanities in a non-directed way (as in to be edgy, to say things like “there are white n-words too” etc), and can be potentially swayed into acts of racist violence by locals with more power than them, like shop-owners and local officials; and these town officials and shop-owners, small landlords and well-off NEETS/retired elders are the ones you’ll likely see strutting about with AR-15s, tacticool gear, decked out F150s with confedo/U.S./don’t tread on me/Nazi flags billowing out the back, ready to assault anyone marginally different at a protest or assault a minority person on the street. Rural proletarians usually can’t afford these things, or afford the time to go out and harass people. In my experience, you’re way more likely to find the rural proletarian burdened by a crisis of meaning and one or two crippling drug addictions than overcome with a violently racist ideology, whereas for those with power within rural areas it’s likely to be vice versa.
This is the part that drives me crazy about them. They completely underestimate just how vitally material whiteness is to a lot of these folks they think they can reach. It is as material as a fist full of dollars.
The inability to realize whiteness as material is inherent to the “hidden” or obfuscated nature of white supremacy. This naturally leads to the whitewashing of the working class, which is the foundation of class reductionism. It reduces class to its simplist form in order to accommodate embourgiousieified workers in the global north, and centers colonial discourse above revolutionary discourse. There is this false conception that any worker with a boss is automatically a natural proletarian (meaning the wretched underclass that has revolutionary potential due to the internal contradictions of capitalism) but the truth is class is more complex than this and simply performing labor for a capitalist does not develop revolutionary potential. It basically reduces class down to another identity politic, but maybe that is not the best way to describe it.
People make attempts to build class consciousness by utilizing a whitewashed conception of the working class but this has enabled labor movements to extort colonized people to empower white workers historically, which was a major part of developing the US into the empire it is today. Labor movements in the north have actually been instrumental in spreading capital’s empire because it has relied on colonial discourses/means to improve its situation at the expense of the global proletariat and colonized people. It relies on a colonial cultural-linguistic lense to interpret and communicate information and this lense is anathama to proletarian class consciousness because it grew out of exploiting and disarming the proletariat, not organizing it.
Pretty much nothing that the old state stood for, right? They use “German” in a few things, obviously, but they had a different flag and system of state.
See I was wondering that if literal Nazis or people under extreme Nazi propaganda could become communists, then why can’t a few socially conservative people be guided by leftist into being socially progressive? Then there’s talk about patriotism, but also how does one build a movement in a imperialist and divided country like the States?
As mentioned there seems to be an extreme confusion of who we are talking about, and here comes the issues of labels. There is conflation of people labelling themselves with something in actuality they disagree with or people writing off a label that the do agree with! And this is a conundrum of all labels, and how things can twisted. Reasons why scapegoats and mob thought can be brought out of the masses. So when we take this or that side without even defining the boundaries or even seeing what the heads of this or that group state.
As you are the poster of this thread I assume your inbox can tell you this PatSoc question is one for discussion on Lemmy grad. Now I think it’s great we have found an actual debate point, since it means someone will learn something. I look forward to discussing this in Leftist Infighting.
We are stating “facts” instead of asking the bigger questions.
You’ve got some really great questions here! This is definitely something we as a community can use as for some more productive discussions and learning.
On Instagram my account was just fuck patsocs for a while because really fuck them, such a good example of dogmatism. They have never read a bit of theory. “We’re oppressed and have been as a nation lets liberate ourselves.” is not the same as “Our nation was the opresser and is built on white supremacy, lets ignore the national question.” READ FUCKING STALIN, unless you literally want a white only nation with some rights of racial minorities. “Proletarian parties develop and become strong by purging themselves of opportunists and reformists, social-imperialists and social-chauvinists,** social-patriots** and social-pacifists.” - Foundations of Leninism
America is not a unique situation. France, UK, Germany(parts) and Belgium are all imperialist places that are also bullshit if you support them and their history. Notice that Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, these are places where Imperialists were putting the boot to the native populations. These people weren’t permitted patriotism because the Western imperialists whitewashed and erased the native culture over time. When these countries were able to finally liberate themselves, OF COURSE they were proud of their people and their country. They finally had a good reason to. You can’t have a legit reason to like the US unless you exploit people. There is some acceptance of LGBT people and minorities. But none of it makes a difference when you ally with Nazis and nations that are awful to LGBT. Any era in history, we were doing awful things that nobody should repeat. Slavery, internment camps, killing Union leaders and members, COINTELPRO, Literally anything the CIA has ever done or thought about doing.
Idk UK and France also make a strong case, USA is a bigger warhawk today, but in the past, they were even bigger assholes. Actually that’sa pretty tough call depending on what era
Some of it is scale while other aspects hint at a difference in quality. As far as direct differences in quality, America had agent orange because it went out of it’s way to create it. America had operation Phoenix because it went out of it’s way to create an extra-legal arm of the state.
As far as difference in scale, at a certain magnitude difference of scale represents a difference in quality. Quantitative changes lead qualitative outcomes. People have their limits of what evil they are willing to do to each other. When those limits are removed that is a difference in quality. Mass murder of civilians, burning of villages of people alive, raping children in front of their parents. That represents a different kind of thing. I don’t think the French were willing to go there.
The UK, France, and Spain created the US, they killed the indigenous populations and established settler colonies. The current US is merely continuing the settler project that the UK, France, and Spain started. Canada is doing the same sans Spain. The US, after taking its own sovereignty then built its empire on European finance capital, European proletarians, European markets, European jurisprudence, and European slave trade, as well as inheriting the European enslavement of indigenous peoples.
Then the US, being better situated for growth, challenged Europe for the sole right to project power around the world and won, supplanting European war power with a war power projected by a European settler colony. That is to say, it’s not any different whether it’s the UK, France, Spain, or the US doing it, they are literally just passing the same baton around and around.
Just like we shouldn’t play the game of “most oppressed minority”, we also shouldn’t try to play the game of “most oppressive eurocentric hegemon”.
This is true. All of the West acts as bloc. I’d argue that the passing of the baton represents an evolution in form. The Europeans all participated in the greatest crime in history when the colonized the Americas, but the United States was manufactured from that atrocity. Europe existed as an organic people before capitalism and colonialism. The United States has nothing real before it’s conception. It’s a nation manufactured from genocide and slavery.
It’s a continuation of Europe but the very act of continuation is a transformation into something beyond what Europe was.
Think about it this way. The Europeans stated the slavery, but America created the very idea of whiteness. White Supremacy was born with the Birth of the Nation. It came to age in America as Eugenics before it went to infect Germany where it reached it’s adulthood as Nazism. When the Russians defeated it, America protected it. America brought it home. It integrated it into it’s fabric, making the post war American State.
When Europe attempted to flee and move beyond it, America overthrew their attempts. They put the Nazis back in charge. They put them in charge of all of Europe. They made NATO and gave the Nazi’s NATO.
This historical process is the American Historical Dialectic. It is uniquely evil.
Just re-saying my position, I personally could never bring myself to be a patriotic socialist, the American flag makes me nauseous, but I understand the pragmatic arguments, unfortunately the working class of America is incredibly reactionary and need to be suckered into communism by many different paths. There are many niches that need to be filled in this global class war, just like how I wouldn’t outright knock Frankfurt-esque communists drowning in academic jargon because their niche is to appeal to nerds. My only question for patsoc is: is it effective? Does it actually work converting conservatives et. al.? If yes, critical support. If not, toss it.
I also think a lot of patsoc characters are treated like dogshit unnecessarily. I think Maupin is unconvincing and uncharismatic in a lot of ways but the guy is not a bigot, his track record is nothing but activism.
I think that’s a fair take. “Does it work?” is a pretty good litmus test.
I’m not really interested enough in what Maupin has to say to look into him deeply, but the “proud patsoc” types like in the screenshot really make me sick.
@SaddamHusein24 I think you have a small misunderstanding. The patriotism of actual Marxists, dare I say even in America, should be upheld - and I mean the patriotism of wanting your country to be destroyed and reborn as Lenin said, and to flourish for all the American people. The genuine belief that the American worker should be supported and treated fairly, regardless of minority grouping, and that they deserve better is a great thing!
The “patriotism” of “PatSocs” is vastly different. PatSocs are a very specific reactionary group with specific views here in the west. They believe that we should all hunker down and throw away the “liberal wokeness that is internationalism” and put trans people in gulgas since they’re “lib degenerates” and that’s what Stalin would have wanted. It’s reactionary position not based on any real material analysis, and as such, should be combated.
The “patriotism” of “PatSocs” is vastly different. PatSocs are a very specific reactionary group with specific views here in the west.
But thy the fuck everything the anti-“patsocs” did up to date was to make the word “patriotism” haram in almost every communist space despite knowing what you said in the first paragraph yourself?
At best it’s american exceptionalism in the wild ride, and at worst an op to sow mistrust between american communists and all others. And Lemmy is still infinite better than reddit where even Genzedong banned people for even attemping to discuss it.
Idk about those “specific reactionary group” “patsoc” guys, but if they are socialchauvinists, call them what they are. Will you start to call nazis “socialists” too, because it’s in the name?
The particular group of internet dweebs being critiqued call themselves patriotic socialists or socialist patriots. That’s just kinda how language works. You can’t change it any more than you can stop libs from calling MLs tankies.
So i was right at first and it’s just an youtube circlejerk… No wonder nobody could answer me when i asked for something concrete, where are the names or the organizations. And to think i was banned for that from GenZedong (at that point it was not much loss but still).
Wait. Wait wait wait wait. Does this mean the most of internet spaces for english speaking ML’s abandon one of the most successful weapons in the arsenal of proletariat, weapon which has been used with great effect since Lenin first formulated the theory of socialism in one country, because of a fucking kneejerk reaction to an YOUTUBE CIRCLEJERK?!?
Massive bruh moment, this post section is giving me crazy, you and saddam hussain are the only people here seeing how dumb it is to create such an massive fight over fucking twitter/youtube drama/circlejerking.
I mean the problem is a bit bigger than that, as these things always find a way to leak into real life once money gets involved. Their “movement” magnetically attracts reactionary (often white) guys who think converting MAGA chuds by acting like conservatives counts as “organizing” (they’re trying to get something going irl but who knows where it will go), and is more important than reigning in syndicalists and trade unionists to a communist party platform that won’t immediately split on gender/race/religion/sexuality lines (which itself is difficult, but that is how activism in the US tends to manifest). They also really hate queer people and complain about us constantly, which honestly just feels like punching down.
So at this point in time, patsoc is linguistically equivalent to “reactionary white ML” to most socialists. Within the sphere of regular ML communities and organizing, the reaction to this reaction are attempts to learn from theories ultimately based in Gramsci’s work on Hegemony — such that we don’t repeat the mistakes of past movements by ignoring the needs of sections of the proletariat some might consider ‘inconvenient’. Arguments about patsocs seem to bring this topic to the forefront of discussion (so I think it might have a positive effect in the end). We really don’t want to alienate comrades of any walk of life, but patsocs don’t really care who they alienate as long as you’re using the correct “anti-imperialist” language that somehow includes American patriotism, and your strategy centers the needs of middle class white traditionalists. They talk a good game about internationalism but I’ve seen people with less staunchly purist views making more attempts at communicating with global socialist movements.
Yes it does. Were they socialist? No. That’s why we aren’t calling them that. “Patsoc” used for a socialchauvinist is a wretched word, entirely giving away very important concept and castrating yourself.
It’s fine if american communist don’t want to use that word, even if a little misguided, as Lenin explained, but don’t push that as general rule, it’s american exceptionalism and it’s defeatism.
Again, “national socialism” is excellent example in yet another way. Just look at the history of the world after WW2. how many systems that could be easily name “national socialism” were there, but we can’t name them like this, because this term is forever lost, even despite it means something completely unrelated to socialism. Don’t lose more ground, class war is going here too.
I will be respectful since you are too and i appreciate that. This is simply false. The most famous “patsoc”, Caleb Maupin, who i have followed for months now, is not what you say. He is antiracist, internationalist, antiimperialist, pro LGBTQ, pro abortion and antibigot. The dude organized trans rights marches with Mariela Castro once in his activist days. He was an activist in the Workers World Party for 8 years. He has always been outspoken about this. I have never heard any “patsocs” say the things you are saying. Not even Infrared, who i guess is closest to that in identity politics at least, has ever gone this far. And besides most “patsocs” are like Maupin, not like Infrared. This is a mythology cultivated by Vaush type people, its not a reality.
If that’s true, that is good and valid. I will kindly say that again, that even if you call yourself a “patsoc” but practice marxist-patriotism, as you state that Caleb does (sorry I don’t know anything about them) - nothing wrong with that.
However, there is at least a reactionary group bearing that name, that a lot of people, myself including, have had vastly negative reactionary interactions with.
Stalin banned abortion and promoted quite traditionalist family ideas about 100 years ago in a completely different context.
Class issues are obviously central to marxism, but the liberation of women, people of color, and the lgbtq+ community are all central to socialist project too.
Yes, and? My point isnt that we should ban abortion, we shouldnt. My point is that Stalin is still a Comrade, and so are people who might be against abortion for religious views or otherwise. Simple.
Stalin banned abortion and promoted quite traditionalist family ideas about 100 years ago in a completely different context.
He also only did it because there where serious concerns about russias population being decimated due to WW1.
He regreted it and went against Lenins wishes by doing this, further more they legalized it in the 50s far ahead of the west later. (The UK legalized abortion in 1968 for reference, and in N.ireland its still illegal)
I know its wiki but its undeniable even to wikipedia.
The Soviet Union, under Lenin, became the first country to have abortion available, on request, often for no cost
On 27 June 1936, the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Union made abortion illegal again, stemming largely from concerns about population growth as well as concerns for the medical dangers of abortion.
The relaxation of government policy on women’s reproductive rights began in the 1950s, which began with the expansion of the list of medical indications for termination of pregnancy in 1951, and in 1954 criminal liability for illegal abortion was canceled*
You will notice at no point where they like ‘women are objects’ and more just trying to do things as logically as one could in the early 20th century.
Abortion in the United Kingdom is legally available through the Abortion Act 1967 in Great Britain, and the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Regulations 2020.* (lmao, lol, rofl)
The woman question is an indispensable facet of Marxist-Leninism and tossing it to the side as an issue delegated to mere identity politics or wokescolding or whatever is anti-Marxist male chauvinism of the highest order. I used to consider your points on the question but you’ve pretty much just outed yourself as a chauvinist.
You miss the point. We aren’t barely post monarchy soviet Russia.
Saying you’ll tolerate or GIVE POWER to anyone with ambitions to curtail such issues is literally asking those who are being oppressed to tolerate, allow, and GIVE POWER to such actors.
It does not do to have proletarian bigots just be allowed to go open season on their reactionary imaginations.
Shame is used in this sense BECAUSE ONE SHOULD KNOW BETTER ABOUT AT LEAST A 50 YEAR OLD ISSUE.
If a working class person has some irreconcilable bigotry that they can not or will not unlearn; it is quite simple. You prevent them from wielding any office or lever of power that will enable them to act on that.
There is no post America socialist society on Turtle Rock that bans abortion or entertains racial segregation or essentializes gender.
Jesus Christ. The wokescolds arent the enemy. They’re a bunch of progressives and minorities with a bigger voice now because of the miracle of the internet.
Yeah. We get it. All the three letter agencies are promoting the new rainbow hotness. Guess who else notices it? The IdPol folks.
First of all, Stalin lived 80 years ago and illegalizing homosexuality is regarded as one of his mistakes. Second of all, believe it or not, being a communist party doesn’t automatically grant you the based pass. КПРФ is the living proof. I’m not saying that there aren’t socially progressive factions or that everyone there is reactionary but the party leadership mostly is. Third of all, don’t be a class reductionist. Reactionary views such as homophobia and transphobia are not gonna disappear just because class struggle is over, they have to be dealt with independently and should be dealt with now. And to your “division”. If someone has problem with LGBTQ+ movement chances are they are not gonna be a fucking communist. In post-communist countries people like this are just conservative boomers that associate their reactionary values with the former socialist republics. So no, not tolerating homophobes is not gonna divide and collapse the entire communist movement.
Oh yeah, because social liberalism is 100% associated with communism and antiimperialism. Look at Biden bro, he has a bisexual black woman as White House spokesperson, hes the best communist ever right?
/s
You yankees are really dumb as fuck. Ive tried explaining respectfully but you refuse to listen, basically saying that only socially liberal workers deserve your solidarity, literally neglecting your entire rural population. When did Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Castro or any of them ever say “you can only follow us if you agree with our social values on abortion and gay people”? NEVER. They said “if you want peace land and bread, follow us”. They never said any of this stupid gatekeeping shit. But hey, go ahead, continue this path, its done a lot of good to you so far, when QAnon nutbags have more effective organizing than you do. Keep it up, we, the rest of the world, we dont care anymore. Thankfully the US is more and more irrelevant by the day, so we dont have to trust our safety from imperialism into the hands of stupid western leftists who reject the most basic notions of worker solidarity and class struggle.
I’ve seen this many times in this thread, why do you assume everyone is American ? Also, if one is a homophobe I don’t really care as long as they keep it to themselves. But tolerating someone who tries to push back LGBTQ+ rights and giving them a chance to do so just because they are a communist is a really bad thing.
Also, if one is a homophobe I don’t really care as long as they keep it to themselves.
But tolerating someone who tries to push back LGBTQ+ rights and giving them a chance to do so just because they are a communist is a really bad thing.
Bruh pick one, or you tolerate or you dont, this is very hypocritical, the Maupin tweet you showed is literally saying “i dont support what you are saying on this, but i still will fight by your side” how is this different from “Also, if one is a homophobe I don’t really care as long as they keep it to themselves.”?
I assume everyone is a yank because they tend to be the most disconnected from the real world, stuck in their american fantasy bubble, so i tend to hit, guess this time i missed. So why all this arguing? The “outrageous” tweet by Maupin says “i disagree with you if you dont support gay marriage or abortion, but i will fight by your side”, literally what you are repeating now. Maupin never said bigotry should be tolerated, all he said is specific views on social issues should be. Noone saying here that we should be ok with people beating up gay people in communist groups, noone ever said this, including Caleb. The issue is people that for religion or other reason oppose abortion or gay marriage, thats it, thats what the tweet says. This is what most conservative workers in USA are like i imagine, they dont hate gay people, they just think gay marriage is wrong. Sure there is some homophobia deep down, but its a totally different thing from despicable hate crimes. But somehow saying this is so controversial. I hope you agree with me now.
This. Patriotism is love for your own country and its people, not for your country’s current state. Patriotism is not super patriotism as Michael Parenti called it.
I think you’re missing a critical distinction here: Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il Sung, soviet textbooks, CPUSA articles
Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Soviet textbooks - socialism situated in countries that were independent of colonial oppression and/or shook off the shackles of colonial oppression.
Castro, CPUSA, Patriotic Socialism in the US - socialism situated in European colonies
What happened when Castro succeeded? We should understand how Europeans settler colonists left Cuba as part of the revolution. We should also understand just how during the revolution, it was believed that the indigenous people of Cuba, the Taino, were literally extinct - exterminated by the Spanish - and there was literally no indigenous body politic that could be part of the revolution let alone lead it.
European Patriotism in the “Americas” is fundamentally a continuance of the daily-renewed genocidal oppression of European settlers. The existence of any European colonial state in the Americas is fundamentally contradictory with a sustainable society, regardless of whether the European settlers choose socialism or barbarism.
If someone believes that there is anything worth redeeming in the political entity that is the U$, then we do not share a reality to debate in. I appreciate you sharing the Joe Sims article, but I’m firm in my understanding.
Amerikkkan settler colonialism is a unique ill, and has to be completely destroyed for the world to breath.
Look up the definition of ‘materialism’ then look at marx’s response to it with dialitical materialism
Complaining about wokeism is like complaining about the jews in europe in 1890
Marx literally wrote several essays outlining how reactionaries who succumb to social issues pushed down by the ruling class (trans issues are the hot topic) create an underclass reserve of labour and should be resisted
Lenin extended this by saying revolutions need to include them.
Claudia Jones took lenins ideas even further (black american communist) and said we needed to apply intersectionality to unite the under and working class.
What does my comment or the post have to do with “wokeism” or trans rights? The post and my comment are about socialist patriotism, those topics arent even mentioned.
Because the OPs image and the patsoc at large use trans people as a punching bag regularly and it is the biggest and most potent criticism I have them; they just serve the reaction, and by extension the fascists.
False. Caleb Maupin, the most famous “patsoc” is an ardent supporter of trans rights and always has been. He organized pro trans rights marches in New York against the NYPDs profiling of trans women as “prostitutes”, once even with Mariela Castro. He is an outspoken feminist, antiracist, proLGBTQ rights and antibigot. Ill post 2 youtube examples of this from his channel:
https://youtu.be/hPclz6YJzvk At 18:45, although i recommend watching the entire debate to see Calebs actual views vs the slander against him
He does support trans rights, he has marched many times for trans rights in his activist days. He insists on human rights to drive home the point, that even if trans people were “degenerates” and “mentally ill” as transphobes say, that wouldnt justify attacking them and discriminating them. Its to drive the point home that, whether you think trans women are “real women” or not, there is no justification for bigotry, discrimination and hate. He also often says that he does not know anything about gender ideology/transgender ideology/however you wanna call it, so he doesnt take a position on that, which i think is fair.
PD: By gender/transgender ideology i mean all of these studies and ideas on whether trans women are same as cis women, gender vs sex and all that. I dont know what you are supposed to call it, so i call it gender/transgender ideology, pardon me if its offensive.
Calling it gender/transgender ideology has grown into an anti-trans dog whistle at this point. So, by it’s nature as a dog whistle, it is used by plenty of people who are uninformed and don’t mean anything by it, but it is also used by people who tend to push theories that “someone” is pushing “gender ideology” that is taking over society, corrupting the medical industry (if a doctor believes trans treatment is valid, they have been compromised, they are part of the conspiracy; if a person is trans, they have been deluded, or they are a sexual predator in hiding)–if you follow the threads, you will often find yourself tugging on the end of an anti-Semitic or Q-Anon style conspiracy theory. By calling it “ideology” it downplays the scientific knowledge available about trans people and leaves room for the idea that it is purely a “choice” (a discussion that is generally not held in a principled way that respects scientific knowledge and tends to be used as an easy conversation-stopper, allowing a wide range of idealist anti-LGBT positions to go unexamined against scientific knowledge) and at worst, emphasizes the notion that there is a secretive, infiltrative brainwashing campaign being conducted by some shadowy “elites” (which tends to be a dogwhistle for “Jews”).
So although “offensive” is not really how I would describe it, I would say that if you refer to gender/transgender “ideology” you are definitely going to get peoples’ guards up, and make people feel nervous and on edge, because for all they know you are someone who is prone to believing and spreading various bigoted conspiracy theories (intentionally or unintentionally), or someone who is intentionally hiding their bigotry while also trying to spread it (something that you can regularly find transphobes and white supremacists talking among themselves strategizing about doing, I know because I follow such discussion groups). Someone like Maupin who digs their heels in when criticized over their lack of knowledge on this topic is going to raise peoples red flags. Personally, I’ve watched a few hours of his content, and read some of his work–perhaps I’ll engage with him a bit more soon to refresh my view of him. I’ve got some reservations/criticisms of him but I do believe on trans issues he is a case of someone who is not secretly an extreme bigot, but who is stubbornly refusing to become more informed, because he regards gender issues more as “ideology” than “science”, causing him to de-prioritize finding out more details and to only see the surface issues, which I find to be a flawed position.
(Edit: I have gone and watched the videos you linked to someone else itt–I had seen his Thought Slime response previously but re-watched it, and I’m also watching this one now and viewing portions of his recent vids to generally refresh my view on Maupin so as to have a more accurate/updated view of him if this conversation continues.)
By gender/transgender ideology i mean all of these studies and ideas on whether trans women are same as cis women, gender vs sex and all that. I dont know what you are supposed to call it
The term “gender studies” will cover this and not make people feel nervous. It’s the term used in academia and refers to studies about women, feminism, and LGBT issues. If you are talking about other aspects of life outside of the academic study of gender, you could say “gender related issues” “trans related issues” or “LGBT related issues”.
Regarding your positions about patriotism, I have some things to say. I’ve actually watched several hours of Haz/Infrared’s content in the past (I feel that I recall you mentioning him at some point, I may be wrong) and find him and some of his positions interesting, and I do think it’s over-simplification when people just toss him out as reactionary without going through his positions one-by-one, several of which I think are worth talking about, especially since much of his approach is all about shaking people up and forcing them to confront what makes them uncomfortable to acknowledge. Again, I have criticisms about him (or, what I saw of him, quite some time ago by now), different ones than I have of Maupin. But anyway, I think the way you are framing the patriotism issue regarding Americans is not a going to be a successful approach (partly due to the U.S. being a settler-colonial society with ongoing land-stealing, displacement, and murder of the indigenous population; partly due to the way everyone is using different and shifting definitions of “patriotism” here while basically agreeing on many of each other’s points; partly due to what I think are flawed comparisons being made between colonies, semi-colonies, settler colonies, and metropoles; partly due to “American identity” being a very nebulous and fragmented concept due to the U.S.'s settler, slavery descendent, and indigenous populations still living in physical segregation from each other). I want to talk with you about it as I think there are some things you should consider. However I don’t have time currently to write more.
If they have different views they dont have to allign themselves with the org that literally signal boosts there reactionary nature on an org level.
I dont doubt there are princabled communists within there ranks; they would just be better served in a movement that isnt going to completely alienate any black person with there narratives (which they will)
What organization are you talking about? I dont understand. Are you talking about CPI? CPI is not reactionary, its led by Caleb Maupin and has white, black, christian, muslim and trans members from very different backgrounds. Most of them are socially liberal like Maupin, although there are some socially conservative members, mainly religious people. Racism isnt tolerated tho, they are explictly antiracist. Like bro they uphold John Brown, who killed slave owners and freed the slaves, as a national hero xD
How are they “reactionary”, “grifters” and “with very little knowledge of theory”? Caleb Maupin is one of the most well read online communists, he knows the history of US labor activism up and down, he has read theory from many marxist thinkers, from the classics (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao) to more obscure figures like Hoxha, Gramsci and William Z Foster. He has participated in activism for 2 decades, from anti Iraq War protests, to the Workers World Party, to Occupy Wall Street, to visiting Russia, China, Nicaragua, Iran, Venezuela, to meeting with Mariela Castro and inviting her to New York to hold pro trans rights rallies, to traveling to Yemen to bring humanitarian aid, to his think tank CPI now.
Caleb is marxist leninist, pro abortion, pro LGBTQ rights, antiracist, feminist and antibigot. He is nothing of what you called him, and i find it disappointing that american leftists would waste time slandering fellow comrades instead of fighting your imperialist regime, all while the rest of the world suffers the consequences of that regime. My country is occupied by US military bases imposed on us by a fascist regime, we never voted for them, yet we will still be blown to pieces if a war with Russia breaks out.
I cannot speak for other so called “patsocs” since im not very familiar with them, but Caleb Maupin is 100% a comrade and the only reason you hate him is rumours that you believe i dont know why. Dont you have critical thought? Or you just believe whatever they tell you, no questioning? If you do question things, please head out to his youtube channel, you will see im not lying.
I’m not that familiar with Caleb, but why would you support anyone who is proud of the flag of your occupiers? American patriotism is synonymous with the military and its genocidal campaigns across the world.
I really dont care about flags, flags are just a piece of cloth. I care about the values someone has and their actions. If you support antiimperialism and worker solidarity, you are my Comrade. I dont care what flag you use, thats up to you. If you like USA flag its ok, if you dont like it its ok.
99% of americans dont support antiimperialism either, whats your point? Also i would dispute the notion that conservatives are more hostile to antiimperialism. In the George W Bush neocon years sure, but since Trump the situation has turned id say. More and more conservatives and libertarians are against wars, while democrat supporters love the Azov Battallion and want war with Russia. Tucker Carlson, of all people, has been the only mainstream media voice to expose lies on Ukraine. I think this reflects a divide in the US ruling class, between top billionaires like Jeff Bezos who support democrats and want interventionism because it benefits their international corporations, and smaller millionaires and billionaires like Rupert Murdoch who support Trump republicans and want isolationism and reindustrialization of the USA since they benefit more from that. I think this explains the Trump movement and related stuff. Ofc this isnt 100% mathematical, for example Elon Musk is a top billionaire but supports republicans, but i still think this model explains the situation quite well.
Trump and Republicans are not as anti-war as you think
Trump wanted to bomb and invade Iran as well as start a full economic war with China
They just don’t want proxy wars, vassal states, neo-colony type situations since they don’t want to invest in other countries to further imperialism and just want to keep all their money in America instead
Libertarians’ foreign policies are much better but not sure what they have to do with anything since they have 0 presence in the USA
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
If you haven’t already found it, this GitHub page is an excellent collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics, made by @dessalines and others.
This is something I wrote sometime ago and its a mess and suits this dumpsterfire
If there will be a ml revolution in us, it will come crossing the border from south, with sleeper cells all over us, that will have the power shut down all businesses, essentials, emergency services. Total mexicanisation (not annexation by mexico but the taking back of the america by the central and south america) of us, with indigenous and black groups forming the real rainbow coalition. The left overs of anglo heritage will be whipped out. White american trash anarchists will not have a space in here just like american patriotic socialists. These two are also the product of americanism produced by coco cola and MacDonald cultural industry.
That sounds really rad
This thread raises some interesting questions and offers some good answers. But there is a lot of confusion and it is not clear that people are arguing about the same thing.
The Problem
There is clearly no consensus definition of the following words:
I do not think we are arguing over nationalism as that question was answered a long time ago by e.g. Stalin and Lenin. Okay, their work may need updating, but updating means building on their legacy, which nobody is really trying to do here. The main references to nationalism are trying to:
So the question is not:
The question is:
And
Only by answering (ii) can we reach common ground and engage with the same idea. We may then disagree about each others’ conclusions, but at least those conclusions will refer to the same idea.
Therefore it seems necessary to identify agreed definitions for these words. For example: Is PatSoc only relevant to the internet? If so, who gets to claim the label? People who identify by it? Or people who use it to classify their enemies?
Regardless, there is a more important question to answer first:
These words will have an abstract class character and a class character that is unique to each country. If we take an intersectional view of class and avoid class reductionism, we may partially answer (iii) at the same time.
Marx and Engels wrote of the class character of socialism in the Communist Manifesto. We must do the same for our subject.
What is the class character of US patriotism?
Zac Cope argues in The Wealth of (Some) Nations that the majority of workers in the global north are labour aristocrats – paid well enough to look the other way on the imperial question, whether petite bourgeois or ‘proletariat’. There’s a lot to say about whether this is true or whether it was true but is now changing.
J Sakai argues in Settlers that the ‘white proletariat’ in the Settler Colony is a myth. Again, we could argue over whether a white proletariat’ has since grown.
Michael Parenti, at least, argues the ruling class has long sought the ‘third worldisation’ of the global north. This statement accepts classes are fluid.
It is difficult to classify the US as mainly this it mainly that. It’s class composition is constantly changing. It also comprises many states with reasonably independent legislatures and different demographics.
The important point for our discussion is that any presentation of the US as mainly labour aristocratic or petite bourgeois seems to accept the vision of the US that is shown in the entertainment and news media – created by the US ruling class.
That is, white, middle class (whatever that means), reasonably well-off, suburbian, liberal, content with the idea of a homogenous US if not with the way that it is governed under the Republicans or Democrats, and the world’s defender of democracy. This vision also includes a one sided view of patriotism, which involves a stripey flag, militarism, and pledges of allegiance.
Is this what the US is? It certainly seems so when the US is viewed through the prism of entertainment and news media. It almost certainly seems so to the millions of people who have been in the receiving end of US ‘democracy’. It probably seems so to many in America, who are subjected to the same images as the rest of the world, but from another angle.
Is this what the US is from the inside? Maybe not.
(Apologies in advance for defining people as ‘not white’. I do not think it will come off as any less racist by trying to list and differentiate all the people who are not included in the ruling class white supremacist vision.)
To cite some (problematic) 2020 data (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-population-more-racially-ethnically-diverse-than-2010.html):
This data is problematic because in trying to recognise ‘diversity’ it presupposes racial difference along biological lines. Still, the data indicates the US is not white.
Nor has the US ever been white.
It’s ruling class and white petite bourgeois segments think it is white. They are delusioned by white supremacism, and could not and cannot see the toil and suffering of indigenous Americans or slaves as part of the US.
To the ruling white supremacists, those workers are always somehow separate to ‘the US’. Unfortunately, this is a pervasive idea. To paraphrase Marx and Engels in The German Ideology, the ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class.
The above census data, showing a ‘decline’ in the white population, gives the impression that whites were once the majority. False.
At the beginning, the indigenous Americans were the majority. Afterwards, Africans and indigenous Americans were the majority, perhaps depending on where one draws state / city lines on old maps. At some point, the proportions turned.
What is the US?
Any revolutionary worth the name must be unified with all ‘minorities’, whether defined by class, race, gender, sexuality, etc. Together these people comprise the majority. The US is these people.
The US is not the cis-het white, males of the ruling class, whether depicted as a banker in a suit, a Proud Boy, a lone adventurer protected in a wagon circle, or a struggling, salt of the earth, and slightly racist rural lumpen.
Thus we have:
And there we may have the solution. Patriotism of (1) may be revolutionary. Patriotism of (2) is almost certainly reactionary. I don’t think anyone in this thread would disagree. Reply if you do; I’d like to know what I missed.
If this is correct, it is up to patriotic revolutionaries to decide on appropriate patriotic symbolism. This may mean abandoning the current flag or keeping it.
I imagine that any Marxist would hope the Stars and Stripes eventually go the same way as the Confederate flag. In the meantime, due to the prevalence of the ruling class notion of patriotism, there are likely many people who could be radicalised, but who also respect the flag. It seems a bit self-defeating to exclude these people from the revolution.
Remember, the majority is not cis-het, white, male, and middle class, but to my understanding, all have to praise the flag as children every school day, and must somewhat accept this white supremacist vision of the US. These ‘patriots’ might not lead the revolution, but if the flag brings them along?
Finally: PatSocs
Are PatSocs revolutionary Marxists? It’s beside the point, really, because the label is contested. People identify by it and others use it as a derogatory category. They could be, but they may not be. We would need a class analysis of any given person to decide. And we would first have to ensure that calling a person a PatSoc is not a category error.
Edit: formatting. Edit 2: formatting headings
Unfortunately, there are many that do. You basically say the same thing as me, that patriotism has class characteristics, and i already gathered a lot of denials of this in Lemmy, and at least 2 bans at reddit and a ban threat here. I don’t see this as a nonissue, since the “antipatriotism” accusation is and always was one of the major tactic of class enemies against us, and it was an effective one. While reversed in AES, served greatly to secure the people’s interests.
Again, i’m not even questioning the USA conditions, since i know it’s more complicated there, but the american exceptionalism being inevitably forced on everyone in such american-dominated internet space like here or especially reddit. That’s why i propose to stop using the word “patsoc” entirely, especially those are apparently just some youtube circlejerk, and start using the good old description of “socialchauvinists” since it’s cleare it what they apparently are (also, few threads later, still nobody could even narrow who are “they”, such nebulous group make it hard to even see entire issue as anything but a hot air)
I saw your comments and I agree.
I also agree that ‘PatSoc’ is unhelpful.
I will take your advice and avoid the term in future!
This is where your analysis fails.
You are creating a false dichotomy rooted in an individualistic understanding of what a nation is. A nation is NOT merely a collection of the individuals in it. A nation is a system, it’s a power structure. We cannot analyze what the US is by looking solely at the people inside it. We must see it as a historically situated society. And as a historically situated society, America is a settler colony.
Tuck and Yang in their piece “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” help us to understand how settler systems absorb “minorities” and integrate them into the colonial project. They explicitly analyze people who are kidnapped from Africa and enslaved in the US, as well their descendants, and show how these people, while certainly not white European bourgeois are never the less engaged in the colonial project because they have to be. Settlerism creates a system of pressures that, once an individual becomes a participant in that system, drive that individual’s interests. Settlers, therefore, represent an entire historical body politic that, regardless of minority status, have systemic interests that are in opposition to the national sovereignty of the indigenous people whose oppression is renewed every single moment the settler colony continues to exist.
A revolutionary socialist state must, of necessity, repress any factions that are opposed to the existence of that state. Therefore, a revolutionary socialist state driven by patriotism for a settler nation, must of necessity repress indigenous movements for national self-direction. This is a clear contradiction and I cannot state this emphatically enough:
THIS IS A CLEAR CONTRADICTION IN THE FORMULATION OF PATRIOTIC SOCIALISM IN AND OF SETTLER COLONIES
If we do not address this contradiction, it is clear that Patriotic Socialism in settler colonies are building a system with an internal contradiction that requires it to maintain the violent oppression of indigenous peoples. It is clear that Patriotic Socialism in settler colonies legitimize the settler colonial form of imperialism as a basis for national self-direction.
The implications of this are that a PatSoc revolutionary state in a settler colony will have the following potential outcomes:
The problem with number 3 is that there is so far no analysis that shows this is possible. Settler colonists have no recognized legitimate claim to national sovereignty. The power of settler colonists to engage in collaboration with indigenous peoples is based entirely on their power to oppress those indigenous peoples, the historical extermination of those peoples and their material society, and a centuries long unbroken chain of systemic oppression.
All analyses of this question have determined that the only non-contradictory path forward is full inversion of the power dynamic - national self-direction must be stripped from settler colonists, including ADOS, “minorities”, and other “non-white Europeans” and handed over entirely to indigenous peoples.
The PatSoc movements within settler colonies simply chooses to ignore this contradiction by assuming they can resolve it after they have power, that the most important thing is to get critical mass of the largest group of people (the settler working class) and establish the revolutionary state. Given the above 2 outcomes, this is clearly factually incorrect and the decision to ignore the contradiction is idealism.
There’s at least one more major error in your analysis.
This is an absolute non-sequitur. It is not the case that the entertainment and news media is the cause of the analysis that leads to the understanding of the US as mainly labor aristocrats. You are incorrect that labor aristocracy is equivalent with the upper middle class PMC. Literally every worker in the US, Canada, Scandinavia, and the EU can be described as labor aristocracy. The reason for this is that every single person in these countries, regardless of class, benefits immensely from US hegemony, imperialism, and power projection.
Infrastructure, medicine, fuel, rare earth metals, pollution displacement (from minor to life threatening), plastics, cheap commodities, hot water… literally every aspect of everyday life, from public transportation to private car service, from McDonald’s meals to Michelin Star restaurants, from plastic food wrap to hypodermic needles to Funko Pops to cell phones… ALL of it, including their quantity, variety, availability, cost, utility, and relations between and among it all, ALL of it is predicated on global hegemony through power projection, currently channeled through the European settler colonial nation of the USA, a hegemony that was historically developed by European imperial powers like France, Spain, England, Portugal, and The Netherlands.
The analysis is not based on propaganda. The analysis is based on interests. And the interests of the labor aristocracy are in opposition to the interests of the proletariat of the Global South. When the US loses its hegemony over the world, the price of fuel will increase for Americans almost immediately. Literally every single person the US, regardless of class, will find that this is against their own material interests. And there’s nothing that can be done about it in less than 30 years, because every single residential community is built for cars and every single home is under-insulated and not constructed for passive temperature management. Converting everything to electric will take decades, and even then, doing so still requires access to cheap rare earth materials. When American global hegemony ends, the price of rare earth materials will immediately increase.
There is no escape from this analysis. ALL Americans, Canadians, and Europeans will suffer from the end of US hegemony. Every single one from top to bottom. And this is why the working class in America has been deemed to be Labor Aristocracy. Not because of sitcoms and TV dramas, but because of the material analysis of their interests and how those interests materially incentivize their collective action against the interests of the global proletariat.
Given this analysis, a Patriotic Socialist movement in the US runs the very real risk of becoming a National Socialist movement:
And given these three contradictions, the clear risk is that of the formation of a reactionary state, driven by the interests of the labor aristocracy, with local and global oppression rationalized by patriotism, armed with history’s largest military distributed in over 800 locations around the globe, with the entirety of Europe and NATO sharing in the interests of the Labor Aristocracy to maintain coercive hegemony.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. I appreciate that you have responded to my question. I don’t disagree with your conclusion, although you seem to have phrased this as if we are not on the same side, which is unfortunate.
Given the threats of bans and purges, there is not much room left to discuss and criticise. I feel that I can safely add and must add, before I am accused of being a ‘PatSoc’:
This is not a contradiction. America is derived from the name of an Italian explorer. The concept of indigenous peoples exists only in contrast to settler. For indigenous people to have sovereignty is not patriotism. There is no civic or cultural nationalism involved here. It is about power, not about ideology. Patriotism is an ideology, that is, it is a set of beliefs instantiated in the minds of a group of people such these beliefs guide their behavior. That is not what decolonization requires, decolonization only requires transference of power.
The definition I’m working with - socialism that uses cultural and civic nationalism as an aesthetic and as a framework for prioritizing and deprioritizing aspects of intersectionality.
There’s a lot of reasons for this, but it’s not a problem of analysis but of the mechanics discourse. Patriotic Socialism is a problem everywhere. In settler colonies, especially USA, Canada, Australia, but also inclusive of ALL states that exist on “The Americas”, the problem of Patriotic Socialism runs into the problem of colonization. But the problem of Patriotic Socialism in non-colonial states shows up constantly because it deprioritizes intersectionality to the point of dismissing it as bourgeois ideology. When those types of claims are made, it’s a very clear step in the progression to violent repression of minorities. PatSocs the world over make the argument that we must not demand tolerance, but rather build a big tent and bring into the movement people who would vote in favor of violently oppressing marginalized communities. If it was just aesthetics, no one would have a problem with PatSocs. It’s not just aesthetics. It’s tactics. PatSocs consistently prioritize populist tactics that threaten the safety of marginalized communities because they put forth a theory of action that says larger numbers are more important than ending oppression of marginalized groups.
It’s not just US-centric crticisms, PatSocs are simply arguing that anti-patsoc arguments don’t apply to them if they don’t exist in a settler-colonial state. You can tell they’re disingenuous because they then turn around and argue in another debate that Israeli settlers in Palestine aren’t a problem because the settler colony will eventually dissolve from its own contradictions so in the meantime it’s fine for Palestinians to get mass murdered in the worlds largest open-air prison.
You said:
I don’t think this is important for our discussion at all, because I think its factually incorrect and pure speculative tripe. Any presentation of the US as mainly labor aristocratic does not, in fact, accept the vision of entertainment and news media. If you think you’re arguing in good faith by latching on to my use of the words “upper middle class”, and then using that framing to completely erase how baseless your original claim here was, you need to re-examine how you engage in discourse.
Decolonization is a euro-centric framework because Europeans did the colonization. Criticisms of European nationalism have deep roots that are connected to US nationalism because the US is a European colony. To say that Patriotic Socialism in Europe is somehow different that Patriotic Socialism in the US because the US is a settler colony is to ignore that fact that it is European patriotism that created and sustained the US. The critiques of US Patriotic Socialism traverse the ocean and come home to European socialists because the contradictions in Patriotic Socialism exist regardless of what continent you’re on. The demand of European PatSocs to never have to contend with the contradictions of Patriotic Socialism if the critique mentions settlerism is merely deflection and a claim to innocence to protect themselves from the very real criticism that Patriotic Socialism is 100% of the time used, in practice, to rationalize exclusion of existing marginalized communities.
It’s not merely definitions, it’s analysis. The people who feel like they are disagreeing on the definition of patriotic socialism are either people who have not engaged rigorously with the theory and historical and contemporary practice of Patriotic Socialism, or they are deliberately trying to obfuscate the analysis with a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Wonderful comment comrade, you’ve hit the nail on the head. I was going to do my labor aristocracy post, but there’s no need.
😻 This is my favorite Lemmy comment.
In another thread I literally just got done quote-mining on the topic of racism inherent to patriotism itself, esp in the West, and how racist or labor aristocratic splits gave 20th century socialist movements the crumbles.
This is good work.
Might I bring up that amongst the proles; you have those that see the stars and stripes the way most see the nazi flag. I unironically do. Usually when Im out in public, I get a sinister sense of danger when I see the American flag in certain contexts. Protests, rallies, vehicles with the flag flying on them such as pickup trucks, or in people’s yards with varying thin color line bullshit.
But you also have proles that sees the revolutionary potential that we were raised to believe in when seeing the stars and stripes. For many, the flag represents standing up to tyrants and bullies.
Then there is the question of what does it even mean to be patriotic as a revolutionary in America. What is patriotic in the American sense if you hope for and strive for a new society and country that is yet to exist?
Seems like a huge problem of aesthetics. But I honestly can not blame revolutionary folks in America for getting sekf defensive when presented with American trappings and being presented with an American historical narrative of revolution that has been a struggle AGAINST America itself. 🤷
Well put. I am similarly revulsed by ‘my’ flag.
This comment deserves to be pinned and pointed to whenever someone brings this up again.
Amazing post! 100% agree!
From a recent Ranier Shea post:
deleted by creator
What radicalizes you is coming to terms with the true nature of your government. The patsoc’s are attempting to absorb you and defang domestic Marxism Leninism.
Love of country and national mythology breeds reformism. How will you seek to destroy the bourgeois state if you love it?
I’m not saying that patsoc’s aren’t ML. I’m saying that they aren’t going to be the true ML.
Marxism Leninism is internationalist. The only acceptable nationalism is one centered around the working class. The only acceptable history is a history centered around the working class. They don’t seem to want to address that history. They are more interested in taking the national myth as is.
If attempting to gain control of the bourgeois apparatus is a mistake. How much greater is the mistake of taking within us their national myth.
The United States is uniquely evil. It’s a part of larger context, but it is unique in it’s magnitude. It’s unique in that there is nothing real beyond it’s mythos. Other people existed before capitalism. They existed as an organic people. The United States was manufactured. The real organic people were all killed in a criminal history which is uniquely evil. The absolute whole slaughter genocide, enslavement, and exploitation of the Indians was in uniquely evil. That evil was so great as to change the quality of the West into something truly out of hell.
They say that rather than accepting this and fighting against it in a truly revolutionary act, we should instead whitewash it and attempt to be revolutionary under the superstructure of the bourgeoisie.
How can you be Marxist Leninist while saying that capitalism wasn’t so bad? What is the radicalizing motivation? Was love of country the radicalizing motivation behind the Black Panthers?
But even if the “true ml” needs to be international, just wanting an ml goverment first on your home region is good enough, it was what the USSR did, what china is doing now. We cant force the revolution on other countries, its literally and scientifically impossible, an country embrace the revolution when they want and when they need, we can support it when it happens, but the “socialism on one country” view still is correct at the beggining of an socialist country. If we cant succesfully realise an revolution on our own countries, how can we do this on other countries? Thats why pan-movements exist, baathism is pan arabic and socialist, you could argue it is not “true ml” because its mainly focused on arabic liberation, but does it make the movement less socialist? Just having an socialist arabic union would already be great, if all those countries standed up to unite themselves under communism, it would be great. Its not like we could even think of artificially creating revolutions on other countries.
What i am saying here is, maupin and haz are not wrong for wanting mainly an american revolution, because right now its the best they can do, it would not change anything if they openly stated that they want other countries to also have an revolution, it doesnt depend on them. What does matter would be if they would support an revolution on other countries WHEN it happens, and if they support the existing AES countries, then they would support future AES countries.
I feel that we’re not having the same conversation. Saying that Marxism-Leninism is internationalist isn’t saying it’s the same as Trotskyism or Ultra. I’m not saying or hinting at saying that Socialism in one country is illegitimate. I’m not saying we should be Third-Worldist. Though I think naturally socialism is more likely to develop in the colonized world at the periphery of empire, I think that they will have to fight their own revolutions and form their own governments according to their own national will, just as we have to do the same within our own nations. They don’t need us, but we do need them to weaken the empire enough for us to stand a chance.
Because there is confusion I’d like to try and clarify what’s meant by Internationalism. Internationalism is international proletarian solidarity. Solidarity means that what harms one of us harms us all. At the most local level, it means that if the person I work with is injured or cheated I take it as personally as if it was me who was injured or cheated. At the national level it means that if it happened to someone I never met in another part of the country, I take it as personally as if it was me. Internationally it means that if my country is committing injuries abroad I take it the same as if they were doing it to me. International Solidarity is to view the workers of the world with equal respect.
It seems that you think I meant to say that the problem with patriotic socialism is that they want to focus on American Socialism. Nobody has a problem with Americans focusing on American Socialism. If we could do that, it would be a benefit to us and the entire world. Every Socialist movement in the US took that position. Everybody here wants Americans to focus on American Socialism.
What they don’t want us to do is pretend as much while supporting US imperialism. We shouldn’t associate ourselves with the empire. We shouldn’t protect them by denying their guilt. We shouldn’t endow them with benevolence.
If you’re a socialist, and you understand what Marxism-Leninsism is then why are you adding to socialism something superfluous? Is Marxism-Leninism not patriotic enough? Do you feel it’s missing something that more patriotism would mend? What is the quality of this patriotism? If Marxism-Leninism sees patriotism as national proletarian solidarity specifically opposed the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, your amendment must be trying to add something beyond that.
What you’re saying you want is fine and good. That’s been the standard aim for the last century and a half. What is your patriotism? What is your nationalism? It seems to me, as I’ve already said the comment you’re responding to, that your conception of patriotism is bourgeois patriotism.
Your patriotism is simply this; that the nation is inherently good. While it has made mistakes, so have other nations. Then you follow with the promotion of the standard bourgeois national myth. Sure the United States does bad things, you say, but it’s really not that bad. Sure the United States has a questionable history, you say, but so do other countries.
There’s a problem here that needs to be addressed if you have the time hear it. You’re attempting to compromise socialism in order to make it more acceptable to a larger audience. America has a terrible history of genocide and slavery. The proper way to address the history is to acknowledge them and use them to identify the true nature of the bourgeoisie. The problem with racial identity is that it obscures the bourgeoisie as whiteness. It says to the white man that he should associate himself with the ruling class. When the white man reads history he’s taught to associate himself with the master class.
You, as a patriotic socialist, hear that message and rightly think to yourself that you should have no part in the blame. That’s true. You shouldn’t, but you were never the master class. Your association with it is false. It is of false consciousness. You say to yourself, you don’t want to take the blame, but you’ve already taken the guilt by attempting to erase it. We don’t want you to feel guilty about the crimes of the bourgeoisie. We want you to place the guilt where it belongs in order to help identify the true nature of the bourgeoisie as slaving class, as a genocidal class. We don’t want you to take on the guilt, but we don’t want you to erase theirs. We want you to associate yourself with the slave and with the Indian. That is what Internationalism means.
Chef’s Kiss
Oh and to add, no i dont think my country is “inehently good” quite the opposite, its fucking awfull; no jobs, gerbage goverment, filled to the top with reactionaries, classic capitalistic shithole. My patriotism is; i love my country, but i hate the state that capitalism has let her, so i want to install socialism so it can become an trully good country. Thats it, the goverment right now can fuck off, the elite can fuck off, they dont represent the people, they dont deserve to represent my country, only the brasillian people can represent the country, not an artificial burgeoise that exists by explorating and destroying our country.
And talking about the racial issues part, my country is worse then the US, we dont have an “racial majority” believe it or not, neither we have an cultural majority, my countrie is one of the most diverses in the world, there is people from literally everywhere, and unless you are an immigrant that lives on a small village with only other immigrants, you cant be “pure” here, its impossible. Thats why nazi bullshit failed here, even after we haved the second biggest nazi party, how can you create an elitist idea on a country that doesnt even have an idea of what the majority is? This creates another problem, while we dont say we are an people of white people, with white people culture, and with a single culture, the country created this mentality on the people, our material conditions created rascism, because blacks, indians, mixed people and other minoritys have aways been poor and abused, because they where abused, enslaved or poorer then the white people more then a hundred years ago, and most of them still are, because our society still think that this is normal, we still live with an mentality that has not yet leaved the past, and i dont blame the people, this is what 22 years of neoliberal reactionary dictatorship did to us, without an goverment that did anything meaningfull to fix it after. Only socialism will fix our country,
In addendum, above I said “true socialism.” That was worded poorly. I didn’t mean to say “the true socialism.” I meant to say “the one true socialism.” My post two posts up should have read,
The original post, the meme, seemed to me to be saying the patriot socialism was the only proper way. I meant to say that I didn’t think they were so wrong as to be considered a fake movement. I also didn’t think that they were so correct as to be considered the only way to think.
Because it was poorly worded I think what I was trying to say didn’t properly come across.
I’d add one more thing:
Something are more culturally heavy than other things. This subject is one. There are similarities between the Americas. There are also major differences. As there are discussions we can have about Brazil that we can have with each other in broad terms. There are ideological signatures and references in language that I would miss. I didn’t grow up in Brazil. I would not understand or begin to see those things because I wasn’t there to know them. This isn’t a conversation to have with broad strokes. It’s referential.
That’s why I assumed you were American. It’s a very American thing. It’s iconography is very much targeting very particular American notions. I referred to the national myth a few times with the assumption you were aware of it.
I don’t know the stories Brazilians tell about themselves. I don’t know how your national identity is built into you from childhood up.
What I’m trying to say is that this would not be an easy discussion to have with you.
I agree, sorry for being overlly angry at you, bad communication and misinformation can ruin an online conversation, thats my biggest problem with online conversations compared to irl ones. Sorry again for sounding rude, hope we can have an better conversation in the future without all of the patsoc dog whistling and badly word sentences. Hope you have an good day!
I am not a “patsoc”, i am not even american, you are putting words in my mouth, i hate the US with every single piece of my body, i despise it as an country, i despise its history, i despise everything it stands as an country. BUT i dont want to see it destroyed, even if i hate it, because it would be hypocritical. It would be the same as if Lenin wanted to destroy the Russian empire instead of turning it socialist because it was an imperialist country, this is what anarchists want, we want to fix said country.
What really bothers me is people treating the US as an special country. No its fucking not, please anybody reading this, stop saying its an “uniquely evil country” its not, its just more of the same imperialist bullshit wanting to dominate the world and failing miserably, spain tried it, the UK tried it, germany tried it, italy tried it, france tried it, japan tried it, dozens and dozens of empires tried to dominate everything around them, and they aways failed, with not a single exception. The US is just the most modern empire, nothing more then that, we should treat it on the same way the soviets treated Nazi germany before and after the war, and talking about Nazi germany, we need to remember that on an matter of year the soviets transformed an country that was ruled for 22 years by the most disgusting and cruel regime to ever exist at the time, that passed through the most brutal war in history, on an socialist country.
Why is the US “more evil” then other countries? People that talk about just balkanizing the US dont want to turn it into a socialist country, they just want to destroy it, and thats wrong. And you people are using the example of giving land back to the indians (with i agree with) but you people need to understand: almost the entire native population on the entire continent is dead, the US almost completelly exterminated them, we cant at best create indian republics or an indian federation with the population that still exist, but we literally cant give entire states to make entire countries just for indians, because there is not enough indians to fill an capital of an state of the US. One thing its Israel, an european-american colony that has succeded in stealing of most of the land of the native palestinians, the difference is; the palestinians are still the majority, while the colonizers are the minority, this is what we call an apartheid state. We can still give the land back to the palestinians and kick out the newer colonizers that are only going there because its an apartheid, but we cant kick out the entire american population from every single US state to give it to the indians, because the indians are just an small minority now.
And just to remember, the US is as much of a colony as every other latin american country, i am from brasil, and i can confirm we killed and stole the land of as much indians as the US did, and so did every other latin american country, we are not innocent, so what now? You also wants to balkanize and destroy my country? Cut it into a bunch of states only to give it to an percentage of the population that is barelly more then half a million? Because i dont, i want to create an country that doesnt divide people by race nor class, an just country where every ethniy and culture are worth the same, where all can work together for an better country.
And going back to Maupin, you people are loving to put things into his mouth and put him in the same bag of a bunch of people he doesnt even say he is a part of, but you dont show any proff of him calling himself a “patsocc”, you dont show proff of him saying that indians should not get any land back, or that black people dont deserve the same rights as white people, or him saying that he aproves anything the US goverment does, want to know what i see this as? Slandering, the same thing liberals and the elite love to say about every communist or communist leader; that they are rascist, homophobic, evil, dictators, all of the cartoon vilain stuff, without showing any actual proff. I might not agree with everything he says, but what you people are doing with him is low, very fucking low, you are all just repeating a bunch of twitter drama to create conflict where it doesnt exist. And your “response” to me sounds extremelly arrogant, you are asuming i am an patsoc AND an american with no proff whatsowhever, putting words in my mouth, and diffamating an person without showing any proff.
Don’t be too upset with me. If I put words in your mouth it was by mistake; but look here, you are doing the same for me. You are telling me I want to balkanize the United States. I don’t want to do that. You are telling me I want to surrender the country to the tribes and submit to whatever government they prescribe. I don’t even think that’s in the realm of possibility. Anyone actually prescribing that is living in their heads. It’s not possible.
It was hard for me to understand if you were disputing something or trying to make an addition. I wasn’t trying to be caustic or strawman you or Caleb.
I don’t really pay great attention to Caleb. I don’t have any major complaints to issue against him. I used to pay greater attention to Jackson Hinckle. The above statements as to what Patriotic Socialists believe were based directly from how he expressed it. I’m working on first hand experience based off of what he said with his own mouth. I’m not basing my understanding of Patriotic Socialism on hear-say.
Likewise I’ve listened to Haz. I have a particularly low opinion of the man. Of those two. I don’t think either of them are too well read. Haz especially is more into false machismo and theater than Marxist-Leninist theory. That’s my opinion. Maybe you like him, maybe you don’t. The topic isn’t worth my time arguing over.
I say only as much to express that my opinions are not merely hear-say. What I say and what I think regarding them comes from the horse’s mouth.
As far a Caleb goes. I’ve heard him on and off for many years. I think he’s right about some of his criticisms. My complaints about him are not the same as many other people’s. I have my own mind. For instance, I think individual blame should remain with the actors. I don’t think the bourgeoisie are victims of capitalism, forced into role. I feel that when Caleb explains the history and development of capitalism he is too apologetic and offers too great a pardon. It’s a mild complaint though isn’t it? I think Caleb is well read. I think he knows what he’s talking about. I also think that he’s a little too toothless. I think his little experiment with Patriotic Socialism is an expression of that obsequiousness. It’s not a big complaint though. I don’t like, I said why I don’t like it above; however, that doesn’t mean I have a negative opinion of him.
A lot of people like Wolffe. I don’t. I think he’s a reformist. As a socialist I have a low opinion of the guy. He has his niche. I think it’s well he fills it. Such is life. So it goes.
I’m hearing what you’re saying. I think there’s a lot of valuable discussion to be had on this or that. There’s points of contention. There’s points of agreement. I’m not trying to bother you or get into some kind of fight. It takes a lot time writing something up, wording it correctly. If there’s nothing gained, if it’s just going to be an irritant then it isn’t worth the time it takes.
Oof, sorry for the rant, the way i readed it sounded a lot like you where being an arrogant person, putting things on my mouth i dont even agree with. This is what lack of communication does to a conversation, sorry for sounding agressive, but i am starting to get really angry at everyone here using “patsoc” as some kind of dog wistle. It remembers me of how kruschev and revisionists used the word “stalinist” or “tankie” on people that where against their revisionist bs. I think we should stop using it all together, relax, review what these words are actually meaning, show actual proff and get some actual info on those people who call themselves “patsocs”, otherwise this comment section is just turning into an shit spyral where one side is just closing their ears, screeching “patsoc” and menacing bans, and the other side cant even express their opinion without getting buried under downvotes and angry comments (btw those people downvoting everything comrades PolandAsAnStateofMind and SaddamHussain are saying are cowards, they dont know anything about “patsocs” they dont know anything about what this situation is all about, but they are still just showing blind hate towards them).
Misconception going on in the comments: the U.S. is not ultra-conservative, its state is and its petty bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie and intelligentsia are. The working class is comprised mostly of progressive non-voters, it’s simply that they’re not represented whatsoever in the political goings-on in the nation, through suppression, gerrymandering, or a state-instilled nihilism. Most U.S. civilians support abortion, yet the state just made it illegal in many states. Most U.S. civilians support healthcare for all, yet we may never see it here, etc. etc. Most U.S. civilians are against war.
Idk, I sure see a fuck ton of people wearing Gruntwear type clothes, “infidel” t-shirts with Amerikkkan flag skulls, thin blue line prop, and people talking about turning whoever the convenient enemy at the time into a glass parking lot or whatever.
Remember that Trump, who openly said he would bring back torture, still got nearly half the votes cast. There are a fuck ton of reactionaries in this hellscape.
Idk where you are, but in the south and vast majority of rural areas, people openly physically attack poc like my spouse for simply being around.
I’ve spent a vast majority of my life in what could be considered the rural deep south (a town of about 300 people), and the rest of it in the rural midwest. I cannot pretend to speak for everywhere, obviously, it’s just my understanding of the U.S. in totality from things I’ve read and from uber-rurality from what I’ve experienced.
“Trump… got nearly half the votes cast.” Indeed he did. By a large margin from the petit bourgeoisie and big bourgeoisie, from small and large business owners, not from your average working joe or whatever like the media (liberal and conservative) likes to present. Remember as well, that he got half the votes cast. Most U.S. Americans do not vote. If the vote were between Clinton, Trump, and no-one by result of absentia, the result would have been no-one. Most U.S. Americans do not vote because they do not see any meaningful difference between the two parties, because they’ve been excluded from voting vis a vi draconian voting repression laws, or have been precluded by structural issues related to voting such as voting not being a national holiday, voting taking too long etc.
In my experience, and not to discount yours comrade, the uber-rural proletariat are ignorant and racist insofar as they like to use racial profanities in a non-directed way (as in to be edgy, to say things like “there are white n-words too” etc), and can be potentially swayed into acts of racist violence by locals with more power than them, like shop-owners and local officials; and these town officials and shop-owners, small landlords and well-off NEETS/retired elders are the ones you’ll likely see strutting about with AR-15s, tacticool gear, decked out F150s with confedo/U.S./don’t tread on me/Nazi flags billowing out the back, ready to assault anyone marginally different at a protest or assault a minority person on the street. Rural proletarians usually can’t afford these things, or afford the time to go out and harass people. In my experience, you’re way more likely to find the rural proletarian burdened by a crisis of meaning and one or two crippling drug addictions than overcome with a violently racist ideology, whereas for those with power within rural areas it’s likely to be vice versa.
This is the part that drives me crazy about them. They completely underestimate just how vitally material whiteness is to a lot of these folks they think they can reach. It is as material as a fist full of dollars.
Sigh…
The inability to realize whiteness as material is inherent to the “hidden” or obfuscated nature of white supremacy. This naturally leads to the whitewashing of the working class, which is the foundation of class reductionism. It reduces class to its simplist form in order to accommodate embourgiousieified workers in the global north, and centers colonial discourse above revolutionary discourse. There is this false conception that any worker with a boss is automatically a natural proletarian (meaning the wretched underclass that has revolutionary potential due to the internal contradictions of capitalism) but the truth is class is more complex than this and simply performing labor for a capitalist does not develop revolutionary potential. It basically reduces class down to another identity politic, but maybe that is not the best way to describe it.
People make attempts to build class consciousness by utilizing a whitewashed conception of the working class but this has enabled labor movements to extort colonized people to empower white workers historically, which was a major part of developing the US into the empire it is today. Labor movements in the north have actually been instrumental in spreading capital’s empire because it has relied on colonial discourses/means to improve its situation at the expense of the global proletariat and colonized people. It relies on a colonial cultural-linguistic lense to interpret and communicate information and this lense is anathama to proletarian class consciousness because it grew out of exploiting and disarming the proletariat, not organizing it.
Patsoc be like: Celebrates Independence Day🇺🇸🦅🗽
Is not independent
Food for thought.
What was the GDR patriotic of?
Pretty much nothing that the old state stood for, right? They use “German” in a few things, obviously, but they had a different flag and system of state.
deleted by creator
Yeah but how long did it take them to become Patriotic? Weren’t the people literally just Nazis?
I definitely don’t know enough about the GDR! It does seem relevant here, though.
See I was wondering that if literal Nazis or people under extreme Nazi propaganda could become communists, then why can’t a few socially conservative people be guided by leftist into being socially progressive? Then there’s talk about patriotism, but also how does one build a movement in a imperialist and divided country like the States?
As mentioned there seems to be an extreme confusion of who we are talking about, and here comes the issues of labels. There is conflation of people labelling themselves with something in actuality they disagree with or people writing off a label that the do agree with! And this is a conundrum of all labels, and how things can twisted. Reasons why scapegoats and mob thought can be brought out of the masses. So when we take this or that side without even defining the boundaries or even seeing what the heads of this or that group state.
As you are the poster of this thread I assume your inbox can tell you this PatSoc question is one for discussion on Lemmy grad. Now I think it’s great we have found an actual debate point, since it means someone will learn something. I look forward to discussing this in Leftist Infighting.
We are stating “facts” instead of asking the bigger questions.
You’ve got some really great questions here! This is definitely something we as a community can use as for some more productive discussions and learning.
Check out the mega post I just made
On Instagram my account was just fuck patsocs for a while because really fuck them, such a good example of dogmatism. They have never read a bit of theory. “We’re oppressed and have been as a nation lets liberate ourselves.” is not the same as “Our nation was the opresser and is built on white supremacy, lets ignore the national question.” READ FUCKING STALIN, unless you literally want a white only nation with some rights of racial minorities. “Proletarian parties develop and become strong by purging themselves of opportunists and reformists, social-imperialists and social-chauvinists,** social-patriots** and social-pacifists.” - Foundations of Leninism
America is not a unique situation. France, UK, Germany(parts) and Belgium are all imperialist places that are also bullshit if you support them and their history. Notice that Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, these are places where Imperialists were putting the boot to the native populations. These people weren’t permitted patriotism because the Western imperialists whitewashed and erased the native culture over time. When these countries were able to finally liberate themselves, OF COURSE they were proud of their people and their country. They finally had a good reason to. You can’t have a legit reason to like the US unless you exploit people. There is some acceptance of LGBT people and minorities. But none of it makes a difference when you ally with Nazis and nations that are awful to LGBT. Any era in history, we were doing awful things that nobody should repeat. Slavery, internment camps, killing Union leaders and members, COINTELPRO, Literally anything the CIA has ever done or thought about doing.
America is uniquely evil. End of discussion.
The UK is absolutely right there with America
Idk UK and France also make a strong case, USA is a bigger warhawk today, but in the past, they were even bigger assholes. Actually that’sa pretty tough call depending on what era
America and France both fought the Vietnamese. Which one represented an evil so thourough as to make it unique with regard to the other?
I think that’s a good question. Does France have a My Lai incident or anything comparable to agent orange? Is it just a difference in scale?
Some of it is scale while other aspects hint at a difference in quality. As far as direct differences in quality, America had agent orange because it went out of it’s way to create it. America had operation Phoenix because it went out of it’s way to create an extra-legal arm of the state.
As far as difference in scale, at a certain magnitude difference of scale represents a difference in quality. Quantitative changes lead qualitative outcomes. People have their limits of what evil they are willing to do to each other. When those limits are removed that is a difference in quality. Mass murder of civilians, burning of villages of people alive, raping children in front of their parents. That represents a different kind of thing. I don’t think the French were willing to go there.
I really like how you phrased this!
Thank-you!
The UK, France, and Spain created the US, they killed the indigenous populations and established settler colonies. The current US is merely continuing the settler project that the UK, France, and Spain started. Canada is doing the same sans Spain. The US, after taking its own sovereignty then built its empire on European finance capital, European proletarians, European markets, European jurisprudence, and European slave trade, as well as inheriting the European enslavement of indigenous peoples.
Then the US, being better situated for growth, challenged Europe for the sole right to project power around the world and won, supplanting European war power with a war power projected by a European settler colony. That is to say, it’s not any different whether it’s the UK, France, Spain, or the US doing it, they are literally just passing the same baton around and around.
Just like we shouldn’t play the game of “most oppressed minority”, we also shouldn’t try to play the game of “most oppressive eurocentric hegemon”.
This is true. All of the West acts as bloc. I’d argue that the passing of the baton represents an evolution in form. The Europeans all participated in the greatest crime in history when the colonized the Americas, but the United States was manufactured from that atrocity. Europe existed as an organic people before capitalism and colonialism. The United States has nothing real before it’s conception. It’s a nation manufactured from genocide and slavery.
It’s a continuation of Europe but the very act of continuation is a transformation into something beyond what Europe was.
Think about it this way. The Europeans stated the slavery, but America created the very idea of whiteness. White Supremacy was born with the Birth of the Nation. It came to age in America as Eugenics before it went to infect Germany where it reached it’s adulthood as Nazism. When the Russians defeated it, America protected it. America brought it home. It integrated it into it’s fabric, making the post war American State.
When Europe attempted to flee and move beyond it, America overthrew their attempts. They put the Nazis back in charge. They put them in charge of all of Europe. They made NATO and gave the Nazi’s NATO.
This historical process is the American Historical Dialectic. It is uniquely evil.
Just re-saying my position, I personally could never bring myself to be a patriotic socialist, the American flag makes me nauseous, but I understand the pragmatic arguments, unfortunately the working class of America is incredibly reactionary and need to be suckered into communism by many different paths. There are many niches that need to be filled in this global class war, just like how I wouldn’t outright knock Frankfurt-esque communists drowning in academic jargon because their niche is to appeal to nerds. My only question for patsoc is: is it effective? Does it actually work converting conservatives et. al.? If yes, critical support. If not, toss it.
I also think a lot of patsoc characters are treated like dogshit unnecessarily. I think Maupin is unconvincing and uncharismatic in a lot of ways but the guy is not a bigot, his track record is nothing but activism.
I think that’s a fair take. “Does it work?” is a pretty good litmus test.
I’m not really interested enough in what Maupin has to say to look into him deeply, but the “proud patsoc” types like in the screenshot really make me sick.
“I love my country and I’m not ashamed” 🤢🤮
@SaddamHusein24 I think you have a small misunderstanding. The patriotism of actual Marxists, dare I say even in America, should be upheld - and I mean the patriotism of wanting your country to be destroyed and reborn as Lenin said, and to flourish for all the American people. The genuine belief that the American worker should be supported and treated fairly, regardless of minority grouping, and that they deserve better is a great thing!
The “patriotism” of “PatSocs” is vastly different. PatSocs are a very specific reactionary group with specific views here in the west. They believe that we should all hunker down and throw away the “liberal wokeness that is internationalism” and put trans people in gulgas since they’re “lib degenerates” and that’s what Stalin would have wanted. It’s reactionary position not based on any real material analysis, and as such, should be combated.
But thy the fuck everything the anti-“patsocs” did up to date was to make the word “patriotism” haram in almost every communist space despite knowing what you said in the first paragraph yourself?
At best it’s american exceptionalism in the wild ride, and at worst an op to sow mistrust between american communists and all others. And Lemmy is still infinite better than reddit where even Genzedong banned people for even attemping to discuss it.
Idk about those “specific reactionary group” “patsoc” guys, but if they are socialchauvinists, call them what they are. Will you start to call nazis “socialists” too, because it’s in the name?
The particular group of internet dweebs being critiqued call themselves patriotic socialists or socialist patriots. That’s just kinda how language works. You can’t change it any more than you can stop libs from calling MLs tankies.
Plus there’s more than one kind of chauvinism.
So i was right at first and it’s just an youtube circlejerk… No wonder nobody could answer me when i asked for something concrete, where are the names or the organizations. And to think i was banned for that from GenZedong (at that point it was not much loss but still).
Wait. Wait wait wait wait. Does this mean the most of internet spaces for english speaking ML’s abandon one of the most successful weapons in the arsenal of proletariat, weapon which has been used with great effect since Lenin first formulated the theory of socialism in one country, because of a fucking kneejerk reaction to an YOUTUBE CIRCLEJERK?!?
Massive bruh moment, this post section is giving me crazy, you and saddam hussain are the only people here seeing how dumb it is to create such an massive fight over fucking twitter/youtube drama/circlejerking.
You are absolutely correct
I mean the problem is a bit bigger than that, as these things always find a way to leak into real life once money gets involved. Their “movement” magnetically attracts reactionary (often white) guys who think converting MAGA chuds by acting like conservatives counts as “organizing” (they’re trying to get something going irl but who knows where it will go), and is more important than reigning in syndicalists and trade unionists to a communist party platform that won’t immediately split on gender/race/religion/sexuality lines (which itself is difficult, but that is how activism in the US tends to manifest). They also really hate queer people and complain about us constantly, which honestly just feels like punching down.
So at this point in time, patsoc is linguistically equivalent to “reactionary white ML” to most socialists. Within the sphere of regular ML communities and organizing, the reaction to this reaction are attempts to learn from theories ultimately based in Gramsci’s work on Hegemony — such that we don’t repeat the mistakes of past movements by ignoring the needs of sections of the proletariat some might consider ‘inconvenient’. Arguments about patsocs seem to bring this topic to the forefront of discussion (so I think it might have a positive effect in the end). We really don’t want to alienate comrades of any walk of life, but patsocs don’t really care who they alienate as long as you’re using the correct “anti-imperialist” language that somehow includes American patriotism, and your strategy centers the needs of middle class white traditionalists. They talk a good game about internationalism but I’ve seen people with less staunchly purist views making more attempts at communicating with global socialist movements.
Doesn’t the word Nazi come from their name Nationalsozialist?
Yes it does. Were they socialist? No. That’s why we aren’t calling them that. “Patsoc” used for a socialchauvinist is a wretched word, entirely giving away very important concept and castrating yourself.
It’s fine if american communist don’t want to use that word, even if a little misguided, as Lenin explained, but don’t push that as general rule, it’s american exceptionalism and it’s defeatism.
Again, “national socialism” is excellent example in yet another way. Just look at the history of the world after WW2. how many systems that could be easily name “national socialism” were there, but we can’t name them like this, because this term is forever lost, even despite it means something completely unrelated to socialism. Don’t lose more ground, class war is going here too.
I’m just being pedantic, I think you have a good point with “social chauvinist”.
Comrade Poland always coming to rescue me! O7
I will be respectful since you are too and i appreciate that. This is simply false. The most famous “patsoc”, Caleb Maupin, who i have followed for months now, is not what you say. He is antiracist, internationalist, antiimperialist, pro LGBTQ, pro abortion and antibigot. The dude organized trans rights marches with Mariela Castro once in his activist days. He was an activist in the Workers World Party for 8 years. He has always been outspoken about this. I have never heard any “patsocs” say the things you are saying. Not even Infrared, who i guess is closest to that in identity politics at least, has ever gone this far. And besides most “patsocs” are like Maupin, not like Infrared. This is a mythology cultivated by Vaush type people, its not a reality.
deleted by creator
If that’s true, that is good and valid. I will kindly say that again, that even if you call yourself a “patsoc” but practice marxist-patriotism, as you state that Caleb does (sorry I don’t know anything about them) - nothing wrong with that.
However, there is at least a reactionary group bearing that name, that a lot of people, myself including, have had vastly negative reactionary interactions with.
This him ?
removed by mod
Stalin banned abortion and promoted quite traditionalist family ideas about 100 years ago in a completely different context.
Class issues are obviously central to marxism, but the liberation of women, people of color, and the lgbtq+ community are all central to socialist project too.
Yes, and? My point isnt that we should ban abortion, we shouldnt. My point is that Stalin is still a Comrade, and so are people who might be against abortion for religious views or otherwise. Simple.
this is unironically the worst take you have made
removed by mod
He also only did it because there where serious concerns about russias population being decimated due to WW1.
He regreted it and went against Lenins wishes by doing this, further more they legalized it in the 50s far ahead of the west later. (The UK legalized abortion in 1968 for reference, and in N.ireland its still illegal)
I believe you, but can you provide sources for this myself and anyone else who may come upon this in the future?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia
I know its wiki but its undeniable even to wikipedia.
You will notice at no point where they like ‘women are objects’ and more just trying to do things as logically as one could in the early 20th century.
Meanwhile on normal island
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Great_Britain
The woman question is an indispensable facet of Marxist-Leninism and tossing it to the side as an issue delegated to mere identity politics or wokescolding or whatever is anti-Marxist male chauvinism of the highest order. I used to consider your points on the question but you’ve pretty much just outed yourself as a chauvinist.
removed by mod
You miss the point. We aren’t barely post monarchy soviet Russia.
Saying you’ll tolerate or GIVE POWER to anyone with ambitions to curtail such issues is literally asking those who are being oppressed to tolerate, allow, and GIVE POWER to such actors.
It does not do to have proletarian bigots just be allowed to go open season on their reactionary imaginations.
Shame is used in this sense BECAUSE ONE SHOULD KNOW BETTER ABOUT AT LEAST A 50 YEAR OLD ISSUE.
If a working class person has some irreconcilable bigotry that they can not or will not unlearn; it is quite simple. You prevent them from wielding any office or lever of power that will enable them to act on that.
There is no post America socialist society on Turtle Rock that bans abortion or entertains racial segregation or essentializes gender.
Jesus Christ. The wokescolds arent the enemy. They’re a bunch of progressives and minorities with a bigger voice now because of the miracle of the internet.
Yeah. We get it. All the three letter agencies are promoting the new rainbow hotness. Guess who else notices it? The IdPol folks.
The abortion question is the woman question!
Which i support! Whats your point?
deleted by creator
This is correct indeed
First of all, Stalin lived 80 years ago and illegalizing homosexuality is regarded as one of his mistakes. Second of all, believe it or not, being a communist party doesn’t automatically grant you the based pass. КПРФ is the living proof. I’m not saying that there aren’t socially progressive factions or that everyone there is reactionary but the party leadership mostly is. Third of all, don’t be a class reductionist. Reactionary views such as homophobia and transphobia are not gonna disappear just because class struggle is over, they have to be dealt with independently and should be dealt with now. And to your “division”. If someone has problem with LGBTQ+ movement chances are they are not gonna be a fucking communist. In post-communist countries people like this are just conservative boomers that associate their reactionary values with the former socialist republics. So no, not tolerating homophobes is not gonna divide and collapse the entire communist movement.
just a side note lenin literally pushed thru the first legalized abortion on a state level policy in the entire world
being pro-abortion is not optional as a communist, it is a requirement
Now damnit. Was it Mao or Sankara that said this?
Oh yeah, because social liberalism is 100% associated with communism and antiimperialism. Look at Biden bro, he has a bisexual black woman as White House spokesperson, hes the best communist ever right? /s
You yankees are really dumb as fuck. Ive tried explaining respectfully but you refuse to listen, basically saying that only socially liberal workers deserve your solidarity, literally neglecting your entire rural population. When did Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Castro or any of them ever say “you can only follow us if you agree with our social values on abortion and gay people”? NEVER. They said “if you want peace land and bread, follow us”. They never said any of this stupid gatekeeping shit. But hey, go ahead, continue this path, its done a lot of good to you so far, when QAnon nutbags have more effective organizing than you do. Keep it up, we, the rest of the world, we dont care anymore. Thankfully the US is more and more irrelevant by the day, so we dont have to trust our safety from imperialism into the hands of stupid western leftists who reject the most basic notions of worker solidarity and class struggle.
I’ve seen this many times in this thread, why do you assume everyone is American ? Also, if one is a homophobe I don’t really care as long as they keep it to themselves. But tolerating someone who tries to push back LGBTQ+ rights and giving them a chance to do so just because they are a communist is a really bad thing.
Bruh pick one, or you tolerate or you dont, this is very hypocritical, the Maupin tweet you showed is literally saying “i dont support what you are saying on this, but i still will fight by your side” how is this different from “Also, if one is a homophobe I don’t really care as long as they keep it to themselves.”?
I assume everyone is a yank because they tend to be the most disconnected from the real world, stuck in their american fantasy bubble, so i tend to hit, guess this time i missed. So why all this arguing? The “outrageous” tweet by Maupin says “i disagree with you if you dont support gay marriage or abortion, but i will fight by your side”, literally what you are repeating now. Maupin never said bigotry should be tolerated, all he said is specific views on social issues should be. Noone saying here that we should be ok with people beating up gay people in communist groups, noone ever said this, including Caleb. The issue is people that for religion or other reason oppose abortion or gay marriage, thats it, thats what the tweet says. This is what most conservative workers in USA are like i imagine, they dont hate gay people, they just think gay marriage is wrong. Sure there is some homophobia deep down, but its a totally different thing from despicable hate crimes. But somehow saying this is so controversial. I hope you agree with me now.
removed by mod
This. Patriotism is love for your own country and its people, not for your country’s current state. Patriotism is not super patriotism as Michael Parenti called it.
I think you’re missing a critical distinction here: Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il Sung, soviet textbooks, CPUSA articles
Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Soviet textbooks - socialism situated in countries that were independent of colonial oppression and/or shook off the shackles of colonial oppression.
Castro, CPUSA, Patriotic Socialism in the US - socialism situated in European colonies
What happened when Castro succeeded? We should understand how Europeans settler colonists left Cuba as part of the revolution. We should also understand just how during the revolution, it was believed that the indigenous people of Cuba, the Taino, were literally extinct - exterminated by the Spanish - and there was literally no indigenous body politic that could be part of the revolution let alone lead it.
European Patriotism in the “Americas” is fundamentally a continuance of the daily-renewed genocidal oppression of European settlers. The existence of any European colonial state in the Americas is fundamentally contradictory with a sustainable society, regardless of whether the European settlers choose socialism or barbarism.
If someone believes that there is anything worth redeeming in the political entity that is the U$, then we do not share a reality to debate in. I appreciate you sharing the Joe Sims article, but I’m firm in my understanding.
Amerikkkan settler colonialism is a unique ill, and has to be completely destroyed for the world to breath.
Look up the definition of ‘materialism’ then look at marx’s response to it with dialitical materialism
Complaining about wokeism is like complaining about the jews in europe in 1890
Marx literally wrote several essays outlining how reactionaries who succumb to social issues pushed down by the ruling class (trans issues are the hot topic) create an underclass reserve of labour and should be resisted
Lenin extended this by saying revolutions need to include them.
Claudia Jones took lenins ideas even further (black american communist) and said we needed to apply intersectionality to unite the under and working class.
Read ‘on the jewish question’
What does my comment or the post have to do with “wokeism” or trans rights? The post and my comment are about socialist patriotism, those topics arent even mentioned.
Because the OPs image and the patsoc at large use trans people as a punching bag regularly and it is the biggest and most potent criticism I have them; they just serve the reaction, and by extension the fascists.
False. Caleb Maupin, the most famous “patsoc” is an ardent supporter of trans rights and always has been. He organized pro trans rights marches in New York against the NYPDs profiling of trans women as “prostitutes”, once even with Mariela Castro. He is an outspoken feminist, antiracist, proLGBTQ rights and antibigot. Ill post 2 youtube examples of this from his channel:
https://youtu.be/hPclz6YJzvk At 18:45, although i recommend watching the entire debate to see Calebs actual views vs the slander against him
https://youtu.be/x4fZZA4_uEY At 2:28
Maybe other “patsocs” are transphobic, but Caleb isnt. This should show you that “patsoc” is a meaningless label, “patsocs” have very different views.
deleted by creator
He does support trans rights, he has marched many times for trans rights in his activist days. He insists on human rights to drive home the point, that even if trans people were “degenerates” and “mentally ill” as transphobes say, that wouldnt justify attacking them and discriminating them. Its to drive the point home that, whether you think trans women are “real women” or not, there is no justification for bigotry, discrimination and hate. He also often says that he does not know anything about gender ideology/transgender ideology/however you wanna call it, so he doesnt take a position on that, which i think is fair.
PD: By gender/transgender ideology i mean all of these studies and ideas on whether trans women are same as cis women, gender vs sex and all that. I dont know what you are supposed to call it, so i call it gender/transgender ideology, pardon me if its offensive.
Calling it gender/transgender ideology has grown into an anti-trans dog whistle at this point. So, by it’s nature as a dog whistle, it is used by plenty of people who are uninformed and don’t mean anything by it, but it is also used by people who tend to push theories that “someone” is pushing “gender ideology” that is taking over society, corrupting the medical industry (if a doctor believes trans treatment is valid, they have been compromised, they are part of the conspiracy; if a person is trans, they have been deluded, or they are a sexual predator in hiding)–if you follow the threads, you will often find yourself tugging on the end of an anti-Semitic or Q-Anon style conspiracy theory. By calling it “ideology” it downplays the scientific knowledge available about trans people and leaves room for the idea that it is purely a “choice” (a discussion that is generally not held in a principled way that respects scientific knowledge and tends to be used as an easy conversation-stopper, allowing a wide range of idealist anti-LGBT positions to go unexamined against scientific knowledge) and at worst, emphasizes the notion that there is a secretive, infiltrative brainwashing campaign being conducted by some shadowy “elites” (which tends to be a dogwhistle for “Jews”).
So although “offensive” is not really how I would describe it, I would say that if you refer to gender/transgender “ideology” you are definitely going to get peoples’ guards up, and make people feel nervous and on edge, because for all they know you are someone who is prone to believing and spreading various bigoted conspiracy theories (intentionally or unintentionally), or someone who is intentionally hiding their bigotry while also trying to spread it (something that you can regularly find transphobes and white supremacists talking among themselves strategizing about doing, I know because I follow such discussion groups). Someone like Maupin who digs their heels in when criticized over their lack of knowledge on this topic is going to raise peoples red flags. Personally, I’ve watched a few hours of his content, and read some of his work–perhaps I’ll engage with him a bit more soon to refresh my view of him. I’ve got some reservations/criticisms of him but I do believe on trans issues he is a case of someone who is not secretly an extreme bigot, but who is stubbornly refusing to become more informed, because he regards gender issues more as “ideology” than “science”, causing him to de-prioritize finding out more details and to only see the surface issues, which I find to be a flawed position.
(Edit: I have gone and watched the videos you linked to someone else itt–I had seen his Thought Slime response previously but re-watched it, and I’m also watching this one now and viewing portions of his recent vids to generally refresh my view on Maupin so as to have a more accurate/updated view of him if this conversation continues.)
The term “gender studies” will cover this and not make people feel nervous. It’s the term used in academia and refers to studies about women, feminism, and LGBT issues. If you are talking about other aspects of life outside of the academic study of gender, you could say “gender related issues” “trans related issues” or “LGBT related issues”.
Regarding your positions about patriotism, I have some things to say. I’ve actually watched several hours of Haz/Infrared’s content in the past (I feel that I recall you mentioning him at some point, I may be wrong) and find him and some of his positions interesting, and I do think it’s over-simplification when people just toss him out as reactionary without going through his positions one-by-one, several of which I think are worth talking about, especially since much of his approach is all about shaking people up and forcing them to confront what makes them uncomfortable to acknowledge. Again, I have criticisms about him (or, what I saw of him, quite some time ago by now), different ones than I have of Maupin. But anyway, I think the way you are framing the patriotism issue regarding Americans is not a going to be a successful approach (partly due to the U.S. being a settler-colonial society with ongoing land-stealing, displacement, and murder of the indigenous population; partly due to the way everyone is using different and shifting definitions of “patriotism” here while basically agreeing on many of each other’s points; partly due to what I think are flawed comparisons being made between colonies, semi-colonies, settler colonies, and metropoles; partly due to “American identity” being a very nebulous and fragmented concept due to the U.S.'s settler, slavery descendent, and indigenous populations still living in physical segregation from each other). I want to talk with you about it as I think there are some things you should consider. However I don’t have time currently to write more.
If they have different views they dont have to allign themselves with the org that literally signal boosts there reactionary nature on an org level.
I dont doubt there are princabled communists within there ranks; they would just be better served in a movement that isnt going to completely alienate any black person with there narratives (which they will)
What organization are you talking about? I dont understand. Are you talking about CPI? CPI is not reactionary, its led by Caleb Maupin and has white, black, christian, muslim and trans members from very different backgrounds. Most of them are socially liberal like Maupin, although there are some socially conservative members, mainly religious people. Racism isnt tolerated tho, they are explictly antiracist. Like bro they uphold John Brown, who killed slave owners and freed the slaves, as a national hero xD
My bad, I somehow assumed ‘patsocs’ where anything past grifters on social media in the USA lol.
The ones who represent it do an awfull job of it, thats for sure.
American patsocs are virtually all very reactionary and have very little knowledge of theory. They are largely grifters.
How are they “reactionary”, “grifters” and “with very little knowledge of theory”? Caleb Maupin is one of the most well read online communists, he knows the history of US labor activism up and down, he has read theory from many marxist thinkers, from the classics (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao) to more obscure figures like Hoxha, Gramsci and William Z Foster. He has participated in activism for 2 decades, from anti Iraq War protests, to the Workers World Party, to Occupy Wall Street, to visiting Russia, China, Nicaragua, Iran, Venezuela, to meeting with Mariela Castro and inviting her to New York to hold pro trans rights rallies, to traveling to Yemen to bring humanitarian aid, to his think tank CPI now.
Caleb is marxist leninist, pro abortion, pro LGBTQ rights, antiracist, feminist and antibigot. He is nothing of what you called him, and i find it disappointing that american leftists would waste time slandering fellow comrades instead of fighting your imperialist regime, all while the rest of the world suffers the consequences of that regime. My country is occupied by US military bases imposed on us by a fascist regime, we never voted for them, yet we will still be blown to pieces if a war with Russia breaks out.
I cannot speak for other so called “patsocs” since im not very familiar with them, but Caleb Maupin is 100% a comrade and the only reason you hate him is rumours that you believe i dont know why. Dont you have critical thought? Or you just believe whatever they tell you, no questioning? If you do question things, please head out to his youtube channel, you will see im not lying.
I’m not that familiar with Caleb, but why would you support anyone who is proud of the flag of your occupiers? American patriotism is synonymous with the military and its genocidal campaigns across the world.
I really dont care about flags, flags are just a piece of cloth. I care about the values someone has and their actions. If you support antiimperialism and worker solidarity, you are my Comrade. I dont care what flag you use, thats up to you. If you like USA flag its ok, if you dont like it its ok.
Like 99.9999% of patriotic Americans do not support anti-imperialism or worker solidarity, that’s why there is such a pushback against it.
99% of americans dont support antiimperialism either, whats your point? Also i would dispute the notion that conservatives are more hostile to antiimperialism. In the George W Bush neocon years sure, but since Trump the situation has turned id say. More and more conservatives and libertarians are against wars, while democrat supporters love the Azov Battallion and want war with Russia. Tucker Carlson, of all people, has been the only mainstream media voice to expose lies on Ukraine. I think this reflects a divide in the US ruling class, between top billionaires like Jeff Bezos who support democrats and want interventionism because it benefits their international corporations, and smaller millionaires and billionaires like Rupert Murdoch who support Trump republicans and want isolationism and reindustrialization of the USA since they benefit more from that. I think this explains the Trump movement and related stuff. Ofc this isnt 100% mathematical, for example Elon Musk is a top billionaire but supports republicans, but i still think this model explains the situation quite well.
Trump and Republicans are not as anti-war as you think
Trump wanted to bomb and invade Iran as well as start a full economic war with China
They just don’t want proxy wars, vassal states, neo-colony type situations since they don’t want to invest in other countries to further imperialism and just want to keep all their money in America instead
Libertarians’ foreign policies are much better but not sure what they have to do with anything since they have 0 presence in the USA