The Internal Enemies of Socialism
By - MLCifaretto
Is the second article I read from you and is awesome like the first. Keep going.
Is sad that what you wrote, which is totally logical and factual, will make some from the western "left" accuse you to be a red fascist.
I appreciate the feedback, comrade. I will keep up my work promoting the "red fash" and am glad you appreciate my work.
Phenomenal article. I especially like the defeatist nationalism part, as that is an incredibly controversial opinion I barely see even amongst principled Marxists. Kudos to you for putting it in the spotlight.
Speaking of defeatist nationalism, I feel like some of 4chin’s white nationalists fit the bill quite well, whether it is for the better or for the worse. You go to an anti-China thread, and half the replies are calling the OP a glowie, a big tech shill, or a jew. If only they could understand that the group behind all of this is the capitalists, not the jews…
Absolutely true. Regardless of ideological disagreements, anybody whose goals mean weakening imperialism should be supported on grounds of pragmatism.
But there are genuinely communists in europe that acknowledge the labour aristocracy and our part in the imperialist aggression and parasitism against the global south.
For example the party I am a member of. The Swedish communist party (kpml). We propagate for peace and every nation state right to self determination. We also oppose the social chauvinists who calls themselves "the left" in our own parliament.
My party homepage (it's in Swedish)
Do you have writings of your party awknoledging such?
Hahaha they are already seething.
This reads like western maoism.
And ironically it ignores the concrete reality of each nation for a ready made idea of abstract global proletariat revealing that you're as out of touch as you claim western communists are (and I do agree).
I wrote no such thing. On the contrary, I've written against rootless cosmopolitanism and for national self-determination. To clarify the point I'm making here, I'm saying that the proletariat of imperialized countries are oppressed for the benefit of the labor aristocracies of imperialist countries. If a country is a full (as opposed to semi) comprador, this absolutely applies. Of course, the circumstances vary depending on the nations in question and I didn't explicitly mention imperialist or imperialized periphery, but this is the relationship between a country in the imperialist core and a fully imperialized country. Last sentence is "If you are a serious socialist of any kind, you must accept that the anti-imperialist cause supersedes everything else and only with the self-determination of the nation can the proletariat rise". This should tell you that I say national self-determination comes prior to class struggle. Thank you for floating the concern.
Why does national self-determination supersede class struggle in order of importance?
I am not u/MLcifaretto, so is up to him to respond, but since i do know him i will tell you what he propably means: He means the struggle of the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat. National self-determination is a class struggle too, it has its class dynamics e.t.c.
He means that from an anti-imperialist point of view, national self-determniation means that that classes will need to be allied for a certend porpuse.
This is what i think he means.
I am confused by what this implies.
What u/albanian-bolsheviki1 said is what I meant. To further explain my position, it should be intuitive that productive forces and MOP cannot be developed to the point of establishing socialism absent national self-determination. The proletariat would simply lack the power to achieve its liberation in a country fully subjugated to imperialist occupation. Once the nation is liberated, the proletariat will follow. I also meant to say that liberation from imperialism naturally takes place prior to the full emancipation of the proletariat and that the two go hand in hand. My apologies if my wording caused any confusion.
What does this mean for MLs in the imperial core? Is class consciousness impossible among wage workers in the US for example?
As I said in the article, most workers in the US are labor aristocrats. They are class conscious in knowing their material interests lie with imperialism and that their standard of living goes down if it's too be defeated. A Marxist-Leninist in the US should emphasize class suicide to comrades and collude with anyone who seeks to seriously and fully overthrow the regime. This is about the defeatist nationalism I spoke of towards the end
What is the distinction between a labor aristocrat and a wage slave?
It implies the following. You are in pre war China. There are communists and bourgeoisie. What do you do? You fight each other or you fight in a coalition to purge imperialism out?
But what if I’m in pre-Socialist Cuba? In which case I do neither, and drive them both out?
In pre-communist cuba most bourgeoisie were compradorist.
But iirc they did ally with some national bourgeoisie to fight off the compradorist.
The goal is to drive them out aventually, both the foreign and the local bourgeoisie. Point is when this should take place.
Amazing stuff as usual! o7 comrades!
Another masterpost dunking on western leftoids and their pro imperialist ideology. Kudos!
>As anyone with a brain already knows, one never expects there to be common ground, understanding and solidarity between the oppressed and the oppressors. As if this were not enough, these LARPers truly do hate the cultures and peoples of the imperialized world or global south regardless of any claims they make to the contrary. While depending on which of them you ask, they may claim to stand for the sovereignty and self-determination of countries persecuted by the neoliberal bloc, they still wish to prescribe and impose new rights that are contrary to those countries’ values, norms, traditions and beliefs. Without appealing to morality or delving into useless discussions of what’s right and wrong, the movements aspiring to “social progress” are backed by the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie and are cosmopolitan themselves. Though they may not openly state malice towards the various nations of Latin America, Africa and Asia, they support organizations that are primarily funded by the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie, are cosmopolitan itself and create pretenses for “morally and justifiably” condemning a nation in strong opposition to US hegemony to death.
Can you explain this part a little bit more in depth? What "values, norms, traditions, and beliefs" are you talking about?
Well, whatever the liberals promote as "progressive" is what I'm referring to. I mention it briefly in the introduction though.
"These are the kinds of people in favor of creating welfare states or “social safety nets” through taxation of billionaires with other goals including, but not limited to the legalization of drugs, the legalization of prostitution and the legitimization and endorsement of associations whose causes are predicated on (illiegitimate) sexual and racial identity politics"
My whole point was that even self-avowed communists in the west have the same position as liberal social fascists as it concerns "social policy"
Having some same positions doesn’t mean they aren’t different politically. Almost everybody shares at least some, even basic, most bare bones positions. Having public clean water, for example.
So your argument is that they're illegitimate causes because the social fascists share the same positions?
No. I was just pointing out what they are because you asked. As for the causes themselves, they exist to line the pockets of those whose interests align with the left flank of imperialism.
Your points about anti-imperialism and self-determination have some merit, there’s some really questionable logic behind the rest of it
Could you explain yourself?
First your point about de-industrialization leading to the absorption of the working class into the labor aristocracy. How can you define these people as newly part of the labor aristocracy when by almost every possible measure their material conditions have worsened over the last \~40 years?
Second the bit about needing balkanization for a new proletariat to arise is bewildering. This assumes:
1. Trade would stop and these nations would force themselves to be self-sufficient. The proletariat emerges because these new nations are creating domestic industries.
2. Succession would lead to a dissolution of military forces, or,
3. The nation-states that arose in their place would become less imperialist to focus on their own economies.
4. This is somehow the only viable path to establish socialism in the west. It seems to rest on the idea that self-sufficiency = socialism, and without a wholly contained economy socialism is impossible.
There are multiple themes throughout this post, such as your views of Western leftists attitudes seeming to have no basis in reality, and the discounting of any sexual-identity movements as illegitimate, that I also found problematic. I don't take it that you care though, and I'm not a fool enough to waste time arguing with you on either, so you can respond to those if you like but I won't respond back.
This is both condescending and nonsensical and I'll only respond for the people on this sub. Regarding your point about the American productive forces, it would mean that there is no longer a need for them and they don't exist if their workplaces themselves don't exist anymore. That would mean unemployment en masse, but there are a majority of unproductive jobs in the US with these workers having more consumption power than most of the world. If everything is produced automatically as I pointed out, it means the people producing or proletariat aren't there anymore. We're speaking about labor aristocrats and their lives have gotten worse due to the rot that's inherent in neoliberalism.
As for your other points, all of which are borderline incomprehensible, balkanization means the objective loss of resources and power on account of the countries being only newly formed. They would lack the power or initial coordination to do any serious damage to anyone so they would have to choose self-sufficiency. If the imperialist base no longer exists, it follows that they will need a new economic model meaning they will need a proletariat. As for your point regarding self-sufficience, it's integral to socialism and also doesn't automatically translate to isolationism.
Didn't you say you weren't going to respond? Anyway, comment removed for violation of rule 11. First strike
Comrade, I wholly agree with the exception of one thing:
"Conditions such as western countries’ consumption power, the lack of productive workers and also basic common sense ought to cause anyone to come to the conclusion that the proletariat have been liquidated into the labor aristocracy."
The labor aristocracy has been in **decline ever since the Empire hit it's peak in the 1960's - 1980's.**
You can track this using statistics about the middle class, you will find it ever shrinking and faltering. The conditions are on a general decline.
The Labor aristocracy shall perish alongside the Empire, as is happening in the last decades.
This also explains why """socialism""" has gotten more popular in the west.
(I'm from the US and lurk on this sub for more perspective)
This is exactly what I was thinking about while reading this
But the Services sector is also Proletariat so there arent less worker in the US than als where
Edit: i get the Feeling U dont think is a way too Anarchismus,
I also dont get the Feeling that U propose a peacefull and lawfull Transition.
Can you explain how service work is proletarian?
They sell thier Labor it doesnt matter If U Work as an Accounten Assistentin AS a nurse or as an Elektriker U are working class as Long ur income comes from your Labor and Not ur property
By this logic managers and Instagram influencers etc. are also proletarians.
I have a big tent. Ur logic devides us
Your logic simply isn't marxist, sorry to say. What is the point of a big tent if you'll fit enemies under it?
Im sorry enemies ??? Marx was against Just blaming rich people (and Kapitalisten) AS Evil. WE dont Fight people or groups of people or even Nation WE Fight the ekonomik System of Kapitalismus ok. A worker is a worker the Guy making ur bread is a worker the Guy cooking it is a worker and the guy servine U is a worker, even the Manager ist a worker the Guy owning ist the Kapitalist and He isnt ur enemy He is just misinformde
>Im sorry enemies ??? Marx was against Just blaming rich people (and Kapitalisten) AS Evil
Enemy doesn't mean *evil*, just opposition. Through and through labour aristocrats who only make their living by benefitting from imperialism are absolutely enemies of socialism, unless they're actively working against the system that benefits them.
This is a really great point that I agree with, but this isn’t put across in the OP, and the OP makes them sound like they are evil. Enemy has connotations to it other then just opposition.
"like they are evil"
It is propaganda. You need to understand that what we write steers people up. There is scientific writing, where harsh language isint much used, and propaganda, where harsh language steers the feelings of people up and attracts them to your cause.
U cant create internationale worker Solidarität by calling workers in the West arustocrats and Putting Them on the side of the Capitalist.
But that is objectively true, workers in the west are labour-aristocrats due to their parasitic relation to the world economy, they consume more than they produce. And this is only possible through imperialism.
But this is exactly what they are and exactly which side they are on.
>They sell thier Labor
Is christiano rolando (or since you seem to be a german) Schweinsteiger (who was one of my favorite footballers) an exploited proletarian?
I see editor doesn’t count as a real job after your glorious worker’s revolution.
Just because a job is labour-aristocratic, doesn't mean its "not a real job", just that its not a proletarian job.
I'll try to write a short critique on the article
You seem to follow the bourgeois line and generalise most developed capitalist countries (i.e. the imperialist core - metropole states such as USA) as being completely or nearly completely de-industrialized and their populations massively becoming labor aristocracy (in bourgeois "science" this is called as the "theory" of postindustrial society). That is simply not true - if you look a bit deeper than antiscientific bourgeois economists that show countries GDP (another reactionary tool to fool proletariat) sector composition, you will see that although the nature of labor in these countries changed to a more modern one (for example - programming), most of the population are still proletarians. What's even more important is that there is an ongoing and mostly finished process of proletarianisation of former middle- and petit-bourgeois elements such as farmers, small traders and artisans.
You also deem labor aristocracy as inherently reactionary, which is not true either, because they are still laborers (or groups close to them) that are being exploited to some extend. Yes, they massively support the imperialist policies and are exploited to a much lesser extend than any other proletarians, but due to the exploitative nature of their labor/work they still carry revolutionary seed. And also when the global imperialist structure will start to collapse that group will soon be deprived of its privileges.
What do you mean by labor aristocracy? It seems like a pretty broad/general term, I’m curious about what that means to you. Also curious how the working class and proletariat can encourage or spearhead secession when they aren’t land owners? Like yea it’s a great ideal, but disparaging “western leftists” because they aren’t doing that seems a bit unfair. Yes there are a lot of liberals who don’t recognize how their behaviors (I.e. consumption which you bring up a lot) contribute to oppression, but there are plenty of working class leftists who literally have no other choice to participate in this rotten economy to survive. How else can you expect them to get to the point of succession or nationalism that can lead to autonomy from the imperialist countries they live in, if they’re barely staying afloat as is. It’s inherently part of the oppression that the working class in the west has to deal with by design from the oppressors. I think instead of criticizing the “western left” we should be working in solidarity with each other against the oppressors. I think it’s perfectly fine for the “western left” to not agree with the actions of its imperialist government but still vote for politicians who are trying to shake up the power structures which are wreaking havoc across the world. You call Bernie Sanders a fascist, how would you feel about a leftist or Marxist voting for him? There are plenty of actual fascists in the west and we should be fighting them and not fighting each other. I appreciate these types of discussions and I think they are important, but I don’t want people reading this thinking we should be spending our energy fighting “fake” western leftists instead of actual western fascists and imperialists. Cause boy do we have way more of those.
Edit: I love getting downvoted with out any explanation when I’m trying to have a discussion and learn more, real cool.
In our understanding, "fascism" is what imperialism is. Anyone who supports it, be it from "left" or "right" fits the description.
On Labour aristocracy, it is the working classes of nations who are overcompasated by their work.
how do you cure disease if drugs are illegal?
Pretty sure he meant recreational drugs.
and what might he mean by "recreational" drugs?
Alcohol too? Tobacco? ooh, I don't think Cuba's gonna like that!
He purposely left the term ambiguous to let people's social prejudices fill in the blanks.
If you ask me, all recreational drugs should be banned as long as banning them doesn't cause more issues than it solves. Society should be weaned off of alcohol and tobacco.
>If you ask me, all recreational drugs should be banned as long as banning them doesn't cause more issues than it solves.
It usually does. Look, it's no secret that reaction finds fertile soil within the illegal drug trade, among others. Why not sharpen that line to allow legalization in the Western economies and marginalization/illegality in the socialist countries. Seriously, isn't that in line with the whole idea of defeatist nationalism?
It's more complicated even. The cartels often lobby to maintain illegality as it ensures higher commodity prices than their actual value.
Plus, what do you intend to do about the coca farmers unions in Bolivia and elsewhere? If you say coffee, you need to gtfo.
I agree we should be weened off of Alcohol and tobacco, but it would be stupid to consider recreational drug use per se a drain on social progress. Recreational drugs are by comparison to legal drugs, very harmful from a physiological perspective. I would advocate for harm reduction first of all, but also to not look at recreational drug use through the lens of the medical model of psychiatry. That is a mistake imo. It ascribes to it an implicit moral judgement that is even more nefarious.
The spirit of socialism is freedom and creativity and recreational drug use has been part of that since the dawn of civilization. Indeed, the term "recreational" is itself a false distinction. Perhaps I am not giving the author enough credit...
Direct orders from the CC. Down vote if you wish but don't reply.
Centralism at its finest!
I can reply if you want but you seem to have your mind made about this issue and people in this sub are simply disagreeing with you.
Recreational drugs are the substances that induce an altered state of consciousness taken just for pleasure.
Socialism always enforced lucidity and fought edonism so recreational drugs are not a part of socialism. Is not a case that the socialist societies like the Soviet Union and China were and are very strict in the repression of their use.
Also you used centralism as an insult when centralism is the core of socialist governments.
And the phrase you used:
"The spirit of socialism is freedom and creativity and recreational drug use has been part of that since the dawn of civilization"
Sound like a liberal phrase pronounced by a hippie in the 70's.
No offense but I think this sub is not very compatible with your vision of socialism since the socialism vision of this sub is in its pure form without liberal contaminations.
>I can reply if you want but you seem
to have your mind made about this issue and people in this sub are simply disagreeing with you.
You can reply if I want, but not if you want, and honestly you shouldn't. More on that in a bit.
>Recreational drugs are the substances that induce an altered state of consciousness taken just for pleasure. Socialism always enforced lucidity and fought edonism so recreational drugs are not a part of socialism. Is not a case that the socialist societies like the Soviet Union and China were and are very strict in the repression of their use.
Socialism is against pleasure? News to me. Socialist *practice* enforces what you say, Socialism is about freedom. It's about being willing and capable of divorcing yourself of what is harmful to individuals in society.
And as I've mentioned, in Socialist counties, illegalism is a sound policy, but not in the West.
>Sound like a liberal phrase pronounced by a hippie in the 70's.
ok, good point from an optics perspective, but where is your anthropology? Is your method at all scientific?
>No offense but I think this sub is not very compatible with your vision of socialism since the socialism vision of this sub is in its pure form without liberal contaminations.
But you don't have a problem with reactionary conservative contaminations. Your socialism is hardly pure. It appears to me to be very unrefined.
I'll gladly leave this cesspool of conservatism. I would suggest any true Marxist who believes in scientific socialism to do the same.
Oh and by the way, the other side to the centralist joke is that I am not being ironic. The centralism being *practiced* here is top notch!
First you cried because no one is replying you and know you are crying because someone replied to you. Very irrational, maybe you used some drugs before posting, that could explain your irrational behavior.
As I thought you are someone that don't even know the meaning of the words he's using.
Pleasure and edonism are two different things also the thing you pointed out explains everything, you have a western therefore liberal vision of socialism. You're a liberal not a socialist.
You talk about scientific method, anthropology to make your post somehow sound more intelectual but you use none of those things.
Recreational drugs have a negative impact on personal and collective health and on society as a whole since for example impair production and an altered state of mind obviously doesn't allow the workers to be aware of their conditions.
Your socialism is not scientific at all, is not even socialism is just liberalism (the emphasis you put in the word "freedom" demonstrates it clearly).
The fact you despise centralism reinforce the liberal aspect of your "socialism".
You don't need to be so upset staying here there are plenty of liberal disguised as socialist subs you can join without being mad at everyone and everything. So you leaving is a good choice, it'll be better for you.
Blaming disagreement on a CC (ironic or not) is not a great choice. People disagree with you and not all of them want to write it down. That just happens. If you can't deal with that than its on you.
>all recreational drugs should be banned as long as banning them doesn't cause more issues than it solves
If you ask me thats a pretty big if. Prohibition is still failing gloriously and results in needless suffering of the people that need help the most.
Imo the sale of drugs should be banned and dealers be put in prison, but users should be decriminalized so they can actually get the help and counsel they need, and destructive habits can be prevented by seeing the issue before it becomes a trainwreck and danger to functioning society.A generalized healthcare should include taking care of addicts and the reason they are addicts.
Of course ideally people would be sober or only altering their consciousness in a safe manner, but as Marxists we need to keep a materialist view on it. A portion of people want to do drugs, and someone will fill that demand in one way or another.The conditions that lead people to hedonistic escapism, unsafe use and binging (with all substances) need to be adressed, not wishing drugs out of existance imo. For example, how would you proceed to wean society off of alcohol and tobacco?
I would not be against a way for adults to take responsibility to get some kind of permit/script and gain the ability to buy an amount of pure drugs, but I admit thats highly idealistic and unlikely to be possible in my lifetime.
>Imo the sale of drugs should be banned and dealers be put in prison, but users should be decriminalized so they can actually get the help and counsel they need, and destructive habits can be prevented by seeing the issue before it becomes a trainwreck and danger to functioning society.A generalized healthcare should include taking care of addicts and the reason they are addicts.
I agree, throwing addicts in jail doesn't help them and is a drain on the system.
>Of course ideally people would be sober or only altering their consciousness in a safe manner, but as Marxists we need to keep a materialist view on it. A portion of people want to do drugs, and someone will fill that demand in one way or another.The conditions that lead people to hedonistic escapism, unsafe use and binging (with all substances) need to be adressed, not wishing drugs out of existance imo. For example, how would you proceed to wean society off of alcohol and tobacco?
You can work on addressing the underlying issues and criminalize drugs at the same time. Im no expert but making alcohol and tobacco hard to obtain and discouraged by society would probably help wean society off of them. Instant prohibition obviously wouldn't work.
>I would not be against a way for adults to take responsibility to get some kind of permit/script and gain the ability to buy an amount of pure drugs, but I admit thats highly idealistic and unlikely to be possible in my lifetime.
I honestly don't see the point of this, why must usage of drugs always be supported? The only argument i've heard for it is some liberal notion of "freedom".
>I honestly don't see the point of this, why must usage of drugs always be supported? The only argument i've heard for it is some liberal notion of "freedom".
I would assert that there will always be usage of drugs by humans. Its like a pandoras box has been opened kind of idea to me.So the ideal situation in that case would be that drug users are educated and able to get pure substances. I don't think having 0 drug consumption in a society is a realistic or productive goal. Its actually harmful to force drugs underground so to speak.
Having safe ways to get drugs does not mean you also have to advocate for drug use. You just acknowledge it exists.IMO as long as a person remains a functioning member of society why should they be restricted from changing their state of consciousness with a chemical?
The problem with drug talk is that the most noticable drug users are those out of control and problematic for society.Most people learn how to use alcohol safely because its part of our cultures, for example. But you will never notice people that safely use uppers, downers or psychedelics, you will only notice those that freak out, nod or act crazy in public.
I would say instead of blaming the drug or any other escape people chose, the reason they went down that path needs to be adressed in a compassionate way without shaming them.
as a sort of reply to both you and u/oldassesse - I recommend watching this video about the DPRK policy and drawing conclusions, as well as consulting historical documents about China's work on ending the opium mass addictions.
Thanks, I will check it out
Thank you, I am watching the video right now. I am not going to comment for reasons outlined elsewhere.
Rule 11, don't troll