The Internal Enemies of Socialism

The Internal Enemies of Socialism


Is this long-winded, moralistic tirade with reactionary conclusions what passes for Marxism these days? >Long winded as I’ve been, the neoliberal fascists and their shallow, morally nihilistic degenerate lap dogs are not my primary concern. Alas, my target is western “leftists”, but not those who unabashedly support the open fascism of Bernie Sanders or “the squad”. Those are certainly words.


This LARPing group seems to be trying to push itself hard atm lol. Half of this post consists of banalities, the other half of dumbass statements like: >Simply put, the proletariat, the class which these people claim to support, exists in damn near negligible numbers as it concerns countries like the US or any other country in the imperialist core. Lol. I wonder how many workers they consider 'damn near negligible'. Their conclusions - that the super-exploited working classes of those countries subjected to imperialist domination should support bourgeois nationalist movements - don't follow from the simple observation that imperialism has permitted an expansion of the middle classes in the West. There's also no consideration of the proletarianisation currently taking place among these middle classes.


good work, comrade! you've defeated those morally nihilistic, degenerate, westoid, unpatriotic, parasitic, social fascist, neo-liberal LARPers. you can finally go and touch grass.


>the labor aristocracy which itself is the primary agent and beneficiary of imperialism. Do you even have half an idea what you're talking about? The bourgeoisie is the primary agent and beneficiary of imperialism, this should be completely obvious to everybody who deems themself Marxist. >neoliberal fascists "These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world." >If you ask any of these charlatans what their position and primary goal is, they will claim to advocate the elevation of the proletariat and to also be anti-imperialist. Who are you talking about here? Could you cite an article, party, or anything whatsoever? >Though the numbers I’ve stated may not be exact, they ought to illustrate the difference in wages and consumption power especially when reconciled with the fact that the latter group is only in this position of privilege due to the exploitation and suffering of the former. "We also understand, therefore, that wages and private property are identical. Indeed, where the product, as the object of labor, pays for labor itself, there the wage is but a necessary consequence of labor’s estrangement. Likewise, in the wage of labor, labor does not appear as an end in itself but as the servant of the wage."-Estranged Labour, Marx "This clearly shows the causes and effects. The causes are: (1) exploitation of the whole world by this country; (2) its monopolist position in the world market; (3) its colonial monopoly. The effects are: (1) a **section** of the British proletariat becomes bourgeois; (2) a section of the proletariat allows itself to be **led by** men bought by, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie."-Imperialism, Lenin >Though they may not openly state malice towards the various nations of Latin America, Africa and Asia, [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm) "The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality."-The Communist Manifesto, Marx >they still wish to prescribe and impose new rights that are contrary to those countries’ values, norms, traditions and beliefs. What could possibly be worse than a communist going against tradition? If you knew anything about what you are talking about you'd know that there is no eternal national tradition, like almost all things in society it is inextricably linked with the class struggle. >They will claim to have the best interests of the global south at heart but contradict themselves, possibly even mid-sentence by refusing to acknowledge different nations’’ right to exist if they refuse to hold the same values. "But it is the gallant Czechs themselves who are most of all to be pitied. Whether they win or are defeated, their doom is sealed. They have been driven into the arms of the Russians by 400 years of German oppression, which is being continued now in the street-fighting waged in Prague. In the great struggle between Western and Eastern Europe, which may begin very soon, perhaps in a few weeks, the Czechs are placed by an unhappy fate on the side of the Russians, the side of despotism opposed to the revolution. The revolution will triumph and the Czechs will be the first to be crushed by it."-The Prague Uprising, Friedrich Engels >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. "The questions as to whether it is possible to reform the basis of imperialism, whether to go forward to the further intensification and deepening of the antagonisms which it engenders. or backward, towards allaying these antagonisms, are fundamental questions in the critique of imperialism. Since the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition, a petty-bourgeoisdemocratic opposition to imperialism arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in nearly all imperialist countries. Kautsky not only did not trouble to oppose, was not only unable to oppose this petty-bourgeois reformist opposition, which is really reactionary in its economic basis, but became merged with it in practice, and this is precisely where Kautsky and the broad international Kautskian trend deserted Marxism."-Imperialism, Lenin You know nothing about socialism