DSA’s coming collapse, the monsters this will produce, & the cultural revolution America must undergo

To capture the masses who will be left adrift by DSA’s inevitable collapse, American communists must account for the question of cultural revolution. Within our community, it’s already accepted as a given that the reformists will fail, and that this failure will create many disillusioned individuals who were promised a viable working-class politics. There’s talk among our circles about the need to figure out the long game when it comes to winning over the DSA base, and how if we act complacent about this then we’ll simply fade into irrelevancy. These conversations echo the conclusions that Mao came to about what it takes to sustain a revolutionary project; how in order to ensure a revolution’s success, you have to constantly be confronting the problems of the moment.

We must apply Mao’s logic by starting upon America’s own project for cultural revolution today. And we can start on this effort today, because certain developments have recently come about that will let us combat counterrevolutionary ideas in ways we couldn’t before. 

Due to the U.S. empire’s internally disruptive policies under Trump 2.0, we’re seeing a proletarianization of the left, where the aspiring professionals are being cut off from the ruling institutions and becoming de-classed. There is still a petty-bourgeois managerial element, and it’s gained enough strength to be able to elect the Zohran Democrats; but these gains are the setup for a credibility collapse that will immediately follow, and that we’re already seeing in certain circles. Among the bulk of the DSA’s base, the “democratic socialist” promises of secure professional career paths will fail to materialize. There will still be a gentrifier class, but this class will have left behind the rest of the progressive urbanites, whose only options will be to become lumpen or join the trades.

This distinction between the upper and lower strata is important to make; it reminds us that the DSA’s supporters should not simply be treated as enemies, and reveals an emerging class conflict that will be key to the defeat of bourgeois culture in America. We need to show these newly proletarianized Americans that the gentrifiers are their class enemy, and that American communists will join them in a project to expropriate this enemy’s wealth.

We can appeal to these victims of capitalism on the same basis as when Mao appealed towards his party’s youths, and called for them to intervene against the anti-worker forces in Chinese society:

The old Social Democrats in the past decades, and modern revisionists in the past dozen years or so. . . have formed a group of anti-communist, anti-people, and counter-revolutionary elements against whom we are waging a life-and-death struggle. There is no equality between us and them. Therefore the fight against them is a fight for our preservation and their extinction. The relationship between us and them can never be one of equality; it is a relationship of one class oppressing another  —  i.e. proletarian dictatorship over the bourgeoisie. The day when the people are happy will be the day when the counter-revolutionaries begin their misery.

What does this struggle look like in America? At this stage, it looks like finishing the mission of our nation’s communist forebears to seize control over worker organizing. It looks like combating the anti-worker labor bosses and the ineffectual, petty-bourgeois craft unionist ideology, building on what William Z. Foster described as the communist party’s task one hundred years ago:

The labor movement is confronted with the twin dangers of company unions and devitalized trade unions—the bureaucracy would make Siamese twins of these dangers by building a living bridge between them. But the left wing will not and cannot be discouraged by the difficult situation. The masses in the unions and outside are suffering from bitter exploitation. They are discontented. Our experiences among the masses demonstrates that clearly. Labor banking, the B. & O. plan, and the general rapprochement of the bureaucracy to company unionism will not allay this discontent, but increase it. Our program of revolutionary class struggle is the correct one. If we know how to apply it effectively the masses must and will continue to rally in greater numbers around our red banner.

The “democratic socialists” are today’s most aggressive promoters of such reactionary types of unionism. The socdems are the movement that was behind the push for narrow craft unionism which we saw arise in the early 2020s, where one section of the ruling class backed barista workplace organizing to detract from the trade unions.

The passion with which these “progressives” support this kind of guild unionism comes from how they’re in a real conflict with the other sections of the bourgeoisie, the sections that actually hold monopoly power; the guild model is being increasingly threatened by big tech’s AI scramble, so these petty-bourgeois professionals are fighting for the preservation of their career model. The question is how many of them will continue to go in a fascistic direction, and how many will defect to the side of proletarian politics.

This is where the transformative philosophy of cultural revolution comes in. Mao’s calculus about how to treat the parasitic class elements was ruthless, but he wasn’t a Pol Pot who wanted unlimited violent negation; he made it clear that the cultural revolution’s participants needed to exclusively employ nonviolent methods wherever they weren’t needing to defend from violence. Pol Pot-style ultraviolence is something that will come from the lumpenized elements inside the declassed petty-bourgeoisie, with certain gentrifier Democrats also supporting such adventurist terrorism. The impulse to resolve a contradiction through crude, brute force comes from petty-bourgeois thinking. Proletarian politics is where we can find how to actually change a society.

America’s cultural revolution will succeed through exposing the anti-proletarian charlatans before the far right can “expose” them. The far right seeks to scam the workers in a way that parallels how the socdems have scammed them; like the socdems, fascists don’t offer genuine relief for the rural workers, and they promote a unionism that further disempowers the proletariat. Hitlerism is about declaring war on humanity, and this makes it appeal to the same lumpen forces that represent the base for ultra-left adventurism.

These infantile reactions towards capital’s contradictions come from an absence of proletarian culture; and in the United States such ideologies are especially prone to spring up, because here the capitalists have been highly successful in dismantling the historic culture of the workers. The masses will be receptive to these ideologies for as long as they lack working-class organizations, and for as long as they’re only exposed towards bourgeois politics. We do have a clear path to building such working-class institutional power, and this path runs through the project to build up our algorithmic presence; the masses of today are online, and they’re just waiting to find us. We can win the narrative war, and thereby the class war, if we mobilize our ranks to an extent that we haven’t done in the past.

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.

Democrat entryism always fails. Socialist patriotism is the class struggle’s only path forward.

Marxist Unity Group, one of the DSA factions that identifies with communism, has put forth a plan that can supposedly let them overcome the pro-bourgeois wing’s dominance. This plan involves demanding that the Democrats who control the DSA give communists a fair debate, and thereby willingly imperil their own interests. This is an honest description of the MUG’s strategy, which was formulated out of a desire to rationalize the absurdity of its mission. Trying to reform the DSA is as futile as trying to reform the Democratic Party, because the DSA is the direct action wing of the Democrats.

The very existence of the MUG proves this to be true, because its role is to funnel revolutionary passions into an organization that MUG admits is controlled by the Democrat wing of our ruling class; the statement proposing this DSA takeover plan says that AOC “does not share our politics or our strategy,” which by extension applies to the DSA leadership itself. The text begins by recognizing just how hopeless the cause of changing the organization is, unless the balance of power fundamentally shifts. This is where the MUG must try to explain why such a shift can supposedly happen, even though the DSA’s power structure is fundamentally rigged in favor of the pro-capitalist side:

DSA has grown tremendously over the past ten years in both numbers and confidence. We can plan a bolder intervention in this election than ever before, if we discuss and prepare for it early. In this dialogue, MUG will make no secret that we want a cadre candidate: a socialist tribune who will run for president on the DSA platform. DSA has many talented organizers who could rise to this task if given the opportunity. Even if they lack name recognition at the outset, we can make them famous. Together with our comrades, MUG will assist outreach to potential candidates and encourage them to take the leap. 

We believe a DSA presidential tribune can electrify working-class struggle and advance our party forward by decades. But we know this hope is pure fantasy if we can’t win over our comrades in a fair debate. DSA needs a deliberative process that allows membership to advocate for our competing visions: whether it’s for endorsing AOC, abstaining from endorsing any presidential candidate, or going all in to raise up a cadre candidate. No matter your perspective, we all must stand and make our case, and not hope for external events to save us.

To win the class-conscious workers away from this dead-end strategy, we must show what the alternative looks like. It looks like socialist patriotism, where we build a party for the workers on the basis of continuing America’s revolution. On the basis of giving America’s working class a truly independent political outlet, which they can only gain by rejecting the national nihilism that Democrats want us to embrace.

MUG’s positions and behaviors make it clear that our class enemies want us to scorn patriotism, because by rejecting patriotism MUG has put itself in exactly the position our enemies want Marxists to be in. They want us to believe that American nationhood should be fought against, and thereby set ourselves up for failure in winning over the American masses. If we handicap ourselves in this way, then we’ll either be isolated or we’ll be tied in with the Democratic Party, which is what’s happened with the Marxists inside DSA. It’s no coincidence that at the same time MUG insists on DSA entryism being the answer, it advocates for waging a struggle against the Constitution, and therefore against American nationhood:

We want socialist leaders to erode the popular legitimacy of the U.S. Constitution through combative political agitation: never bowing to the old order, and always acknowledging the need for a working class revolution in the United States. The socialist revolution will not base its legitimacy on the laws of the slaveholder constitution. We will base it on a democratic majority mandate for socialism. This majority may be expressed by the popular vote of an election, but it does not have to take that form if the state represses our ability to contest elections. We stand for the right of the working class to take power by any means necessary. 

To win a socialist republic, millions of working people must be mobilized in their workplaces, at the ballot box, and in the street. We recognize that the capitalist class relies on the minoritarian rule of the U.S. Constitution, and they will not give it up peacefully. The working class will need armed self-defense to protect itself from the inevitable violence of reaction. We also recognize that we must fight for the democratic rights of enlisted U.S. soldiers. To complete a successful revolution, we must win a decisive section of the military rank and file over to our side.

This illustrates why the national nihilist position assists our class enemies, even when the ones promoting the position have intentions for workers militancy and organization. The Constitution is at this stage the main thing protecting our movements from unencumbered repression, and is in reality something that our ruling class has been seeking to dismantle. Whenever a political dissident gets persecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights, this is our rulers doing the exact opposite of what MUG says they’re doing, and trying to destroy a key part of the American revolution’s legacy. It’s because of this objective reality about the role that the Constitution has, where it’s upheld actual historic revolutionary gains, that struggling against the Constitution can only isolate you from the masses. It’s negation for its own sake, which sets you up against the democratic desires of the people you wish to win over.

If you’re familiar with the logic of ultra-leftism, it’s not surprising that the MUG takes this position; within this mentality, the goal is to be the most radical, and to attack what seems like the most significant target. Ultra-leftism is only one part of MUG’s politics, though. To understand the origins of their view on revolution, we need to look at past examples of when idealists have tried to reconcile wanting to be “revolutionary” with subordinating oneself towards the bourgeoisie.

MUG would no doubt dispute the accusation that they’re submissive to capitalist interests, but they can’t credibly do so while working to funnel the people into DSA. And the only way that such a practice can be rationalized from a “revolutionary” perspective is by embracing the “revolution through reforms” view on how political change works. This is a view which was able to appear coherent via equivocation between the bourgeois revolutions, and the concept of proletarian revolution. As Lenin explained regarding this trick:

The bourgeoisie and the liberals teach that revolutions are unnecessary and even harmful to the workers, that they must not “shove” toward revolution, but, like good little boys, work modestly for reforms. That is why, in order to divert the Russian workers from socialism, the reformists, who are the captives of bourgeois ideas, constantly refer to the example of Austria (as well as Prussia) in the 1860s. Why are they so fond of these examples? Y. Larin let the cat out of the bag; because in these countries, after the “unsuccessful” revolution of 1848, the bourgeois transformation was completed “without any revolution”.

That is the whole secret! That is what gladdens their hearts, for it seems to indicate that bourgeois change is possible without revolution!! And if that is the case, why should we Russians bother our heads about a revolution? Why not leave it to the landlords and factory owners to effect the bourgeois transformation of Russia “without any revolution”! It was because the proletariat in Austria and Prussia was weak that it was unable to prevent the landed proprietors and the bourgeoisie from effecting the, transformation regardless of the interests of the workers, in a form most prejudicial to the workers, retaining the monarchy, the privileges of the nobility, arbitrary rule in the countryside, and a host of other survivals of medievalism.

This is the real historical basis for the kind of “revolution” that the entryists seek: the workers being overrun by the power of capital, and their efforts being co-opted into a project for strengthening the bourgeoisie’s rule. The reason why the MUG’s strategy can only bring this outcome, and why it can’t in practice be anything besides entryist, is because there’s no way to have independence when your entire operation is inside the domain of the enemy.

When the Bolsheviks worked in the reactionary trade unions, they were only able to maintain independence because they already had their own party, which was capable of functioning separately from any bourgeois institution. The MUG have no such party, all that they have is the DSA. Therefore as long as they’re part of the DSA, whatever they do can only assist the entrenched bourgeois interests that they wish to defeat.

The MUG talks about a workers party, and this indicates that they intend to use their presence in DSA as a means for establishing such an organization. There’s a reason why the MUG isn’t capable of doing this, though, at least not in a way that could create an effective popular institution. This reason is that the MUG promotes an ultra-left view of America’s conditions, which always dooms you to failure. An anti-Constitution stance can only win you favor among the niche, academic left crowd who’ve already embraced the leftist “critical theories.” And the masses are never going to be won over to these theories, because they’re contrary to the practical needs of the American people. 

“The concepts, the ideas, motivating petty-bourgeois radicalism are not necessarily wrong in the abstract,” wrote Gus Hall about these kinds of idealist notions. “Those who follow wrong concepts, in most cases, are dedicated and sincere individuals. The concepts are wrong when they do not reflect the specific reality of the moment. Therefore, the more determined such individuals are, the more damaging they can be. Good intentions and even good ideas are not enough. One of the key ingredients in a revolutionary struggle is people in mass. People do not respond to commands or to exhortations. They do not respond to ideas–even good ideas–if they do not see their self-interests involved in these ideas.” 

Within the realm of Democratic Party entryism, ultra-leftism and petty-bourgeois radicalism are experiencing a resurgence after their initial post-Biden decline, with the new main proponents of these politics being in the DSA. When the ultra-left DSA faction’s inability to defeat the pro-capitalist wing inevitably produces a split, what replaces the DSA will either be another version of idealism, or a real workers movement that advances the people’s objective needs.

One sign of hope that the latter will happen is the growing disillusionment within the DSA itself, as shown by the MUG’s statements about just how untrustworthy actors like AOC are. Those who are becoming disillusioned won’t necessarily come to socialist patriotism, and many of them will no doubt become even more ultra-leftist in reaction to the DSA entryist strategy’s failure. Such is the nature of these kinds of splits: those involved in the inner-org conflicts won’t all go in the same direction. Our duty is to win over as many of those involved as we can, and provide them with an alternative organization that can actually bring the masses to victory. 

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.

The Soros plan for assaulting China: build a Hitlerite movement under the “democratic socialist” brand

How can the imperialists effectively wage war against China amid the split that’s emerged between the United States and the European Union? The solution that the Soros wing has is to build a new fascist movement, based within the Hitlerite tactic of co-opting “socialism,” so that finance capital can rally the social elements which are most susceptible to warmongering demagoguery.

These elements are not the Christian Zionists and boomers who make up the minority that support the Iran war. And they’re not the shut-ins who are being pulled in by the apathetically pro-war “military nihilist” psyop, though these types do make up an important piece of America’s new fascist movement. The core socdem neocon base is the strata of urbanized workers who are either professional-managerial class, or identify with the PMC and seek to become bribed on its level. These are the individuals who will foremost get behind the Taiwan proxy war that the Democrats are pressuring Trump to start.

This is a Hitlerite movement because like National Socialism, it offers a false promise of salvation for the rural workers, one made to create a base for finance capital’s genocidal designs. The “democratic socialist” politics of this movement, backed by Soros through his family and his Open Society projects, is supposed to be about lifting up the workers as a whole. Really it’s about giving more imperialist super-profits to the beneficiaries of the “k-shaped economy,” who overwhelmingly live within the metropole and aren’t part of the actual working class. 

When the Nazis implemented their “economic miracle,” brought about by infusions from the global financiers, the rural workers were left behind and further disenfranchised. Likewise, the social democrats of our era will let the rural masses continue to be subjected towards engineered collapse. Their social reforms will mainly apply to the big cities, which are what liberalism prioritizes as a rule.

This movement’s spokespeople are trying to trick the broader working masses into seeing their agenda as genuinely pro-working class. Socdem figures are making appeals towards America’s revolutionary heritage, like when AOC implied that 1776 aligns with what the socdems want to do. This is the fascist tactic that Dimitrov identified, with his conclusion being that unless communists take ownership over a nation’s history and patriotic spirit, the fascists will:

Under no circumstances must we underrate fascism's power of ideological infection. On the contrary, we for our part must develop an extensive ideological struggle based on clear, popular arguments and a correct, well thought out approach to the peculiarities of the national psychology of the masses of the people. The fascists are rummaging through the entire history of every nation so as to be able to pose as the heirs and continuators of all that was exalted and heroic in its past, while all that was degrading or offensive to the national sentiments of the people they make use of as weapons against the enemies of fascism. Hundreds of books are being published in Germany with only one aim -- to falsify the history of the German people and give it a fascist complexion.

The socdem tendency that we’re facing in the modern U.S. is absolutely parallel to fascism. Because unlike the socdems from Dimitrov’s moment in history, these ones have the role as central drivers of the imperial death machine, and of the campaign to eliminate dissent. This is critical to recognize as the socdems increasingly become elevated by our ruling class, and we may soon be living under a social-democratic government. Within Marxism, there is a debate over whether we should ally with the socdems, and the side that supports such an alliance points to the past times when this was a sensible policy. But pursuing this policy today would only subordinate us to the fascist movement that the socdems are helping build.

Dimitrov observed how “in countries having Social-Democratic governments, the Communists, by utilizing appropriate individual demands taken from the platforms of the Social-Democratic ministers as a starting point for achieving joint action with the Social-Democratic Parties and organizations, can afterwards more easily develop a campaign for the establishment of a united front on the basis of other mass demands in the struggle against the capitalist offensive, against fascism and the threat of war.” What does it mean, though, when the socdems are among the foremost actors who are creating the threat of war? 

At this year’s Munich conference, AOC made the modern socdem movement’s goals clear by saying that Trump hasn’t done enough to attack Russia and Venezuela. In time, AOC and the other “progressives” will join the Democratic leadership in calling for escalations on Taiwan. This is a situation that’s distinct from the one which the revolutionaries were facing during the Third Reich era, when it did make sense for communists to enter an anti-fascist popular front with liberal reformists. Today, the liberal reformists are among the equivalents to the fascists, and could become the core facilitators of the present genocidal offensive.

This socdem neocon agenda is the next direction of the PMC and the urbanite nonproductive workers, who’ve found themselves adrift and are looking for a way forward. By cultivating a “progressive” push for ramped-up wars, Soros is reaching out to the core base of the compatible left. The professionals whose creative roles have been coming under threat from AI; the aspiring labor aristocrats who pursue narrow craft unionism because it will let them have careers as baristas; these are the social classes with the most reason to become fanatic supporters of the next wars. They’re who the Soros wing can use to build a cultural alliance between America’s liberals, and the parts of European society that want a break from China.

The bigger picture is that the U.S. empire is breaking apart, with the growing PMC/urbanite anxieties reflecting this unavoidable entropy. Even if the Soros wing succeeds in installing AOC and bringing war with China, this can only speed up the splintering of the power structure, exposing more of its contradictions and causing its factions to fight amongst each other. The socdem movement is itself built upon a self-defeating contradiction: it depends on appealing to independents and MAGA voters, yet it can only benefit the nonproductive urbanites who support Washington’s war on the global working class. Inevitably this will produce a split.

If the socdems get the presidency, their brand will unravel, like the old MAGA unraveled after Trump betrayed his base a second time. We can’t defeat the designs of the Soros wing by waiting for this to happen, though. We have to wage an active struggle against the socdem neocons, and against the nihilist far right that they’re increasingly allied with. At this stage, the best way we can combat these foes is by building an anti-Epstein coalition; one that’s not like the partisan “No Kings” Epstein demonstrations, but is a dissident united front between communists and anti-establishment conservatives/libertarians. 

This lets us present a positive alternative to the forces we’re fighting against, while exposing the socdem neocons for their true role as enemies of the working masses. They’ve pivoted towards using rhetoric that sounds populist in the vein of MAGA, yet their goal is to fortify the position of the financiers and the metropolitan finance lackeys. If they attack us for building a coalition with MAGA or libertarians, they’ll be showing how phony this new brand of theirs is. 

Getting them to reveal their hand is an appropriate goal at the present moment, because right now the battlefield on which we are fighting exists in the narrative realm. If we seize control of the narrative away from the socdems, we can build into the masses and the workers movement without being hindered by their political deceptions. Which is how we become positioned for the larger confrontation against banking rule, and against its war machine.

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.

China will inspire a new wave of revolutions, if we free Marxism from its ideological prison

For the revolutionary forces to rebound after their recent retreats, we must defeat the forces that seek to keep Marxism trapped in an ideological prison. That want Marxism-Leninism to not be an actual science, able to respond towards fluid history, but a stagnant monolith that only reenacts the past.

This is the attitude towards Marxism that the KKE has put forth in relation to China, as well as to numerous other things. China is the example that I’m focusing on here because of its relevance to the present moment, where Cuba’s government has been forced into enacting free market reforms. In the discourse over these reforms, the KKE plays an underhanded role; because the KKE has been rallying behind Cuba’s revolution, yet it's made clear that it views reforms like these ones as being the destruction of socialism. In reality, they are a defensive measure in the face of genocide. A measure that may succeed or fail to achieve the growth it’s intended to bring, but that cannot be confused with proof of socialism’s demise.

As we see Cuba use markets to navigate its dire circumstances, we must keep in mind that the pivotal question is whether these markets can successfully build up the country’s productive forces. If they can’t then this will create a bigger setback, but the Cuban workers state is still fundamentally in control of the economy. The underlying structure has not changed, there is still a proletariat dictatorship that subordinates business. Therefore the question is whether this state has been set on a path to collapse of integrity, like the Soviet state was. Which is a danger that should never be dismissed, but the dogma of the KKE tells us to automatically assume this has happened. 

This comes through in its analysis on China from 2011, which concluded the Deng reforms represent corruption based on how these reforms are distinct from Lenin’s New Economic Policy:

The reality in China is entirely different from that of the USSR during the NEP. In China: a. There is no monopoly in foreign trade. Thousands of foreign companies that operate in China cover the largest proportion of the Chinese exports, which of course are dependent on their plans, based on their profitability and not on a centrally planned economy. b. 440 private foreign banks operate in China, and they have acquired at least 10% of the shares of the Chinese state banks and since 2005 there has developed a domestic private banking sector.[61] c. An important percentage of industry is private or privatized (in the form of stock companies), while the private sector is estimated to produce 70% of the GDP. d. Chinese legislation, especially in the economic and commercial sector, is fully harmonized, thanks to the assistance of the WTO, to the norms of the global capitalist economy.

The analysis then predicts that “the dominance of capitalist relations in China, which is a fact today, slowly or quickly, will lead to a bigger compliance of the political system, the dominant ideology and all the elements of the superstructure whose capitalist character will be reflected in its symbols. The intensification of class contradictions will ripen and so will the need for the revolutionary labour movement to be represented by its own party against capitalist power.”

Take note of the solution the KKE presents: create a new party that can overtake the CPC, which is a project that would inevitably require overthrowing the government itself given the nature of China’s system. The answer to these real or alleged problems is not internal struggle within the CPC, which Mao has already provided a model for doing; it’s an insurgency that the imperialists could easily infiltrate and exploit. This reflects the seriousness of the central argument itself.

To support the “China sold out to the west” narrative, the KKE points to the ways that China’s economy differs from the Soviet economy from a century earlier. That these conditions greatly differ is a given. Yet how superficially different they are is not the pivotal issue; all of the areas that the KKE addresses here are tangential to whether the workers are in power within China, because capitalism does not equal markets or money. It also doesn’t necessarily equal the presence of individual capitalists, not if these capitalists exist under proletarian rule.

Since capitalism’s transition to its monopoly stage, capitalism has at its core been about financial control; when a country has broken free from banking rule, and its state has the structure of workers democracy, it is socialist. This is why we should treat these critiques about China’s incorporation of banks and private business as superficial: it ignores the question of which class is in control.

As for the KKE’s predictions of escalating class conflict in China, the PRC has indeed experienced new crises since 2011, but the outcome has not been a weakening of the CPC’s position among the working masses. The CPC has responded to the needs of the masses by enacting unprecedented crackdowns on the billionaires, who’ve gotten far poorer while the workers have continued to be lifted up by China’s economic ascension.

Socialism has been strengthened by everything that’s happened since the Deng reforms, rather than being destroyed by them like the KKE expected. This is what comes from rejecting stagnant dogmatism, like Deng said China needed to do. He talked of how the CPC follows

a fairly important principle, generalized by Comrade Mao Zedong, that is, in order to formulate correct strategies and tactics and achieve victory in revolution, a party must integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the revolutionary practice and actual conditions in its own country.

Our experience consists of formulating and carrying out correct strategies and tactics in the light of our country’s specific conditions and, in particular, on the basis of profound understanding of the conditions of classes and the class struggle. Shortly after its founding, our Party clearly recognized that Chinese society was a semi-colonial and semi-feudal one. With this nature of our society in mind, our Party determined the stages, targets and motive forces of the revolution, and decided that opposing imperialism and feudalism was our revolutionary task in the first stage. But, can we say that by presenting this task we have truly understood the meaning of the struggle against imperialism and feudalism? No! We cannot say this, because it is no easy job to formulate and implement correct strategies and tactics for such a struggle. Over a fairly long period of time in this revolutionary stage our Party was unable to settle or straighten out such questions as how to fight against imperialism and feudalism, what forces we should rely on, what forces we should unite with, and what forces we should attack.

When George Soros has constructed his insipid narrative about China—where Deng Xiaoping is portrayed as the pro-“capitalist” who opposed Leninism and whose policies must be restored—he’s drawing from an entirely superficial view of history. A view that looks purely at the surface-level characteristics of something, rather than at the actual objective role it plays within the class struggle.

This is the logic that the dogmatic opportunists within Marxism are operating on, and it assists the designs of actors like Soros. The next victories that our cause wins will come from those who’ve broken free from the box which they’ve placed Marxism into, and applied Mao’s practice of truly investigating the historical conditions.

The root error of western Marxism was to believe that dialectical materialism means a series of rote-copied doctrines, confined to the framework of a predetermined and unchanging ideology. This is a way of thinking that fails to see the inherent motion within history, and therefore breeds complacency. In organizational terms, such thinking looks like neglect towards the education of the organization’s ranks, letting the members conclude that they understand the meaning of something even though they’ve cut their investigations short. You need to be constantly investigating your reality, or your revolutionary project will be set on the path to its demise. 

This is why the Soviet communist party couldn’t survive, while the CPC has only grown more vital. After Stalin’s death, the opportunistic Khrushchevite faction took advantage of the weaknesses in educational rigor, and undermined the dictatorship of the proletariat as part of its “de-Stalinization” campaign. This is a reality that the KKE obscures, because the KKE fundamentally shares the dogmatic opportunist views which Khrushchev propagated. In the KKE’s view, the path to socialism’s destruction didn’t begin with “de-Stalinization,” but with Gorbachev forty years later. The events that led to the Gorbachev period are ignored, in favor of an ahistorical fetishization of the USSR’s system prior to when it fell apart.

This is exactly the kind of anti-dialectical thinking that Mao sought to combat, and Deng successfully rescued China from such errors. Now Cuba is utilizing the same type of intelligence. It’s applying Deng’s synthesis between the strident anti-liberalism of Mao, and the historical flexibility that China’s reforms embodied. To lead the world’s workers to a new revolutionary wave, we must reject the KKE and embrace Deng. 

The globe’s working masses are already being inspired by the achievements that Deng brought to China, and they’re looking for the route towards replicating these successes. By looking at this history and theory, we’ve learned what the route is, and it’s not as simple as the dogmatic opportunists would say. The meaning of the task before us can only become clear through applying the principle Mao followed, where you have to look at history in a fluid manner in order to defeat your class enemies.

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.

The coming AI blackouts, imperialism’s long-term plan, & the next struggle the people are tasked with

Above: Gaza’s only power plant after the Zionist occupier struck it in 2014.

The Gaza genocide should give a new sense of perspective to the Americans with a mindset of preparing for future collapse scenarios. It shows us that no matter what kinds of disasters our society is going to face, they won’t come close to the level of catastrophe that Gaza’s people have been living through for the last three years. 

No doubt the empire seeks to bring this same model of civilizational murder to more places, and this is the plan that Washington has for the next generation. The war that the imperialists are waging is about subjugating the entire globe’s working class, and no one is safe. To understand our own position in the fight against this scheme, though, we have to understand just how extreme the true worst-case scenario is.

Aside from being attacked by a nuclear weapon, there’s no situation worse than being confined to one small strip of land, then having an occupier systematically bomb your infrastructure while mass-murdering those within your community. The victims of these crimes have been rendered helpless. Gaza’s water, food, and medical supplies are controlled by a government that wants to get rid of the Palestinians, and only gives them anything because of international pressure. 

Reminding ourselves of this is critical for properly responding towards the electrical breakdowns that big tech’s AI scramble will bring upon our own communities, because Gaza shows where the primary contradiction is within our political struggle.

Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, Iran, and the other targets of Washington’s genocidal offensive are the first victims of the global cataclysm that finance capital will manufacture in the 21st century. As this destruction reaches into the heart of the U.S. empire, it’s not exactly fitting to call this an “imperial boomerang,” because being bombed is on a level far above merely losing electricity. We will experience severe blackouts due to capital’s misuse of AI, and this will have a disastrous human impact; this impact shouldn’t be minimized, but we must see the bigger process that’s playing out. Whatever crises we next experience, this cannot distract us from the duty to defeat America’s war machine, which is the main source of worldwide catastrophes and is the greatest obstacle towards overthrowing the system behind AI collapse.

This reality is exactly what our ruling class wants us to overlook as our systems fail, and the parasites at the top of capitalist society profit from its demolition. There is an insidious mindset that’s gaining traction, called “military nihilism,” which says that it’s unavoidable for the world to be assaulted by Washington’s ever-expanding war campaigns. It tells us to passively accept living in a society that’s effectively run by the imperialist military, since if this is the natural way of things then imperialism should be embraced. 

It’s a very strategic psyop, directed at the people who’ve been cut off from opportunities and have resigned to lives as shut-ins. Logically, though, when collapse comes it’s these shut-ins who will be some of the least equipped to survive. If you have nothing, acquiescing to a system in collapse guarantees your doom. Our only hope for ending the coming dark age is to take example from the peoples who’ve been forced into resistance, and collectively fight back against the imperial death machine.

Something we must understand about this machine is that its global designs can continue as the internal collapse accelerates. Imperialist war depends on austerity for the U.S. working class, with the coming systemic breakdown being just a more advanced version of this austerity. The military nihilism psyop is so dangerous because it preemptively destroys the potential for those who’ve been disenfranchised by this system to assert themselves. Its purpose is to ensure that when collapse becomes much more pronounced, the military will take control unchallenged, as the working class won’t have built its own source of sustenance and political power.

This outcome, where the masses are brought to their knees, is something that absolutely could happen even while the masses become radicalized against the imperial state. As long as a people don’t have the means to defend themselves, the imperialists can get away with murdering them on a mass scale, and this is something that Gaza has shown them.

For military nihilism to win out, and successfully stop the masses from fighting back, our ruling class will need to sustain the present stagnation within politics. It will need to keep the people paralyzed, and react to the next crises by retreating into their own silos. There is a real danger that this will happen, and parts of America’s younger population have gravitated towards such apathy amid the Iran war’s fallout. But we have a clear idea of how to mount a counter-narrative.

The reason why military nihilism has a large potential base among “Gen Alpha” is because when you’ve been born into a depression, the incentive is to reject idealism. This generation’s concern is what will materially benefit them directly; which can be translated into working-class consciousness, but only if one is provided with a clear connection to the workers movement. 

Only if the concept of being working class is given tangible meaning. Without that clarity, it can feel like you might as well submit to the ideology of the ruling class, and embrace your role as one of those who will be sacrificed for big tech. The only answer towards a mindset like this is to induct the American masses into the same struggle which the empire’s global victims are waging. To bring them into the American front within this existential battle.

Right now, we’re facing two dangers that will accelerate every trend in our collapse: a potential super El Niño, and the drive by our rulers to bring war with China. The only reason why the Trump White House hasn’t oriented around China yet is because of Iran, and the Democrats have been the ones pushing Trump to escalate on Taiwan. They feel comfortable with doing this in part because of Gaza, which revealed the threshold for how many imperialist crimes our society will accept and how far the war on the working class can go. Even as climate destabilization reaches levels that will soon catalyze early versions of the AI blackouts, those in power don’t expect we’ll resist. We need to make this confidence backfire, and rally the masses to revolt in a way that the class enemy couldn’t have anticipated.

————————————————————————

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here. 

To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.