Category Archives: Annihilate the Right

Peace & Love & Liberal Nonsense

The face you make after you cut off your serf’s hand for marrying the wrong person.

A lot has been going on since my last entry. I haven’t been able to write anything in regards to the recent surge of mass activism because, for one, I am doing what I can to help or at least attend those actions in my area, but I also have a lot of personal stuff going on that’s neither here nor there.
But I have finally found the time to lay down some of my thoughts here. Specifically — and not for the first time — the liberal response to the aforementioned surge in activity. Yes, I’ve written about the liberal’s soft-spot for window panes and convenience stores before, but I haven’t really dug any deeper into the ideologies behind their — for lack of a better term — wet-noodlism. Pacifism, respectability politics, neo-hippy paternalism — each a bane to social progress.

The liberals of today like to think of themselves as the “reasonable Left,” and by that they mean they are pseudo-Leftists who are more than willing to reason with the oppressors. However, there are liberals of other sorts promoting similar or identical tactics, but from a seemingly “non-politicized” or “unbiased” point — in other words, the politically apathetic social-agnostics and/or spiritualists who don’t experience oppression (or just don’t acknowledge it) and therefore think of it as something much lighter than it really is. Lighter means easier to conquer, and that basically means asking the bourgeoisie to kindly lay off a little bit. Or not even ask at all, just ignore it and it will go away. Or, worst of all, they even tell the oppressed to love their oppressor. Striking workers should love those whom they are stiking against. Anti-racists should love white supremacists. And, regarding recent events, People of Color should love the police.

No matter the reasoning behind it, pacifism, in all its forms, serves the interests of the oppressors.

Two members of the liberal pantheon of posterchilds are George Orwell and Mahatma Gandhi — the former is well-regarded for his supposed “anti-authoritarianism” and the latter for his pacifism. Both figures are pretty well-suited to be canonized in liberal ideology: Orwell, the man who snitched on Communists for the British government; and Gandhi, British imperialism’s favorite kind of “activist.”

Liberal dogma has placed Gandhi on a pedestal as the prime example of what an activist should be — passive and non-violent. Decades of violent fighting for Indian independence has been overshadowed by this one man’s image. Hundreds — even thousands — of Indian revolutionaries are forgotten, while every imperialist ideologue sings high praises of this figure of pacifism as if he and he alone won independence for the country, not those actually fighting, bleeding, and dying for the cause.

There is a reason why the imperialist oppressors would rather praise the pacifists than the actual revolutionaries — the pacifists are not the real threat to their power. The other liberal idol I mentioned, George Orwell, was, as an anti-communist snitch, naturally well aware of why the British imperialists tolerated and endorsed the worship of someone like Gandhi, as he stated:

“As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.”

This realization should be taken into account along with that well-known quote from Assata Shakur:

“Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.”

That is precisely what the “reasonable Left” wants to do: appeal to the moral sense of the oppressor. We are told to respect the authority of a state which serves the interests of social parasites and exploiters. We can conduct sit-ins and form drum circles, but we are never to question the legitimacy of the oppressor class or its murderous state. Meaning liberation is out of the picture, for the pacifists see the oppression of the masses as less of a crime than the abolition of capitalist excess and exploitation.

This is why civilians who kill cops get blown to pieces by robots, but cops who kill civilians get paid administrative leave, despite the latter being paid to protect people, not the former. According to the dominant liberal ideology, the masses must behave, or they will face much harsher consequences than the pawns of the bourgeoisie who commit the very same crimes, and on a much larger scale. It is perfectly acceptable for a cop-killer to be blown up, but killer-cops “deserve a fair trial.”

Image by Carlos Latuff

Of course, I do not condone the attacks in Dallas or Baton Rouge, but I am saying that, when a community is facing death on a daily basis from an institution that acts with impunity, a backlash should be expected. The neo-hippies are always saying “Violence only creates more violence,” but then act surprised when a violent institution that is continuously murdering people receives a dose of violence against itself. This hypocritical contradiction boils down to something very simple: pacifism is an ideological tool to point blame at the oppressed while in the end defending the oppressor. It is not progressive. It is not revolutionary. It is condescending, chauvinistic, and patronizing to the oppressed.White folks telling Black folks how to behave “properly” in their anger; the wealthy telling the poor to “be content” and “ask nicely”; those who say “just ignore them and they will go away” in regards to neo-fascists, Klansmen, and racist cops — these are the tunes of the pacifist choir, and they all come from a place of privilege, safety, and plain old arrogance. Their subjectivity is almost post-modern, and just like post-modernism, it is useless at best, damaging at worst.

How is it useless? Gandhi’s letter to Hitler(in which he refers to the furor as his “friend” in the first fucking sentence) did a lot less to end the Nazi Party’s bloody reign than Soviet and partisan bullets. No revolution in history has ever succeeded by requesting liberation from the yoke of oppression. They have always and will always take the form of a violent overthrow, by necessity.

How is it damaging? Well, besides laying down in the face of a death, it also inspires apathy in the long run, leading to defeatism. It legitimizes inhumane rule and idolizes the rulers in its own way. Being an aspect of the liberal ideology, it picks and chooses in accordance with the interests of the ruling class. The early Soviet Union proved that socialism and predatory wars are mutually exclusive, but the Soviet Union is still demonized. On the other hand, Tibet, under the rule of the Dalai Lama was burdened under the yoke of feudalism, violent theocracy, serfdom, and even slavery, but the Dalai Lama himself is yet another posterboy for so-called “passive resistance,” even though what he supported was a system more oppressive than most of today’s world, and what he resists is the secularism and anti-feudalism that rose up post-liberation. (Note: This is not a defense of the Chinese state, but Buddhist rule of Tibet was not all meditation and unicorns.)

Pacifism is purely a tool of the bourgeoisie. It has never and will never be capable of properly combating classism, racism, patriarchy, or oppression of any kind when put into practice. Its most diehard disciples are complicit in the actions of the ruling system. The militantly neutral have, in reality, already picked a side (the wrong side), and the self-proclaimed “passive resistors” are nothing but a burden to the movement of liberation.

Do not tell us to love those in positions of power who are killing the people they are supposed to protect. Do not tell us to respect a system that wants to use the majority of us as disposable tools for profit. Do not tell those facing death because of the color of their skin to show love towards the institution that perpetuates the real violence towards them and their families.

Claiming to have aligned chakras, or knowing a couple of quotes from MLK, or pretending to be ideologically “above” all sides of the issue do not make you qualified to tell working and poor revolutionaries what to do or how to respond to acts of aggression from the bourgeois dictatorship. Heal yourself with crystals all you like. Post heart-warming cop stories on social media. Send out your thoughts and prayers. Just stop trying to act like anyone should listen to you, because what you’re proposing is essentially nothing more than inaction, so there is no point.

Stop using the issue-of-the-week to boost your own ego and preach about your “enlightenment.” You aren’t helping anyone.
-SFB

Turning the Tables: Short and Sweet

Bourgeois anti-Communism knows no bounds when it comes to unreliable, irrational and unfounded criticism. Anti-communists will jump onto anything they can find that makes communism out to be monstrous and bloodthirsty. I’ve written before about their use of “yellow media” and even Nazi propaganda. But that isn’t the only ridiculous source they have utilized. Recently, Snopes had to debunk an article from the fucking Onion about Cuba because anti-communists were leaping onto it as if it was true. It occasionally gets so bad that even bourgeois outlets like The Guardian have had to admit that most coverage of North Korea is bogus, as, time and again, those people reported to have been executed in the DPRK have shown up alive and well on television, and defectors are often offered higher pay for scarier stories. The same is true for the coverage of the socialist states of the past as well.

What most of this proves, also, is that socialist or perceived socialist states are held up to standards that the bourgeois intellectuals never set for their favored capitalist states. It is well known that the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, higher than the USSR ever had, and yet we are told to think of the Soviet Union as some bloated police state and the US as some bastion of freedom. Bourgeois historians often cite suicide rates as proof of “state oppression,” but only when it can be applied to socialist or “unfavorable” states. Suicide in capitalist countries are just “isolated incidents” of sadness, having nothing to do with the system as a whole, except when that system isn’t to the bourgeoisie’s liking. For bourgeois anti-communists, socialism must work absolutely perfectly in order to be considered anything other than barbaric, but capitalism’s crimes and inefficiencies are just quirks that are part of the beautiful unpredictability of the free market, or whatever.

Not only is socialism held to higher standards than capitalism in large-scale matters, but also, and most annoyingly, in anecdotal commentary. “It works on paper, but…”, “It goes against human nature,” “It discourages innovation.” If I were to point out how it raised the standards of living for the vast majority of people living under socialism, I am told it is inefficient. If I point out how socialism effectively industrialized backwater nations faster than capitalism ever has, proving its efficiency, I am told that it did so at the expense of the people’s well-being. Do you see the contradiction there?

All of this becomes even more clear when the workers in capitalist countries start fighting for their class interests. Every time there is a spike in the Fight for $15 movement, the anti-workerists start spouting off reasons why raising the minimum wage wouldn’t work, and in doing so they mistakenly provide support for socialism by proving that their precious system of exploitation doesn’t work, either in treatment of the people or economically. If a system is to be judged by how it provides for the people or in economic efficiency, the right-wingers’ are basically admitting that capitalism does neither very well.

Let’s take a minute to turn the tables on the various arguments that Rightists use in their opposition to workers’ rights, and put it up to the same standards against which they judge socialism. (Note: I am not trying to imply that the following is anything more than anecdotal. These are not legitimate or useful arguments when I use them, but they aren’t legitimate or useful when anti-communists use them either, which is my whole point.)

Rightist: “If workers are paid more, prices would sky-rocket.”
Response: Then capitalism isn’t efficient enough to care for the people–which is the whole point of every -ism.

Rightist: “If employers are forced to pay their workers higher wages, they will just cut jobs.”
Response: Then capitalism must only work on paper.

Rightist: “Fast food jobs are supposed to be temporary, but too many people are using them as full-time jobs.”
Response: Then capitalism must go against human nature.

Rightist: “No one has any work ethic anymore, they’re all lazy.”
Response: Same as above.

Rightist: “If workers have to be paid more, more jobs will just become automated.”
Response: Then. Capitalism. Doesn’t. Work.

How do these anti-worker reactionaries not see the logical conclusions of what they’re saying? In all of these standard arguments, they admit that capitalism lacks the efficiency to take care of the people, and they shout it like it’s a good thing. Like it somehow proves capitalism’s “inherent goodness,” when it does the very opposite. They are proving they care more about defending their ideology than about how well it works(or doesn’t work).

In all seriousness, anecdotal bullshit aside, the Rightists have to admit one of two things if they take their own words seriously: either 1) Capitalism isn’t capable of doing the very thing they claim it does best–providing equal opportunity and being efficient enough that the people’s basic needs are met, or 2) It is capable of providing a living wage and benefits, but such measures are being blocked by the capitalist owners of industry.

Because, you see, none of these reactionaries complain about price hikes when executives are given millions of dollars in bonuses or raises. No one complains about the bourgeois bosses making 5-digits every hour, when most of those bosses have never produced a single thing in their lives. No one whines when those who don’t produce reap the benefits of production. The arguments against a higher wage all revolve around “work ethic,” but where is the work ethic of the CEOs who profit from labor they don’t take part in?

This is the real capitalist work ethic: Try your best to get others to do the work for you so you can sit in an office and make a profit from their labor. Undeserved luxury, inherited wealth, exploitation–these are the virtues of capitalist “work ethic.” The workers making $7.25 an hour are not lazy for wanting a bigger piece of the pie for their labor, the bosses of industry are the lazy ones, and they’re who we are supposed to look up to. No one points a finger at them for not working while they rake in the profits. And yet, socialism allegedly “brainwashes” people into “blind acceptance of authority.”

No, the fact that the bourgeoisie has people pointing fingers at those who actually do the work is more than enough proof that it is they who are propagating falsehoods. It is they who despise any form of “work ethic,” and this is no more apparent than in their hatred of workers.

The above anecdotes may not be genuine, honest arguments, but the gist of them is essentially true when applied to capitalism. The argument that the capitalist economy can’t handle the pressure of providing for the people is just proof of a critical point Marx and Engels bring up in the Communist Manifesto:

“Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeoisie, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeoisie. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to ensure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state that it has to feed him instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

So, just for a moment, let’s assume that raising the minimum wage under capitalism is impossible(it’s not impossible, just not favorable to the ruling class and its dictatorship). If we take the reactionary’s word for it, if we are to believe that it is, indeed, impossible for the wages to be raised without “destroying the economy,” then all this does is, once again, prove that Marx got it right over a century ago. It only further validates the theories of communism that the rule of the bourgeoisie, capitalism, has run its course and that it is no longer useful–but is, rather, a hindrance–to society’s development.

The reactionaries, with almost every breath, prove the necessity of a socialist revolution, even if they don’t realize it. Thanks for the ammunition. You are continuously giving the workers the tools we need to dig your grave.

-SFB

Rightists Are Too Fucking Sensitive

In my last post, I discussed the current state of the American Left. I talked about the problems stemming from lazy discourse and the refusal of some to face the world head-on, as we are supposed to if we want to call ourselves revolutionaries. My main issues with that mindset are 1) the sectarianism of “call-out culture”, and 2) the rejection of the class struggle in favor of identitarianism. But I did not mean it to be an attack against my comrades. I simply don’t want us to lose sight of our goals.

But today I want to go a little deeper into this issue of sensitivity. How it affects discourse, how it shuts down conversations, and who is actually doing all the damage. I’m about to say something that goes against the mainstream portrayal of who’s “too sensitive,” but it is something that has become more and more obvious as the days go by:

No one is more sensitive, whiny, mouth-foamingly insecure as right-wingers. They win the Biggest Cry Baby Award by a longshot. Seriously, it’s gotten so bad that talking to them is almost pointless. They will get offended at even the most innocent claim or question. They will call others names like they think they’re in a VH1 reality show shouting match rather than a debate. They’ll use sarcasm rather than argument. They’ll cry about “MY TAX MONEY!!” when that doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion (it’s like their default response when backed into a corner).

Don’t believe me? Ok, next time a Rightist tells you that the Left is “too sensitive,” remind them that Harriet Tubman is going to be on our currency, or that cops sometimes murder innocent people, or just show them a Beyonce music video. When they’re done flipping the fuck out and shivering with anger, ask them who’s too sensitive.

While the Left is getting mad and fighting back against racism, misogynistic violence, discrimination, murder-by-cop, and perpetual war, the Rightists are collectively crying about having to eventually see someone’s face on a piece of paper that looks different than them, or who gets to take a shit in which bathroom, or science being taught in science class, or someone using an EBT card, or other people following a religion of their choice (or none at all), or the existence of humans who think differently than them. They’ll laugh at those suffering from PTSD, and then get “triggered” themselves just because *GASP* there are people out there who aren’t exactly like them. THE HORROR!

Besides everything listed above, there is a new demon the right-wingers feel the need to exorcise: the dreaded millenials. Yes, apparently all of the world’s problems can be blamed on a generation that has only been in adulthood for less than a decade. None of us hold any public office. None of us are writing legislation. None of us really have any political power–as far as the bourgeois state goes. We’ve been of voting age for two presidential elections at most, in races run by boomers. But I guess at some point in our childhood or teen years, we really fucked up. I’m not sure how we put the economy in the tank while we were on the school playground, or how we incarcerated millions of people while we were at summer camp, or how we started so many wars and acts of military aggression while we were learning how to drive. But, apparently, it’s all our fault.

Not really, though.

This is just an example of the Rightists shifting the blame onto others, and it has got to be one of the strangest cases of scapegoating in history. For you right-wingers who seem to have forgotten all about the concept of time, let me spell it out for you in the simplest way I can: As far as the political/economic/social scene goes, we just got here. It’s like we millenials were forced to go to a house party that we really didn’t want to attend because the people throwing it are notorious for making everything terrible, and before we even arrived some shitbag from Texas broke a lamp and pissed all over the living room floor. Then, as soon as we walked through the door, the hosts of the party started screaming at us to clean up the mess and telling us that Texas Shitbag wouldn’t have done any of that if we had dressed appropriately and didn’t use our goddamn phones so much. (By the way, who invented the smart-phone? Which generation created such an evil device and sold it for profit?)

Blaming any specific generation for society’s shortcomings is a new level of ignorance. The boomers can’t be entirely blamed for the actions of the past–many of them fought against the issues of their time, and continue to do so. Same with us and every other generation. Not a single generation in history was monolithic when it came to political ideology or action. Economic crises, imperialist war, class oppression–none of these are the fault of any given generation, they are the products of capitalism. But millenials are seen as the exception to this fact, for reasons that are never given.

Ok, I’m getting off of this whole generation thing now. I just have one more thing to say on the subject: Right-wingers, please, please, PLEASE keep doing this. By demonizing the up-and-coming generations, by alienating them, by ridiculing them, by rejecting them, you are basically ensuring your own downfall. You are doing the Left’s job for us. I may call you an ignorant asshole for it, but I also want to thank you for isolating yourselves. It’s probably the best thing you have ever done for the people and our future. Good work.

Anyway. We can clearly see that it isn’t the Left that is “too sensitive.” The Right is mistaking “sensitivity” for “not gonna take your shit anymore.” If anything, when looking at the history of the Left, and the struggles we have waged in past and present, it is us who have the stronger backbone. Revolutions, mass strikes, facing off against the most powerful institutions in existence–this is our legacy. The legacy of the reactionaries? Fear of change, complacency, stepping on the downtrodden, hiding behind the barricades of the bourgeoisie’s military and police apparatus–the actions of cowards. When college students want to prevent and put an end to rape on campus, they are laughed at. When a Rightist witnesses something as simple as a parent using food stamps to feed their children, they act so traumatized that they feel the need to explode in rage. So, sexual violence is “no big deal” and the Leftists “need to stop whining about it,” but GOD FUCKING FORBID ANYONE BUY A SNICKERS BAR WITH EBT.

All of this is an example of the more general problems with bourgeois, reactionary ideology. There are plenty of others. For instance, last month, when millions of workers around the world protested low wages and demanded higher pay and a union, the Rightists, once again, got all worked up. At the demonstration in my city, hundreds of people stood outside of a McDonald’s, holding signs and chanting. We received mostly positive responses from those driving by, but we also got a few pieces of that sage right-wing advice from drivers who were so upset at what they saw that they felt the need to take their eyes off the road, roll down their windows, scream at us while giving us the finger and almost cause a wreck. Now that is what I would call “too sensitive.” We all laughed at them and just chanted louder.

But reactionary inconsistency doesn’t end with their whining. Something else I noticed in the reactions to the Fight for $15 protests were the oddly familiar arguments the capitalists used. They said that fast food jobs are supposed to be temporary, but that “lazy people” weren’t moving on. Now, if I were to turn the tables, I could say that, by their own arguments, they are proving two things: 1) Capitalism isn’t working the way it’s supposed to (or, “it only works on paper”), and 2) Then capitalism must go against “human nature.” Strange how I feel like I’ve heard these two arguments used before, except they were used against socialism. Very weird, but that is a subject for another day.

So, in conclusion, I hope this rambling, disorganized rant of mine set some things straight. The Left isn’t “weak,” or “too sensitive,” or “sheltered” by fighting and speaking out against oppression and exploitation. It is the Right that has filled its ranks with people who are utterly terrified of change, who shake at the thought of anyone being different than them, who cry when they aren’t allowed to control the bodies and lives of others. They even go so far as being afraid of people who are younger than them.

As the political environment becomes more and more polarized and the Left grows by the day, the reactionaries are shaking in their boots while they laugh nervously. They may be playing arrogant right now, but when that horrifying Red Tide comes to shore, they’ll be clamoring for a safe space of their own. Good luck.

-SFB

Dear Conservatives: Modern Russia is Exactly What You Wanted

image

Reagan and Gorbachev

“If you’re a Communist and you hate America so much, why don’t you just move to Russia?”

The above question is something I have been asked way too much in my short 8 years of calling myself a Communist. Not only because it is annoying and probably the absolute laziest excuse for an argument ever uttered, but because it reflects a mass delusion in regards to communist theory, Russian history, world history, and the events of just a few decades ago. Granted, thanks to bourgeois hegemony, ignorance to the theories of Marxism-Leninism is a long-held tradition that took nearly a century to fully solidify in the minds of the masses of people living under capitalism, so I’m not exactly surprised by the anti-Communist sentiment within the above statement. What I’m suprised at is the embarrassingly ignorant forgetfulness of the people who say such things to me about what went down 26 to 27 years ago, especially when most of these people were old enough to pay attention to the news in those years.

I was born in 1990, in the midst of the chaos that ensued with the collapse of the USSR and the other socialist-turned-revisionist states of Eastern Europe. I wasn’t even old enough to walk by the time these states collapsed, and yet, for some odd reason, my memory seems to serve me better than those who were fully-functioning adults when all of this happened. Well, it’s not really my memory that has served me, but this little thing called history that we are supposed to learn about in school. But even that has failed many people, since it isn’t solely previous generations who tell me and others to “move to Russia”, many people around my age have told me the same thing.

I will make it easy for you and just tell you what happened (with a fancy link to the Wikipedia article so you can look for yourself): The USSR no longer exists and Russia is now a capitalist state.

It is astounding that I have to explain this very well-known fact to so many people, some of whom probably even watched the Berlin Wall fall on live television.

There seems to be a problem with understanding history, both among the Right and the Left. On one hand, we have folks who believe that today’s Communists must support Russia, because McCarthy said so half a century ago and his influence just won’t go away. On the other hand, we have angsty “Leftists” who support anything that even slightly rubs the US government the wrong way. I won’t really go into the latter here, as that would require another post entirely, but both sides are forgetting one simple fact: Imperialists are often in conflict with each other. Just because one capitalist-imperialist state is in conflict, or even at war, with another state, does not mean the other state is not capitalist-imperialist. Competition is a driving force of capitalism. Inter-capitalist or inter-imperialist conflicts aren’t just characteristics of capitalism, they are an intrinsic aspect of capitalism-imperialism. Meaning, just because the US and the Russian Federation are competing capitalist powers does not mean that one is somehow anti-capitalist, even if one of those powers is named “Russia”.

Back to my original point. Many of the conservatives and neoliberals who praised the fall of the Berlin Wall have since forgotten that today’s Russia is exactly what they had wished for, not something we Communists wanted. So–pardon my language–why the fuck would I, a communist, have any interest in moving to Russia? Why would I have any inclination to support a state full of traitors and oligarchs? Why would I praise a state which Reagan endorsed?

I have talked about the ironies of anti-Communism before, but isn’t it funny how the illogical conservatives will call the bourgeois US government “socialist”, praise the fall of the USSR, and yet still tell communists to “move to Russia”? Shouldn’t they be the ones packing their bags, if they are craving an impoverished, homophobic, xenophobic, ultra-nationalist, oligarchal, anti-Communist, ultra-conservative state, such as the current Russian state, which they adored so much not too long ago?

I mean, when you look at it, the Russian Federation is all these conservatives ever wanted: an anti-Communist, homophobic, xenophobic state with close ties to far-Right organizations and which is favored by right-wing figures within the US such as Alex Jones and Donald Trump.

In short, no, just because the US and Russia have their differences does not mean that I prefer one over the other, it simply means that imperialism is still functioning the same as it always has: greedy conflicts that inevitably only really hurt the oppressed people living on both sides of said conflict.

I understand that this is a rather random topic to bring up, and seemingly unimportant to many people. But its importance comes with espousing Marxism-Leninism. While Putin and his cronies are waving hammers and sickles for purely populist and nationalist reasons, he, and the state of which he is the head, is dragging the name of Communism through the mud. He will bash Marxist revolutionaries and leaders, especially Lenin, while stealing the imagery they inspired, attempting to separate the successes of the Soviet Union from the theory which guided those successes (Marxism-Leninism).

So what I am getting at is, the Russian Federation is precisely what the conservatives were dreaming of from 1917-1990, Putin’s rule is the logical outcome of what the conservatives supported 3 decades ago. Modern Russia is your ideal paradise, not ours. So stop equating Communist theory with the things you wanted to happen in Russia.

Now, either you can side with the pseudo-fascistic Russian oligarchy, or you can admit that capitalism is a failure and that the Russian people were better off living under the banner of Marxism-Leninism. And, for the love of god, stop telling us Communists where to move, because we are working class people who can barely afford a vacation 4 hours away from our homes, much less the ability (or desire) to move into the capitalist hellhole you helped to create.

-SFB

Pieces of Cloth, Symbols of Genocide

Reactionary propaganda relies on hypocrisy and manipulative delusions, as well as white-washing and bold-faced lies. These qualities are easily observed whenever any controversial issue is brought up, especially the issue of systemic racism. There has been no shortage of right-wing temper-tantrums in the past few years. I mean, the reactionaries have been doing this for centuries, but the recent and ongoing anti-racist movements has really got the anti-rational traditionalists in an uproar.

Simply listing all of the heinous acts of white-supremacist violence and racist police murders that have been going on would be a disservice to the victims of these crimes, as I will not be able to go into each terrible incident with any depth in a single post. Even just listing the victims’ names would make this the longest blog post I have ever written. Besides, despite what the bourgeois media says, these are not just isolated incidents, but are products of an entire system built around racialism and white supremacy, which are, themselves, products of exploitative capitalism, which is our society’s religion, figuratively speaking.

To put it simply, the nature of the reactionary is to react. To react to progress, to the rebellious masses, to the people’s fight for liberation. The reactionary works to keep the people “in their place”, to ensure the continued stability of the status quo, which is, in this case, capitalist oppression and the racist ideologies and standards it has created. The reactionary will stop at nothing to demonize the oppressed masses and portray the oppressors’ and the ideology of the oppressors as something glorious and traditionally noble.

As the masses are rising up and demanding an end to oppression, the reactionaries have been doing all they can to drown out the people’s cries by shouting about imaginary dangers and the “struggles” of the oppressors.

And, not surprisingly, the reactionaries don’t need to work very hard to get their voice out there. Their voice has always been heard, since their obedience to the corporate system means that the media will do all the white-washing and racist apologetics for them. They don’t even have to ask.

After Dylann Roof committed a massacre at an African-American church in South Carolina, the media did what they always do when having to cover an act of white-supremacist terrorism. They downplayed the obvious racism of the act(even though Roof admitted that he was racially motivated to carry out this terrible and violent act of terrorism). They portrayed the massacre as some kind of isolated incident, committed by someone who was “mentally ill”. Instead of calling out racism, they decided that this would be a good time to further stigmatize mental illness. According to them, white supremacy isn’t a problem, the mentally ill and “loners” are. Never mind the fact that those suffering from mental illnesses are more likely to be victims of violent crimes than perpetrators–this fact does not fit into the media’s rhetoric, since they would rather stigmatize the mentally ill than ever talk about the very real issue of systemic racism and racist violence.

We have been told that Dylann was a “good kid”, who “made a mistake”. The murder of 9 people has been swept under the rug in order to focus more on trying to emphasize that white supremacy isn’t a “real” problem. We were shown pictures of Roof as a smiling toddler, but the pictures of him pointing a gun at the camera or burning the American flag got little to no air-time. Contrast this to the coverage of Michael Brown’s murder, when, after Brown was wrongfully executed by a racist cop, the media dug as deeply as it could to find absolutely anything Michael Brown supposedly did “wrong” in his entire life. A white mass-murderer gets the media’s sympathy. A black victim of racist violence gets the media’s scorn.

I am saying all of this so as to point out how the reactionaries are not as “oppressed” or as “misrepresented” as they claim to be, quite the contrary. But this post isn’t about media coverage. That’s another topic for another day.

image

Just some pro-Confederate "not racists".

I don’t think I need to fill any of you in on the recent controversy surrounding the official use of the Confederate flag and the many Confederate memorials scattered all throughout the American south. There have been a variety of reactions to this controversy, ranging anywhere from diehard support for Confederate symbolism, to militant opposition to its use, to those who are trying so hard to be edgy that they say “none of it matters”. The last of these stances objectively fall into the same position as the first, since, by doing nothing, they are allowing(and thereby supporting) the continued use of racist, genocidal, and oppressive symbols.

The “Heritage Not Hate” folks like to claim that the Confederate flag, and the Confederacy itself, did not represent racism, slavery, genocide, or any other form of oppression. Such people are profoundly ignorant in regards to the heritage they uphold as virtuous. Several of the Confederate states specifically mentioned both their desire to continue using the system of chattel slavery and their belief in white supremacy in their declarations of secession. And that rag the heritage-not-hate people always fly was never the official flag of the Confederacy, but was actually the battleflag for the armies of Tennessee, and was only later popularized by racial-segregationists and the Ku Klux Klan.

When faced with these facts, the “heritage” supporters basically cover their ears and scream “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!”. They fear the undeniability of the Confederate flag absolutely being a symbol of slavery, genocide, and racial hatred. Their “heritage” is pure hate.

After being backed into a corner, they try to strip the symbol of any meaning at all, even their precious “heritage”. They’ll say, “It’s just a piece of cloth, don’t get so offended.” And here’s where things get interesting.

In the midst of the seemingly daily acts of racist violence, some Black Lives Matter activists have taken to stomping on the American flag as a way to protest the system that seeks to keep them poor and oppressed. This act has sparked absolute outrage from the reactionaries. From the very same reactionaries that want us to “stop being so offended” by the slavery-promoting Confederate flag. This is quite odd, since anyone with the tiniest bit of knowledge regarding the Civil War should know that the Confederate flag and the flag of the United States represented two opposing sides in a war in which more Americans were killed than in any other war in this country’s history. If the Confederate flag is just a piece of cloth that shouldn’t offend anyone, then why are all of the people saying this so pissed about another piece of cloth being stomped?

Also, to go back to the case of Dylann Roof, why are the reactionaries shrugging off his terrible, violent actions, while getting so angry at black people “harming” the American flag? It seems they have forgotten about this picture of Roof:

image

And here’s one of him showing off his heritage:

image

So, reactionaries, which is it? Do you think flags and symbols have no meaning, or do they? Because you can’t claim the Confederate flag is “harmless” and claim that the United States flag represents something sacred. You can’t defend a white racist who burned the US flag, and then turn around and condemn a black anti-racist for walking on one. You can’t support the flag of the Confederacy and the flag of the US.

Well, you can do those things, but doing so only makes your racism, hypocrisy, and flat-out stupidity that much more evident.

The strangest part isn’t the denial of racism having anything to do with the Confederacy(racists are notoriously ignorant, so such a belief is to be expected), but the pro-USA patriotism being somehow connected to pro-Confederate leanings. For shit’s sake, the Confederacy treated United States POWs like animals. The Andersonville prison in Georgia could easily be called one of the first death-camps ever built on American soil, and it was used for the torture, starvation, and murder of American soldiers by Confederate forces. To re-emphasize my point, you can’t be both an “American patriot” and a supporter of Confederate symbols and imagery. For not only was the Confederacy racist and genocidal, it was anti-US and thirsty for the blood of American soldiers.

Not to imply that I am a “patriot”, though. I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy and stupidity of the reactionary “racist-but-not-racist”, pro-Confederate crowd. I am saying that even the pro-Confederate crowd, in their condemnations against black activists who(rightfully) despise the flag that represents their oppressors, must admit that these symbols do, in fact, hold meaning. And the meaning behind the Confederate flag is 100% oppressive, racist, pro-slavery, and genocidal. So stop telling us to “stop being offended” while you sob every time the United States flag touches the ground.

This issue absolutely is important. It is about finally removing symbols of the worst forms of oppression, exploitation, and racism from our past. It is about tearing down relics that represent some of the bloodiest and most horrifying parts of our oppression-riddled history. It is about officially rejecting the crimes of the past, as opposed to praising or trying to justify these crimes.

You tell us to not be offended, when you, the reactionaries and racists, are the ones foaming at the mouth about our rejecting your fucked up “heritage”. We are not being “too sensitive”, we are doing what is necessary to move forward. You, on the other hand, are shedding your sweet Dixie tears and fighting tooth and nail to protect what you want us consider to be a “simple piece of cloth”. Get over it. The world will move on with or without you.

-SFB

Mr. Jones and Me Look into the Future

image

The face of humanity's salvation

Throughout my childhood and a few years into my teenage years, I didn’t care at all to break out of the political/social bubble of views I was born into. I was more worried about listening to music, eventually making music, and contributing in the normal shenanigans of one of the angsty “outsiders”. But, as my family went from middle-bourgeois to working class with barely enough food in the cabinet to feed my mother, my sister, and myself, I began to question everything I had been taught. The ideology of “freedom” and patriotism I was indoctrinated into seemed like a complete failure. The money stopped “trickling down” when we hit the bottom. I found out that all my mentors were not just flawed, but were pretty abhorrent human beings. I would still attend my conservative mega-church only to hear politicized rhetoric about how poor people, like my family, were nothing but leeches. I listened to sermons that seemed to be based more on the philosophy of Ayn Rand than any old gospel. By this time I had an entirely new group of friends, being shunned by the well-to-do kids I had hung out with previously. These new friends of mine were what would be called(and what was called, by the church’s “elders”) degenerates. In reality, we were sick of the elitism that surrounded us. One of the breaking points was when the security personnel at this church made several racially-charged accusations against three of my African-American friends. We stopped holding back after that, and were banned from church grounds within a month.

Now, the above may seem entirely insignificant – just a short story about angsty teenagers vandalizing and taking what revenge we could against the micro-establishment that was that church. But the fact is, for my whole life up until that point, me and these friends of mine were sheltered, homeschooled brats whose only form of outside interaction was through this church. Being kicked out, coupled with my family’s “fall from grace”, meant that, as it seemed to me, everything I had thought to be stable parts of my life – and indeed the whole world – was crashing down under the weight of the lies which were its essence. This is all relevant because this is when I first began to poke holes in the bubble of my childhood ideas about the world.

And so it was at this point that I began to look outside of the standard neoconservative worldview. Being that I had not completely given up many of my right-wing capitalistic views, libertarianism was what first drew me into what I had believed to be “rebellious” or “new” views and ideas. And if we know anything about libertarianism, we know that it is a breeding ground for conspiracy theories, some truly outlandish claims about everything that was happening in the world. The biggest name in the world of conspiracy theories is Alex Jones. I fell pretty deep into the his theories and those propagated by sites like infowars.

Of course, I now know the extent of Jones’s reactionary stances and almost fascistic rhetoric, but when I was a fan, I didn’t see it that way. Some of the things that drew me to Jones were: his opposition to the War in Iraq, his opposition to the War on Drugs, his opposition to the various oppressive measures of our bourgeois state(the Patriot Act and such). To this day I stand in opposition to these things, though for more rational reasons. But I now know that the solutions to these problems won’t come from a wealthy, attention-craving radio rambler. Here’s why:

THE REACTIONARY HISTORY OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES

As I stated above, I was still upholding capitalistic values when I fell into the hole of Jones-like paranoia. Indeed, all of the most outspoken conspiracy theorists are hardcore capitalists: libertarians, ancaps, patriotic traditionalists. However, conspiracy theories, while remaining about the same in theory and rhetoric, have not always been so bourgeois. The book “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a disgustingly anti-Semitic and fictitious account of a Jewish cabal out to control the world, was a popular read among the Russian aristocracy and the nobility of the other various empires, for it was an attempt to demonize and slander the rising bourgeois class, the birth of capitalism from feudalism. It slandered this progressivism by tying it to a group of people hated throughout Europe. This new politico-economic form of rule, which threatened to topple tyrannical monarchies all over the world, was portrayed as a Jewish conspiracy to gain complete control and liquidate or enslave those of non-Jewish descent. Any rational person living today knows that this is total bullshit, but to the aristocracies of yesterday, it was an important piece of propaganda, created to make the masses fear the capitalist republicans who were starting to over-power the nobility.

Likewise, the myth of the Illumimati trying to take control of the world was also a product of monarchist propaganda against democratic uprisings. The actual Illuminati – properly called the Bavarian Illuminati – was a secretive group of democratic republicans founded in 1776. Their secrecy didn’t come from a desire to create some sort of “shadow government”, but was a necessary tactic in an environment which was very hostile to new ideas – ideas which went against the grain of monarchist tyranny and religious superstition. By the year 1790, the Bavarian Illuminati was abolished following a harsh crackdown on democratic movements by the aristocratic rulers.

These ideas which got the Bavarian Illuminati into so much trouble were ideas standard to the Enlightenment era democratic movements against monarchal rule. To quote Wikipedia: “The society’s goals were to oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life and abuses of state power.” That is to say, the Bavarian Illuminati was a society dedicated to the very same ideals as the American revolutionaries – and we all know how much Alex Jones and other conspiracy theorists basically worship the American revolution and its fighters. The last two of the four points of their purpose – to oppose religious power over public life and to oppose abuses of state power – were essential aspects of the ideologies behind the American Revolution. They were ideas which Alex Jones himself promotes. This is the first big indication of the man’s ignorance.

Even after the erradication of the Bavarian Illuminati as a working society, the monarchists continued to use them as a scapegoat, a fictional fear-base to drive the masses away from bourgeois progressivism. These monarchists claimed that the Illuminati still existed in now total secrecy, and were responsible for the French Revolution. Why would they claim such a thing? Well, much like their use of “Protocols”, they needed to scare the masses away from the revolutions which were knocking aristocrats from their thrones of absolute power all across Europe and in the colonies, including the American Revolution Jones loves so much.

To be more clear: the conspiracy theories used today by capitalism-praising libertarians and patriots have their source in anti-capitalist, anti-democracy, pro-monarchist propaganda. If that doesn’t prove the ignorance behind conspiracy theories, I don’t know what will. But I’ll go on.

In essence, the history of conspiracy theories can’t be traced back to truth-seeking freedom-fighters, but quite the opposite. They were creations from the thrones of power meant to demonize those fighting for more freedom and more societal representation. The conspiracy theorists of today, if they had lived in the 18th or 19th centuries, wouldn’t be the “freedom-loving” bourgeois democrats they are today, they would be throne-worshiping monarchists, Red Coats, anti-republicans(I’m talking system of governance here, not the Republican Party).

Despite their ignorant change of stance over time, conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones still uphold the most reactionary, regressive stances they can, but this time they’re doing it in the name of bourgeois power rather than monarchal power. Quite ironic, don’t you think?

CONSPIRACY THEORIES TODAY: SAME REACTIONISM, DIFFERENT TARGET

So, the history of the most popular conspiracy theories is in total contradiction to the values held by conspiracy theorists today. At first, they were tools of propaganda to warn people away from bourgeois-democratic revolutions. Now, they are tools of distraction to warn people away from continual progress. If these theories were personified, that would make for one very confused person. “Oh, well,” this person would say, “I was apparently wrong about the dangers of democracy and the righteousness of aristocratic rule, but now…now I know that the new system is better, and anything that tries to push any further forward is wrongwrongwrong!! Trust me this time.”

Conspiracy theorists today have been smart to try to distance themselves from the previous “hiccup” that was “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” But really, they only just refuse to mention the name or to reference that book(with the exception of neo-Nazis and Klansmen, as well as the christian fundamentalist Kent Hovind). But the anti-Semitism is still there. For instance, the Rothschild family is still a popular target for conspiracy theorists, despite the fact that the family’s importance has fallen drastically since the start of the era of imperialism. They are no longer one of the big players in the game of acquisition, though they are still members of the class of large capitalists. This very specific demonization is a left-over of the old monarchist anti-democratic ideology. There are plenty of wealthy capitalists controlling governments and media, but to oppose them all would be almost like opposing capitalism itself, which the conspiracy theorists would never do(unless they lived a couple of hundred years ago). So instead, these theorists nit-pick which cappies to oppose, and, being as ideologically lazy as they are, they just stuck with blaming the capitalists who happen to be Jews, and not many more.

I would also like to point out another scrap of dumbass-ery left over from the old days of pro-throne conspiracy theories: the condemnation of the French Revolution. Now, it is(or should be) common knowledge that the French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution which sought to replace aristocratic rule with bourgeois democratic rule(bourgeois democratic rule being the form of governance today’s conspiracy theorists hold up as a system of “freedom and liberty”). It was fought for the same reasons why the American Revolution was fought – to overthrow aristocratic power and install some form of representative government. It should be noted here that the monarchists blamed the American Revolution for the same things they blamed the French Revolution, but Mr. Jones is apparently picking and choosing which accusations(from the same sources) he wants to use for his own fame. So, why does he so often name the French Revolution in his lists of things he hates? Well, the French Revolution was a little different from the other bourgeois revolutions – it was more radical, its sights were set on an egalitarian future, it did not hold itself back from giving the aristocrats what they deserved. It pushed hardest for progress and liberation. This is what Alex Jones and others fear so much – moving forward.

Today’s conspiracy theorists, as we have seen, are much the same as their monarchist predecessors in that they despise and fear anything that could possibly be seen as progressive, as going against the grain of the existing economic power structure. Only, this time around, they are protecting the bourgeoisie and slandering the true progressives – we socialists. The capitalists are the new monarchs, and the conspiracy theorists are still working for the rulers as propagandists and fear-mongerers. “Fear democracy” has become “fear workers’ democracy”. “Fear capitalism” has become “fear socialism”.

Having solidified a history of opposing the growth and further liberation of society, conspiracy theorists are now claiming everything considered progressive today are a part of some big diabolical plan – anti-racism, women’s rights, LGBT+ liberation, etc, etc are all “evils” that are trying to “destroy all of our great traditions”. Capitalism is their new idol, and socialism is their new target.

However, being conspiracy theorists, they’re not very accurate or consistent at all. “Socialism”, to them, is anything and everything they dislike. It is capitalist corporations who “go green”. It is the bourgeois US government with its mail service and stop signs. These theorists don’t actually know what socialism is, they just slap that label on almost everything. They do this because they are the most diehard pieces of left-overs from the Red Scares. They think labelling things as “socialist” will scare people into imagining pictures of “Orwellian Totalitarianism”. And often times these scare-tactics work – Alex Jones didn’t make a fortune by being laughed at.

Recently, Jones had a guest on his show: a man named Michael Savage. Michael Savage is a self-proclaimed anti-progressive “conservative nationalist”. That’s right, Mr. Jones seems to be fine with the horrific, oppressive history of right-wing nationalism(which has branches such as Nazism, fascism, Peronism, etc.), probably because nationalists are hardline enemies of socialism(progress, working class liberation, internationalist solidarity, etc.). Savage is also rabidly anti-immigration and a strong supporter of the English-only movement. It is frightening to me that such people, who want to oppress, deport, or even kill foreigners, are considered by so many to be “freedom-loving rebels”. I guess they forget that “conservativism” means the conservation of the ruling status quo. What these people are really “rebelling” against is rebellion itself.

In many ways, Savage’s ideology is linked to that of Hitler’s and the Nazi Party. He sums up his main topics of concern thusly: borders, language, and culture. That is, he wants closed borders due to his hatred and distrust of foreign peoples; he wants the language and culture of the USA to remain “pure”. I don’t think it can be denied that this is straight up Hitler-style nationalism.

Now, about that interview Jones gave to this crypto-fascist Michael Savage: In it, Savage makes the claim that Obama(whom both ignorantly consider to be a “socialist”) is arming the Crips and the Bloods(he probably thinks all Black people are members of one or the other) for the “coming race war”. Just a reminder: this was not an interview with Charles Manson. And Alex Jones totally fell in line with this outrageous claim. Savage made this claim because of the recent truce between the two gangs in Baltimore, a truce meant to bring them together in order to protest the police murder of People of Color.

Of course, in the interview, the French Revolution was brought up as a tool for demonization. Savage says “the guillotines are ready” and that the “blades are being greased”. He’s saying that Obama is using the anti-cop-murder protesters in order to ignite a “race war” in which white people will be erradicated.

Let me put this into perspective: These so-called “anti-authoritarians” are helping the murderous cops in demonizing protesting civillians. They are essentially taking the side of the state they claim to hate because they fear Black people who want freedom. Anti-racist protests scare them because it goes against their version of the “freedoms” of America’s yester-years, when people like Jones and Savage could own slaves, when it was illegal for women to vote, when starving children had to go into the mines to help their families afford the most basic necessities. These are the “freedoms” these two wealthy, white men long for. These are the “freedoms” they want to reinstall: their freedom to own another human being, their freedom to oppress immigrants, their freedom to make half of the population the proletariat of the home(as Engels termed the state of the female sex in patriarchal capitalist society).

There is plenty more wrong with pretty much all of Jones’s assumptions and claims, but his reactionism is most evident in his not-so-subtle racism, sexism, and homophobia. He is also profoundly anti-science, and makes some really ridiculous statements almost religiously, like when he made a video claiming that the Pyramid in Memphis, TN was an occult symbol where occultists would go to a room at the top to worship a dancing demon monkey, or something. He then ends the video by saying the “country boys” had won because the massive corporation, Bass Pro, bought the Pyramid. Another instance of this “anti-authoritarian” taking the side of the powerful against imaginary enemies.

CONCLUSION: CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE NOT REBELS

Observing the history of the most popular conspiracy theories and its consistently reactionary nature, it should be clear that these “activists” are fighting for anything but freedom and liberation. In the 18th and 19th centuries, they fought for absolute rule by monarch. Today, they fight for absolute control by the bourgeoisie. They pretend to be fighting against the upper-strata of society, when in fact, as is evidenced in Jones’s and Savage’s condemnations of the Baltimore protesters as “tools for evil”, they are opposing anyone who is oppressed struggling for a better life. They veil their worship of the status quo in pretend-stories about invisible enemies. They claim the powers that be are the opposite of what they really are, so as to be able to demonize the true rebels and uphold the system that protects them and their riches.

As more and more people are growing disenchanted with the current structures of power, more and more are being deceived by the flip-flopped rhetoric of Jones and his peers. People are falling for the false belief that all of society’s problems are coming from “socialism” or “progressivism”, when the US and other powerful countries are the opposite of socialist or progressive. The conspiracy theorists stand for the very same things these “big governments” stand for: white supremacy, nationalism, xenophobia, and so on.

What is “liberating” about shooting people at the border? What is “liberating” about wanting society to regress? Where is the “freedom” in constant paranoia, race-hatred, nationalist chauvenism?

Alex Jones is by no means oppressed or a member of the downtrodden, with his fortune gathered through fear-mongering. A revolutionary leftist could only wish to gain the fame he has in this society. A socialist would be blacklisted the second s/he gained that kind of notoriety. While the FBI is raiding the headquarters of socialist anti-war factions, Jones is sitting comfy in his studio spewing hate and fear.

If you are unsatisfied or angry at the system that oppresses, kills, tortures, be careful not to fall into false “rebellions” that advocate the very same things(or much worse) as this system.

-SFB

Anti-Communism: Manufacturing Ignorance and Hypocrisy

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.”

-Karl Marx, The German Ideology

Anti-communist propaganda at its most transparent. Freedom isn't for women, I guess?

Anti-communist propaganda at its most transparent. Freedom isn’t for women, I guess?

As I’ve said in a previous post, anti-communism has not let up, despite the claims of communism having been “defeated”. The bourgeoisie will one moment laugh and say Marxism has been “debunked”, and in the next moment, they’ll be foaming at the mouth about how we need to “stop communism” from taking away our supposed “freedoms”. We’re told communism was “proven wrong”, while at the same time it’s still a “threat”. It’s clear the bourgeoisie is still scared shitless about the powerful examples of socialist and national-liberation victories around the world.

Therefore, anti-communist propaganda is still running hard and desperate to keep the people and our ideology under control.

The claim that communism(Marxism-Leninism) has been “defeated” is a part of this propaganda. It is an attempt at discrediting communism in the eyes of the masses, who are, as Marx said, subject to the ideas of the materially dominant class(the capitalist bourgeoisie). This notion is therefore taken as fact, despite the idea itself being, as anti-communist propaganda, proof that the oppressors still consider communism a threat to their power. Because it is still a threat to their power. But this evidence is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the falsities of anti-communism.

CAUTION OR ILLEGITIMATE PARANOIA?

“We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are “free” to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!” -V. I. Lenin

A popular claim made by the bourgeoisie and their payroll-academics is that every single socialist state in history has been “paranoid”, and disruptive of personal privacy because of this. This assumption is considered to be “common knowledge”, since the bourgeoisie, the owners of our society’s ideology, wishes it to be. The facts of very real and material threats to these socialist states are never taken into consideration. Did not the imperialist powers lead fourteen invasions of new Soviet Union just after the October Revolutions of 1917? Yes. Is Trotsky not on file as having collaborated with the FBI and Mexican government? Yes, he is.

But not only this, the capitalist states themselves are still acting just as paranoid as the socialist and anti-imperialist states they blame. And then going even further. The capitalists don’t just target communists, but anything and everything that slightly differs theoretically or practically from the “common knowledge” of the bourgeoisie’s absolute rule. Not only were members of the Black Panther Party murdered by the dozens, not only were CPUSA members monitored and often imprisoned, not only were rebellious figures like MLK and Fred Hampton assassinated, but many other groups have been targeted and attacked in similar ways, and still are.

MKULTRA and the Tuskegee experiments are not just conspiracy theories; they have been admitted and proven to be true. And these weren’t even targeting communists, but any people of color, the homeless, the poor, etc. The “Russian Sleep Experiment” creepypasta doesn’t hold a candle to what the capitalist-imperialist US government has done in real life and to countless numbers of people.

Today, repressions are still going on against anyone considered even a small threat to bourgeois rule. Despite the early promises of President Obama, there are still people held imprisoned in Guantanamo without having had a trial(some have been there for over a decade). The FBI just raided the anti-war FRSO headquarters about two years ago. It has come out that the FBI is also still keeping tabs on former Black Panthers simply for their ability to(“GOD FORBID”) bring people of every skin color together to fight for justice. Just a few days ago it was leaked that the CIA has been continuously torturing people suspected of rebellious activity. Just today it was revealed that the US government will not prosecute those guilty of these illegal acts of torture.

And, like I said above, whereas the US tortures and monitors even relatively small-scale rebels and revolutionaries, the socialist and anti-imperialist governments, which are somehow deemed the “paranoid” ones, had very real and powerful threats to worry about. The Bay of Pigs invasion of revolutionary Cuba, the nearly 400 assassination attempts against Castro(all failed – put that in your bank account and smoke it), the intervention in literally every anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist revolution ever, the successful assassinations of various revolutionary leaders around the world(Che, Allende, Sankara, Kirov, and many others), the on-going presence of the US military on the Korean peninsula, the US government helping in the slaughter of over 500,000 people before the Korean War even began, the help Reagan and Thatcher gave to the Khmer Rouge in torturing and killing Vietnamese people in an attempt to undermine the revolution in Vietnam – and this is just to name a few examples of imperialist aggression against revolutionary governments. I think this all constitutes legitimate reasons for socialist and anti-imperialist states to be weary of the aggressors.

And yet, it is the governments having to fight these threats, not the government instigating the acts of aggression(who still repress their fair share of dissidents and assumed dissidents), that are called “paranoid”. As if capitalist states have never invaded anyone’s privacy(see: the Patriot Act and NDAA and the entire fucking McCarthy era).

THE CULT OF PERSONALITY: A BOURGEOIS IDEA

“The theory of “heroes” and the “crowd” is not a Bolshevik, but a Social-Revolutionary theory. The heroes make the people, transform them from a crowd into people, thus say the Social-Revolutionaries.

The people make the heroes, thus reply the Bolsheviks to the Social-Revolutionaries. The book carries water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries. No matter which book it is that brings the water to the windmill of the Social-Revolutionaries, this book is going to drown in our common, Bolshevik cause.” -Joseph Stalin

Another favorite condemnation the bourgeoisie has of socialist states is the Cult of Personality. Now, I won’t make the claim that this is something the capitalists completely made up(exaggerated – yes), because socialist and anti-imperialist states have, indeed, been plagued with this problem. Some, such as the DPRK have embraced it completely as an essential part of their state ideology, and I will never defend these actions because – and here’s what the bourgeoisie doesn’t mention – it is a regressive, bourgeois practice. It is practiced by bourgeois states everywhere.

"SOCIALISTS ARE LEADER-WORSHIPERS!" -says the bourgeoisie

“SOCIALISTS ARE LEADER-WORSHIPERS!” -says the bourgeoisie

Something else the capitalist media won’t tell you when talking about the problem of the Cult of Personality: Joseph Stalin, the man most famously blamed for this practice, fought hard against this practice; he opposed the cult built up around him by figures such as Kruschev. That’s right, the infamous creator of the “Secret Speech”(which is the primary piece of evidence used by the bourgeoisie to blame Stalin for egomania) was one of the people who originally pushed for Stalin to take on the Russian title equivalent to the German title of “fuhrer”. Stalin succeeded in blocking this from becoming official.

Then there are the 3 different attempts of Stalin’s to resign from his post as General Secretary: first during the whole Trotsky-Stalin rivalry after Stalin was democratically elected as the head of the Party, then during World War II, and finally at the last, unpublished Congress of the CPSU he ever attended(the one before Kruschev’s “Secret Speech”). His request was denied by a vote each time.

Lastly(regarding Stalin), there was the biography of himself he outright criticized as being untrue, idealistic, and, of course, a piece of hero-worship. He issued a Soviet-wide statement condemning the book. (Read his statement: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/02/16.htm )

While the Soviet Union, the DPRK, and Mao’s China fell into this practice, other socialist and anti-imperialist states and leaders succeeded in quenching it before it could get out of control or even begin. Enver Hoxha is the best example of this, while Castro and Ho Chi Minh are close runners-up.

Leave it to the bourgeoisie to condemn a practice they do every single day, and to a greater extent. In the capitalist ideology, a statue of Lenin signifies “brainwashing” and cultism, but carving four presidents into a fucking mountain it “quaint” or “respectful” or something. A bust of Stalin is “outrageous leader-worship”, but a massive statue of Lincoln is totally not that. They say to admire socialist leaders is to admire “genocidal maniacs”, as if Washington didn’t own slaves, or Jackson didn’t massacre Natives, or Lincoln didn’t put Natives into labor camps.

There’s a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the slave-owner and founder of the KKK, in my city. There’s a state-park named after him here in Tennessee, but yeah, honoring those who opposed slavery and fought for national-liberation is what’s outrageous.

“BUT MUH FREEDOMS!!”

“It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed hungry person. True freedom can only be where there is no exploitation and oppression of one person by another; where there is not unemployment, and where a person is not living in fear of losing his job, his home and his bread. Only in such a society personal and any other freedom can exist for real and not on paper.” -Joseph Stalin

Finally, there is the incredibly vague and idealistic notion that communism is inherently “anti-freedom”, whatever that means. First of all, freedom is never laid out as something concrete – it is explained in idealist, non-material terms. It is postured as some ideal above and independent of reality. That is because it’s meaning, in the bourgeois sense, does not encompass the whole of society, as is claimed in the beat-around-the-bush explanations, but it only applies to the bourgeoisie. The masses have the “freedom” to sell their labor power(to sell themselves, their being, for a certain amount of time every week) to the owning class, or starve, homeless and penniless, while the bourgeoisie has the freedom to enjoy comforts and luxuries they gain through the labor power of the masses, not their own effort.

Freedom in a capitalist society rests in the hands of, as Lenin said, the (wage)slave-owners, not the workers(wage-slaves) themselves. That is, freedom is reserved for the minority of wealth-owners, while those who own nothing but their own labor-power(their very essence) are excluded from this privilege, even though they’re the majority of the population.

Capitalist states have always persecuted and oppressed dissent(see the first section of this post). Even in the early days of the US, workers’ dissent was put down with fire and bullets. Today, things are no different, if not worse, and the bourgeoisie still claims to be the force fighting for “freedom”. The United States is still called the “land of the free”, despite having the highest number of prisoners fucking ever. The hegemonic belief in the “freedoms” of capitalism is still shouted from the rooftops while people are being beaten, wrongfully imprisoned, murdered, and generally oppressed by bourgeois state-power as I type this.

The notion of freedom is intrinsic to the treatment of human nature. There is no freedom when a person cannot follow their passions when their labor-power(their species-being) is under the control of someone else on a daily basis, just in order to stay alive and healthy enough to work some more.

The bourgeoisie likes to say socialist states “control thought”, but does the bourgeoisie not own the mass media, the means of production, the ideology of this society? I guess we communists have found the secret to “brainwashing”: providing free education at every level and keeping the population healthy. Yes, according to capitalist logic, the communists states are not overthrown because the populations are smart and healthy. That pretty much gives away the failures of capitalism.

Who is interested in controlling the masses: the states that want their people to be smart, healthy, capable, or the ones that keeps education and health out of the reach of a great many of its people?The states that provide the people with all the means to think and act for themselves, or the states that restrict these rights to only those who can afford it(and are therefore already bought over to the bourgeoisie side of the class war), while the rest of the population is taught to remain docile and under the economic and political control of a small elite? Socialist states or capitalist states?

I find it hard to believe that all of the states and nations constantly demonized by the bourgeoisie have to “trick” educated, healthy people into being happy. If anyone is “totalitarian”, it’s the states which are owned by an economic elite, who refuse to educated and treat their own people, not those which willfully and freely provide the entire population with what they need, so that they are able to focus on other things, using their high level of education and healthy bodies.

Why would these socialist and anti-imperialist countries provide the people with everything they need if they want them to stay distracted from toppling these so-called “authoritarian regimes”? Wouldn’t they take a lesson from the capitalists instead? That is, keep the population dumb and desperate just to survive.

But, as Marx’s quote at the very beginning of this post points out, the ruling ideas of every society(here, that’s bourgeois anti-communism) are always the ideas of the ruling class. Just because they say it, doesn’t make it fact. Just because they point their fingers elsewhere, doesn’t mean they aren’t guilty of equal or worse crimes. Just because they say something is “bad”, doesn’t mean it’s bad for you. They are only say it because it’s a threat to their own power, not because they give a shit about us. They don’t. Stop believing they do.

-SFB