Tag Archives: liberalism

Left for Dead

It’s been a while. My original plan for “coming back” was to wait until immediately after the election, so I could write according to the outcome. But that didn’t work, because as I tried to write, more and more shit kept happening. Now, it would take a novel for me to give my thoughts on everything that has happened since my last entry. What I can do is give a run-down of events and try to find the thread I want to pluck that runs through it all.

First things first, we elected the fascist. Well, “we” didn’t, the bourgeoisie did. Well, maybe not even that, since it seems that big chunks of the bourgeoisie didn’t want him. What appears to have happened is, the Democrats failed miserably, so the other guy took the win. Because liberalism has never been capable of combating fascism properly.

Secondly, the “reasonable Left” immediately decided to bow down to and open their arms for the new administration. Even the “radical” Bernie Sanders has followed the Democrat establishment’s lead in this. This isn’t a surprise to the (actual) radical Left, as liberals have historically tried to work with fascists, especially when it came to putting down revolutionary movements, which have been growing here in the US. But it did come as a surprise to many liberal voters, who are now seeing the weakness in their once-beloved party. The amount of questions and comments I’ve received regarding Marxism over the past 2 weeks has been staggering.

Next, Trump began to pick out his cabinet. Judging from the words of most news outlets, many in this country are “shocked” that the fascist is doing fascist-y things, like appointing a white nationalist to be his chief strategist. But after the initial shock began to wear off, the media and the liberal leaders started the process of normalizing this behavior. Fascists aren’t called fascists, they’re the “alt-right,” in the same way a billionaire isn’t a billionaire, he’s an “outsider.”

I want to emphasize that I am not trying to be an alarmist. Yes, this should all be taken very seriously, but we can’t panic. We must prepare. Taking advice I and others have received from comrades abroad, who are currently dealing with fascist regimes in their respective countries, we need to keep our heads cool and our eyes wide open. We have to see how the various groups of people react, how they handle themselves. We need to build alliances with those groups which show that they are willing to pull their weight in the struggle and adapt to these new circumstances.

We need to separate the wheat from the chaff. By this I mean, there will be some on the Left who will be all too willing to play by bourgeois rules. The majority of liberals will show their true colors–they will, once again, prove themselves to be agents of the bourgeoisie. As I mentioned above, many will turn further Left after witnessing the failures of their former leaders to properly represent the people. But most will stick to the most reactionary tenants of modern liberal ideology: pacifism, rejection of class struggle, divisiveness, chauvinism, ultra-reformism.

Pacifism is nothing short of kneeling while the ruling powers oppress everyone around you. The rejection of class struggle is ultimately just unquestioning loyalty to bourgeois rule. Divisiveness is a by-product of the rejection of class struggle–rather than organizing along class lines and bringing the workers together, the liberals further divide the working class by organizing along racialist lines, or some other bourgeois concept of “otherness.” (You know, the same things right-wingers and white nationalists actively condone). Chauvinism is displayed in their mistrust of the average worker to be capable of accomplishing anything without the Democrats or liberal academics. And the proponents of reformism tell us to simply wait another 2 years, because surely the Democrats will make a comeback in the midterms (ignore the fact that their track record for “taking back control” in recent elections hasn’t been great, and even if they did succeed, there is no way for them to make sure that their control will last).

The aftermath of election day has been heavy (and, sadly, it’s only a taste of things to come), but there has been an effect that I didn’t consider before–the chaff is separating from the wheat all on its own. It is becoming clearer every day who is genuinely concerned with the liberation of the oppressed, and who is more attached to abstract, immaterial principles that all boil down to an attempted justification of the dictatorship of capital, imperialism, and bourgeois rule. The latter group has not been subtle in their disapproval of everything that runs contrary to their ideals. Judging from what I’ve heard and witnessed, they’ll storm out of meetings when they don’t get their way, they’ll shut down conversations if it seems to be veering outside of liberal dogma, they’ll even aid the police in arresting the more “rowdy” protesters.

These are the bearers of the liberal banner, and they are losing credibility to their own followers. Prior to the election, liberals talked a lot about the impending destruction of the GOP (and for good reason, it really did appear that the Republicans were imploding), but now it is the Democrats who are scrambling to keep their establishment together. Their tactics in doing so are only further alienating them from what used to be their base. In their eagerness to be “pragmatic” and cater to the new regime, they’re turning their backs on those who will be most oppressed in the coming years. The liberal activist groups are now losing ground as well, from what I can tell.

They may be desperate, but liberalism still controls Leftist dialogue and action, even after it blatantly revealed its bourgeois nature post-election. In fact, it is a heavier yoke now than it ever was. Desperate times, desperate measures.

The election fallout is not the only example of liberal treachery, though. The event that drove me to write this was the death of Comrade Fidel. The liberal reaction to this may be even more obvious than their reaction to a fascist coming to power. Pro-imperialist, chauvinistic, and reactionary.

You see, these liberals don’t come out and say “I support the US in its attempts to overthrow popular, democratically elected governments in Latin America.” What they do is use the proper American Leftist language to mask these imperialistic stances. Over the past 2 days, the trendy way of talking about Fidel Castro is for white American liberals to say “Listen to the Cubans,” which sounds fine and dandy (if you want to ignore the very racial undertones and the implication that all Cubans think alike), but it quickly became clear that the white liberals really mean “Listen to the few hundred Cubans celebrating in Miami, not the millions mourning in Cuba.”

The defense of this line comes in the form of claiming that those of us who are fond of Fidel Castro and Revolutionary Cuba are “silencing” the voices of Cuban immigrants. This defense of imperialism portrays itself as considerate and caring, while it silences the voices of an entire country. It is doing the very thing it claims to be opposing, and on a larger scale.

Another fallacy of this line is that it is just as weak as a racist saying that they have a Black friend. The white liberals might know a Cuban person, so they believe that this one person’s stance is the correct one and it cannot be questioned. Well, I know a few people from the island as well, and they don’t have a negative word to say about Fidel. Are you going to silence them, or try to de-legitimize their experiences?


Cubans mourning the death of Fidel Castro

I may be getting off track by now, but the point is that this is an example of liberal treachery. Masking pro-imperialist stances in Left-sounding lingo. They say they want to listen to “Cuban voices,” but only those voices which are already in agreement with the pre-constructed liberal ideas and stances. How convenient. When all is said and done, the current liberal stance on the issue of Cuba is that it was wrong for Cuba to gain independence, and things were “better off” when the US puppet regime was still in power in that country. It all boils down to the belief that the Cuban people only deserve a voice if they’re saying things that paint US imperialism in a good light. The entire country rose up and made their voices heard in 1959, but the American liberals have refused to listen.

This is the cancerous thread that runs through the Left: liberalism. To be clear, there are those who claim to be liberals who actually do fight for the people with all their strength, however misguided. I have worked and will continue to work with them, out of necessity. But that does not mean liberalism is not dangerous, and those who push for its control of the Left are continuously proving themselves to be traitors to the people. Traitors to the Left itself. They’ll concede to the most vile reactionaries, they’ll stomp on the images of those who risked their lives fighting US imperialism (often while claiming to be anti-imperialist), they’ll trade in the well-being of the people in favor of ensuring the continuance of bourgeois rule.

It is important to note that liberalism is not a line exclusive to members and supporters of the Democratic Party. Many self-proclaimed revolutionaries hold these traits just as closely as the mainstream liberals do. The traits of liberalism are found in the claim that “socialism has never existed.” Liberalism is present in anti-communist propaganda being accepted in “communist” groups. It is present in Utopianism and in holding every revolution to impossible standards, resulting in the liberal condemnation of every successful revolution. It is Right-deviationism and the Putinite trend.

How do we fight it? Well, I’m no theoretician, and I think that is obvious. There are thousands of others who have lived and fought and explained this all better than I ever could. The simplest way I can put it is: We need to engage with those willing to work through disagreements, because these are dangerous times we are entering. Those who are not willing are literally and figuratively walking out the door. However, working alongside those who disagree with the theories of Marxism-Leninism does not mean we need to be quiet. Some will try to silence us, but we will not let that happen.

The heart of liberalism is the defense of capital–that is what it has always been. Liberals will not hesitate to leave us for dead, whether they be pro-US anti-communists, or Putinite ultra-revisionists; capitalism-imperialism is the side they have chosen. This is an ideological battle we must fight, while also remaining practical in the bigger fight against fascism.

We will march with them against the rise of fascism, but we will not put down the banner of Marxism-Leninism. We must prove to all that we are more than willing to dive onto the frontlines of this struggle. We will risk our necks for the people. Fear is natural, but it is also a reminder of why this fight is necessary. Fascism cannot remain in power, and we must expose the fact that, at the end of the day, liberalism cannot save us. It never has.

“Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well–they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.” -Mao Tse-Tung, Combat Liberalism


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.

On Forgiving the Mainstream “Left”

The Obama administration has been victimized, according to the radical liberal. The President has been blocked from putting the “change” he promised into full effect. The Republicans have formed a seemingly insurmountable road-block. In other words, the Obama administration has failed. But that is putting it too bluntly, for many people. As always, the Democratic Party is forgiven its losses and retreats, for it is, as is portrayed in bourgeois media, the “one and only hope” for the American Left. The only path left to take. Communism’s mistakes are unforgivable, but liberalism just needs time. More time to keep pushing for policies that can be destroyed or reversed, and indeed already have been in the past.

The democratic-socialists who saw the creation of FDR’s New Deal thought they were witnessing the founding of a new path to socialism, through the “open doors” of bourgeois democracy. Revolution was a barbaric idea of the past. The center-left bourgeois forces were considered the spearhead of progress. Little did they know, in their short-term and collaborationist view, what the future held – an expansion of imperialist endeavors, the Reagan and two generations of the Bush administrations, fucking Nixon too. To them, the founding-blocks of a new and equal society were being formed by the very same bourgeois hands that created the chains that continue to bind the working class. And still today, even after all of these failures and reversals, the Democratic Party and “radical liberalism” are seen as the only true voice for Leftism and the masses.

Of course, in a bourgeois society, the only options that are allowed by capital to be widely shown are bourgeois ideologies. Yes, the bourgeoisie does have disagreements within its ranks as a class, but the desire to continue bourgeois rule(i.e. to continue the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) is a universal value in that class, despite their petty disagreements on concessions and tactical trickery.

In the USA, these differing bourgeois ideologies materialize as the “fight” between Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative. We are told that this is the primary contradiction in society, even though both sides of this “contradiction” represent the same class. The “baddies” are the Republicans, who are much more outright with their desires to maintain and solidify the dictatorship of capital around the world. The Democrats are the “good guys”, because their form of capitalism-imperialism is much “nicer” in words.

“Left liberals” are seen as the “heroes of the oppressed”, because they are given credit, by their own media, for every single step forward that has been made in this country ever. We are told to thank a liberal for minimum wage, despite the decades of thousands of workers fighting and dying for such a right before it was granted, as some kind of gracious gift, by the liberal bourgeoisie. The workers who fought and died are expected to thank the bourgeoisie for caving in after so many bloodstained years. We are supposed to “thank a liberal” for the Civil Rights Act, as if it was the brainchild of the white bourgeoisie of the time, and not due to the hundreds of years of struggle by primarily-socialist Black workers. If you do not see the obvious elitism and hijacking in all of this, then there is something severely wrong with your “Leftism”. None of these things – the Civil Rights movement, the labor movement, feminism, the LGBT+ liberation movement – were created by Left-ISH bourgeois politicians, but by the people themselves. It is downright offensive that the liberal(“liberal” was and is another word for “capitalist”) bourgeoisie expects the people to thank them for conceding rights that the people had been fighting for for decades and even centuries.

This attitude has continued tenfold under the Obama administration. Recently, President Obama has gotten his fans on a “look how progressive we are” roll on the issue of immigration, following his State of the Union speech. Again the horns are sounding to cheer on this new, über-radical turn we can also “thank a liberal” for. But it seems that the liberals have forgotten or conveniently ignored the fact that the Obama administration oversaw, in 2013, the highest recorded number of deportations in US history – 438,421 people in total. As of 2013, there have been over 2 million deportations since Obama took office. See the statistics here.


This is just an example of liberal, pseudo-Left hypocrisy. Saving-face is not something to be praised. The millions deported in the last 7 years are surely not amused by this sudden rhetorical trend. And certainly none of them will be thanking any liberals for this shallow popularity-grab.

Not only are the Democrats and radical liberals failing to overcome their fellow bourgeois semi-nemises, the Republicans, they are failing and have always failed at even scaling back the United States’ imperialist adventures abroad. Hell, they’ve barely even had to condemn these bloody adventures, since, apparently, if bombs are dropped by a Democrat, it’s not as destructive as ones dropped by a Republican.

We were promised an end to the War in Iraq, which was kinda-sorta granted, but never an end to imperialism, regime change, or the so-called “spreading of democracy”. Those liberals who so vehemently condemned the wars under Bush Jr. were all too eager to fall for Obama’s reasoning behind his own overseas violence(reasoning nearly identical to that of the Bush administration).

Even the more “extreme” figures of the mainstream Left wholeheartedly support imperialism. Bernie Sanders, who is in a “socialist” party so “must be a socialist”, is a diehard supporter of US aid to the fascistic apartheid state of Israel. Elizabeth Warren voted for intervention in Syria. Hillary Clinton has been outspoken on her wish to overthrow the Iranian government. Bottomline, liberalism is unabashedly pro-imperialist, and, in that alone, bourgeois to the core.

All-in-all, if liberalism – a 100% bourgeois, capitalist-imperialist ideology and movement – is really the only hope for the American Left, then the American Left would be dead and rotting, because the forces of capitalism-imperialism cannot but be reactionary and regressive. But the Left isn’t dead; there is still progress being made, battles being fought, the class struggle continues. It is the people who are pushing society forward, and, not just the Republicans, but the bourgeois class in general which stands in the way of this progress. The bourgeoisie wants the people to believe that their victories are actually the bourgeoisie’s victories, in order to solidify bourgeois hegemony and distract the people from revolutionary, anti-capitalist activities. We will not thank any bourgeois entity for the work of the oppressed people and the progressive, truly socialist forces – those who are truly responsible for the victories of the movements of the poor and oppressed.

Unions were not made by the bourgeoisie, but by the working people using Marxist socialist theories. Women’s liberation was never won through bourgeois means, but by the fight of working women, and it was most realized following the socialist revolutions around the world. The list goes on and on.

It was the revolutions of the 20th century which won the most for the oppressed and downtrodden peoples of the world. It was the socialist states and movements which forced the bourgeois countries to try to keep up with the standards of living – and even under the most “lefty liberal” leaders, the bourgeois states never caught up. It was and is the working and oppressed people, guided by revolutionary thought, which has gained all of these small concessions, and it is these same forces that will eventually break the wall of bourgeois reaction and take the reigns of history for the people.

You see, liberalism condemns Marxism as a “failure”, and yet the liberals have a history of failure and outright bourgeois activity. Marxism lead people away from the system of exploitation, destroyed that system. The failures of the socialist states only manifested after liberalizations of the respective economies. Every historian speaks of these liberalizations, but rarely do they recognize its obvious connection to the failures of these states, which they inexplicably put on the shoulders of Marxism(yes – even after admitting to these economies’ liberalizations).

Liberalism has yet to even weaken the bourgeois dictatorship, and yet Marxism is the failure, having destroyed this dictatorship in many places and on many occassions? Liberalization drove formerly-socialist economies into the ground, and yet liberalism is considered the “victor” and Marxism is to blame for these downfalls?

It is far past time for the people to turn away from those members of the bourgeoisie wearing Leftist masks. They have betrayed us time and again. The truest examples of liberation they deem “unworkable” and “failed”, but, to paraphrase Castro, where is the victory of capitalism(liberalism) in Latin America, in Africa, in the Middle-East, in Asia, or even in the streets of the USA and Europe? The fallen Eastern Bloc is not a testament to the “unworkability” of Marxism-Leninism, the only ideology that has ever lead to the material victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the victory of the exploited over the exploiter, but, rather, it is a testament to the failures of liberalizations, of liberalism, of class-collaborationism – a testament to how this bourgeois ideology, no matter how Leftist it tries to sound, is a failure to the people at large.

It’s time to stop granting liberalism, and capitalism in general, these free-passes to our support. Working “within the system” means nothing more than working with a class that wants nothing more than the continuity of its own oppressive rule. Too many “socialists” and even self-proclaimed “Marxists” are open to these collaborationist methods that have historically only lead to betrayal and a watering-down of the revolutionary spirit, if not a complete onslaught against it.

It was the scientific theories and practices of Marxism-Leninism that liberated a third of the world, it was the fighting hands of the oppressed and exploited, on whose liberation Marxism-Leninism bases its ideology and practice, that have pushed society forward in every progressive step it has taken. We owe the oppressing classes nothing but our fury. Their fake play-nice attitude is being seen for what it really is – the greedy face behind the mask is becoming apparent to more and more people. The red tide will rise again, without and against the bourgeoisie, whether they’re conservative or liberal.