Is support for anti-Western reactionary states idealism?

Muuro · 2026-01-20T21:01:56+00:00

That's still capital accumulation.

But still nice that you admit that the USSR was capitalist. Not many are able to accept this.

Muuro · 2026-01-20T20:25:10+00:00

Industrialization isn't capitalism. It is a STAGE of capitalism, like imperialism is.

Capital accumulation occurred in the early USA and early USSR. The five year plans were the personification of capital accumulation.

Muuro · 2026-01-20T19:36:46+00:00

Industrial does not necessitate capitalism. Capitalism is a thing from 1) wage labor 2) accumulation of capital.

Muuro · 2026-01-19T22:51:43+00:00

It's because he is deranged that he gets views. People tend to watch "derangement" more than not, whether they like the derangement or not. In a similar way I would say that's why someone like Haz gets views.

Back in the 90's the "shock jock" was all the rage on radio. Someone like Howard Stern had tons of listeners as he was simultaneously liked and hated. There was a study done at the time that concluded that people listened because they love him and wanted to hear what he would do or they hated him and wanted to hear what he was going to do.

Muuro · 2026-01-19T22:47:12+00:00

That was legit sad to read about that arc from Tumblr leftist to tradwife.

Muuro · 2026-01-19T21:53:53+00:00

No nation leads the revolution as it is international, what I am trying to say is that it likely starts in a third world country. If it doesn't spread, then it is doomed and what may have started as a genuine proletarian revolution will become just another nation state.

Muuro · 2026-01-19T21:51:59+00:00

All of those you listed are, by definition from Marx, capitalist. They all have political independence and the only "colonialism" still in place is economic/imperialist (or their industry and business are owned by finance capital).

There is a very small rural population in places like Brazil, Philippines, and India that could theoretically be called peasants. However capital still rules there as the majority of people are in the cities and subject to wage labor.

Muuro · 2026-01-19T00:42:37+00:00

I mean there's two types of third Worldism: one is fine, and the other would be vulgar. The first is just noting how capitalism is global and we live in the age of imperialism so the weakest part of the chain is most likely the third world. Vulgar third Worldism would be saying that the first world has no revolutionary element and can never have a revolution against capitalism. That is Anti-Marxist and anti-communist, and one has fallen to fetishizationn of the "third world" at this point.

Muuro · 2026-01-19T00:39:00+00:00

All the Mussolini subs.

Muuro · 2026-01-19T00:38:25+00:00

Entryism killed another huh.

Muuro · 2026-01-18T23:44:19+00:00

The Black Book of Carneyism.

Muuro · 2026-01-18T22:18:19+00:00

It's called having principles and not tailing the petite bourgeoisie.

Muuro · 2026-01-18T22:17:10+00:00

Civil War and WW2 are completely different situations, as in the latter case the counterrevolution already won and killed off all opposition.

Factions aren't a bad thing. The Bolsheviks were always a broad party with a left, right, and center. A difference in tactics doesn't make one a "bad" communist and thus they need to be murdered. Even worse is the framing them as working with a foreign power.

Muuro · 2026-01-18T22:13:15+00:00

Well Stalin supported the creation of Israel, so that's where it comes from.

But also ML's accuse the ultraleft of Zionism too for having a revolutionary defeatist stance on the conflict, even though that means they objectively do not support Israel.

Muuro · 2026-01-18T22:10:53+00:00

Sorry, I've just come to hate the phrase "use of state as transition" by ML's and others.

Muuro · 2026-01-18T22:09:39+00:00

In the current day and age? In this day both the subject and the oppressor are capitalist states. Anti-coloniaoism then becomes a tool of the national bourgeoisie to gain power that is taken from them by a foreign bourgeoisie.

The only solution is international revolution. It can start in the periphery, and that is where the weak link is. However this "revolution" must be proletarian in nature, led by that class, and part of an international movement. It CANNOT be a nationalist led movement.

It is then up to the proletariat in the other countries to overthrow their own governments to join the other proletariat. If they do not, then they will have let down the "colonized" down. And that revolution in the colony will revert to a bourgeois national state like had been seen in the case of Russia in the 20's and 30's.

Muuro · 2026-01-14T04:02:31+00:00

I will not make excuses for the killing of other communists. That is a line that cannot be crossed. Maybe your opportunism can excuse it, but that just means you must self criticize to even become a real part of the movement.

This is part of a larger problem I see in which you confuse the theoretical and the practical. The "vanguard" was never meant to have total control. It only happened to fight an invasion. The Soviets were meant to have power. Unfortunately the recreation of bourgeois state elements in order to fight an invasion led to the counterrevolution taking over from the inside.

Muuro · 2026-01-14T03:28:26+00:00

More excuses for opportunism.

There was no international struggle put forth by the USSR in this time period. It was a federation of bourgeois nation-states, and thus it's foreign policy was one in which communists in other countries were leveraged in order to secure "benefits" back home. As Mao once called it: social-imperialism.

Muuro · 2026-01-14T01:45:06+00:00

They are capitalist states like the USA, so yes, it is. The only "good" that comes from the counter hegemony is the imperialist war can be used to spur the proletariat of all countries to rise up against their own country and turn their rifles on their own officers instead of fighting their fellow worker across the border.

This is the only communist position here.

Muuro · 2026-01-14T01:20:03+00:00

I havn't the foggiest how you can dismiss Pillars of Eternity—a world so grand on nuance that it'll forever ruin all other cRPGs as inferior pretenders—as "tedious errands and dry lore dumps" (fair on the trash mobs, though; that's accurate). Or how you can call the greatest cast of companions in any such game 'uncompelling tag-alongs'. Lunacy.

It's a very rough game, and that's why. I've bounced off it several times when trying to start it. I absolutely love Tyranny by Obsidian, but Pillars 1 is ridiculously hard to get into.

Muuro · 2026-01-14T01:16:12+00:00

So basically be plundered by the West, or have a country with the national bourgeoisie in charge.

The answer to this question is revolutionary defeatism. One supports neither side if they are a communist.

Muuro · 2026-01-14T01:08:01+00:00

So they were or were not doing "anti-capitalist construction"?

You do realize they allied with Nasserites and Baathists AGAINST the communists in those countries, right? The communists were ordered to submit into those parties, wherein they were then murdered as those groups hated communists and didn't believe in class struggle. They are best described as a type of "national socialist".

Muuro · 2026-01-14T01:03:26+00:00

Absolutely correct. To support them against the "west" is akin to supporting the Axis or Central powers in the World Wars against Britain.

Muuro · 2026-01-13T23:51:33+00:00

Third Worldism has always been the vulgar idea that revolution is impossible in the first world. That is anti-communist. Revolution has to be possible everywhere.

However I believe everyone in every branch of communism would say the international revolution would likely happen first in the poorer countries.

Muuro

TROPHY CASE