The modern communist movement and prejudice.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

So recently I was watching a video by a certain famous Maoist Third Worldist on YT (come on, you know who it is). In this video he was expressing his opinion that Marxism is stagnating in many ways.

In particular, he brought up the issue of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation proposing legislation that would outlaw coming out of the closet. He also pointed to the Donbass people and their rampant anti-semitism and homophobia.

Now obviously this person only views who are true marxists through his Maoist Third Worldist bias (note his belief that the Donbass people are Marxists), but what I found somewhat troubling was that the comment sections were filled with supposed Marxists and Maoists making extremely reactionary comments about Jews and LGBT people. One even said that Homosexuality was a corruption from the 'liberal west'.

Now, obviously I shouldn't have expected anything but the worse from a Youtube comment section, but it did make me think of a question:

Do you think there is still a significant amount of reactionary racial and sexual prejudice within the modern Communist movement? There definitely seems to be, and I'm wondering exactly what we must do to eradicate it.

[Aslan]

I remember listening to Maoist Rebel News (MRN) when I was younger. I don't trust the guy myself, and I think he is a harmful influence to the marxist community. He not only constantly makes himself look like an ass. but his constant cocky comments make us all look like a bunch of 10-year-old soviet fanboys! He constantly preaches about ''third worldism'' and the evils of ''first worldist'' revisionism in his videos even though third worldism is ridiculous! He has one good quality about him though; he is a decent writer and his scripting is quite refined in some videos.

[Rafiq]

I mean there is a grain of truth in the video, surprisingly enough. You can see it in all sorts of ways - there is this dangerous and growing tacit respect among Fascists and self-proclaimed "Communists" in their opposition to the existing order.

And this is for the simple reason that: No, there is no modern Communist movement. MRN claims Marxism is stagnating by referencing phenomena which is hardly exemplary of Marxism in the 21st century: The appeal many "Communists" face on a global level has no basis in class struggle. If you want to think about it like this: Fascism is nothing more than the spiritual dead carcass of a failed worker's movement, a parody of the socialism it makes pretenses to "overcoming". And many who call themselves "communists" today are no different.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It is certainly true that there are a lot of people who hold reactionary views and support "the Left" in some shape or form. I think many of these people are, in some sense of the term, "tankies", in that they are inheritors of a particular discourse. I think that these folks largely view struggle as the conflict between powerful nation-states with distinct and valuable origins. In particular, bad actors aren't Capitalists, but NATO and Western powers, and those struggling for liberation aren't oppressed classes, but anti-Western nations.

That's not to minimize the significance of Western Imperialism, but I think most "real" Marxists remember to put imperialism in an anti-capitalist context. They are also less likely to fall into petty moralistic bigotries against those who aren't oppressors.

However, I think it's important to recognize that many of the "really existing Socialist" states today propagate such discourses. China and North Korea for instance are big pushers of a nationalistic line of thought. The struggle for the South China Sea is not a class struggle, but one based in the expansion of Chinese state power within an international order that historically excluded them. Insofar as these Communist parties are by far the biggest in the world, it's only inevitable that most "party members" around the world will hold deeply reactionary views. Of course, those folks probably aren't the ones making antisemitic or homophobic slurs on youtube comments.

[Counterculturalist]

Xenophobia and outright racism is becoming commonplace and acceptable in the mainstream again - not that it wasn't before, but people don't even bother using "dog-whistle" terms anymore. It's right out in the open again. In North America we can see it in Donald Trump's rise to prominence, and racist 4chan/reddit culture finding its way onto your facebook feed, often from people who should know better. Within far-left circles it manifests itself in "class-only" analysis that marginalizes and ridicules any anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-LGBTQ struggle.

Mainstream ideas have this way of showing up even in nominally oppositional movements, and today's communism is particularly susceptible to reactionary ideas considering that, as Rafiq shows, much of today's "communism" is simply an anti-establishment posture meant to feed its participants' desire to feel like rebels of some sort.

I find it kind of telling with regards to the milieu in which Jason exists - one that's filled with tankies, homophobes, misogynists and racists - that he is only now realizing that the CPRF is and has been basically a fascist organization.

[Burzhuin]

I find it kind of telling with regards to the milieu in which Jason exists - one that's filled with tankies, homophobes, misogynists and racists - that he is only now realizing that the CPRF is and has been basically a fascist organization.
I disagree about such strong term. Yes, CPRF has strong nationalists believes and not even considered as REALLY Communist Party. In my opinion it is social-democratic party. But not fascist one.

BTW, I was always wondering what people mean by sexism?

[Guardia Rossa]

In Brazil, either you are a reactionary scum, a fascist in red, or you are a post-modern/liberal leftist, and there are a few "closet marxists" that know the [basic, in my case] theory but can't practice it.

I only did understand this when I joined Revleft.

[Burzhuin]

In Brazil, either you are a reactionary scum, a fascist in red, or you are a post-modern/liberal leftist, and there are a few "closet marxists" that know the [basic, in my case] theory but can't practice it.

I only did understand this when I joined Revleft.
Unfortunately it is applicable to so many people who call themselves communists. I met both cases: those who know Marxism-Leninism very well but cannot implement it in real life, and those, I call them intuitive Marxists, who do not know the theory but sometimes act as they do.

[Guardia Rossa]

who do not know the theory but sometimes act as they do.

I remember when a Tankie attempted to convince me petit-bourgeois = middle class and middle class = petit bourgeois.
That Anarchism is actually a petit-bourgeois ideology to destroy the State and expand capitalism, and that there's no difference between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism (What?)
Other one, that the "precariat" were a pack of anarcho-lumps.

These kind of people are the funniest ones.

[Burzhuin]

If I may ask: what do you think about current Brazilian government, particularly - president?

[Guardia Rossa]

As most of the populist governments: Screams "SOCIALISM!" and does *Capitalism*

However, it is a much better option than the openly neo-liberal candidates, or even the reactionaries (Also, believe it or not, some "communists" want to support reactionary candidates in order to get the people to hate them....) the Worker's Party (Literally, Party of the Workers, ou Partido dos Trabalhadores) still does a good job in administrating the nation, even if it's quite difficult to do so, with the ever-present corruption.

[Burzhuin]

Unfortunately the same may be said about majority of populist parties. In my old country there is Labor Party which was created and lead by oligarch, one of the richest people in the country. BRIC countries are famous by its corruption.

I look and found, that Brazil has several communist parties. Any idea why?

[Guardia Rossa]

They exist because of dictatorship-era sectarianism of the armed movement, wich got carried through by the old communists, and because we have shittons of parties, that aren't based on ideology. We just make two parties for each ideology and create more ideologies when we get bored, so, more parties!

Firstly, most Brazilian communist/socialist parties are not communist at all, just cheap revisionists or social-democrats. Secondly, party names with "socialism" always attracted popular support, even if rightists attempt to deny it, so absolutely everyone takes up "Social" or "Socialist" in the name.

"Socialist" apparently also means "populist"

-PCO has a weird position that borrows a bit from social-democracy, but I didn't studied much (2nd smallest)
-PCR is a unrecognized party, pure-blooded stalinist, claims to be the only revolutionary one (smallest)
-PCB is somewhat stalinist and somewhat social-democrat, can be said to be the center of the leftist parties
-PSTU is mostly revisionist and post-modern (morenism) and has some trotskist subtract (biggest until recently, not sure, PSOL grew much)
-PSOL is a factionalist confusion of revisionists, post-moderns, social-democrats and social liberals (Little but has much voice)
-PCdoB can't even be considered left, at most center-left.

The rest aren't worth study and/or consideration, they are paste/copy revisionist-socialdemocrat-populist parties

[Burzhuin]

I check them all and according to Wikipedia I found only one party that really can be called Communist: PCML Partido Comunista Marxista-Leninista
But what is the PCR? I did not find it.

[Guardia Rossa]

Eh, what?

Oh, just googled it! Apparently there is a party even smaller and more unheard of than the PCR!

Oh, just saw it in wikipedia. Never heard about it neither talked to a member of the party.

PCR is Partido Comunista Revolucionário.

EDIT: In the wikipedia, it's name is PCR-PU

[Burzhuin]

I studied long and hard Russian Great Socialist Revolution. It is hard to believe but in February Revolution Bolsheviks Party was the smallest one. The size means something, but not everything.

[Burzhuin]

I see no difference between PCML and PCR-UP. The ideology is very similar. Why do they not merge?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It's hard to say if there is a significant amount of those things in the left still in my view, it's not like there's a tally of who does and doesn't hold these views so it's hard to say when the official line is to be against these things. The CPRF is an obvious case though, so much of what they do is reactionary and I count them to be as communist as the CPUSA if that tells you anything. But you look at Maoists in Nepal (who everyone here seems to have completely forget about once the few Maoists here left) who have major support and they're very open to the LGBT community. They're in the third world and they're Maoists.

So yes there are elements of it, especially in tankie circles and MTW circles but I don't really think they're significant as I've only seen them on the internet. Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough but I can't think of many communist organizations that are openly racist or homophobic but considering I'm not working with these people everyday it's hard to say because then stories of rape come out of the ISO and stuff so you have to wonder how serious some people actually take it.

[Khalistani]

I am a fan of socialism (it is even a central tenet of my faith, the equality of all humanity and sharing food and quarter with all for free), but I find that many socialists discriminate against all religious people blatantly, following Dialectical Materialism dogmatically.

[Burzhuin]

I am a fan of socialism (it is even a central tenet of my faith, the equality of all humanity and sharing food and quarter with all for free), but I find that many socialists discriminate against all religious people blatantly, following Dialectical Materialism dogmatically.
I am curious: how else you would like to be discriminate? You are either Marxist, meaning atheist, or not. We can spend centuries convincing each other in correctness of our believes. But quite often we just have no time.

[Comrade Jacob]

I saw the comments, they are trolling and trying to be edgy.

[Comrade Jacob]

I am curious: how else you would like to be discriminate? You are either Marxist, meaning atheist, or not. We can spend centuries convincing each other in correctness of our believes. But quite often we just have no time.

Marxist does not mean atheist necessarily.

[Guardia Rossa]

I see no difference between PCML and PCR-UP. The ideology is very similar. Why do they not merge?

Because remember, Brazil always needs exactly two parties of the exact same ideology that says the exact same things, for almost every ideology available.

Why?

Don't ask me.

[Burzhuin]

Marxist does not mean atheist necessarily.
If you are Marxist, you will use materialist dialectic to everything. It gives no room for believing in Jesus Crist, Buddha, Allah (whom did I miss?).

[Burzhuin]

Because remember, Brazil always needs exactly two parties of the exact same ideology that says the exact same things, for almost every ideology available.

Why?

Don't ask me.
It is not as bad in Brazil comparing with Russia. I personally know at least 10 Communist groups (some of them proudly call themselves party). Obviously CPRF is not one of them since I do not consider it as Communist Party.

[Rafiq]

I am a fan of socialism (it is even a central tenet of my faith, the equality of all humanity and sharing food and quarter with all for free

Who knew socialism was so vaguely defined, who knew, in fact, that socialism's power resided in some vague notion of "sharing food and quarter with all for free'.

Please stop.


, but I find that many socialists discriminate against all religious people blatantly, following Dialectical Materialism dogmatically.

What does it mean to "discriminate" against all relgiious people? Stop using words so opportunistically. You are in fact "discriminating" against those of us who follow "dialectical materialism" dogmatically.

It is not in fact discrimination for the simple reason that for the intelligentsia, which you are here - you are accountable for your ideas. There is nothing encoded in your DNA, nothing essential about you which makes you religious. You are religious insofar as any of us COULD hypothetically be religious. So we will hold you to that standard, get over it.

All socialists violently oppose religion, all religion. Of course, we recognize practical realities, but the logical conclusion of our attitude toward religion, no matter how much we might tactically take into consideration the national connotations of this or that religion concerning national oppression, is the League of Militant Atheists (http://thecharnelhouse.org/2013/03/01/soviet-antireligious-propaganda/).

That means your precious national categories, like the "Sikhs", are not immune from the standards we hold to all peoples universally. Don't even dare try playing this game, when I first joined this site five years ago, I was a Muslim and I more or less did the same thing. It's pure opportunism. The same antagonisms in western society which give us atheism are present among Sikh communities, believe it or not. So we violently oppose Sikh religion, its superstitious customs just as we oppose all religion.

Propertied and petty bourgeois elements of various national/religious minorities will, on behalf of their entire communities, attempt to wedge in a place to the wider struggle on behalf of this or that "religious group". Well we see right past you. We do not recognize such a group as a political force. We did not recognize the clerics and landowners of central Asia, and their "socialist" apologists as "The Muslim people" and this will hold. Reactionary opportunists will seize the 'sympathy' stupid western orientalists have for their particular totality and this serves to perpetuate the real oppression, backwardness and relations of power that are pervasive in such communities. Because the oppression of the Sikhs in India, reflective of a wider universal social antagonism, has no regard for the particularities of Sikhism, than neither can the liberation of the dispossessed and condemned Sikhs have any regard for the particularities of their own identity, forged through national oppression.

You can speak of the oppression of Sikhs in India, but the particularities of their culture, traditions, superstitions, ETC. is absolutely symptomatic of this oppression. The history of colonialism and national oppression that only scoundrels, reactionaries make pretenses to the old cultures which proceeded relations of domination, the history of colonialism and national oppression teaches us that ruthless universalism, the insistence to be held to the same standards the oppressor nations hold themselves, is the only key to the liberation of the oppressed nations. Compare the docile, righteously enslaved Mourides to the heroic fighters of Angola, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe and you will understand this.

[Rafiq]

Marxist does not mean atheist necessarily.

Not only does Marxism imply atheism, so too does Communism. One cannot be a socialist without being an atheist. Can masses of people who happen to be religious be mobilized by socialists? Perhaps, but their mobilization would be atheist in practice, and once anti-religious campaigns kick in, their religious consciousness disappears. The role of Communism is to destroy the role religion has for people's lives, and replace it with the struggle for a life without need of opiates.