CPUSA OP wrote

It's easy for Western leftists to conflate their capitalist states with socialist ones, but I assure you they are entirely different beasts. The socialist state only exists to serve the people. The capitalist state only serves capitalism.


CPUSA wrote

You are correct that hurt_chinese is very likely to be a Western reactionary posing as a Chinese worker, but please explain to me what is wrong with having a 5-year plan, or any of China's great plans? Are you against social planning? Do you believe the people should be given no structure or directives to work under? How will you achieve communism without clear and concise direction from the party?

Let's not pretend China isn't the leader of global climate strategy and all that entails. They achieve this with their strong dedication to future planning. A concept that seems to escape you.

In 2016 Xi gave an important speech outlining the future ecological civilization in China's 13th Five Year Plan. Does America make concrete plans like Xi's to avert climate change? Does Europe? Australia? Any capitalist nation? No. No. No. Only loose unofficial pledges with capitalists at economic forums that aren't ever adhered to.

Without solid achievable plans, we have nothing. Only a reactionary would attack these progressive plans. What is your plan for solving the climate crisis while guarding worker rights? Tell me please.


CPUSA OP wrote (edited )

Communism is not a cult lmao, we don't even believe in religions. Do you know anything about communists?


Such an insipid, useless term. It has never had a consistent meaning. What matters is who represents the authority. You anarchists believe anything that uses the power of the state to suppress the capitalists is a “hierarchy” and should be rejected. This is complete nonsense. Even your own anarchist philosophers support a transitional state, notably when discussing what your revolution would look like, they will say a transitional period is needed to prepare the working class for communism. Anarchists don’t seem to view mob violence (Antifa) and murdering political opponents with bombs as authoritarian. Yet when state apparatuses do it to the enemies of the people, regardless of class character, you anarchists say it's authoritarian because of the “hierarchy” of the state. Get this putrid notion out of arrogant American skull. Authority is good and needed when it is for the people and bad when it is used against the people. You live in a fantasy land if you think you can take on the USA without the defenses of a strong socialist state.

You non Marxists constantly refuse to organize effectively because hierarchies bad, well I've got news for you friendo, you always base your movements around entirely non-class-based issues (identity politics), you're a bunch of pacifist babies who don't understand the 'smash' part of smashing the bourgeois state and think it just means to write rock songs about peace and love “This guitar kills fascists” jokers. No. Communists kill fascists. Using a state's authority..

Some of the leftists here can learn and be brought over to the Marxist position with a little effort... As a general rule, the lower a leftist's class status, the more likely he is to be convinced to come to communism. If we did a poll of all the users here, you would see that the most ardent anti-communist, pro-imperialism anarchists are all middle class or higher, while those who work with communists are working class and true comrades.

I don't think communists should work with imperialists, but don't take this as a rejection of left unity. I just don't think letting any anarchist libs or revisionists into the party is a very good idea because they'll poison it from within.

True left unity is MLs and Maoists (MLMs) working together towards our common goals. This of course means Maoist comrades need to actually read Marx (not memes with short quotes, actual Marx) so they can wrap their heads around the concept of productive forces, and come to understand that dialectics have a material component. What does this mean? Simple. It means that dialectics themselves shouldn't be treated as though they are concrete rather than abstract. Only then can we build some real power and start to implement the policies needed (via the dictatorship of the proletariat) to create the material conditions for the revolution.


CPUSA OP wrote

Imagine being so liberal that you call the biggest supporters of American imperialism a cool club. Go contribute to Sinophobia somewhere else, there's thousands of people ready to talk to you about how evil China is over on CIA.gov.


CPUSA wrote

Many leftists love Noam Chomsky and his work Manufacturing Consent, but they manage to fall into the same trap that the propaganda model begets. Research things for yourself, be skeptical of western sources. It may seem odd to us how China is dealing with Uyghur extremism, but I promise you you are not thinking critically on this.

Please investigate these sources through a critical lens:






CPUSA wrote

Supporting Nazis is not acceptable. The Mental gymnastics to justify siding with a fascist country against a socialist one is completely mind blowing. Anarchists supporting imperialism is just wow.