Fellow PNWer here, thanks for the great article. Some questions:
- What indications are there of a militant left pivoting against communists?
- Wouldn't a right-wing populist govt rehabilitate and fund right-wing militias as their counterrevolutionaries of choice?
- If this were the case, how would your communist strategy shift?
- What rhetorical line could sell rural America both on anti-imperialism but also the BRI? Sinophobia seems like a large hurdle.
- What shape would non-insular decolonial rhetoric take? Or would it, like other efforts in the liberal niche, have be deprioritized while a working class coalition is formed?
-The indications I’ve seen are the intensification of rhetoric against anti-imperialists that’s occurred in anarchist spaces since the start of the new cold war, and escalations in the behavior of these anarchists. Like the physical action against a PCUSA stand by anti-civ anarchists a couple years ago.
-Even if a right-wing populist government gets into power, the highest levels of capital that control the intelligence agencies would still be able to recognize that the militant left is the most culturally palatable counter-gang element. So though our strategy would need to change in that we’d have to focus more on combating the far right, the most intelligence agencies would still be cultivating the left anti-communist groups, and probably be pushing back against the White House for its taking a more reckless approach.
-Sinophobia is a large hurdle, but antisemitism was also a large hurdle among the Russian peasantry, and the communists still won there. We may be able to get these people to unlearn their hate for China by exposing them to the experience of working for the class struggle, which is what got the Young Patriots to unlearn their racism.
-Non-insular decolonial rhetoric looks like what the African People’s Socialist Party is doing: talking about settler-colonialism, and even about the concept of white people being settlers, while not trying to gatekeep the class struggle on ethno-nationalist lines. APSP has been allying with Caleb Maupin’s CPI and Rage Against the War Machine by extension, because it’s not a toxic little online political fandom. Its priority is in actually building a movement, which has made it adopt a kind of rhetoric that’s based within unifying the people.
I think we should also learn from the pros of what Mao Zedong did in order to improve rural communities. Regardless of what people said about the man he did fight for the rural of people in China against traditional Chinese urban favoritism. A often intentionally unspoken part both by imperialists and the post Mao government about the cultural revolution is how much it helped rural people. Reading about the positives of the cultural revolution was what taught me to value rural people and sympathize with the issues they face everywhere even in the USA. Rural Chinese were traditionally deeply oppressed by Urban biased Chinese reactionaries its why they were the base of the revolution. The cultural revolution was just a reaction by the rural masses against that tradition that still continued existing under Communism despite the revolution being built of the back of Chinese rural people
All these reasons is why i think learning from China with its strong rural and urban divides that exists even today is important to improve things in the United States as well
Fellow PNWer here, thanks for the great article. Some questions:
- What indications are there of a militant left pivoting against communists?
- Wouldn't a right-wing populist govt rehabilitate and fund right-wing militias as their counterrevolutionaries of choice?
- If this were the case, how would your communist strategy shift?
- What rhetorical line could sell rural America both on anti-imperialism but also the BRI? Sinophobia seems like a large hurdle.
- What shape would non-insular decolonial rhetoric take? Or would it, like other efforts in the liberal niche, have be deprioritized while a working class coalition is formed?
-The indications I’ve seen are the intensification of rhetoric against anti-imperialists that’s occurred in anarchist spaces since the start of the new cold war, and escalations in the behavior of these anarchists. Like the physical action against a PCUSA stand by anti-civ anarchists a couple years ago.
-Even if a right-wing populist government gets into power, the highest levels of capital that control the intelligence agencies would still be able to recognize that the militant left is the most culturally palatable counter-gang element. So though our strategy would need to change in that we’d have to focus more on combating the far right, the most intelligence agencies would still be cultivating the left anti-communist groups, and probably be pushing back against the White House for its taking a more reckless approach.
-Sinophobia is a large hurdle, but antisemitism was also a large hurdle among the Russian peasantry, and the communists still won there. We may be able to get these people to unlearn their hate for China by exposing them to the experience of working for the class struggle, which is what got the Young Patriots to unlearn their racism.
-Non-insular decolonial rhetoric looks like what the African People’s Socialist Party is doing: talking about settler-colonialism, and even about the concept of white people being settlers, while not trying to gatekeep the class struggle on ethno-nationalist lines. APSP has been allying with Caleb Maupin’s CPI and Rage Against the War Machine by extension, because it’s not a toxic little online political fandom. Its priority is in actually building a movement, which has made it adopt a kind of rhetoric that’s based within unifying the people.
I think we should also learn from the pros of what Mao Zedong did in order to improve rural communities. Regardless of what people said about the man he did fight for the rural of people in China against traditional Chinese urban favoritism. A often intentionally unspoken part both by imperialists and the post Mao government about the cultural revolution is how much it helped rural people. Reading about the positives of the cultural revolution was what taught me to value rural people and sympathize with the issues they face everywhere even in the USA. Rural Chinese were traditionally deeply oppressed by Urban biased Chinese reactionaries its why they were the base of the revolution. The cultural revolution was just a reaction by the rural masses against that tradition that still continued existing under Communism despite the revolution being built of the back of Chinese rural people
All these reasons is why i think learning from China with its strong rural and urban divides that exists even today is important to improve things in the United States as well