Which is more correct:
>Communists should treat the petty bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie, the liberals, the social democrats, the conservatives, the fascists, and the anarchists as equally hostile threats to Communism, never distinguish between them as groups, and always lump them in with each other. No effort should be made to pit these groups against each other, it should be assumed they are all on the same team and would never fight each other. None of these groups are worthy of critical support against others, not even in the context of anti-imperialism.
<Communists should distinguish between their enemies, since their enemies have different motivations and different interests. They can and should be pit against one another. Critical support should be given to lesser enemies against stronger enemies, to weaken the stronger enemies, and get the lesser enemies eliminated early. Social democrats should not be simply regarded as left wing fascists in a stale regurgitation of the 1920s comintern line, especially since Stalin abandoned that line and was even willing to tolerate liberal bourgeoisie like Roosevelt and conservative bourgeoisie like Churchill as allies against Hitler. Depending on context, groups are often worthy of critical support against others, especially in the context of anti-imperialism.
I think it is clearly the second, one, yet I often see takes approximating the first one on here. Why is that?
The second one is obviously correct.
>yet I often see takes approximating the first one on here. Why is that?
Because people are stuck in a Comintern Third Period LARP when communists actually had the strength to accomplish shit on their own, and there was far less common ground or interests between them and other political forces.