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

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Options
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Verification
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1780941515018.png (268.21 KB, 1280x963, marx_hmm.png)

Anonymous 08-06-26 17:58:35 No.2834292

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?

Anonymous 08-06-26 18:48:02 No.2834336

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.

Anonymous 08-06-26 19:42:26 No.2834373

shitting and screaming online isnt a good representation of what communists today or in the past engaging in praxis actually do
the second is another flat strawman but in the other direction. distinctions have been made. thats why we even have different terms for it, like, poopular front (where you capitulate to Kamala Harris to save bourgeois democracy), united front from above (where you capitulate to Sir Keir Starmer to save bourgeois democracy), united front from below (where you tactically collaborate with grassroots labor unions who don't follow your exact program or even tendency, in order to strike the hardest blow possible to all bourgeois forces), social-fascism thesis / third period (the "brilliant" tactic where you self-isolate the militant laborers in red unions and in an adventurist and commandist manner call everyone not apart of your tiny orgs "fascists".

I think united front from below is both the one that retains relevance in the developed material conditions of today, but also having the better historical W/L ratio.

Don't let this mod's flagfagging fool you >>2834336
he is neither a syndicalist or a Marxist and is real bullish on bourgeois capitulationism

Remember: capitalism is today global
Peasantry is diminishing to a politically irrelevant force
Proletariat is the global majority
Electrification and digitization is the norm
The proletariat is the revolutionary class and I am posting this instantly from possibly the other side of the globe, a comment on the capacities for international class communication

Liquidate the bourgeoisie
Communist production

Glownonymous 08-06-26 20:25:27 No.2834415

File: 1780950327346.jpg (138.62 KB, 736x981, f.jpg)

Judge by praxis, not by branding. Otherwise, you're just begging to be played.

Anonymous 08-06-26 22:02:29 No.2834483

>>2834373
>he is neither a syndicalist or a Marxist
I'm a Marxist-Leninist.
>and is real bullish on bourgeois capitulationism
What does that even mean.

Anonymous 15-06-26 23:29:53 No.2841531

>>2834415
>no porky blood on the knife
a true class-warrior does not re-sheathe his blade until it has drawn bourgeois blood

Anonymous 16-06-26 09:22:33 No.2841798

>>2834292
What does critical support mean? Are you sending them guns, money, specialized labor, convincing logistics workers in the imperial core to strike? Or is just something about memes?

Anonymous 16-06-26 12:33:12 No.2841921

>>2841798
Its about spreading propaganda about them.

Anonymous 16-06-26 12:39:14 No.2841928

>>2834336
I enjoy the Comintern Third Period LARP and you will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever be able to take that away from me.

Anonymous 16-06-26 15:48:40 No.2842045

>>2841928
Your honesty is a beautiful thing to behold…. sometimes

Unique IPs: 8