MIDWESTERN MARX
  • Home
  • Online Articles
    • Articles >
      • All
      • News
      • Politics
      • Theory
      • Book Reviews
      • Chinese Philosophy Dialogues
    • American Socialism Travels
    • Youth League
  • Dr. Riggins' Book Series
    • Eurocommunism and the State
    • Debunking Russiagate
    • The Weather Makers
    • Essays on Bertrand Russell and Marxism
    • The Truth Behind Polls
    • Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century
    • Lenin's Materialism & Empirio-Criticism
    • Mao's Life
    • Lenin's State and Rev
    • Lenin's LWC Series
    • Anti-Dühring Series
  • Store
    • Books
    • Merchandise
  • YouTube
  • Journal of American Socialist Studies (JASS)
  • Contact
    • Article Submissions
    • The Marks of Capital
  • Online Library
  • Staff

2/8/2023

The Importance of Combatting National and Historical Nihilism. By: Carlos L. Garrido

16 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture
This article is taken from a section of the author’s forthcoming book, The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism.
​It is an imperative that we remember the words of Georgi Dimitrov, a giant of the world communist movement, in his speech to the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International in 1935. Here he would say the following comments on national nihilism, a phenomenon so rampant in American Marxists today:
​
​Mussolini does his utmost to make capital for himself out of the heroic figure of Garibaldi. The French fascists bring to the fore as their heroine Joan of Arc. The American fascists appeal to the traditions of the American War of Independence, the traditions of Washington and Lincoln…
​
Communists who suppose that all this has nothing to do with the cause of the working class, who do nothing to enlighten the masses on the past of their people in a historically correct fashion, in a genuinely Marxist-Leninist spirit, who do nothing to link up the present struggle with the people's revolutionary traditions and past -- voluntarily hand over to the fascist falsifiers all that is valuable in the historical past of the nation, so that the fascists may fool the masses.

No, Comrades, we are concerned with every important question, not only of the present and the future, but also of the past of our own peoples… We Communists are the irreconcilable opponents, in principle, of bourgeois nationalism in all its forms. But we are not supporters of national nihilism, and should never act as such…

Comrades, proletarian internationalism must, so to speak, "acclimatize itself" in each country in order to strike deep roots in its native land. National forms of the proletarian class struggle and of the labor movement in the individual countries are in no contradiction to proletarian internationalism; on the contrary, it is precisely in these forms that the international interests of the proletariat can be successfully defended.

It goes without saying that it is necessary everywhere and on all occasions to expose before the masses and prove to them concretely that the fascist bourgeoisie, on the pretext of defending general national interests, is conducting its selfish policy of oppressing and exploiting its own people, as well as robbing and enslaving other nations. But we must not confine ourselves to this. We must at the same time prove by the very struggle of the working class and the actions of the Communist Parties that the proletariat, in rising against every manner of bondage and national oppression, is the only true fighter for national freedom and the independence of the people.

The interests of the class struggle of the proletariat against its native exploiters and oppressors are not in contradiction to the interests of a free and happy future of the nation. On the contrary, the socialist revolution will signify the salvation of the nation and will open up to it the road to loftier heights. By the very fact of building at the present time its class organizations and consolidating its positions, by the very fact of defending democratic rights and liberties against fascism, by the very fact of fighting for the overthrow of capitalism, the working class is fighting for the future of the nation.

The revolutionary proletariat is fighting to save the culture of the people, to liberate it from the shackles of decaying monopoly capitalism, from barbarous fascism, which is laying violent hands on it. Only the proletarian revolution can avert the destruction of culture and raise it to its highest flowering as a truly national culture -- national in form and socialist in content…

If we act in this spirit, if in all our mass work we prove convincingly that we are free of both national nihilism and bourgeois nationalism, then and only then shall we be able to wage a really successful struggle against the jingo demagogy of the fascists.

That is the reason why a correct and practical application of the Leninist national policy is of such paramount importance. It is unquestionably an essential preliminary condition for a successful struggle against chauvinism -- this main instrument of ideological influence of the fascists upon the masses.[1]
Picture
I have quoted this document at length because it magnificently captures one of the central forms the purity fetish expresses itself through in the US: national nihilism. We cannot allow the most reactionary segments of our monopoly capitalist class to win the ideological war over the national history of our people. We must be able to work creatively, to take the progressive elements of our national past – which, although obscured by our ruling class, exist in abundance – and to rearticulate these elements towards socialism. This is what Dimitrov means when he says that we must “enlighten the masses on the past of their people in a historically correct fashion, in a genuinely Marxist-Leninist spirit.”[2] National and historical nihilism must be destroyed. As J.V. Stalin correctly said, “national nihilism only injures the cause of socialism, because it plays into the hands of the bourgeois nationalists.”[3] It is a quintessential manifestation of the purity fetish – because the national past is impure, the purity fetish Marxists reject working with its progressive elements and incorporating these into the struggle for socialism.

Our country’s history, indeed, is a history marked by conquest, enslavement, genocide, exploitation, imperialism, and all the other evils brought by the development of the capitalist era in world history. It is also marked, however, by the struggles against feudal absolutism; by a promise for universal life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness – all demands which are unfulfillable within the capitalist mode of life; by the struggles against chattel slavery, wage slavery, genocidal attacks on indigenous communities; by the struggles, in the 20th century, against fascism, imperialism, for civil rights, for peace, etc. This is a complex, heterogeneous, and impure history. It is, in short, a contradictory history, containing within itself a unity of opposing forces – one which fights for human emancipation, the other which fights for preserving the tyranny of capital. We must learn how to use these objective contradictions to our advantage. The task ahead of us requires aligning our struggles today with the positive elements of the past and connecting the moribund capitalist-imperialist forces of our day with our past’s negative elements.

This is not an easy task. As Mao argued while condemning national nihilism,
​
Every nation in the world has its own history and its own strengths and weaknesses. Since earliest times excellent things and rotten things have mingled together and accumulated over long periods. To sort them out and distinguish the essence from the dregs is a very difficult task, but we must not reject history because of this difficulty. It is no good cutting ourselves off from history and abandoning our heritage. The common people would not approve.[4]​
​This difficulty is embedded in the need to develop socialism according to the concrete conditions of a country. As Lenin said, 
​
All nations will move towards socialism; it is inevitable. But the process will not be exactly the same for all nations … each nation will have its own characteristics.[5]
​This is why, the same Lenin which in one breath condemns Russia’s role as “a prison of nations,” in another says:[6]
​

Are we class-conscious Great-Russian proletarians impervious to the feeling of national pride? Certainly not. We love our language and our motherland; we, more than any other group, are working to raise its laboring masses (i.e., nine-tenths of its population) to the level of intelligent democrats and socialists. We, more than anybody are grieved to see and feel to what violence, oppression and mockery our beautiful motherland is being subjected by the tsarist hangmen, the nobles and the capitalists.
​
We are filled with national pride because of the knowledge that the Great-Russian nation, too, has created a revolutionary class, that it, too, has proved capable of giving humanity great examples of struggle for freedom and for socialism; that its contribution is not confined solely to great pogroms, numerous scaffolds, torture chambers, severe famines and abject servility before the priests, the tsars, the landowners and the capitalists.

We are filled with national pride, and therefore we particularly hate our slavish past... and our slavish present, in which the same landowners, aided by the capitalists, lead us into war to stifle Poland and the Ukraine, to throttle the democratic movement in Persia and in China, to strengthen the gang of Romanovs, Bobrinskis, Puriskeviches that cover with shame our Great-Russian national dignity.[7]
Picture
​With details adjusted to context, we may say something similar about the US today. We, too, could say that we are proud of our revolutionary class and its rich revolutionary history. We, too, could say that precisely because we are proud of this history – and because we are driven by the “great feelings of love” for the people that Che mentions – we wholeheartedly condemn our genocidal, slavish, exploitative, and imperialist past and present.[8]

For Lenin, Mao, Fidel, Ho Chi Minh, Chávez, and other successful socialist leaders, the question they asked themselves concerning their national past was never “is it pure enough?” but “how can we use the national traditions ingrained in our people’s common sense and feelings to fight for socialism?” In China this has taken the form of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics; in Cuba this has meant incorporating José Martí and the anti-colonial traditions into socialist construction; in Venezuela this has taken the form of Bolivarian socialism; in Bolivia this has taken the form of combining Marxism (scientific socialism) with the indigenous communist traditions which have been around for centuries. The same can be seen in the socialist struggles in Africa (Pan-African Socialism), the Middle East (Islamic Socialism), and other parts of Asia and Latin America. One would have to be blinded by a liberal tinted American exceptionalism to think that the struggle for socialism in the US will itself not have to follow this concrete universal tendency seen around the world, where scientific socialism functions as the content which takes form (i.e., concretizes) according to the unique circumstances in which it is being developed.

Dialectics (both in Hegel and in Marxism) rejects the idea of an unchanging, pure, ahistorical universal, and instead urges that universals are necessarily tied to historically changing concrete particulars. Universals are always concrete – that is, they exist and take their form through the particular. “The universal,” as Hegel and Lenin emphasized, “embraces within itself the wealth of the particular.”[9] There is no such thing as abstract socialism. Socialism is the universal which cannot exist unless concretized through the particular. Socialism in the US will have to take form in accordance with the unique history and conditions of the country. By embracing a petty historical and national nihilism, the contemporary American Marxist finds themselves unfit to 1- understand their national past concretely (i.e., dialectically and correctly) and 2- build a successful struggle for socialism. This infantilism is a manifestation of the purity fetish and will be removed when such an outlook is overcome by the dialectical materialist worldview.

Few people have studied the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union closer than the Chinese, who are keen on not repeating the same mistakes as the Soviets. One of the most important lessons the Chinese take from the fall of the USSR is precisely the existential importance of rejecting historical nihilism (lishi xuwuzhuyi), which they describe as the view that “Marxism was outdated and socialism had ‘failed’ (after 1989 in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union); the CPC was an aberration in Chinese history; fawning on foreign powers; and the denial of or ‘farewell’ to the revolution.”[10] As Roland Boer has noted, “the disaster that befell the Soviet Union is seen as a clear example of the effects of historical nihilism.”[11] As Xi Jinping has argued,
​
Picture
[One] important reason for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the CPSU is the complete denial of the history of the Soviet Union, and the history of the CPSU, the denial of Lenin and other leading personalities, and historical nihilism confused the people’s thoughts.[12]
​Unlike in the USSR, as Carlos Martinez notes, 
​
Although the Chinese leadership made serious criticisms of certain policies associated with Mao (in particular the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution), it has never come anywhere close to repudiating Mao and undermining the basic ideological and historical foundations of Chinese socialism. No Chinese Wall has been constructed between the Mao-era and the post-Mao era; the two phases are inextricably linked.[13]
​As Deng Xiaoping said in 1980: 
​
We will forever keep Chairman Mao’s portrait on Tiananmen Gate as a symbol of our country, and we will always remember him as a founder of our Party and state. . . . We will not do to Chairman Mao what Khrushchev did to Stalin.[14]
​Although these comments are specifically made within the context of socialist states, the universal we can observe concretized in the particular is the general condemnation of historical nihilism. Historical and national nihilism share a common logic – a rejection of the past because of its impurity. If the past contains errors, excesses, imperfections, it is nothing. Only that which is pure is salvageable. This manifestation of the purity fetish not only prevents a correct dialectical assessment of the past, but also works as a deadly fetter for the movement towards socialism. In the US, historical and national nihilism are not simply attitudes about the past – they are attitudes about the present and future. Their relevance is far from being merely scholarly. If we are unable to connect our people’s progressive history to our contemporary struggle for socialism, then socialism will be unachievable. The battle against historical and national nihilism is one we must win if we want any chance at winning the class war.
​
References 

[1]
 Georgi Dimitrov, The United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1938), 61-64.

​[2] Dimitrov, The United Front, 62.

[3] J. V. Stalin, Collected Works Vol. 4 (Moscow: Foreign Language Publishing House, 1953), 94.

[4] Mao Tse-Tung, “Chairman Mao’s Talk to Music Workers,” in Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung Vol. 7, Marxist Internet Archive: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-7/mswv7_469.htm

[5] V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 28. [In Chinese.] (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1990). Cited in Hui Jiang, “The Great Contribution of the CPC to the World Socialist Movement over the Past Hundred Years,” International Critical Thought 11(4) (2021): https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2022.1996836

[6] Lenin, CW Vol. 20, 219.

[7] Lenin, CW Vol. 21, 103-104.

[8] Ernesto Guevara, Che Guevara Reader (New York: Ocean Press, 2003), 225.

[9] G. W. F. Hegel, Science of Logic, Trans. A.V. Miller (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press International, 1993), 58.

[10] Roland Boer, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners (Singapore: Springer, 2021), 93.

[11] Boer, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, 10. 

[12] The China Questions: Critical Insights into a Rising Power, edited by Jennifer Rudolph and Michael Szonyi (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2018), 23.​
​
[13] Carlos Martinez, No Great Wall: On the Continuities of the Chinese Revolution (Carbondale: Midwestern Marx Publishing Press, 2022), 54. ​

[14] ​Deng Xiaoping, “Answers to the Italian Journalist Oriana Fallaci,” The Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping (August 1980): 
​https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/?s=Answers+to+the+Italian+Journalist+Oriana+Fallaci&submit=  

Author Bio: Carlos L. Garrido teaches philosophy in Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, where he received his M.A. and is currently finishing his PhD. He is an editor at the Midwestern Marx Institute for Marxist Theory and Political Analysis and the author of Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview: An Anthology of Classical Marxist Texts on Dialectical Materialism and the forthcoming book, The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism.

Archives

February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020

Share

16 Comments
Charles Brown
2/9/2023 03:07:45 am

The American national tradition Marxist must focus on today is that of the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal and Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society / War on Poverty / Civil Rights Act and Barack Obama and Obamacare.

The ultra-left purity fetish anti-Democratic Party dogma prevents the Left from fighting for the US working class reforms . An accumulation of reforms is the US road to socialism , All American Socialism or socialism with American characteristics.

Reply
Noah link
2/9/2023 11:59:33 am

This piece is timely and brilliant, brother.

To the reader: I would urge everyone to understand the Purity Fetish not as a singular phenomenon, but within the currently forming American Marxist tradition, and to understand its concrete manifestations in accordance with the laws of development of matter and the Dialectic.

It is in this friendly spirit, I'd like to address Charles. My friend, the premise of Marxism is motion. It is history. To understand the USA and it's history, we must understand development over time and how it is the material reality that creates everything.

The Democratic party of FDR was still a Bourgeois party, but forced into a progressive role in the world struggle against fascism by a militant working class movement.

As time went on, that ceased to be the case.

But I want to focus on the laws of the Dialectic, because in Marxism, I don't think it's possible to say that reforms all pile on top of each other to create change. This was the evolutionary, not revolutionary view of Bernstein, and it trended towards idealism, rather than the material movement of the Proletariat. It removed class struggle from the equation and revolution from the equation, ending in a determinist, pre-Hegelian view more similar to Kant.

In the 2020s, I also do not think it is dogmatic or ultra left to view the notion of working with the Bourgeois parties, who actively steal from the American working class to prop up finance capital, whom they serve, who are more than willing to employ doctrinaire neo-Nazis to accomplish their goals, and who just passed a resolution in Congress to condemn socialism using the most absurd and easily disproven lies, as no avenue of class struggle and instead an avenue of right opportunism and class collaboration. Neither of these parties are popular in the working masses.

Moreover, the lack of revolution, for me, misunderstands what the state is, which is an apparatus of class power, with various institutions built to serve a particular ruling class.

If we are marxist leninists, we must conclude, in understanding the general laws of development, two things, the first from Marx and the second from Lenin

1. That the Proletariat must organize itself based on its material interests and become a class for itself, building a state and institutions that serve our interests, which can finally fulfill the promise the Bourgeoisie made over 200 years ago of a government of, by, and for the people. They have had a very long time to fulfill that promise. Marxism teaches us that they will undevelop as we develop, and only WE can fulfill that. To do this, allying with their organizations and using their institutions is not possible according to marxism. A temporary alliance is one thing, but we do not have the power of the old movement alongside the Soviets to command anything in negotiations, and we end up simply being subsumed and falling into right opportunism, doing the bidding of the Bourgeoisie, which is at the same time harming the Proletariat.

2. Seeking out semi-Proletarian elements whose material interests can be fulfilled by the Proletariat and its movement as we build it. In Lenin's era, this was the peasantry. In our era, this is the re-Proletariat, the children of the destroyed middle classes who are now also unable to accumulate any forms of stability and are therefore thrust into action alongside us.

The Bourgeoisie and it's institutions are overwhelmingly hated by the working masses in our era. Now is the time to struggle vehemently against class collaboration and to distinguish ourselves as worthy of and capable of leading a revolution.

Reply
Charles
2/14/2023 01:18:31 pm

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2023/02/surveys-show-biden-hit-state-of-union.html

Reply
Charles
2/16/2023 08:55:34 am

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2023/02/biden-harris-democrats-logo-when-i.html

Reply
Charles
2/12/2023 06:44:14 am

It is in this friendly spirit, I'd like to address Charles. My friend, the premise of Marxism is motion. It is history. To understand the USA and it's history, we must understand development over time and how it is the material reality that creates everything.
///
Charles : Thank you Comrade Noah for commenting on my comment.

Yes I agree we must understand the development over time and how it is the material reality that creates everything.

In this case , the critical material reality that created changes in the state power of the US is the class struggle between the Working Class and the Bourgeoisie. The New Deal was a historic victory for and BY our class , the Proletariat, in the class struggle in the nation _and in the Democratic Party . The New Deal put into the laws of the state power radical reforms ( not revolutionary) . Included were legalization of trade unions , unemployment insurance, Social(ist) Security; and others , including the 40 hour week , which was the famous demand of the Haymarket martyrs, which we Communists around the world famously celebrate on May Day (!).
///

The Democratic party of FDR was still a Bourgeois party, but forced into a progressive role in the world struggle against fascism by a militant working class movement.
//
Charles: I agree . The important point being that it was the 99% who won the New Deal . This meant that the Democratic Party was no longer a Bourgeois Party , but a Party in which a _genuine_ class struggle now existed .
//
As time went on, that ceased to be the case.
//
Charles : On this we have a critical disagreement. As time went on , there continued genuine class struggle in the DP , whereas the Republican Party was controlled by the Bourgeoisie, no class struggle. Over the years , sometimes the Working Class won and sometimes the Bourgeoisie won . In the Truman years , the Bourgeoisie won some counteroffensives in the DP : Taft-Hartley weakened trade union rights ;the anti-Communist and therefore anti-Working Class Cold War weakened us ; the criminalization and delegitimization of the Communist Party USA ( started by Truman) was a severe blow to the Working Class movement.
With the Johnson administration, the Working Class won more reform victories through the DP with the Great Society, War on Poverty ( the Low Incomed are a major section of the Working class and the Civil Rights laws . White supremacy is the main division of the US Working Class preventing it from accomplishing its world historic mission of socialism , so the Civil Rights laws are a major Working Class victory .

Clinton’s administration turned out to be another victory for the Bourgeoisie in the DP. Reaganism through the Republican Party was of course a major Bourgeois victory. It was rooted in pandering to white supremacy among white workers ( I’m an expert on this living in 85% Black , industrial proletarian central Detroit ; living through decades of “Reagan Democrats “ in our suburbs and out state ).

With Obama , the DP began to halt the direction of Reaganism , and a return to FDR/LBJ Liberalism with Obamacare and defending social(ist) programs , an explicit Keynesian “Stimulus “, against the Republicans. Obama emphasized “ from the Bottom Up”, or the 99% in the drivers seat .

Bernie Sanders has led ( on behalf of the Working Class) a movement toward fully universal affordable healthcare; he has moved the whole DP to marching toward that victory. All the while the Republicans fighting it.

Biden has just exposed the Republican covert efforts to destroy Social(ist) Security, Medicare/Medicaid (Proto -Socialized Medicine).

All US Working Class historic reforms in the last 90 years have been through the Democratic Party. This has not been a straight line but a zig-zag , as I’m sure you know is a characteristic of _dialectical movement _.
////
But I want to focus on the laws of the Dialectic, because in Marxism, I don't think it's possible to say that reforms all pile on top of each other to create change.
///
Au contraire , Comrade . You are no doubt familiar with the standard tool for teaching dialectics - boiling water . Quantitative change transforms in to qualitative change at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. This is precisely accumulation , “piling up” of heat
Add in the example of a frog in the water; make the frog the Bourgeoisie. The frog is gradually cooked until the qualitative change of death .
Actually, the Bourgeoisie through the Republicans do realize they are being cooked through the accumulation of reforms . That’s why they are calling Dems Communists and still trying to repeal Social Security and other aspects of the New Deal ( passing Right-to-work-FOR -LESS) . On this the Bourgeoisie understand what’s going better than the Left . It’s not that Dems are Communists, but that the US road to socialism is through accumulation of reforms .

Reply
Charles
2/12/2023 06:51:27 am

They have had a very long time to fulfill that promise. Marxism teaches us that they will undevelop as we develop, and only WE can fulfill that. To do this, allying with their organizations and using their institutions is not possible according to marxism.

///
Charles: This is not true . Marx and Engels in the First International were using bourgeois electoral institutions . Lenin famous told Communists to work in reactionary trade unions ; and Lenin was elected to the Czarist Duma. Marxism does not disdain struggling for reforms in Bourgeois institutions. This is an important error on your part .
///:

A temporary alliance is one thing, but we do not have the power of the old movement alongside the Soviets to command anything in negotiations, and we end up simply being subsumed and falling into right opportunism, doing the bidding of the Bourgeoisie, which is at the same time harming the Proletariat.

2. Seeking out semi-Proletarian elements whose material interests can be fulfilled by the Proletariat and its movement as we build it. In Lenin's era, this was the peasantry. In our era, this is the re-Proletariat, the children of the destroyed middle classes who are now also unable to accumulate any forms of stability and are therefore thrust into action alongside us.

///
Charles in our concrete situation 99% of the population are Proletariat-WAGE-LABORERS -EARNERS . So-called Middle Class and the “Lower” Class ( implied as lower by the term middle) are all Wage-Earners or Proletariat.
99% of the population benefit from the reforms won through the Democratic Party of the last 90 years as I mention above .
////

The Bourgeoisie and it's institutions are overwhelmingly hated by the working masses in our era. Now is the time to struggle vehemently against class collaboration and to distinguish ourselves as worthy of and capable of leading a revolution.
////
Charles : I wish this were true . Unfortunately, many, many workers admire the Bourgeoisie or don’t think in class terms , certainly not class struggle terms .

No progress without struggle-Frederick Douglass

The struggle continues; more victories are certain. Freedom is a constant struggle, especially electoral class struggle.
Campaign for Democratic votes everyday like your life depends on it because it really does . Abolish the Republican Party as We , the Majority know it ; vote them out . 


Reply
Charles
2/12/2023 07:46:34 am

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2023/02/noah-and-charles-debate-role-of.html

Reply
Charles
2/12/2023 07:59:19 am

Unfortunately a large % of the American proletariat have entrepreneurial spirits , because of the unique history of so many owning land rather than being expropriated from it

So : http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2023/01/blog-post_67.html

Reply
Charles
2/12/2023 08:15:16 am

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/06/occupy-wall-street-defined-working.html

Reply
Charles
2/12/2023 08:19:07 am

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/06/republicans-want-99-to-be-struggling.html

Reply
Charles
2/12/2023 08:25:30 am

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/05/neo-liberalism-is-better-termed.html

Reply
Charles
2/14/2023 01:32:16 pm

Neo-liberalism is better termed Reaganism. "Liberal" in the US since FDR represents proletarian victories in the contested state power . So, it is confusing and academically sectarianism terminology, counter-intuitive politically for the great mass of American voters to label Reaganism , neo- "New Dealism"/Liberalism. The proletariat's main political task for 30 years has been to reverse Reaganism, Reaganonmics. Bring back LIBERALISM . That's why neo-liberal for Reaganism is academic disconnect to mass consciousness. It is also academic ultra-leftism , taking a sneaky swipe at the Democratic Party. Of course, Bill Clinton was significantly Reaganite; that's how bad Reaganism got to be. The worse is at the state level in many cases , as in Michigan , Englerites, now Snake Snyder.

Reply
Charles Brown
2/12/2023 08:29:43 am

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/05/all-american-socialism-occupy.html

Reply
Charles
2/12/2023 09:59:58 am

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/05/capitalism-has-objective-tendency.html

Reply
Juwon.0427
2/14/2023 08:36:52 am

very good work, thanks comrade, the paths are different the goal is the same.

Reply
Charles
2/16/2023 09:10:33 am

The History of Black people’s CLASS struggles is central to America National class struggles.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

Details

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020

    Categories

    All
    Aesthetics
    Afghanistan
    Althusser
    American Civil War
    American Socialism
    American Socialism Travels
    Anti Imperialism
    Anti-Imperialism
    Art
    August Willich
    Berlin Wall
    Bolivia
    Book Review
    Brazil
    Capitalism
    Censorship
    Chile
    China
    Chinese Philosophy Dialogue
    Christianity
    CIA
    Class
    Climate Change
    COINTELPRO
    Communism
    Confucius
    Cuba
    Debunking Russiagate
    Democracy
    Democrats
    DPRK
    Eco Socialism
    Ecuador
    Egypt
    Elections
    Engels
    Eurocommunism
    Feminism
    Frederick Douglass
    Germany
    Ghandi
    Global Capitalism
    Gramsci
    History
    Hunger
    Immigration
    Imperialism
    Incarceration
    Interview
    Joe Biden
    Labor
    Labour
    Lenin
    Liberalism
    Lincoln
    Linke
    Literature
    Lula Da Silva
    Malcolm X
    Mao
    Marx
    Marxism
    May Day
    Media
    Medicare For All
    Mencius
    Militarism
    MKULTRA
    Mozi
    National Affairs
    Nelson Mandela
    Neoliberalism
    New Left
    News
    Nina Turner
    Novel
    Palestine
    Pandemic
    Paris Commune
    Pentagon
    Peru Libre
    Phillip-bonosky
    Philosophy
    Political-economy
    Politics
    Pol Pot
    Proletarian
    Putin
    Race
    Religion
    Russia
    Settlercolonialism
    Slavery
    Slavoj-zizek
    Social-democracy
    Socialism
    South-africa
    Soviet-union
    Summer-2020-protests
    Syria
    Theory
    The-weather-makers
    Trump
    Venezuela
    War-on-drugs
    Whatistobedone...now...likenow-now
    Wilfrid-sellers
    Worker-cooperatives
    Xunzi

All ORIGINAL Midwestern Marx content is under Creative Commons
(CC BY-ND 4.0) which means you can republish our work only if it is attributed properly (link the original publication to the republication) and not modified. 
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • Online Articles
    • Articles >
      • All
      • News
      • Politics
      • Theory
      • Book Reviews
      • Chinese Philosophy Dialogues
    • American Socialism Travels
    • Youth League
  • Dr. Riggins' Book Series
    • Eurocommunism and the State
    • Debunking Russiagate
    • The Weather Makers
    • Essays on Bertrand Russell and Marxism
    • The Truth Behind Polls
    • Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century
    • Lenin's Materialism & Empirio-Criticism
    • Mao's Life
    • Lenin's State and Rev
    • Lenin's LWC Series
    • Anti-Dühring Series
  • Store
    • Books
    • Merchandise
  • YouTube
  • Journal of American Socialist Studies (JASS)
  • Contact
    • Article Submissions
    • The Marks of Capital
  • Online Library
  • Staff