Essay:A Hoxhaist critique on the modern Social Imperialists
Introduction
With every new political, ideological, or societal achievement, or even merely a general direction towards progress and overall betterment, there may sometimes appear three factions within the politics, ideology, and society that has witnessed that advancement or progress - the progressives, at the least volatile side, the regressives, at the very extremity of the reaction, and then, you have the group at the “middle” in regards to their willingness to concur with progress. There does not particularly exist a word for these “middle” groups, for they do often have a small amount of progressive ideas, or perhaps even, they may overall be progressive, yet have one “fatal” flaw with them, something that invites reaction and regression with them.
To provide historical examples of this “middle” group, we shall look at the economists, the Mensheviks, or the Trotskyites during the Russian proletarian revolution, and the developmental years of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
All these groups have done little in comparison to what the true progressives have done - for, at best, they had remained unheard of groups, too small in both numbers and influence to perform any harm to any advancement, and at worst (and most commonly), their actions have regressed progress. While the Mensheviks, being more progressive than the Tsarists, were still unwilling to advance their peoples to a state of socialism, therefore, it can be wagered that, had the Mensheviks triumphed over the Bolsheviks, Russia, among many other nations, would be turned into economic colonies of the imperialist powers of the West, and what would have been the USSR would still, likely to this day, remain a feudalistic and reactionary backwater, its people and land being picked over by wealthy imperialists. The Trotskyites, had they gained power over Stalin, would have done little to aid the revolution, and would have been greatly unpopular, wishing to maintain the hated policy of War Communism. That is seldom to mention what Trotsky and his followers, both past and present, have done to turn people away from real and progressive forms of Scientific Socialism.
All of these groups on the “middle” have one thing in common - an appearance of progress, yet a praxis of reaction. What group would regress society, to the extent to which it remains feudalistic or capitalistic? Fascists. How can a group be in any way progressive, if all the results of the particular group gaining power is identical to that of Fascists or Hitlerites?
It would seem that in attempting to understand and critique the many Socialist trends that exist, we must not exclusively attempt to understand their theory, but their history as well, for theory is not useful if it is shown to be of no use to the people, nor the peoples’ vanguard party.
The Social-Imperialists of the past
By looking at the historical effects of Trotskyism (among other Anti-Stalin trends, like Burkharianism and “Left-wing Communism”), we can, with ease, deduce that they are, like Maoites, utterly disconnected from the masses. Trotsky, the Nazi-collaborator and Left-Opportunist, was unable to realize the conditions and economic limits of the young Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, he was unable to to understand the two parts of our symbol - the Hammer and Sickle, and how the Sickle was the representation of the peasantry and agricultural workers. He was an idealist, wishing to pursue War Communism, Permanent Revolution, and overall wishing to implement policies that would have been impossible in a war-torn and backwards economy like the USSR was in his time. Had he gained power over Stalin, he would have, at best, have the USSR survive long enough to be conquered by Nazis in the 1940’s, and at worst, would have the USSR be conquered by the Western Imperialists in the 1920’s. And to look at the real history of the Trotskyite movement, they are very similar to “Left-Communists”, in that they only exist in an “armchair” setting, totally disconnected from the workers. Trotskyites do not concern themselves with creating their own revolutionary theory, or building their own Socialist State, but only in criticizing progressive communists, or as they call us, “Stalinists”. If Left-Communists or Trotskyites ever gained state power, the new Trotskyite government would hastily realize that “eggs” must be “broken” in order to defend the Socialist State from domestic or foreign subversion and reaction. Yet, all the Left-Communists or Trots outside the new Left-Communist or Trotskyite government would, just as hastily, decry said government as “State-Capitalist” and “Stalinist”. Trotskyists, as well as Libertarian Marxists, Left-Communists, and other opportunist trends, never will gain state power, or for that matter, never will they gain any importance to the workers, or pose any threat to the bourgeois state.
By looking at the history of the Reformist Socialists and Eurocommunists, we can see nothing in regards to them experiencing a success in “Reforming” bourgeois democracy. Instead, we have seen but two things appear from Eurocommunism and Reformism - irrelevance, or extreme deviationism. Every concession to bourgeois democracy commonly entails a metaphorical watering-down of our Sociological and Revolutionary theory, and an introduction of Liberal ideology. Hence, now we have the German Social Democratic Party, the Dutch GreenLeft, and other Left-Liberal capitalist parties, ones that have lost all care in the creation of Socialism. From looking at history, we can understand that, rarely, if ever, does reformism do anything of benefit for the working class, let alone achieve a “Revolution by the Ballot”. Social Programs, and such, during the 20th century, largely appeared as a last resort by the Capitalists, the New Deal in the United States of America was done in order to destroy the workers’ class conscience and for the Capitalists to maintain their class-rule. We have attempted reformism for the last century, yet, it has failed almost always. Why is this? Because bourgeois democracy is a fraud, a lie. It is merely a means of the ruling class to obscure the plutocratic nature of capitalism. Bourgeois democracy has never, and will never, achieve an economic system that is not in the interests of the Capitalist class, such as Socialism. Let us lastly use a metaphor for reformism. Let us think of Capitalism as a sewing machine, and let us think of Socialism as a Blast Furnace. Reformists and Euro”communists” are attempting to use a sewing machine to make steel, they are attempting to make a machine, or in this case, an economic system, perform a function in which it was never intended for. A sewing machine cannot turn iron into steel, in a similar way to how capitalism cannot be anything more than an oppressive and plutocratic system. In order to get a device that can make steel, or in this case, create socialism and real democracy, we must rid ourselves of the sewing machine, and give us a blast furnace, in other words, we must take revolutionary action to rid the international working class of capitalism, and bring about socialism, and therefore, communism.
From looking at these opportunists' and deviationists’ respective histories, we are able to understand the reactionary and counter-revolutionary character of these movements, and must further learn to combat them and their regressive ideas.
However, these are all trends which have existed long-enough to truly have a history. With the coup in the USSR and the fall of the Warsaw Pact, the Communist movement has faced perhaps the greatest degree of theoretical debate and conflict in all its history, and just like the Trotskyites and Ultra-Lefts that appeared as a reaction to the development of Socialism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there has emerged a great number of reactionary and social-imperialist trends in the present. As such, I have decided to dedicate this work to naming these social-fascist trends, in order to help our comrades achieve a progressive-communist line.
The “multipolarity” adherents
Recently, particularly after the Russo-Ukrainian War and Second Cold War began, a new idea of “multipolarity” has gained popularity among many Marxists. In this context, “multipolarity” refers to the Earth-wide state of having multiple geo-political spheres of political and economic influence. From the perspective of multipolarity adherents, the First Cold War itself was a state of bi-polarity, that is, between the plutocratic-capitalist bloc, and the socialist bloc. However, after the First Cold War ended during the concluding years of the 20th century, Earth entered a state of unipolarity, with the US Empire maintaining a globe-spanning Neoliberal and Anti-Communist order, however, with the rise of the People’s Republic of China (which they are often very supportive of) and the Russian Federation, multipolarity adherents see this as a transition to a multipolar world order.
Multipolarity adherents do not care about the economic mode of production that the nation is in, so much so, that they view the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran as equally progressive to real Socialist States like the Republic of Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Furthermore, Multipolarity adherents often claim themselves to be Socialists or Communists, and they commonly claim that their utopian ideal of “multipolarity” would be more beneficial in the creation of a Socialist and Communist economic order. However, this is, as you shall see, the very flaw with the concept of multipolarity.
Multipolarity is fundamentally based on one core tenant: collaboration and reliance on Capitalist or even Imperialist states, and the expectation that said reliance will result in a Socialist world. Multipolarity adherents insist that after the Collective Security Treaty Organisation has defeated NATO, that the CSTO is somehow going to “free” the imperialised world of exploitation, and Multipolarity adherents as well are perfectly content with dedicating their resources and time, not on inspiring class conscience and revolution among their workers in their respective nations, and creating new Socialist States, but on relying on States whose Socialism is one of two things, nascent and unstable, or unreliable and (arguably) nonexistent. We should not be treating the Republic of Cuba or the DPRK the same way as the PRC. The People’s Republic of China shows no signs of supporting revolutionary movements, or spreading Marxism-Leninism, as they have, at times, even carelessly sold firearms to governments with Communist Insurgents in them. They are not revolutionary.
In short, “multipolarity”, while often convincingly posing itself to be an intellectually sound means of achieving Socialism, or even as a needed extension of Scientific Socialism, is nothing more than a modern form of Utopian Socialism, much like that of Anarchism. It involves class collaboration, the vain hope of achieving Socialism via empowering capitalists, and other revisionist and devationist notions. Any polity that does not seek the creation of socialism, or merely the reduction of capitalism, is reactionary, or at best, not deserving the support of truly progressive communists.
The USA National Bolsheviks
Among the many internet-based Communists, there does exist a particularly odd group of Communists, or at least people who call themselves Communists. A group that is largely exclusive to those in the United States of America, this group of internet-creators, such as Haz or Caleb Maupin, to new comrades, they may seem alluring with their rhetoric of creating a “government of action” and promising an end to the “bankers” plan for “degrowth”. However, should more theoretically advance Marxists attempt to understand their message, it should be clear that Maupin and his cult, the “Center for Political Innovation'', are seldom Communists after all, but rather, a new and grotesque form of National Bolsheviks, mixing a meager amount of socialistic economics (they are commonly supportive of billionaires, typically because China does it, and they believe China to be in the primary stage of socialism, despite having the majority of their economy privatised and having the largest amount of billionaires on the planet) with ultranationalism, conspiratorialism, and populism. At their hearts, Caleb Maupin and Haz are reactionaries, populists, careerists, tailists, and opportunists - Fascists.
Indeed, Caleb Maupin, the person who often praises the well-known Neo-fascist, Alexander Dugin, does not want to install a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, for he is simply a want-to-be dictator. He does not want to rid the working-class of the bourgeoisie. He does not want to proletarianise the petite-bourgeoisie, or the military, he merely wishes to create a state for them, like all Fascists do, Caleb Maupin may go on diatribes about the “working families of the United States”, but he does not care, nor is he referring to the workers, or the oppressed minorities.
As for the Infrared media collective, headed by Haz, they are not revolutionaries, nor Communists, but merely reactionary showmen. Haz does not care about spreading Scientific Socialism, but rather, advancing his own ego; in gaining more-and-more popularity, in pointlessly debating people on the internet for the sake of entertainment, and not for the advancement of Marxism. Haz, much like his comrade, Maupin, is simply a National Bolshevik, combining small amounts of Marxist theory with Far-right ideology. Otherwise, he is a reactionary, genocide denier, and transphobe.
None of these “Patriotic Marxist-Leninists” are progressive, nor Communist. They, like other far-righters, are fully willing to support petit-bourgeois and fascist movements, like the “Freedom Convoy” in Canada, or the bourgeois Dutch farm-owners. Should the Natsbol “Center for Political Innovation”, by some arcane reason, ever gain power, the product will not be a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, nor Socialism, but a Fascist State, and State Capitalism, with the government, which would likely be a personalistic despotism, headed by Maupin, at best, only using some Marxist symbols and wording. As such, the Haz-Maupin community must be combated like all the other reactionaries.
The “Democratic Socialists”
The results of capitalist propaganda about the Socialists States of the past era are long-reaching and impactful, preventing many proletarians from achieving class-consciousness, and therefore remaining Liberals or worse. Yet, a notable impact has been seen with Socialists themselves. A great number of otherwise Communists have turned colour, from red to blue, in other words, have become Liberals, while still claiming to be “Socialist”. This shall not be confused with Social Democrats, who at least have the respect to not pose as us, mostly. These groups in which I am talking about often use the term “Democratic Socialists”.
Democratic Socialists are often born as a result of the labour aristocracy, and at least with the so-named “Democratic Socialists of America”, are seemingly a coalition of various centre-left or perhaps even pseudo-left elements, with many being effectively Liberals, to others being truly Socialist, albeit often still adopt Anti-Communist lies and idealistic goals of a “decentralised planned economy”, and lastly reformism. There even exist “Democratic Socialists” who are effectively Marxist-Leninists, yet have failed to truly be able to read Marxist-Leninist theory, or even are merely too fearful of calling themselves “Marxist-Leninist”. Yet, it would seem that “Democratic Socialists” around this world are plagued with the omnipresent specter of Social Fascism.
It is one thing to be a Social Democrat, or a Liberal in general. It is truly another to call yourself a “Leftist” or even go further and call yourself a “Socialist”. “Universal Basic Income”, “Income Redistribution” and “Unionization” are not Socialism, but Liberalism that is merely just somewhat less reactionary and oppressive. While real Socialists would know that “UBI” is merely a way for the capitalists to exploit their workers further “Hey! You get X amount of money this month, therefore, we can just raise your hours!”, and would further know that a transition away from money would be a final and progressive end to this issue, to “Democratic Socialists”, this is perfectly reasonable, in fact, many “Democratic Socialists” view UBI in an almost utopian manner, thinking that class contradictions (If these “Democratic Socialists” even know what that means) will just go away the very second you give the workers “UBI”. While “Democratic Socialists” want to minimize the massive income disparity that is typical in Capitalist societies by “Income Redistribution”, real Socialists know that it would be better to resolve this income disparity by means of liquidating the ultra-rich, a historically proven method it should be noted, considering that in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, at least before the Capitalist restoration, the highest amount of income disparity was on about a ten-to-one ratio. While “Democratic Socialists” think that we should be more amiable to Unions, real Socialists know that unions are merely a way for the workers to beg for better conditions under capitalism, and are often subverted by the bourgeois state. Real Socialists understand that unions, or its hypernym, the proletariat, should not have to beg for better conditions to the bourgeois state, and that the proletariat should itself take over control of the state.
As real Socialists, we must militantly combat this Liberal theft of our lexicon, lest the word “socialist” merely just refer to an employee stock-ownership programme in the future. And as to the real Socialists within the “Democratic Socialist” movement, we must reach out to them, and educate them, so that they can become Marxists-Leninists, like ourselves.