Brief insight on leftist victim blaming

Leftists pride themselves on being the most correct, believing that their politics are the ones that benefit humanity most of all. Yet on an invididual level, leftists, especially leftist men, can be just as condescending, patriarchal, and outright abusive as anyone else. This is not news to nonmen, particularly women, in leftist spaces.

Recently a man popular in so-called "tankie" spaces known as Barry Lyndon had been outed as a pedophile and a sexual predator. Many of his victims shared his politics. In fact, Lyndon used his politics to convince everyone that he was trustworthy and indeed a good comrade. Prior warnings of Lyndon's behavior had gone unheeded by the community unfortunately, and he was allowed to roam free, sending sexually explicit messages to several people, including minors.

I will not detail Lyndon's crimes though I suggest Chicago comrades ban him from any and all revolutionary spaces--sexual predators are not radicals, ever, no matter how solid their politics appear to be. Rather, I am writing this to highlight just how poorly sexual abuse is handled by the left in general.

Firstly, I have to admit that I was one of the people Lyndon had been messaging. I am one of the victims. I've spoken to others affected by this, and while I can only speak for myself on the matter, I can confirm that we are all deeply shaken and upset that this has gone on for so long. How could a man posturing as a leftist escape scrutiny for so long?

The Marxist-Leninist community on Twitter and Facebook as a whole was both fooled by Barry Lyndon and enabled him. There is a shocking silence with regards to sexual abuse from most of the men in the community. It appears that the topic only comes up when it's time to reap the social capital that comes with being #woke and a feminist "ally."

The problem with this is that it doesn't ever seem to be put into practice. It's not like I am looking for saviors. I simply want people to hold each other accountable and make supposedly revolutionary spaces safer for vulnerable comrades. A possible solution would be to open channels of communications; leftist men should make themselves available for discussing other men people feel are abusive.

I never said anything about what Lyndon had done because I felt shame, like I had invited him to speak that way with me. I thought I was far too hard on men who were trying to unlearn toxic behavior, not realizing that the discomfort I felt during our conversations was actually unacceptable. Thus, I ended up keeping it to myself--this is how predators operate.

I would also like to discuss how many leftists are now celebrating the outing of a pedophile among our ranks not because our community is safer, but because it somehow proves that Marxist-Leninists have some propensity for abusive behavior. As a Marxist-Leninist and a victim of this sexual predator, this strikes me as victim blaming. In fact, most of his victims were comrades--natural, since we opened our hearts and even our homes to someone we considered a true comrade. Anarchists and ultra-leftists somehow think that blaming our ideology is a great way to prove the superiority of ultra-leftism.

My own community refused to listen to warning signs, which as a victim, is hurtful. Then there are these people who believe that pointing out Lyndon's political ideology is somehow important to his abusive behavior (nevermind that his victims shared many of his politics) and that naturally, bringing up his politics:

This man went so far as to suggest another comrade was a pedophile. You would imagine someone making accusations like this cared about underage victims of sexual predators, but then:

I am very glad that @BarnesEPowell made these tweets as I can properly show you these two kinds of male leftists in a single person. Someone who believes ideological beef and semantics are more important than minors being targeted by other leftist men should not fucking be calling themselves a leftist.

We fear abusive situations because often times this requires involving the police. We are sometimes vulnerable, drawn to radical politics because of prior experiences of abuse and assault. We are marginalized members of society--queer, women, of color/black--in a space that should prioritize us but instead provides cover for cishet white men and their abuses.

I do have to applaud just how strong the response to Lyndon's abuse has been, however. Chicago comrades are currently taking action against this man and it has been made clear that he is forever unwelcome in all leftist spaces. Many people, including men, have come forward in support of his victims and my hope is that during this chaotic moment, we can come together as a community and figure out how to best avoid patriarchal attitudes that lead to gross sexual abuse.

I apologize if this seems rushed. I have to admit that this has shaken me deeply. I feel that had I come forward with what he was doing to me sooner, I would have been able to prevent minors being harmed by this man. Even though Lyndon deserves all of the blame, I feel dirty and guilty for what he did to me. And that feeling increases every time so-called leftists declare that of course Lyndon was a predator--he was a Marxist-Leninist! And naturally, no Marxist-Leninist can be a victim.

I will go so far as to say that the politics being displayed right now are reactionary, an attempt to paint the victims as less sympathetic in order to hail their own brand of leftism as most correct. To be honest I don't give an actual fuck about anarchists or ultras but they seem to care very deeply about my politics, so much so that they'll go against everything they supposedly believe to slander victims of sexual abuse.

This is about the victims, and yet attention is constantly being diverted from the topic of sexual abuse so that no leftist man ever needs to self criticize and evaluate his own possibly dangerous behavior.

To those of you rolling your eyes and saying "ugh typical tankies" I hope you understand that you have no claim to the term "leftist" because you are just as reactionary as the conservatives you hate, and that you are just as unsafe as Lyndon himself because you provide cover and excuses for his behaviors.

To all those affected by Lyndon, my heart goes out to you and I truly hope we can heal.

Marxist reaffirmations

Last night, the United Kingdom voted in favor of going to war against Syria, a country ravished by violent, sectarian geopolitical forces well before the supposed civil war began. I will not cover the politics of war, nor will I go into how things got to this point.

This will be personal. I speak not as CYBERSTALIN, the Marxist blogger, but as Gabriel, the very real human being behind this blog.

Pride and prejudice as government policy

Children of Men is a 2006 movie directed by Alfonso Cuarón. The world has become infertile--no one can have children, and disorder quickly descends. The story takes place in England, following a civil servant named Theo who winds up involved in trying to get a woman, Kee, out of the country. Kee, an illegal immigrant, is pregnant, possibly the first pregnancy since the world's last baby was born eighteen years ago. England has become a fascist dictatorship where non-British people are rounded up into camps and deported -- no one knows where and the movie doesn't tell you. It's a very emotional movie, with several extremely long and impressive one shots. (Even a cinephobe like myself could appreciate these technical aspects.)

My first impression of the film was that this "post-apocalyptic dystopia" already exists. It is here, in 2015, that people of color and even non-British whites are detained and deported and held in inhumane conditions, because here, today, in 2015, these people are considered undesirable. No excuses like mass infertility are needed, because every first world country has always behaved in this manner.

Domenico Losurdo, in his book, Liberalism: A Counter History, details the history of liberalism. It chronicles liberal theory from the eighteenth century right up to WWI, citing the works of liberal darlings such as Calhoun, Tocqueville, Locke, and the revered Founding Fathers as creators and leaders of the liberal movement. What we quickly discover is that right beneath the beautiful prose about how wonderful and important liberty is to flourishing democracies is a desire and need to subject undesirables to oppression. Liberalism is fairly contradictory but at a certain point it simply makes accommodations for these inconsistencies.

Black people need to be enslaved. It's the natural order of things. The English poor need to be treated with contempt and live in disgusting, inhumane conditions. It's the natural order of things. The Irish must live in a police state. It's the natural order of things. Africa needs to be dissected and deformed and mutilated and its people enslaved. It's the natural order of things.

And so on.

Losurdo leaves off right before the first world war for a reason, concluding that liberalism must have had some part in the horrors of the twentieth century that ensued, namely the Holocaust. Liberalism enabled such an event to occur, just as liberalism enabled the slave trade and the continued oppression of black people in America, the occupation of Ireland, the exploitation of the English working class, and the bloodletting and extermination of native populations in European colonies all over the world.

Here I return to Children of Men and the present day.
Even in the film, the British are largely left alone, provided they have their papers. Terrorism exists, as the first five minutes of the film will inform you, but the state itself is not targeting the British themselves. It is implied later on in the film by one of the members of an underground resistance movement that race isn't necessarily an issue to the government. Kee's baby would probably be given to a "posh black woman". Kee's fate is not speculated but it seems obvious that she would probably be deported like anyone else. The literal mother of a new world would be deported for not being British.

This bit of dialogue is the only part of the film I take issue with, as Brits of color are indeed subjected to state terror alongside their undocumented counterparts. Even certain white demographics, even when legally permitted to work in the United Kingdom, are treated with contempt, such as Irish Travelers and Eastern Europeans. However, Children of Men does imply that racism exists, even from white non Brits being deported. In the scene where Theo is boarding a train, you can hear a white Polish woman behind a gate with other deportees complaining in Polish about being grouped together with black people. This, of course, happens in reality as well.

This scene, I think, is significant. The recent terrorist attacks committed by ISIS in Paris have set off a wave of anti immigrant and Islamaphobic hate crimes. Countries such as Poland, barely accepted by the European Union, much less the snobs in the UK, are closing their borders to Syrian refugees.

Children of Men takes place in some future very similar to ours, but I believe that a Children of Men scenario exists today. It is happening at this moment, and has been, for centuries. The dispossessed, those purposely exploited and murdered and outcast by white society, appear in the media as terrorists and opportunists. It is liberalism at play, enforcing a white supremacist (herrenvolk) democracy that requires the dehumanization of more than two-thirds of the global population to work. Herrenvolk democracy provides liberty and freedom for a select few, always white.

In Children of Men, Theo visits a friend who lives in a virtual fortress, where all sorts of rare animals and works of art live. It is completely disconnected from the outside world by heavy security and walls. Inside, the obscenely wealthy live in a fantasy world, laughing. Here we can see color, whereas outside there is only grey and black, with the occasional red blood spilling from some immigrant's brains.
The white population is generally content to eat up propaganda and discuss how they are possible targets for violence, and how they must "retaliate" against the brown people who threaten them. This outrage is merely the herrenvolk democracy's enforcement becoming visible to them for the first time. The first world is outraged that the army is on their streets, because the army should be in the streets, hospitals, homes, and schools of the third world instead, armed with drones and bombs and guns and missiles to wipe out and control the brown hordes threatening their fragile, porcelain white democracy.

To them, Europe is a stronghold of civilization in a world filled with barbaric black and yellow and brown hordes who threaten to break down their thick walls. To see the army on the Champs-Élysées is an outrage! How dare they treat us like this! Meanwhile, mere hours after the terrorist attacks in Paris, hospitals and schools were deliberately targeted and bombed in Raqqa! Fuck civilians, they are all guilty for the crime of being Syrian, of being brown, of being third world. Herrenvolk democracy means never having to see it enforced, and the militarized domestic response is a massive insult to first world white people who believe democracy is a right reserved only for them. I get liberté, egalité, fraternité. You get drones, sweat shops, imperialism. You get pushed in front of trains, you get your places of worship desecrated, you get your image plastered all over the world as a terrorist, you get arrested and detained without just cause, you get your people slandered, you get harassed, you get insulted, you get what you deserve! How dare you violate our democracy, our way of living -- how dare you be brown, how dare you be black, how dare you worship differently, how fucking dare you make me see cops on my streets instead of in your neighborhoods and in your home countries! How fucking dare you!

What these people don't understand is that without our exploitation and murder, they cannot have their fucking precious democracies and civilizations. Without the profits generated from constant warfare, the utter destruction of our environments and economies, forcing us to migrate to the first world in search of scraps and met instead with guns, tasers, police batons, cells, deportation, violence, hatred, bile, blood--without us, without our blood and tears and labor, you have nothing. Your outrage is fucking despicable because you believe that terrorist attacks are acceptable in Beirut but not in Paris, because it is okay to see the French army terrorizing citizens in Timbuktu but not forcing you to see them harassing French people of color in front of you, because the army isn't there to terrorize white French people but to protect them from the evil brown people who dare to be brown and in sight.

My heart truly goes out to the victims of the terrorist attack in Paris. Yet my fears, that any vaguely ethnic person in the west and elsewhere will be attacked and held responsible for the actions of a few, have been confirmed, over and over again, repeatedly, by the same people who scream LIBERTÉ! EGALITÉ! FRATERNITÉ! Because they know that democracy - indeed, life itself - is a right reserved only for a select few, and anyone who threatens this with their existence must be wiped out.

Children of Men may as well be a documentary. That world -- it exists, and has existed, and will exist, for millions of people of color. This is the legacy of liberalism, of racism, of herrenvolk democracy. This is what the west has to offer: terrorism, but with a shiny, friendly veneer.

Free speech is not free

Free speech is often lauded as an indisputable right that all human beings have, or should have. Free speech activists will have you believe that the right to spout whatever nonsense that comes to your mind is more important than access to food and clean water and shelter, and that censoring bigots because you "disagree with them" is as violent as murder.

Often cited examples of "totalitarian states" where free speech is completely banned are North Korean, China, Cuba, and Iran, where only the ruling parties may speak. Except all these countries actually have multiple, legal political parties. Parties in those countries form coalitions and have parties with larger followings than others just like in any other state.

In the United States, you have the option to vote for two parties, the Democratic party and the Republican party. In the UK you can vote Labour, Tory, or Liberal Democrat. Yes, there are other parties in the US and UK but they are de facto drowned out by the fact that the media does not promote them, which leads many people to believe that by voting for a smaller party, they are throwing away their vote.

During the controversial 2000 US presidential elections, Democrats blamed Ralph Nader's candidacy for the election's outcome (and, conveniently, not the suspicious disappearance of millions of ballots in heavily pro Democrat districts in Florida). This was dubbed the "spoiler effect" and has led members of the major parties in the US to claim that a vote for a third (usually more left wing than the Democrats) party is a vote for the Republicans. I detailed in a previous post how the Democrats have turned this into a strategy by enlisting the left wing of the party to recruit leftists. This is hardly representative of a true democracy, where voters are corralled into voting for a limited number of parties.

The media plays a large role in "free speech", with libertarian types claiming that the media has a left wing bias, and that anyone can get their message out there if they just try hard enough. The assumption that the media is leftist or even unbiased is a complete farce when you consider how political ads get on the air in the US. Those who sink more money into ads and campaigns typically win, as exemplified in Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.

Free speech, then, goes to the highest bidder. Those who can afford to spread their message usually do, and they do so to protect their own interests. One only needs to look at the entire field of advertising--the whole purpose is to create elaborate, eye-catching ads that will make people purchase their products or enlist their services.

If you'd like more information on the subject, Michael Parenti completely detonates the idea of an unbiased media in this fantastic talk:

What about free speech in daily life, though? Many argue that using so-called politically correct language is anti free speech because it restricts the individual's right to speak their mind. Thinkpiece upon thinkpiece has been written on how safe spaces and trigger warnings baby individuals and damper discourse. (Nevermind that choosing whether or not you want to be exposed to certain forms of speech is, in itself, a part of free speech. No one says that you have to listen to hate speech.) Not being allowed to use slurs violates free speech, you see, so it is very important that all bigots have a platform no matter how huge. After all, leftists have a platform too!

Except historically, that hasn't been the case. I have so many examples to use here it's almost overwhelming. Should I remind you of the infamous Red Scare? Perhaps COINTELPRO slowly assassinating and destroying the Black Panthers and other revolutionary movements in the United States is another good example of a violation of the right to organize (and to bear arms as well--in fact the strictest gun restriction law in US history was passed by none other than Ronald Reagan, supported by the National Rifle Association, as a direct response to Black Panther party members open carrying).

Perhaps I should point to Indonesia, where five hundred thousand communists were murdered by the US-backed Suharto regime? Maybe I can point to my own country, where Brazilian communists and labor activists were tortured and disappeared (including the current president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff) by the military dictatorship? How about when thirty thousand leftists were rounded into a football stadium and executed by the Pinochet regime? Where was the free speech brigade to demand a platform for these communists? Where was the outcry from the libertarians who love to scream "I may not agree with your message but I will fight to the death to protect it" when confronted? Is it because the only people who actually die for "free speech" are the dreaded communists?

The fact that today, in the United States and Europe, it is difficult for an openly communist academic or professor to maintain their positions proves that academia is not the liberal stronghold most people imagine it is. A famous example of this is Angela Davis, who was fired for being too leftist by UCLA's Board of Reagents who was recently reinstated after years of lawsuits and public outcry. There are many other examples in this book, Academic Repressions: Relections from the Academic Industrial Complex, of leftist professors being ousted from high positions in their departments or even fired.

Ultimately, is free speech even that important? Is the right to promote movies or talk about how much you hate feminists more important than having food, healthcare, shelter, dignity? The vast majority of humanity lives in abject poverty. Only forty five percent of the world has access to the internet, most of them in the world's richest continents (North America and Europe). What about the free speech of those who physically, materially, cannot get their message out? What about the free speech of those who fight for the rights of the marginalized, the hungry, the murdered? 

Should we give Germaine Greer a platform because she believes trans women are actually men? As if that isn't a belief that literally, actually, gets trans women and trans feminine people around the planet beaten and murdered? When most trans women have nowhere near the platform that a rich white cis woman like Greer has, is it truly free speech? Is it actually free in the sense that everyone has an equal voice, when the media and universities provide violent transphobes with a platform and trans women starve to death in homeless shelters, begging for a voice, demanding justice for their murdered siblings?

When two white American men beat a Latino man and claimed they were inspired by Donald Trump, should we censor Trump and lament the loss of a voice that has directly led to violence against marginalized people? It isn't as if undocumented Latinx immigrants have massive economic and political power and visibility that allows them to openly challenge a billionaire like Trump.

Even a movement like Black Lives Matters, which gathers speed every day, is still unable to stop assassinations of black people by the police, simply because they lack the institutional power that would give them the ability to do so.

These violent beliefs start as mere speech, and that speech can and does incite people to action. Those who want to counter that hate speech find it is far more difficult to get their voices out because they are typically marginalized, poorer, and less visible than the ones espousing hatred.  

Is safety more important than words, speech? Is an idea that only supports the message of the status quo and the right wing something that should be protected? Must we tell rape jokes at the detriment of survivors of sexual assault? Must we tell antiblack jokes that reinforce stereotypes that black people are inferior beings? Is your right to tell shit jokes and make asinine bigoted commentary about virtually everything more important than safety? 

This is what your precious free speech looks like.

So you might be wondering, how would I deal with the problems inherent to free speech? I say: censor it. No platform to bigots, at all. No money, no visibility, no press. Let them fade into obscurity. And if they actively incite violence and send threats, more severe actions should be taken. For example, if someone is organizing a fascist newspaper, perhaps they should receive jail time. Perhaps we should revoke the material earnings gained from fascist and otherwise bigoted hate speech. Perhaps this is a much better solution than claiming the free market of ideas will take care of things, because as I have shown, the free market very clearly prefers some ideas over others, and that those ideas have disastrous effects for many people.

And perhaps, just perhaps, there are things more important than speech that are worth pursuing. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness looks good on paper, but in practice it hasn't exactly worked out for most of us, has it?

Once again, Parenti knocks it out of the ballpark with this video:

The day after the revolution they get up they ask, "Are there civil liberties for the fascists? Are they going to be allowed to have their newspapers and their radio programs? Are they going to be able to keep all their farms?" The passion that some of our liberal feels--the day after the revolution, the passion and concern they feel for the fascists, the civil rights and the civil liberties for the fascists, who are dumping and destroying and murdering people before. Now the revolution has to be perfect, it's got to be flawless. Well that isn't my criteria. My criteria is what happens to those people who couldn't read. What happens to those babies who couldnt eat, who died of hunger. And there, that's why I support revolution. The revolution that feeds the children gets my support.

No platform for fascists. Ever.

An overview of the current situation in Brazil

Dilma Rousseff is the current president of Brazil and a member of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers' Party, abbreviated here as PT). The PT, particularly under former president Lula, has an impressive track record on raising the poorest Brazilians out of poverty. They are progressive on international issues, recognizing the state of Palestine and accepting Syrian and Haitian refugees into the country.

President Rousseff, known almost exclusively by her first name within the country, was a true communist revolutionary. She engaged in open armed resistence during the dictatorship, including participating the kidnapping of a US ambassador. Our dictatorship distinguished itself from other US-backed Latin American military dictatorships--we specialized in torture, rather than killing. And when Dilma was caught and put on trial, she was tortured like fifty thousand other labor leaders, communists, and otherwise innocent people. She did this in the name of democracy and freedom.

Today as president, Dilma presides over an ever-growing police state that continues to arrest leftists and murder the Afro Brazilian and indigenous populations at a frightening rate. It is safe to say that the dictatorship never ended--it has simply rebranded as a populist government. The PT has failed to seriously address the crimes against humanity committed by its own government. Dilma herself has tearfully testified to the recently released truth commission report of the dictatorship's crimes, yet does not see the irony of a former victim of the regime presiding over an equally repressive government disguised as a social democracy.

The PT's popularity has plummeted, with Dilma's approval rating hovering at around nine percent at the time of this writing. While she has continued and expanded the immensely popular and successful welfare programs initiated under Lula, such as Bolsa Família, many other areas have recently received severe cuts due to austerity.

Corruption allegations have also diminished the PT's popularity considerably, though to the party's credit, more politicians (including many from the PT itself) have been prosecuted for corruption in the past eight years than at any other point in Brazil's history.

Dilma has also cracked down on dissent, particularly leading up to the World Cup. The United States has trained Brazilian police offers in various parts of the continent, training them how to deal with dissent and mass groups. And until recently, the Brazilian government contracted an Israeli security company to help violate the privacy of Brazilian citizens. Recently Congress passed a law that could potentially list protesters as terrorists, a charge which carries a 30 year sentence, the maximum permitted under Brazilian law. This bill was proposed by Dilma Rousseff herself.

There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Dilma's government, but the far right has exploited the situation. Several anti-government protests have taken place this year, which have received massive, disproportionate coverage by the right-wing media. While the left has come out in support of Dilma against charges of impeachment, the situation remains precarious. A slow coup is underway as Dilma continues to fight off impeachment charges and heavy criticism from members of parliament.

It is no longer politically viable to defend Dilma and the PT. After eight years, they have gone from a center-left party to openly collaborating with the right and enacting severe austerity measures and inviting foreign capital exploitation into the country, like campaigning for hosting the World Cup and Olympics and the slow privatization of Petrobras. I believe within my lifetime, Petrobras will be completely privatized and owned by foreign interests.

We cannot speak about Brazil and the left without talking about Petrobras. Our national oil industry has been attacked by the Dilma government and already partially privatized despite massive outcry from the public. For once, both the conservative PSDB and the PT are in agreement.

Odd that the PT was out in full force against then-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso and the PSDB's attempts to privatize Petrobras. Odd how Lula essentially made anti-privatization part of his election campaign promises in 2002 and 2006. Odd how it was exactly Dilma, a former minister in his cabinet and a former socialist revolutionary, who was able to finally partially privatize the national oil industry, and not the conservatives.

But Petrobras will not go gentle into that good night--Petrobras workers have been on strike since September 3rd to protest this recent attempt at privatization. The fear is that the scandals surrounding Petrobras will be used as fuel to further privatize the national oil industry. It is a smokescreen--the right insists that our oil will be better off in the hands of foreign interests or oligarchs than in the hands of the government. The government is corrupt, for sure, but they can and are held accountable. Putting control of one of the largest industries on earth in the hands of the private sector would possibly be disastrous for Brazil's economy.

We as leftists must be incredibly careful about where to go next. Other left parties like PSOL have been shaky at best with aligning with working class interests and have often voted with the PT, including in favor of the law that would class protestors as terrorists. Luciana Genro, former presidential candidate and a prominent figure within the PSOL, has extended solidarity to Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president and member of the PSDB.

I believe any alliance with the right is extremely dangerous--there is no third option. We either take power or we let others rule over us. The Brazilian left is in an uncomfortable position. Dilma may very well be impeached especially after it was discovered that her administration had falsified fiscal accounts. We are currently in the deepest economic recession in 25 years with the most unpopular Brazilian president of all time at the helm of a sinking ship. It has become clear that more than ever, the left must unite and fight back against austerity and attempts to destabilize our democratically elected government.

about a day.

Disclaimer: I wrote this yesterday and put it on Facebook because of its deeply personal nature. However, after some consideration I decided to post this here. 9/11 helped shape my political beliefs, and I want my readers to understand where I am coming from. I'm sorry that everything is in lowercase and that there are no apostrophes or anything, but this is how my thoughts run. Also it's a bit of creative writing so give me some artistic license here. Anyway enjoy.

An outsider's view of Corbyn

Today, a Saturday and my day off, I had the fortune of waking up at six thirty in the morning. So I did what I always do when I wake up and checked my Twitter, only to discover that it was nearly time to announce the UK Labour Party's leadership election results.

Now, I am not British and the only British people I know are people I have met online. I don't particularly have any material reason to care about politics outside of the countries where I hold citizenship, the United States and Brazil (the latter of which is where I live).

However, I was oddly drawn to Jeremy Corbyn, the favorite to win. I have seen many comparing him to US "socialist" Bernie Sanders, usually to moan about how both are equally fake leftists trying to take hold of imperialist first world parties for their own careers' sakes. Normally, I would agree with such a statement, especially when dealing with Labour. However, something about Corbyn seemed genuine--well, more than something, really.

At first glance Corbyn appears to be some kind of populist front the Labour party threw into the forefront in order to attract younger, more liberal voters. It soon became clear that Labour was doing everything in its power to actually discourage Corbyn's progress, going so far as to purge the left wing of the party. Corbyn himself was perhaps corralling the left back into Labour, but the party certainly did not want to budge from its deeply entrenched right wing politics.

This is curious because the US Democrats have historically put out more left wing politicians as a sort of bait. And it has been incredibly effective--Dennis Kucinich played this role during the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections with such radical-sounding quotes like, "Everyone should have health insurance? I say everyone should have health care. I'm not selling insurance," and, "Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction," and, "I believe health care is a civil right."

Except despite the fact that Kucinich actually does have a decent voting record on left wing issues (the one glaring exception is his initial support for the war in Afghanistan), he has always ended up throwing his support behind presidential front runners like Obama in 2008 and Kerry in 2004. Hence, no matter how radical his politics appeared to left-liberals, he was and will always be nothing more than a lone liberal voice in a party dedicated to war, imperialism, capitalism, and racism.

The democrats have made this sort of left-liberal candidate into a feature of the electoral machine. Give the youth and left-liberals a lefty sort of candidate to cheer for and when the time for presidential nominations draw near, have that candidate support the true party favorite. In 2016, it appears that Bernie Sanders is this election's Kucinich and the party favorite to win the nod is Hillary Clinton. Sanders somehow manages to be even less progressive than Kucinich despite claiming to be a socialist, but because Clinton lacks the star quality Obama had in 2008, it appears as if Sanders is a radically better option.

Since I am now a real political blogger, the shitty political photomanips were inevitable.

With Corbyn, I don't believe this is the case. Unlike Sanders, he has been consistently anti apartheid and anti war even as a politician within Labour. Sanders keeps bleating about how he marched with black people once so he has the right to tell Black Lives Matters activists (the only truly progressive activist group in the United States at the moment) that in fact All Lives Matter. His track record on Israel says he won't exactly lead the way against apartheid any time soon.

Corbyn isn't perfect, but I have honestly never seen a first world politician with such mainstream success be so openly left-wing. In fact, my only problem with Corbyn is that he seems to think he can turn Labour, a party that has led the UK into war and effectively destroyed the welfare and healthcare system in the past twenty five years, into a progressive party. He will not be able to push the party towards the center-left on his own.

But what leaves me hopeful is how the conversation in the UK will perhaps turn leftwards. Perhaps now Labour will have to answer to an increasingly left wing constituancy. And perhaps when they inevitably lose and/or purge a substancial part of their membership, they will be forced to the left anyway to compete with the overall left wing political climate.

What is more likely is that Labour will continue being Labour (i.e. utter shit) and Corbyn will continue to appeal to leftists from his new position. He now has an enviable reach, and I believe he won't turn his back on his politics like his so-called counterpart, Sanders, in the US. Naturally, I don't support Labour, but I do support Corbyn and I support the people who voted for him. Perhaps this is the beginning of something. It will certainly be interesting.

A Response To Zizek

Before I begin, I would like to state that I don't care if Zizek ever sees this. In fact, I'd rather pretend he doesn't exist. However, many of my comrades believe Zizek is an important socialist with important things to say and therefore we must listen to what he's saying even if it's complete nonsense. If it's hard to understand then it must be intelligent, goes the logic. Nothing that is clear and simple and easy to comprehend is worth reading--this is very troubling thinking for supposed Marxists for obvious reasons.

And so I feel the need to say my piece on the matter. Because I am from the third world, because I am visibly of color, because I have few if any ties to the first world, because I will always be nothing more than a migrant or "guest worker" to the first world--because of all of this, I chose to write a response to the man so many of my comrades respect. A man who openly calls for closing borders and has consistently done so for over twenty years--this is the man socialists choose to respect.

I do not believe Zizek is overall good and that he is somehow tainted by a few poorly worded opinions. I believe he has fooled an altogether too-receptive left into supporting far right, racist ideologies. What troubles me is not that Zizek is racist, but that any and all criticism is immediately shot down and treated as infantile and liberal. I admit that I have not read his books but from his articles and excerpts I feel Zizek is closer to a white supremacist right winger than a Marxist. Once more, it troubles me that the left looks up to this man as the great Marxist philosopher of our time when I feel he is instrumental in the rehabilitation of right wing, reactionary values among the left.

This is why I wrote this, and I welcome any criticism that comes my way.

---

Zizek has always struck me as an act. Zizek the person is obscured by Zizek the character. The character of the strange slovenly sweaty man who often says incomprehensible and often amusing one-liners is the one everyone knows best. This is often everyone's first introduction to the man, who has quite a long bibliography.

Probably the truest thing he's ever said.

However, when we look at Zizek's actual politics and writings, we find an altogether different sort of person. Here is a man who writes with absolute conviction, a man certain of his opinions and thoughts. There is no humor in his articles, at least not the one I am about to discuss.

Recently Zizek wrote an article for the London Book Review entitled "The Non-Existence of Norway." In it he suggests Europe strengthen its border control lest the awful brown and black hordes invade, leaving nothing left for its indigenous white populations.

He begins by criticizing the left liberal position of open borders and equating the right and left positions as being equally distasteful:

Europe, they say, should show solidarity and throw open its doors. Anti-immigrant populists say we need to protect our way of life: foreigners should solve their own problems. Both solutions sound bad, but which is worse? To paraphrase Stalin, they are both worse. The greatest hypocrites are those who call for open borders. They know very well this will never happen: it would instantly trigger a populist revolt in Europe. 

While Zizek claims the "anti-immigrant populists" (read: far right and fascist politicians who infest governments all over the continent) are as bad as the people calling for open borders, later in the article he wholeheartedly agrees with the right:

It is not inherently racist or proto-fascist for host populations to talk of protecting their ‘way of life’: this notion must be abandoned. If it is not, the way will be clear for the forward march of anti-immigration sentiment in Europe whose latest manifestation is in Sweden, where according to the latest polling the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats have overtaken the Social Democrats as the country’s most popular party.

He goes on to claim that the left-liberal position is "arrogant moralism" because supposedly even opposing racist border control policy gives the argument crediability. Zizek claims the left knows better than the white working class, which of course, opposes opening its borders. He doesn't back this claim up with sources; Zizek says the white working class is inherently racist, and therefore they naturally reject migrants and refugees.

While the white working class in both Europe and North America have been historically reactionary when it comes to race (just look at Donald Trump's popularity--considering their history of electing open and proud white supremacists like David Duke, this can be understood to be a feature of the modern white working class), for a Marxist to suggest that such a thing is inherent implies two things:

1. It claims that the working class is entirely composed of white people when there is and has always been an ever-growing population of people of color joining the proletariat. The idea of an entirely white working class is a myth.
2. It implies the class consciousness of white workers cannot be changed, and I'm sure I don't have to explain why that's absolutely ridiculous. As we all know, class consciousness can be changed, and seeing as class is racialized, it goes without saying that raising class consciousness includes anti-racist action. To suggest the white proletariat is inherently reactionary is a direct contradiction to the Marxist idea that the working class is revolutionary. You cant have it both ways--either the working class is revolutionary, or it is reactionary. You cannot be a Marxist and believe the latter.

I somehow find it in me to be surprised and outraged when I see Marxists repeating anti-working class rhetoric and yet, here I am. Perhaps I am naive for expecting white Marxists to understand why Zizek's opinion on the white working class is not only racist but anti-worker. I get that many of you reading this hold some racist views you need to work through but your understanding of race as a special interest instead of something that is, in fact, of vital imporatance to proletariat liberation must be challenged.

Marxists from Che to W. E. B. Dubois to Lenin to Marx himself have pondered the national question. What I am suggesting is not something that hasn't been a feature of socialist thought for the past century. If anything, it is Zizek who is breaking with socialist tradition with his blatant racism.

Next, Zizek identifies the causes of the migrant crisis and he does so in a most peculiar way:

The anti-immigrant populist also knows very well that, left to themselves, people in Africa and the Middle East will not succeed in solving their own problems and changing their societies. Why not? Because we in Western Europe are preventing them from doing so. [...] If we really want to stem the flow of refugees, then, it is crucial to recognise that most of them come from ‘failed states’, where public authority is more or less inoperative: Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, DRC and so on. This disintegration of state power is not a local phenomenon but a result of international politics and the global economic system, in some cases – like Libya and Iraq – a direct outcome of Western intervention. (One should also note that the ‘failed states’ of the Middle East were condemned to failure by the boundaries drawn up during the First World War by Britain and France.)

So far, so good. But then Zizek shifts his focus from Western Europe to the rich Arabic nations like Saudi Arabia who have failed to aid refugees.

New forms of slavery are the hallmark of these wealthy countries: millions of immigrant workers on the Arabian peninsula are deprived of elementary civil rights and freedoms; in Asia, millions of workers live in sweatshops organised like concentration camps. But there are examples closer to home. On 1 December 2013 a Chinese-owned clothing factory in Prato, near Florence, burned down, killing seven workers trapped in an improvised cardboard dormitory. ‘No one can say they are surprised at this,’ Roberto Pistonina, a local trade unionist, remarked, ‘because everyone has known for years that, in the area between Florence and Prato, hundreds if not thousands of people are living and working in conditions of near slavery.’ There are more than four thousand Chinese-owned businesses in Prato, and thousands of Chinese immigrants are believed to be living in the city illegally, working as many as 16 hours a day for a network of workshops and wholesalers.
The new slavery is not confined to the suburbs of Shanghai, or Dubai, or Qatar. It is in our midst; we just don’t see it, or pretend not to see it. Sweated labour is a structural necessity of today’s global capitalism. Many of the refugees entering Europe will become part of its growing precarious workforce, in many cases at the expense of local workers, who react to the threat by joining the latest wave of anti-immigrant populism.

Notice how he points out how there is, in fact, slavery in Europe itself right now but specifically uses a Chinese-owned factory as an example. Zizek will, of course, never recognize his support of the dismemberment of Yugoslavia which led to the bloody ethnic conflicts, NATO intervention, and the "third worldization" (to paraphrase Michael Parenti) of the region. His "both sides are wrong" screed implicitly condemns the very victims of an active, decades long effort to destabilize and disembowel Yugoslavia.

The intention was always to devalue Eastern European labor power to such a degree where now migrants from the former Warsaw Pact nations come in droves to the UK looking for any low paying, dangerous jobs the west will throw at them. He will never recognize this, but Zizek is far too happy to once again point out how it is the brown, eastern, strange countries are the ones contributing the most to the migrant crisis.

This is a deliberate omission on his part. I am not saying that nations on the periphery cannot be responsible for atrocities and serious labor violations. But as Zizek failed to condemn the causes of the most bloody conflicts on Eastern European soil since World War II, this omission seems even more horrific. Why the left is willing to overlook this but eagerly points fingers at nations on the periphery is extremely telling.

Finally I would like to draw attention to the most damning line of the entire article:

It is not inherently racist or proto-fascist for host populations to talk of protecting their ‘way of life’: this notion must be abandoned.

Host populations here means Western European first world white nations. The use of the word "host", as if these countries are generously permitting entry to brutal savages, is bothersome. Had Zizek been referring to third world nations resisting western soft imperialist penetrations through media imports, this statement would hold more weight. However, remember that the countries he is referring to are NATO countries, the ones responsible for the destabilization of the entire Middle East.

It is not racist or fascist to bar refugees from wars and interventions heavily marketed as "bringing democracy to savages"! After countries like Germany and the UK made fortunes plundering the entire planet, including other European nations like Greece, somehow there is no money to go around--not for the native population, and not for the victims of imperialist wars.

I am reminded of Malcolm X's infamous "the chickens have come home to roost" quote. You created this situation. Now you must deal with it. Accept the consequences of your actions. The fact that the first world left refuses to hold their governments accountable for virtually anything explains why they seem to love Zizek so much.

One thing is clear: national sovereignty will have to be radically redefined and new methods of global co-operation and decision-making devised. First, in the present moment, Europe must reassert its commitment to provide for the dignified treatment of the refugees. There should be no compromise here: large migrations are our future, and the only alternative to such a commitment is renewed barbarism (what some call a ‘clash of civilisations’).

Renewed barbarism? Clash of civilizations? Whose national sovereignty does Zizek want to protect? A clash of civilizations implies both sides are equal yet in the very same sentence he speaks of migrants--two equally powerful societies would be stable, and not have mass migrations from one side to the other. Where are the European refugees swarming into the third world?

But what about solutions? Zizek has plenty. He says that in order to accept migrants, certain conditions must be imposed. They must "privilege the Western European way of life" as that is "the price to be paid for European hospitality". "These rules should be clearly stated and enforced, by repressive measures – against foreign fundamentalists as well as against our own racists – where necessary."

As I said earlier, the idea of the white working class is a myth. There is no monolithic working class culture--the only thing that unites the working class is its exploitation. There are working class protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims; there are working class women and queers; there are working class people of color. 

And this "Western European way of life" nonsense implies that Western Europe is inherently better, superior, to all others. Strange that Zizek upholds Europe as a bastion of progress and liberalism. Transgender people are sterilized in order to transition on your great continent. It doesn't matter if trans rights don't exist in other places--Europe is supposed to be The Most Progressive region on earth! Somehow European barbarism is more acceptable than barbarism of any other variety.

Then, to prevent further migrations, Zizek suggests a "new kind of international military and economic intervention [...] a kind of intervention that avoids the neocolonial traps of the recent past" but also warns against "non-intervention" because then other, undesirable countries like Russia will get involved. So the west must involve itself in other countries, but other countries must not involve themselves in geopolitical conflicts. This to me strikes as a defense of western military and economic intervention, and it certainly isnt the first time Zizek has supported intervention:

"Up to a point I agree with this, but I have always been in favor of military intervention from the West. Around 1992, with a little bit of pressure, the war would have been over. But they missed the moment." - interview with Geert Lovink, InterCommunication 14, February 27 1995

I don't think we can get any more explicit than this. I think Zizek has become more conscious of how that sort of statement comes off, so he's become more adept at masking his pro-western interventionism behind dense speech. 

No comment.

Even more infuriating than this nearly fascist defense of closing off the borders is Zizek's final thought: 

Fourth, most important and most difficult of all, there is a need for radical economic change which would abolish the conditions that create refugees. Without a transformation in the workings of global capitalism, non-European refugees will soon be joined by migrants from Greece and other countries within the Union. When I was young, such an organised attempt at regulation was called communism. Maybe we should reinvent it. Maybe this is, in the long term, the only solution.

How amazingly insulting.

After going off on a racist, pro-NATO speech about how great the west is and how refugees must conform to western standards lest the west be destroyed by the evil barbarian hordes, Zizek suggests communism as the solution. Great! I agree! Except nothing about this man's politics is communist whatsoever.

In my opinion, the first world left has an important role to play with third world liberation. They must stay the hand of their imperialist governments. Yet leftists like Zizek actively fan the flames of national chauvinism with outright fascist rhetoric about how brown people destroy the white European way of life. And this isn't the first time he's said this kind of thing either--Zizek has a history of being overtly racist and pretending it's actually really super progressive and communist:

Žižek: Tolerance is not a solution there. What we need is what the Germans call a Leitkultur, a higher leading culture that regulates the way in which the subcultures interact. Multiculturalism, with its mutual respect for the sensitivities of the others, no longer works when it gets to this "impossible-à-supporter" stage. Devout Muslims find it impossible to tolerate our blasphemous images and our disrespectful humor, which constitute a part of our freedom. But the West, with its liberal practices, also finds forced marriages or the segregation of women, which are a part of Muslim life, to be intolerable. That's why I, as a Leftist, argue that we need to create our own leading culture. - from
SPIEGEL March 2015 Interview with Slavoj Zizek: 'The Greatest Threat to Europe Is Its Inertia' (which sounds incredibly fascist but whatever)

Zizek's idea of a "leading culture" is one where he is allowed to make Holocaust jokes and complain about how bad Muslims are. He sounds much more like a right-libertarian or a fascist than a Marxist, or even a liberal. And yet this man continues to masquerade as a real Marxist, namedropping Stalin and communism as part of his "Actual Stalinist" character, but that is exactly what it is: a character, an act.

No amount of esoteric references and stupid metaphors about sex and silly rants on YouTube will change the fact that Zizek is a conservative attempting to destroy the left--and you're all falling for it.

Yours, 

Gabriel

Theory is not everything.

First, a disclaimer: I am trying to avoid making any very controversial statements this time around so no one immediately dismisses the entirity of this post as Stalin apologism. (I mentioned Stalin two or three times and suddenly that was all anyone would talk about. I expected this but I delightedly inform the reader that this reaction entirely proves my point.) I feel this is inevitable, however, because to defend Marxism and any socialist experiment is inherently controversial even among the supposed left, so I will simply say my piece and hope for the best.

Anyway.

Theory informs practice.

Say this out loud.

Recognize that theory is only as good as its practical applications. Recognize that Marxist theory is meant to be universally applicable. Recognize the dozens of ways it has been applied in various states throughout the world. Recognize the millions of ways it has yet to be applied.

Theory informs practice.

We learn theory in order to become better Marxists. We become better Marxists in order to help build a better world. If you stop at the first step then you cannot move onto the second. If the point of Marxism is ultimately human liberation, then how can you stop at theory? Worse, why do so many want to simply beat their chests and quote Marx like they would quote scripture?

Communism has a glorious century long history of revolution and victories. This statement does not mean every single socialist experiment was perfect, which is something critics claim I believe. However, I do indeed consider every socialist experiment, no matter how long they lasted, to be a success.

I am aware that this is one of those dreaded controversial statements. I stand by it.

For it is one thing to be critical of socialist experiments, but it is quite another to completely rip every instance apart as not being perfect enough, or to deny they were even socialist at all. The latter is particularly interesting because it means you don't have to think critically about it. If the USSR wasn't really socialist then there is nothing to learn from it. We can simply dismiss the positives that socialism is capable of achieving for the people. It then goes understood that the negatives are an inherent part of any socialist experiment that does not immediately achieve utopian worker's paradise standards. As I explained in my last post, Marxists must think much like scientists--each new socialist experiment is an opportunity for us to observe, experiment, learn.

Theory informs practice. Your theory must go somewhere.

Say it again.

If you cannot verify and amend theory then it is unverifiable and scientifically worthless. This is not philosophy! Marxist theory is supposed to liberate humanity! If you can't--or worse, won't--consider how it has been used historically then do not call yourself a Marxist. 

Because if theory does indeed inform practice then what of a theory that informs nothing at all? If you are unable to explain how your theory has real world applications then what are you doing? None of you are brave for being excessively critical of socialist experiments, especially not in the West. And strangely, it appears that many of you are distorting Marx to fit the reactionary belief that socialism can never exist in any form whatsoever.

Worse yet, it has gotten to the point where merely defending states like Venezuela and the DPRK (North Korea) from Western aggression is seen as an atrocity in itself. You cannot even suggest that perhaps propaganda against these countries is in fact dangerous and can lead to popular support for military intervention. Notice how this defense says nothing at all about Venezuela's or the DPRK's political economies, but instead merely says, "I don't believe we should permit Western propaganda to go unchallenged since historically orientalist lies have been used to justify military and economic violence against the third world."

It is clear where these people, affectionately referred to as "theorybros" on Twitter, stand. They are the pro-NATO left. They wrap themselves in thick, inaccessible discussions of Marx where no real world examples are permitted to verify their claims. It is clear that their supposed academic discussions are a smokescreen for their reactionary politics.

Not only do I believe that these people have nothing of value to say, I strongly believe that they exist solely to cause discord among an already fractured left. Nothing they say is in good faith and what's worse is that they refuse to let those of us who disagree with them have our discussions in peace.

I offer no solution that hasn't already been offered before so I will leave the reader with this:

Theory informs practice. If your theory informs nothing, if it does not contribute to the betterment of humanity, if it cannot be changed by real experiences, if it dismisses those working towards a socialist future, then it is worthless, and so are, in fact, its rabid adherents.

Yours,
Gabriel

The unbearable smugness of being (a fake ass Marxist)

Recently I have met some extremely smug and self righteous "Marxists" (the scare quotes shall be explained in a moment) giving me a hard time on Twitter. It is most definitely irritating dealing with people who seem bent on contradicting everyone they encounter--more so if they call themselves comrades. However, I decided to use this as a learning opportunity and as a chance to self criticize and reflect on my own reasons for choosing communism.

It seems that the moment I was born, I was destined to become a communist--I was born on July 26th, anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. But like any good Marxist, I don't believe progress is inevitable. History is made by movers and shakers. It is not pushed along by some invisible, incomprehensible force of nature. Throughout my life, many events have led me to becoming the person I am today--some good, some bad. Everything that has ever happened to me has molded me into becoming this person, this Marxist. Nothing is inevitable.

However, to many "Marxists" unfortunately, history appears to just happen spontaneously, especially when speaking about communist revolutions. The hyperfocus on individual communists like Fidel Castro or Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong is intentional because it erases how millions have fought tooth and nail for a better life. Stalin didn't industrialize Russia alone. Castro didn't fight in the Bay of Pigs himself. Mao didn't personally build every single school in rural China. The people who did these things were concerned with themselves, with their futures, with their children's futures, and with the futures of children all over the world. They were sincere in their motivations, regardless of what their leaders believed, because their leaders were not the ones on the ground molding the earth to meet their needs.

I personally have tremendous respect for people like Stalin and Castro because when push came to shove, they themselves were actually on the ground building and leading powerful working class movements. Of course, you will have these self-righteous "Marxists" declaring them despots and power-hungry, because apparently they are also omniscient in addition to being unbearably smug. But ultimately, I know that these leaders did not accomplish everything on their own and focusing entirely on them is ahistorical and fundamentally anti-Marxist, hence the previous scare quotes around "Marxist."

Those of you who believe a movement is only as good as its leaders are missing the point of communism--like, fundamentally so. How can you claim to be a Marxist while completely disregarding the millions who made history happen? How can you claim to be a Marxist while holding the masses in utter contempt? Do you believe that people are simply too stupid to know any better, and that only you know the true nature of humanity? How tremendously arrogant for a supposed "Marxist" to claim to know the desires of an entire population!

This goes beyond knowing your theory. You can spit Marxist theory back at me like some kind of perverse parrot all day--it doesn't make you a Marxist any more than quoting from the Bible makes you a Christian. You have to truly believe what you're saying and understand how that theory can be used to help people, otherwise what is the point? I will never understand these people, obsessed with theory and none of the practical applications, who shut down any discussion of actually existing socialism with, "well, it wasn't REALLY socialist". To which I have to ask, who cares?

Who actually cares if a socialist society didn't become a perfect utopia on the first try? In fact, Marxism is a science, and like all sciences we experiment and create hypotheses based off our experiences. Socialist states are not static entities sealed in some sort of vacuum away from any and all outside influences. These are former colonized states, countries that went from feudal slave conditions to achieving a near first world standard of living in an extremely short period of time. For the first time in history people have dignity and pride in their work. They have access to health care and quality education. These people can read and write their own names. These are things that first world "Marxists" take for granted while many of us from currently occupied and colonized countries know full well are rights only to the rich. If the revolution did not immediately create perfect utopia conditions, then that is because there is over five hundred years of colonialism and imperialism to reverse and unlearn.

Marxists are scientists. We must learn both the theory and how the theory was applied in practice in order to have a full understanding of how to liberate humanity. Disregarding an unexpected or unwanted result in an experiment is fundamentally unscientific and, by extention, unMarxist. Just because it wasn't what you expected doesn't mean it's irrelevent or unimportant. Marxism is a science that was specifically created to have real world applications anywhere on earth. From there, you would simply add to it. "But it's not really socialism, therefore it's worthless," is the retort, and I have to ask, "What is socialism to you?"

If there has never been a socialist state, then what are we clammoring for? Why are we fighting for an intangible romantic utopia? Revolution and state building is messy and difficult. People will be killed and injured and isolated and imprisoned. Revolution is violence. Running a state, even one that prioritizes the people instead of profits, is a violent venture. In order to maintain the people's power and right to self determine, you will have to behave violently--it is self defense! And yes things will go wrong, there will be mistakes committed and wrongful deaths and imprisonments and a slew of other horrific crimes.

But what is the outcome?

The outcome is a path towards liberation. It is real, tangible, actual gains. It is that insurmountable feeling of dignity, one that has been denied to the people for centuries for the sake of capital accumulation, that we fight for. If we have to kill every single landlord and cop on earth to liberate billions, then so be it--I will not shed tears for them, and neither will the oppressed.

To these "Marxists," whose politics are pure and exist in a flawless vacuum away from the messy masses who only seem to ruin a perfectly good theory with their sloppy execution, I would like to ask why you chose to call yourselves Marxists. What do you fight for? What drives you? What motivates you to study and protest and organize? Even in the first world, Marxists run the risk of even losing their jobs for their political beliefs. And for those of us in the third world, we even run the risk of losing our lives--just forty years ago, comrades (especially of color) were being executed in the streets by cops. Carlos Marighella comes to mind.

To these "Marxists," who only seem to criticize their "fellow" leftists, who believe they're morally superior for never considering how socialist states gave disenfranchised people a purpose for the first time in their lives, who parrot grotequse anticommunist arguments, whose criticisms never seem to be directed towards right wing counterrevolutionaries, who sometimes outright support reactionaries arresting and killing left wing activists--to these "Marxists," I say: if your main enemies appear to be the impure masses ruining your precious sterling theory with their own experiences while using them to construct a better world, drop the fucking act.

You aren't a Marxist if your rhetoric is exactly the same as some reactionary college Republican's. Your hatred of third world peoples is so unbelievably obvious that addressing you as comrades is insulting to those working right now towards a better world. Your disgusting queerbaiting and pinkwashing, your racism, your misogyny, your ableism, your general loathing of anyone who isn't YOU--you would do anything to make sure nothing changes for the most marginalized, so long as you get to keep your unbearable smugness.

The important thing to these "Marxists" is moral superiority. Never making a difficult decision, never thinking critically about oneself, never discarding your unwarranted self importance--it's extremely easy to be this kind of "Marxist" when you so deliberately divorce yourself from any and all struggles!

Applaud your own self righteousness. Being a bigoted crybaby fake ass leftist on the internet is exhausting, after all.

Yours,
Gabriel