Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 2)

[benji]

Demons and AI, as the D-Pad nutjob says.

We don't have to worry about things that aren't real.

ERA tankies just can't help themselves and must always act defensive for Stalin and Lenin:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/anyone-else-really-dislike-the-trope-where-they-make-oppressed-people-fighting-against-their-oppressors-becoming-worse-than-said-oppressors.1393417/page-3#post-149419630

Because that's not how we should judge revolutionary processes, especially the post-revolutionary period. Hell, there's an entire philosophical distinction between morality and moralism, the latter being continuously employed when "attempting" (because most of the time it is done in bad faith) to analyze historical events.


In other words, it's a false presentation of an arbitrary moral line that isn't connected to the material and historical reality of that revolutionary process. In reality, whenever we analyze any historical process, we consider the material conditions of that period; otherwise, we end up with massive moral inconsistencies.

It's a falsehood to analyze the period after, say, a slave uprising with the same moral scrutiny as the period before that uprising. It doesn't make sense. These are completely different material realities. No, the slaves will never "become the oppressors" unless one blatantly and purposefully ignores the specific historical context of the original oppressors. It's a false debate. It's an abstract, false, moral absolutism.

Except material conditions determining morality is both even more inconsistent and just as arbitrary. You're saying that slavery and oppression is in fact fine as long as the right people are oppressed or enslaved. You only have to take this position because you're trying to defend some of history's greatest crimes as morally good and necessary. You wouldn't do this for the Nazis, but when the Soviets do it on a larger scale you start talking about how morality is so arbitrary. You now can't explain why the Nazi regime, or worse, Joanne is bad except by appeal to your opinion. You're not going to convince anyone because I reject your opinion on the basis that it defends the greatest mass murders in human history which brings you back to yelling about how sometimes mass murder is good.

This then results in massive moral inconsistencies. The Black Panthers, for example, were strongly supportive of the USSR. Would anyone considers the Black Panthers morally bankrupt? Or Malcom X?

Yes, of course. Anyone willing to engage in mass murder for any reason is morally bankrupt. That was easy.

Lenin developed the theoretical anti-imperialist framework that was responsible for the liberation of several african nations from european colonialism.

Name two.

Lenin his terror is responsible for hundreds of thousands of people being murdered. Stalin was worse but he could only do what he did thanks to Lenin. Both committed mass genocide

You still didn't answer my question. Do you consider Huey P. Newton, one of the biggest if not the biggest anti-racism figures of history, that not only openly praised Lenin's theoretical analysis, he literally founded the BPP within a Marxist-Leninist tradition, as a horrible human being who, apparently, defended mass genocide too?

Yes, Newton like all Marxist-Leninists defended horrendous crimes. And if that wasn't bad enough, Newton got taken by Jim Jones.

The only reason we don't treat arguing in favor of Marxism, especially Marxism-Leninism, as the same as arguing in favor of Nazis is because the Marxists and specifically the Soviets spent decades on good PR. And because simpletons continue to see the shining "moral clarity" of "just kill all the bad people and we'll have paradise." Again, same position as Hitler. A worse position than Donald Trump who merely wants to send them away and doesn't care what happens to them. "But but but the material reality of..." Yeah, like having a Zionazi heritage?

And for the record, if you defend the Soviets guess what you have to defend? Invading Poland in 1939. Carving up Europe between totalitarian regimes. Oppression and mass murder of Jews. The Soviet line was even that the invasion of France was a good thing because it was bringing down the capitalists until the Nazis invaded the Soviets too:

VERY URGENT

Moscow, June 18, 1940-1:10 a. m.

Received June 18, 1940-4 a. m.

No. 1167 of June 17

Molotov summoned me this evening to his office and expressed the warmest congratulations of the Soviet Government on the splendid success of the German Armed Forces. Thereupon, Molotov informed me of the Soviet action against the Baltic States. He referred to the reasons published in the press and added that it had become necessary to put an end to all the intrigues by which England and France had tried to sow discord and mistrust between Germany and the Soviet Union in the Baltic States.

Leninism says that the defeat of your own country in war is a good thing because it escalates the guaranteed revolution, so France's collapse to Nazi Germany was perfectly in line with Leninist theory and many French Communists saw it this way until later.

In September 1939 the PCF was banned following the signature of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the declaration of war due to the party holding the Stalinist line that the Allies were responsible for the war and that Germany was seeking peace. In October 1939, Duclos called for negotiations with Hitler, which led to increased repression from the state.[3] Upon France's defeat in 1940, Duclos, the most senior PCF official in France, engaged in negotiations with the Nazi authorities with a view to legalising the Communist Party as well as requesting permission to restart publication of the PCF daily (L'Humanité) (banned by the French government for the same reasons).[3]
...
After 1950, Thorez's health faltered, but Duclos remained one of the most influential members of the Party. He was acting Secretary General from 1950 to 1953 in Thorez's absence and was instrumental in eliminating his rival André Marty from the Party's leadership. Waldeck Rochet's own failing health prompted Duclos to run as the Party's presidential candidate in the 1969 election, scoring 21.27% of the vote, the highest ever for a communist presidential candidate in France

You can't call support of the Nazis immoral, after all, that's arbitrary and ignoring the material realities. And just as important ignoring the Marxist-Leninist anti-imperialist framework. Perhaps this is even reason to support Trump, he's weakening and undermining the capitalist regime. As good Leninists we should see this, see destroying USAID, empowering ICE, silencing Jimmy Kimmel, coordinating propaganda with Disney and other media corporations, bombing random boats, taking away Dr. Poop's food stamps, genociding trans people, etc. as all building the conditions for the revolutionary moment. Then once that happens we simply murder any social democrats and seize power. So maybe Era should learn to not be so arbitrary in their morals and ever oppose Donald Trump.