“Both sides” patsoc, haven’t seen that before (the ones I’ve met are no-nuance russophiles).
No-nuance russophiles creep me the fuck out. I can definitely understand those that first and foremost “glorify” the USSR, and I slightly understand those that tolerate Vladimir Putin, but those who seem to worship him, the ground he walks on, and modern-day Russia are fucking deranged, pardon my French.
I’ve interacted with a few of the douchebags fitting the “Vatnik” (I hate that goddamn word) stereotype so much, and they drive me up the fucking wall. And neoliberal captalist fascist bootlickers try and slander all communists as being PatSocs, but the second you call them alt-reich white supremacist krakkker fucks, they call us “tankies” and other racial slurs.
So because that person is stating that both the U.S and China are imperialist, wouldn’t this fucking both-sides loser fit the ultra shoe better since historically it’s been the ultra turbonerds that have held the position that the PRC is an imperialist state - somehow - equivalent to the western imperialists?
Perhaps, but if they’re a patsoc, they belong here per the rules of SUS
Eh as far as I’m concerned - mind you that I’m just a guest here in the Grad - ultras belong in SUS since their actions work for the forces of reaction regardless of how revolutionary their words sound.
There was a vote before I got here whose outcome is recorded in the sidebar of SUS:
Patsocs, by popular vote, belong in Shit Reactionaries Say
So i don’t know whether this commenter is a patsoc, that may well be the case for all i know, but it cannot be inferred from this specific comment. If anything what we see here exemplifies the opposite: instead of the right deviationism of a patsoc this comment exhibits typical “ultra-left” confusion.
What is ultra left confusion? What is ultra left?
“Ultra lefts” typically hold overly dogmatic views about what is and isn’t real socialism. They don’t recognize most AES states today (with perhaps the exception of the DPRK) and they brand ruling communist parties as revisionist at best or outright bourgeois. The so-called “Maoists” fall into this category for example. I use quotation marks on “ultra-left” because as Lenin pointed out when refering to “left-wing” communists, they are not actually further left but rather a different manifestation of petty bourgeois revolutionism.
Their incorrect analysis of AES states leads them to absurd conclusions such as the one exemplified above, namely that the PRC are supposedly just another rival imperialist power and that the “correct” stance is to take neither side. This “neither Beijing nor Washington” line mirrors another ultra-left group, the Trotskyists, who in the first cold war took the “neither Moscow nor Washington” line and branded the USSR with the nonsensical label “social-imperialist”. They use “leftist”, revolutionary-sounding language but the result is the renunciation of anti-imperialist forces.
This gave me a meme idea. Scooby-Doo unmasking HAMAS and it’s Bibi underneath.
deleted by creator
