I disagree with Haz on a lot of things, but Haz’s statement that revolutionary warfare is more than a mere “class war” within a vacuum and also has national-liberation aspects due to the globalistic nature of imperialism is pretty valid
Sorry but I think this text is horrible.
Its a reactionary mess with a few good points that other better texts have already addressed without attacking other ML comrades like Luna Oi.
Haz missrepresents Hakims statements and essentially “refutes” an strawman version of what he calls the “Marxist-Leninist” position.
First and foremost, he directly ties the idea of “wokeness”, “identity politics” and “political correctness” to “social engeneering” and the US mainstream media views. This is a pathetic and reactionary position to take. Not only that but he claims this is the “mainstream consensus”. If so, then why the fuck the US is still so damn racist? why is LGBTphobia so prevalent? Why are minorities still being murdered? This take is so horrendous that it also directly contradicts the single greatest revolutionary movement in the US: The Black Panther Party. They were before anything else, worried about black people in the US, but they understood their struggle is connected to a bigger one. They have shown us what is partially the way to radicalize the american working class, and it holds up to this day. The biggest mass mobilizations against the american goverment in the last few years were a direct consequence of George Floyd death and the black movement repsonse to it. Denouncing “wokeness” and “identity politics” is a stupid mistake and I don’t think we should listen to people who insist on pushing this reactionary idea.
Anyway, let’s talk about what he is actually concerned with in this text: the Russia-Ukraine war
I know most people here in Lemmygrad support Russia in this invasion. I too used to support Russia but my positioning has changed in the months I stopped browsing here and now, after knowing better and interacting more with my country (Brazil) ML organizations, I believe that simply supporting Russia is a mistake and one of the reasons for that is exactly why this text by Haz is so problematic.
One thing he mentions is that Hakims idea of not supporting the war is “idealistic”. It is not. The proof of that is that most of the third world did not support or condemned it. Most of them were “Neutral”. Brazil for example condemned the invasion but refused to apply sanctions against Russia and refused to send Ukraine armaments. Instead, they insist on a diplomatic solution where Russias very valid security concerns regarding NATO are addressed. This is a positions that is held by every single ML that I talked with. Hell, this is the position that China defended. None of them have the slightiest illusion about Putin, a well know anti-communistand reactionary of the worst kind. But Haz and his infrared ilk do. (More on this later)
This position also doesnt mean supporting the US/NATO, quite the opposite. Back when the war broke out, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) released a perfect statement the condemned the war but did not support Russia. Its last paragraphs summon it pretty well:
"Recognizing that Russia has legitimate security concerns does not require an endorsement of all its military actions, nor Putin’s suggestion that Ukraine has no basis to exist as an independent county, nor his larger geopolitical strategies. The role of the U.S. antiwar movement is not to follow the line of countries in conflict with U.S. imperialism, but to present an independent program of peace and solidarity and anti-imperialism.
The menace of war can only be defeated by international solidarity among the peoples of the world and a resolute struggle against U.S. imperialism, which must demand the abolition of NATO. No war on Russia!"
The US wanted this war to happen for a series of reasons: First, because it would give them reasons for crippling Russia with insane sanctions, and they did so. Second, the military-industrial complex could flood Ukraine with wepaons in order to profit, and they did so. Third, they wanted to weaken Russia, and have openly stated that. The continuation of this war favors no one but american imperialism, and Haz position of unconditional and uncritical support to Russia shows that he is not paying attention to the US intentions.
Since the beggining of this war, the US has destroyed the Nordstream and is making Germany - the strongest and most influential european state - act against their own interests in detriment of american ones.
Honestly if you want to read an amazing text about US imperialism and the ukrianian war I highly recommend these two studies by the Tricontinental:
About Putin:
Putin is an anti-communist. Haz is right when he mentions that the URSS achievments are still present in modern Russia in some degree. That doesnt make Putin an ally. He had Ieltsin blessings as his successor and has tried to join the west multiple times. He even tried to join fucking NATO. His opposition to western order is nothing more but a consequence of years of western agressions. Don’t think for a second he is an ally, he is not. Although it is interesting for us a strong Russia that opposes the west creating a multipolar world, we must hold no illusions towards modern Russia. I feel like some of us forget the “critical” in “critical support”. Haz is definitelly one of these.
Also, last thing, but extremelly important: Comparing Modern Russia and Vietnam is an ahistorical, antimaterialist and pathetic take. The Russia-Ukraine war is not similar to the Vietnam war in anything. Russia is not socialist in any way. And Ukraine is not simply part of Russia. It is an independemt country that had this independence given to it by Lenin, opposing Russiam chauvinism back then. Does that mean supporting Banderites and other Ukraine nacionalists nowadyas? Hell no, but also it doesnt mean supporting fucking Russian chauvinism that Putin represents.
Haz is a dishonest reactionary and both Hakim and Luna are 100% correct in their assesments.
On your last paragraph- I recently saw a clip of this same guy defending Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge against, and this is a direct quote, “revisionist Vietnam”. I found the whole video and couldn’t get much into it, it’s very obvious he is pure spectacle, pretty sure it may even be satire? Same guy unironically calls himself a “maga communist” which makes me think it may be satirical as well. MAGA communism is hilarious and is the American version of “national socialism”. Feel like it’s either a character being played or it’s a straight up psy op.
So my opinion on the whole “patriotic socialist” thing is that it’s basically a few good insights stretched far beyond what they can reasonably support. Haz and Maupin, to their credit, saw something that nobody else in the American left was really cognizant of: namely, that since the 1970s there has been a confluence of Trotskyism with orthodox Marxist-Leninism, so that a whole lot of “tankiesm” in the US is actually revisionist. (Sam Marcy and the Workers’ World Party, who tried to downplay the differences between Trotskyism and the historical practice of actually existing socialist states, is a big reason for this shift). Thus, a whole lot of American communists actually hold, consciously or unconsciously, that Europe and the US are where genuine revolution actually happens; socialist countries on the peripheries are to be supported because they are, under the calculus of liberalism, “underprivileged,” not because they represent a genuine path forward for humanity. This is basic dilution of Leninist thought.
However, having recognized this, CPI, Infrared etc. made the leap of assuming that the entire American left from McCarthyism onward was unsalvageable, and that the only way forward was to adopt tactics used by the CPUSA during the 1930s. (Because of their emphasis on Black nationhood and building parallel political infrastructure, the Black Panthers are often regarded by patsocs as a successor to the 1930s CPUSA). Thus you get the current reworking of “Socialism is 20th Century Americanism,” and other attempts to create a left-wing American nationalism – the idea being that since it almost worked before, it has a good chance of working now. I’ve said before, and will say it again, that I’m convinced neither Haz nor Maupin is really sincere in their patriotism. Certain things they let slip from time to time betray it: Maupin listing the crimes of the American government, Haz stating that it was during the War on Terror that he recognized the true nihilistic essence of American culture, etc. It’s a tactic, and not necessarily a good one.
The Black Panthers never expresse any sympathy towards american patriotism, quite the opposite. They became staunch internationalists and linked the struggle in the third world to their own againt american government.
And about the Trotskyst problem in america they have denounced, I dont think this is good reasons to give them any kind of space anywhere, even a broken clock is right twice a day and based on the texts on his substack, it seems this is the case. Appealing to american nationalism is dangerous because it is an idea founded on the genocide and exploitation that is a product of the american bourgeoisie. Nothing will change that, if Haz is really interested in fighting againt his country bourgeoisie, maybe he shouldnt be upholding their symbols of oppression
I agree, but we have to face the real root issue – namely, that the current US left is deeply corrupt and compromised on all levels, and that there is no significant communist movement in America that isn’t revisionist. (EDIT: maybe PSL? But they also come out of the Workers’ World Party). That the whole thing is deeply sick can be seen in the way it veers between rightism and ultraleftism, and sometimes (in the case of Haz and his Khmer Rouge fanboyism) manages to combine the two. Maybe a real crisis will bring out some kind of synthesis with actual revolutionary potential. As of now, I don’t see it happening.
I havent seen much of this guy. The biggest interaction I had with anything from him was with this text and some other stuff he posted that I reaf after the one posted, and they are all terrible. If he is a psyop or not I dont know but he needs to be opposed anyway.
His main problem is wanting to appeal to american nationalism in a similar way other countries have during the revolution ( China, Vietnam etc)
But the USA is not Vietnam. They are not under colonization having their identity striped away for profits, quite the opposite, they are the ones doing it. For me, using american symbols as revolutionary symbols is as absurd as using the fucking swastica, He shouldnt even try.
Absolute garbage. Why do you keep posting so much rightist stuff
The fact that Haz confronts facts with determination to not acknowledge them reaffirms our conclusion that he is indeed a populist and not a Marxist. No other would equate discourse with a competition of ‘last man standing’ or raw competition than a vapid populist of pette bourgeois origins.
“The pure contingency of a real world-historical event unfolding before our eyes - that has not yet been consolidated by a discourse, ideology, or narrative” It most certainly does pertain to the discourse and ideology of Marxism.
Apparently he does not believe in “the ‘universality of class struggle”, so he admits to selectively apply Marx as it’s convenient to him?
I will admit that is a poor take from Hakim as he misses the material reality that if a capable force does not oppose imperialism then imperialism goes unchecked. Yes we prols pay the cost in blood, and the bourgeoisie direct us, but this is the scheme a capitalist society operates under. How would one expect a pette bourgeois country to oppose the imperial order? Establish a DotP first? This is ahistorical. Hakim is very based though, I have no quarries with him.
“That is not to imply Russia is socialist in the sense strictly relevant to a proletarian dictatorship. But simply ‘capitalism’ is not a useful description. ‘Capitalist markets’ in the strict sense are mostly obsolete in the 21st century. This analysis does not betray any understanding of how Russia’s economy works, in what way it is caught in the web of definite global financial institutions, and all geopolitical, et. al implications. Traditional spontaneous, wild and chaotic capitalist production does not prevail in any part of the world.”
^ This simply bypasses ultra left and enters ultra right, diluting the definition of capitalism until it means nothing and so nothing is capitalist. Hazah! Who knew our job was already done for us?! But no, there are specific criteria for what capitalism is, it isn’t some immaterial concept one can just bullshit their way through. A capitalist system has been firmly defined by both Marx and Lenin, again unless this clown believes he knows better than the father of socialism or the greatest revolutionary of all time. The market is anarchistic by it’s very nature: competition and the profit motive. It doesn’t matter how many state assets are involved in this market, some stability to the market (social democracy) is still a wild sea with a few dams keeping some form of definition.
“Capital is an epicycle of geopolitical metaphysics.”
^ A poor man’s attempt to negate an absolute truth by turning a force of nature against itself. The objective truth of Marx’s teachings remain, clown.
“Capitalism, or ‘capital,’ in the strictly modern sense of being used as a pathological description of the ‘true essence behind things’ is basically made-up hippie bullshit. ‘Why is all this bad shit happening? It’s capitalism, man, capitalism!’” And this is some low-grade propaganda, man! Who is he relating to? A 50 year old uncle? 😂
“Capital itself is not the essence, the ritual is.”
^ His best attempt at describing debt velocity under neoliberalism? Debt is the shadow of capital, without capital it cannot exist, and so debt could not be leveraged as an IOU. An IOU for what if capital does not exist?
"He is alluding to the notion that this is, in fact, an inter-imperialist war, and that the ‘duty of the working class of both countries’ is to oppose 'their respective governments. And only with a little bit of pressure, the ‘Leninist’ part of ‘Marxist-Leninism’ undergoes total surgical mutilation, with flawless operational success. That ultra-left stupidity which neglects the national question, and neglects the significance of anti-imperialism disappears, and we arrive at the view that class struggle has no form, that there is no dialectic of forms, that the form and content of class struggle are one and the same. "
^ This is a based take imo.
“His position is a slap in the face of Russian Communists, whose position is not only decidedly behind the Russian government - it is the position of the Russian government, which the Communists already play an extremely significant role in!”
^ Not exactly. The Russian communist party allowed to exist is as communist as the democrats are leftist. He mistakes the happenstance position of the Russian state with that of the international tendency we Marxists hold. This is not the case. Russia is pette bourgeois, and in so fighting for it’s own interests, it must oppose the imperial bourgeoisie who at this time have become decrepit leeches hellbent on devouring all value it can, including cannibalizing it’s own class, to fulfill the necessity of it’s rate of profitability and hegemony on which it stands which is currently on it’s highly advanced deathbed.
Russia. Is. No. Longer. The. USSR.
“Who is the working class? What is this working class? What form does it take, what is its actual, substantive reality? Alas, it has none. It is a purely ideological subject - it refers to a social formation defined entirely by its commitment to affirming certain ideological precepts. They aren’t talking about any actual, material class of people within Russia or Ukraine. They are talking about ‘all those who decide to define themselves by my Utopic caricature of humanity, rather than the real thing.’ The real problem with Putin is that he doesn’t agree with my ideology.”
^ Here he equates “the working class” when said by liberals to be the same as “nazis” by liberals. Personally I haven’t seen it come to this but it’s a predictable advancement of the current path. I don’t believe Hakim is as malicious as he perceives him to be, at least from the takes he is commenting on. I haven’t checked in on Hakim recently but from my experience with his content he is incredibly based, and as such deserve more credit than someone affiliated with such a clown as Dugin, and he himself qualifies as a clown by his own content. Another populist opportunist in ML’s clothing from that same corner of the ideological world.
“Through decades of experience, it has been proven that the proletariat is an essence of the people as a whole; and that Communists are an orientation within a broader popular front, over which they seek to gain hegemony” See Khrushchev opportunism (“we are a country for all peoples! Not just the working class but the bourgeoisie as well! Shit did I say that aloud?”) He is a populist parading around as a Marxist.
“And further, the proletarian subject is not neatly defined within the ranks of the people (defined against establishments, monopoly capital, imperialism, etc.), - it is rather an aspect, an essence of the people given intelligibility by Communists.”
^ He seems to be mechanically analyzing the social function of a subject of propaganda without studying the subject of that propaganda in good faith. This is what he did with the concept of capitalism a few paragraphs up I commented on. This too has a clearly defined characteristic. Class is a physical division in society, it is not just a meaningless function of propaganda we communists give meaning to like debt solely functioning off of it’s quantity and use rather than it’s innate value and unique characteristics. But again, this is an argument a populist would use as this is how he sees Marxism - as a tool to get what he wants. He understands the power of democracy, strength in numbers, but he has a completely cynical viewpoint of Marxism. He just sees it as the best populist scheme, completely casting aside the guts and wearing it’s skin like a barbarian.
" existed strictly as a tendency within the peasant mass"
^ This doesn’t even make any sense. If you view the peasants as a distinct class, and you view the proletariat as a subject within that class, you literally recognize the material existence of the proletarian class…you just have it reversed. He contradicts himself within this statement.
“There is no real ‘system’ represented by the popular front of Russian sovereignty. The nationalization of Russia’s gas industry has already provided the foundation for an alternative path of economic development”
^ This is doublespeak or just plain ignorance. A path also known as a SYSTEM of economic development.
" From liberals to Communists to technologists"
^ Technologist is a profession not an ideology.
"The Communists remain the most powerful counter-hegemonic and anti-imperialist movement within Russia, and they have benefited from every blow to American imperialism, and every blow to Russia’s reliance on the US-led global financial system. "
^ They don’t though. This again demonstrates he knows nothing of what a communist even is. He views the Russian intelligentsia and academia as communists, but this is not the case. A communist isn’t simply someone educated in Marxism, but practices it. Our ‘power’ he references doesn’t come from defeating national enemies, it grows with the working class as together we unite to liberate each other and ourselves as well as raise the human species to the highest stage of development, casting aside all reactionary formats in time to become true masters of our skills and proper administrators of this world. (Juche) We do not “raise our power level, bro 🤜 💥 🤛” by assisting a pette bourgeois nation in overtaking an imperial one (and thus replacing them as Russia has no DotP).
“Putin’s recent speech, criticizing the policy of Bolsheviks and Soviet Communists, was made in the context of a very fast growing domestic Communist party (which has made great gains among the youth especially, setting to rest the long-held view that it was a party of nostalgic boomers). This has probably intimidated the Russian status quo as a whole.”
^ Again he contradicts himself. Are they a large portion of the Russian status quo or are they alien to it? To this he has claimed both.
“But Putin himself represents no particular interest. He represents no intelligible class, or even state of affairs per se. He is a Russian centrist, who represents the bare minimum of Russian sovereignty under the conditions notwithstanding.”
^ Demonstrates he does not have a proper understanding of politics nor of Russian internal politics. Putin is a representative of the Russian bourgeoisie. Centrist merely recognizes the strength of the Russian proletariat, but the bourgeoisie control the economy never the less, and so he is their puppet, not a representative of ours. To believe in a true centrism under capitalism or socialism for that matter is idealist or in the latter case revisionist opportunism (again going back to Khrushchev’s “people’s republic”)
“Russian Communists, thus, are critical of Putin because they perceive him as not being anti-Western enough, and as too conciliatory to the globalist elite. In their view he should have done what he is now doing in Ukraine much sooner, actually…But there is no indigenous Russian capitalist system - the extent to which Russia is tied to capitalism, is the extent to which it is tied to globalist monopoly capital and more specifically global financial institutions.”
^ Describing nationalism as communism. Clearly the two are interchangeable to him. The Russian Marcyist trend being evident. He understands buzzwords but not Marxist theory, otherwise he would not view capitalism as an ideology but as a necessary stage of economic development all countries go through in 1 form or another.
The remainder is just him talking shit about Hakim and western Marxist-Leninists. Of this, an aspect of competition in his mind, he, much like Maupin, is a true contender. THIS he has studied. If only he applied this effort into reading Capital or Imperialism, The Highest Stage. 🤦
“That is not to imply Russia is socialist in the sense strictly relevant to a proletarian dictatorship. But simply ‘capitalism’ is not a useful description. ‘Capitalist markets’ in the strict sense are mostly obsolete in the 21st century. This analysis does not betray any understanding of how Russia’s economy works, in what way it is caught in the web of definite global financial institutions, and all geopolitical, et. al implications. Traditional spontaneous, wild and chaotic capitalist production does not prevail in any part of the world.”
I feel like if he replaced “capitalism” with “classical liberalism” or something he might make more sense. But liberalism has always been a grift since the enlightenment. Free markets are only useful to destroy local capital and spread monopolies, they are not the end goal of capitalism.
That’s an interesting perspective. For me it’s a difference of which class guides the development. In the USSR we saw and in modern China we see, the capitalist mode of development being used by and for the proletarian class’ benefit in those countries. And we see what happens when the bourgeois guide this mode of economic development.
I agree on that totally. I think by “chaotic production” he possibly is referring to liberalized economies that rely entirely on free markets. In many ways the idea of “free markets” has never been a very real thing, more like a dogma. His comments almost reminded me Yanis Varoufakis and his ideas about techno feudalism, or “illiberal capitalism.” Usually I’d just say monopoly or imperialism but of course that’s because I like Lenin and I reject our present moment is entirely unique.
It seems like he’s taking the position of the AnCaps, but the opposite. Instead of “not real capitalism so bad” he suggests that “socialism is when the government does stuff”, the state as a neutral or positive force almost always, the opposite of Lenin’s position.
Sun shines even on a dog’s ass some days, broken clock moment, whatever phrase you like. Point is, yea he’s a PatSoc P.O.S. most of the time, but that analysis is pretty sound. One thing I will say is he refers to the Russian Communist party, KPRF, which is the largest communist party in Russia and someone correct me if I’m wrong but I recall hearing that the KPRF is somewhat reactionary insofar as it often follows what the Russian state calls for. And I don’t just mean the war in Ukraine, they have corruption issues. Other than that, I kinda agree with him but he went a bit hard on Hakim, I still love my Doctor Habibi
I think his criticism towards Hakim and Luna are wrong, specially that horrible and ahistorical comparision between modern Russia and North Vietnam.
He does have some valid points but the amount of bad takes in this text is astonishing. Every good think he says has been said better by other texts that do not have reactionary worldview regarding minorities rights or uncritical support for Putin. I think I never read or interacted with PatSocs in a meaningful way before reading this and I honestly wish I never did.
Lol his criticism of Luna Oi is ridiculous, she has issues with American patriotism (huh I wonder why? She’s from America right? Oh wait a sec? Oh she’s from Vietnam, the country that the US bombed more than all the bombs in WW2 dropped combined)no shit she’s against US patriotism, she also gives analysis past that obvious point but Haz and Maupin ignore these and say she’s wrong
He has an entire text dedicated to “exposing” Luna, its pathetic and very dishonest.
Not only that but an american man arguing with a vietnamese woman if its okay or not to appeal to america’s racist and chauvinist patriotism for a revolution is just next level ironic. Mf is completely disconected from reality
This, he has no real reason to go after Luna and Hakim due to some vaguely idealistic tweets right after the shock of a new war happens
I used to follow Haz somewhat – for all his faults, he does have a first-rate philosophical mind, with takes on Hegel that at least used to be illuminating – and the Luna Oi thing goes rather far back. It’s based on the idea that, because of its anti-China stance, modern Vietnam is a revisionist country, as demonstrated by its position as “aggressor” during the Sino-Vietnamese war. It’s a little silly, but to be fair the official position of the Chinese government regarding the war is basically similar.
Of course it gets shameful when infrared orbiters – I saw this once on stream – start mocking the relative level of development in Hanoi vs. Beijing, and saying things like “most developed revisionist country.”
He’s too aggressive imo, like if someone says anything he disagrees with, he says “oh Baizuo, Social Imperialist Westoid, you have no dialectically materialist basis”
What too much Twitch streaming does to a mf
Agree. Honestly, I think he’s a little unbalanced – which, given that he’s clearly quite intelligent, makes for a dangerous combination.
this article refers to MLs who don’t support patriotism in the imperial core as baizuos, it definitely wasn’t made in good faith
also “Zoomerwald Left” lmao
I’ve got my reservations about the guy as well, but I remember reading this back when it came out and having no real disagreements with it.
Didn’t read the whole thing as its flaws are apparent and dealt with in this thread, but this is neither a national liberation struggle nor a class war. There is no outcome to this war that involves a fully sovereign Ukraine standing alone without being completely dependent on the US or Russia. Both US and Russia are imperialist, both want Ukraine in their sphere of influence. What Russia has said about “national liberation” for ethnic Russians also falls flat for me outside of Crimea as in most of Ukraine at this point identity is split between people who believe Russia is evil and for some inexplicable reason wants to kill Ukrainians and the people who don’t believe that more than between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. There are ethnic Ukrainians who would rather work with the Russians, but they are a minority at this point. Part of the reason this falls flat is that there isn’t really that much difference ethnically between Ukrainians and Russians, but on the flip side the nationalists who control Ukraine are trying to purge anything that makes them connected to Russia, which will come down to purging most of Ukrainian ethnic identity as well.
It’s all a terrible mess, and we shouldn’t support anyone other than the innocent working people of all the countries who are suffering as a result.
