Introduction

A new evolution of "Economism", termed "Maga-Communism", had recently laboured to confirm a saying Marx and Engels oft repeated - "that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He [R.S.: Hegel] forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." being its most famous instance.

This collection of ideological mistakes incorrectly termed a "science" serves as a particularly good case study on the one hand, and as a petty-bourgeoisie trend which ought to be put down on the other. This polemic may be of valuable use against many other crude social-chauvinist trends, especially those found in the U.S.

1. Economism is dead! Long live Economism!

To properly understand this new evolution we firstly must understand its roots, and how it belongs to these roots. I will later prove the causal relationship between this and the venomous attacks of this ideology against sections of the working class, and its ignorance regarding classes in general.

Economism is a political trend which strives to subordinate conscious struggle to spontaneous struggle. The Workers ought to wage the economic struggle "as is", and we ought to support it, but in no shape or form direct or guide it. Its logical conclusion is trade-union politics, and a renunciation of all other forms of struggle.

"... the fundamental political tendency of Economism – let the workers carry on the economic struggle (it would be more correct to say the trade unionist struggle, because the latter also embraces specifically working class politics) and let the Marxist intelligentsia merge with the liberals for the political “struggle.""

-Lenin, What is to be done?, p8

"Secondly, in the very first literary expression of Economism we observe the exceedingly curious phenomenon – highly characteristic for an understanding of all the differences prevailing among presentday Social Democrats – that the adherents of the “labour movement pure and simple”, worshippers of the closest “organic” contacts (Rabocheye Dyelo’s term) with the proletarian struggle, opponents of any non-worker intelligentsia (even a socialist intelligentsia), are compelled, in order to defend their positions, to resort to the arguments of the bourgeois “pure trade-unionists”."

-Lenin, What is to be done?, p22

In page 24, Lenin teaches that this inevitably leads to the subordination of working-class struggle to bourgeoisie ideology. "Traditional" Economism therefore inevitably took the form of trade union politics. This turns the end goal from complete emancipation and liberation to a symbolic concession every now and then. Translating this from Sophistry to English nets us "the preservation of Capitalism and the Bourgeoisie".

In truth, Marxist-Leninists ought to involve in [and guide] the trade union struggle and all like it, while attacking those who fetishise them. These forms of struggle are important, but are not the only ones, or the only ones at that. Taking part in them does not make us "Trade Union Communists".

How does any of this relate to "Maga-Communism"? Have a look:

"Representing the most immediate and general aspirations of labor, the MAGA movement is at the outset characterized by the demand for the return of manufacturing and a revival of industrial production. [...] The true aspiration of the MAGA movement is a new sun, a red sun, whose dawn retrochronically establishes its prior occlusion into the night sky. The red sun - or red star - is the most persistent and elemental symbol of Communism. "

-Infrared, The rise of Maga Communism

I swear by the classics these are two adjacent paragraphs! I am afraid such moments of blunt honesty from Infrared will become scarcer as we go on. Nonetheless he presented "the MAGA movement" as "the most immediate and general aspirations of labor [R.S.: vis the spontaneous movement]", then claimed its "true aspiration" is Communism, and what symbolises it most.

Trying to appear profound cannot hide this idea, which is outdated for over a century. In page 22, Lenin expressed his disagreement with this exact idea, almost word for word, of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party, which formulated economism thus:

"The more capitalist development increases the numbers of the proletariat, the more the proletariat is compelled and becomes fit to fight against capitalism. The proletariat becomes conscious of the possibility and of the necessity for socialism. In this connection socialist consciousness appears to be a necessary and direct result of the proletarian class struggle"

Is the above not exactly what Infrared claims? Spontaneous movements, allegedly, teach workers everything they need to know and brings them to desire Socialism.

1.1. Once again on the role of the vanguard party

From the plethora of differences Marxist-Leninists have with the Economists, amongst the major ones stand the role of the party. It is very tricky to the new and inexperienced, as this issue is practically impossible to spot without acquaintance with it, moreso than many others.

The party is the advanced detachment of the working class, hence vanguard party. This is ABC. But what is its actual purpose?

Like any vanguard, to lead. The party gathers the most conscious elements to it, educates these elements (both in theory and action) to make them worthy of the title "vanguard", and utilises its cadres to guide and agitate the mass of the workers, raise them to the level of its program, represent their interests, and lead them through persuasion and trust in both the day-to-day and overall struggle, with the end-goals of Revolution, Socialism, and Communism.

Economism takes the opposite approach. A sinister objective of this trend is to collect these most conscious yet inexperienced elements and degrade them to the worship of spontaneity, and direct the mass of the workers to focus only on the "immediate", on the day-to-day struggle which will somehow eventually lead to Socialism. Not Vanguardism, but Rearguardism.

"But what else is the function of Social-Democracy if not to be a ”spirit“ that not only hovers over the spontaneous movement, but also raises this movement to the level of ”its programme“? Surely, it is not its function to drag at the tail of the movement."

-Lenin, What is to be done?, p30

"The true sense of this conclusion is as follows: Iskra [R.S.: At the time, where Lenin wrote and published. Represents the Marxist trend.] desires to elevate the trade-unionist politics of the working class (to which, through misconception, through lack of training, or through conviction, our practical workers frequently confine themselves) to the level of Social-Democratic [R.S.: The Bolsheviks used to be called the "Russian Social Democratic Labour Party", and Social-Democrats was the term used by Marxists. This terminology is outdated, but I want this to be accessible to newcomers] politics. Rabocheye Dyelo [R.S.: Economist newspaper], however, desires to degrade Social-Democratic politics to trade-unionist politics. "

-Lenin, What is to be done?, p53

Vanguardism or Tailism, one or the other. Dear reader, have a guess which side Infrared chose.

"The unity of Communism with MAGA is nothing more than the unity of Marxism with the worker’s movement. [...] ‘anti-Communist’ sentiment is as American as apple pie. Taken from that perspective, the anti-Communism of the MAGA movement is even in a way endearing, reflecting its grassroots nature."

-Infrared, The rise of Maga Communism

And just like that, the name "Maga-Communism" is ""vindicated"" as much as such a silly name can be. It entails the degrading of Communism to the Maga spontaneous movement. It is, after all, in the name!

The observant reader will now astutely ask: "Comrade, you have proven Maga-’Communism’ treats Maga like the Economists treated Trade Union struggles and the parallel is definitely there. But you have taken one trend which sets workers against workers, another which sticks purely to spontaneous and ineffective, but nonetheless forms, of struggle against the Bourgeoisie, and termed them both Economism. How do you justify this?"

This question is of profound importance. To say that both direct and limit the Workers to Bourgeoisie forms of struggle will be insufficient.

This is why I had not termed Maga-’Communism’ Economism but an evolution of it. They both share the same root and many similarities, but only the inexperienced will regard them as identical.

2. Combinism, the latest form of Economism

I had chosen the term ‘Combinism’ as a scientific name for Maga-’Communists’ because it seeks to combine between the (alleged) class-conscious workers and their ideology, on the one hand, and a petty bourgeoisie reactionary trend on the other. Combinism wishes to wed Marxism-Leninism and chauvinism, the ideology of class struggle to capital’s ploy of class infighting. I termed it an evolution of Economism because it "merely" replaces worship of "consciousness in an embryonic form"[P17] with worship of right-wing populism and demagoguery presenting itself as consciousness in an embryonic form. This always leads to the subordination of Proletarian interests to Petty-Bourgeoisie interests, and Proletarian ideology to Bourgeoisie ideology.

"Not a single Marxist has any doubt that opportunism expresses bourgeois policy within the working-class movement, expresses the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the alliance of a tiny section of bourgeoisified workers with “their” bourgeoisie against the interests of the proletarian masses, the oppressed masses."

-Lenin, Socialism and War

Following that, chapter 2 will dedicate itself to: A) Expose the Combinists as shameful class collaborators B) Reveal the real political trend they represent C) Showcase how Infrared, like the spineless opportunist that he is, creates arbitrary definitions for concepts Marxism already had defined to justify his lunacy

2.1 Combinist Class-trophobia

Diverting focus away from the question of class is a cherished tactic of rightist wretches. They systematically replace, in one form or another, the dichotomy between the interests of the exploiters and the exploited with fancy words and slogans of interests "in general", of "the people", "the majority" [distinct from the Marxist usage of the word] and so on. The inescapable result is class conciliation. The Marxists insist on the interests of the exploited majority, while the rightists attempt to ""insist on as many interests of as many groups as they can"", including the propertied minorities, thereby defending property rights and wage labour, contenting themselves with a struggle for reforms. A movement which does not aim to destroy wage labour cannot be regarded as Marxist.

"the working class represents the universal and common interests of society as a whole in actual reality. "

-Infrared, The rise of Maga Communism

What "universal" interests? Are you aware that U.S. "society as a whole in actual reality" includes the same Bourgeoisie which shed the blood of the workers for profit? The exploited majority is fundamentally and irreconcilably at odds with the exploiting minority. Do not mistake this for anything original by me; Its basic Marxism! The originality and profundity of it lies over a century back, something axiomatic to Lenin in one of his earliest books:

But an essential condition for such an alliance must be the full opportunity for the socialists to reveal to the working class that its interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie

-Lenin, What is to be Done, P8

These exact Combinist ideas of "Universal interests" are plagiarized from Kautsky. I, however, will properly credit Lenin for his rebuttals:

It is natural for a liberal to speak of “democracy” in general; but a Marxist will never forget to ask: “for what class?” [P8]

Kautsky does not understand this truth, which is so clear and obvi- ous to every worker, because he has “forgotten,” “unlearned” to put the question: democracy for what class? He argues from the point of view of “pure” (i.e., non-class? or above-class?) democracy. He argues like Shylock: my “pound of flesh” and nothing else. Equality for all citizens—otherwise there is no democracy. [P24]

The indispensable characteristic, the necessary condition of dictatorship, is the forcible suppression of the exploiters as a class, and, consequently, the infringement of “pure democracy,” i.e., of equality and freedom in regard to that class. [P33]

-Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky

In the very same paragraph, Infrared continues with this gem:

The reign of the institution of private property is not what guarantees peoples liberty to have their own homes, land, farmsteads, businesses, or things that they actually use in general in the pursuit of happiness. It is what destroys them.

There is so much wrong with this, an entire book made entirely by quoting the 4 classics can be written against this single paragraph. It presents not Proletarian but petty-bourgeoisie interests.

A) Why confuse personal property (a home) and private property ("own" land, farmstead, business)? Older workers are more likely to own their home then younger ones, but both are still proletarians. Someone with their "own" business is a petty-bourgeoisie or a Bourgeoisie by definition. B) Why present private property as "[a thing] they actually use in general in the pursuit of happiness"? Private property does not exist for the majority of society and for every single Proletarian.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

-The Communist Manifesto, P23

C) How does the reign of the institution of private property not guarantee the "liberty" to owning "land, farmsteads, businesses", I.E. Private property? The entire purpose of this "reign" (I.E. Capitalist state / dictatorship / ect...) is to protect private ownership and its owners against the hundreds of millions they enslave.

These 3 points can be summed up as "liberty and interests of which class?"

The striking genius of Karl Marx once again shows in his apt analysis of Bourgeoisie Socialism (Explained in more detail in the Manifesto P32 ), the reactionary trend which "attempts" to solve all problems of capitalism while retaining capitalism, "summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois – for the benefit of the working class". A society with wage labour and no antagonisms, private ownership and no exploitation. A sheer philistine utopia. A grand, ugly lie. Through these tainted lenses however, Combinism and its approach to private property make perfect sense.

Here is how Marx perfectly explained it:

But of course bourgeois socialism always presupposes that society is exclusively composed of capitalists, so as to be able then to resolve the issue between capital and wage labour according to this point of view.

-Marx, Le socialisme et l'impôt, par Emile de Girardin

Unlike Marxism-Leninism, Bourgeoisie Socialism wants the evils of society to go away while retaining wage labour. Seeing as the Proletarian’s class distinction revolves entirely around selling their labour power, and how this is the chief way the proletarian is exploited, it should be obvious our goal is staking this very system which is sapping away our blood and livelihood.

And if there are people at hand there whose minds are theoretically clear, who can tell them the consequences of their own mistakes beforehand and make it clear to them that every movement which does not keep the destruction of the wage system in view the whole time as its final aim is bound to go astray and fail--then many a piece of nonsense may be avoided and the process considerably shortened.

-Engels, Letter to Friedrich Sorge

All these “socialists” since Colins have this much in common that they leave wage labour and therefore capitalist production in existence and try to bamboozle themselves or the world into believing that if ground rent were transformed into a state tax all the evils of capitalist production would disappear of themselves. The whole thing is therefore simply an attempt, decked out with socialism, to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one.

-Marx, Letter to Friedrich Sorge

But Infrared not only ignores the "advice" of Marx and Engels, which repeated this exact point more times then I can count, but openly and brazenly contradicts them;

The critique of private property entailed by Communism does not mean that Communists seek to voluntarily change all property relations.

-Infrared, The rise of Maga Communism

V.S.

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

-The Communist Manifesto, P22

The predictable wretched Combinist will now reveal their lack of neurological activity by pointing to the word "voluntarily" and elevate this one word to the position of a saint, a holy knight to which they owe their rescue. They had already forgotten the class question. You cannot take from the proletariat the private property they do not and cannot have. For the revolution to win, it must have the backing of the majority of the exploited (not only proletarians, E.G. also the small Peasants in rural countries). This means a revolution doubles as a referendum, the exploiting state being uprooted and destroyed is the only democratically conducted decision it "takes" (more correct would be, a democratic decision is forced on it).

For a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes;

-Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an infantile disorder

But to win, we must have the sympathy of the masses. An absolute majority is not always essential; but what is essential to win and retain power is not only the majority of the working class—I use the term “working class” in its West-European sense, i.e., in the sense of the industrial proletariat—but also the majority of the working and exploited rural population.

-Lenin, Third congress of the Communist International

Engels confirms this change in production is a revolution;

Modern Socialists, as represented by Marx, demand that it should be held and worked in common and for common account, and the same with all other means of social production, mines, railways, factories, etc. [...] What the Socialists demand, implies a total revolution of the whole system of social production;

-Engels, Preface to "The Conditions of the Working Class in England"

Further, if the word "voluntary" mean letting the workers – my bad, "whole society" take the initiative in changing the relations of production, its once again Economism. "Let the people do it at their own pace, the rearguard party can wait". Engels disagrees.

Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all;

-Engels, On Authority

We reached a position where the majority of labourers, Proletarians [in an industrialized country like the USA these are the vast majority] and non-Proletarians, rise up against capitalism and win, and their interests demand forcefully expropriating the employers and landlords (Bourgeoisie), big or small, and build up Socialism, where yesterday’s private property now belongs to all. Why, exactly, are we to wait in carrying this out? Whose class interest are we representing? Infrared comes to our rescue:

Communists do not want to ‘socialize’ people’s actual belongings or even businesses. The way in which actual relations of production will develop will be a matter of history.

-Infrared, The rise of Maga Communism

We will not steal the private property only you own, own because you stole it from us, from those who actually work and their families; Comrade Porky will help us build Socialism by the end of the 200-year plan!

What an outstanding renunciation of Marxism-Leninism and everything it ever stood for!

I feel like I will insult you, my dear reader, if I will once again explain the ridiculousness of this moot point. Instead of beating a dead horse, its better to advise the honest combinists (if any exist...) to adopt a new motto: "Not Lenin, but Roosevelt!" for they parrot the latter in spite of the former.

We shall save capitalism by reforms, says that [R.S.: Roosevelt and Co.] party. We shall grant the most progressive factory legislation. We shall establish state control over all the trusts (in the U.S.A. that means over all industries!). We shall establish state control over them to eliminate poverty and enable everybody to earn a “decent” wage. We shall establish “social and industrial justice”. We revere all reforms—the only “reform” we don’t want is expropriation of the capitalists!

-Lenin, The Results and Significance of the U.S. Presidential Elections

If capitalism is a planet, Combinism wishes to fly elsewhere on it, as far as can be. Lenin wishes to build a spaceship and get off the planet. Infrared goes on to offer us 3 half measures that fit in perfectly with Bourgeoisie Socialism:

The Communist critique of private property allows for pro-people policies, including lowering taxation, ending government subsidies for the monopolists [R.S.: One paragraph above he claimed "what Communists seek is the overthrow of the monopolists", suddenly ending subsidies is enough... Revisionists have poor memory], and removing red tape - to actually happen, [...]

Blind as a bat, Infrared fails to realise this "Communism" belongs to Girardin. Let us quote Marx in his polemic against him:

Regarding taxes:

The reduction of taxes, their more equitable distribution, etc., etc., is a banal bourgeois reform. The abolition of taxes is bourgeois socialism. This bourgeois socialism appeals especially to the industrial and commercial middle sections and to the peasants.

Tax reform is the hobby-horse of every radical bourgeois, the specific element in all bourgeois economic reforms. From the earliest medieval philistines to the modern English free-traders, the main struggle has revolved around taxation.

The distribution relations, which rest directly upon bourgeois production, the relations between wages and profit, profit and interest, rent and profit, may at most be modified in inessentials by taxation, but the latter can never threaten their foundations. All investigations and discussions about taxation presuppose the everlasting continuance of these bourgeois relations. Even the abolition of taxes could only hasten the development of bourgeois property and its contradictions.

"Ending subsidies for the monopolies"

Every new tax depresses the proletariat one step further; the abolition of an old tax increases not wages but profits. In a revolution, taxation, swollen to colossal proportions, can be used as a form of attack against private property; but even then it must be an incentive for new, revolutionary measures or eventually bring about a reversion to the old bourgeois relations.

Which means that in this scheme, the average worker will be no better off. You are robbed by your workplace and by the Bourgeoisie state. The Bourgeoisie state also subsidises the workplace. The abolition of an old tax increases what the workplace gets in profits. The removal of subsidies means the Capitalist state keeps the subsidy money. The capitalists and their underlings fetishise tax reform because it helps them, presents itself as "pro-worker", and gives the workers a grand total of nothing. The Combinists could have had, at least, the common decency to promise higher wages as a concession, but its evident they are worse than Social-Democrats, worse than moderate Fascists.

"Cutting red tape"

Society of course cannot tolerate the formation of a class in its midst which rebels against its very conditions of existence. Compulsion, authority, bureaucratic interference which are precisely what Girardin wants to eliminate, reappear in society. If for a moment he made an abstraction of the conditions of bourgeois society, he did so only in order to return to them by another route.

"Cutting red tape" where exploiters rule is an empty slogan devoid of content. Not only the exploiters "themselves" but the mode of production at its core will compel the creation of more "red tape", and do so more viciously the more you try to cut it. It cannot be pruned without a dictatorship of the Proletariat and even then a struggle against it is needed.

Infrared continues from the last quote:

[...] to actually happen, because it places the interests of the people above the interests of money and so-called ‘private property.’ Communists want the people to have more things, not less - more wealth, more businesses, and more prosperity. If the people have more of these things, than the productive forces accelerate faster

Once again "people" in general, property-less and property-owners. Not the abolishment of Capital and private property but more Capital! More Private Property! Does he truly not realise that prosperity to the majority cannot coexist in such conditions? Or does he ignore that simple truth? We Marxist-Leninists bring down private businesses and exercise a class dictatorship precisely for prosperity; Comrade workers, the entire economy will be yours and exist to serve you and your needs; You will own every factory, every road, even the state itself, and do so jointly, where exploitation is done away with. Every Communist will continue to explain this goal and work to achieve it. If one person owns a factory, it is only because everyone else don’t own that factory.

I have already explained the utter fallacy of the Yaroshenkite "productive forces" argument in detail, but a short explanation might be helpful.

Today, anyone who mentions "productive forces" without mentioning "relations of production" is 95% likely to be a swindler. The former is the capacity to produce (E.G. Infrastructure, refineries, worker expertise) and the latter, societal positions of people in relations to production (simplified: who owns what. A private person? Its operators? The state? Who owns the state?)

Productive forces enable higher relations of production in society, which in turn enable faster growth of the productive forces. Capitalist relations will always be better than Feudal ones, Socialist always better than Capitalist, ect. The question is "when can we change the relations?". In states like the USA, the answer is "after a revolution". This was true for some European states in Engels’s time:

On the other hand this same large-scale industry has brought into being, in the bourgeoisie, a class which has the monopoly of all the instruments of production and means of subsistence, but which in each speculative boom period and in each crash that follows it proves that it has become incapable of any longer controlling the productive forces, which have grown beyond its power, a class under whose leadership society is racing to ruin like a locomotive whose jammed safety-valve the driver is too weak to open. In other words, the reason is that both the productive forces created by the modern capitalist mode of production and the system of distribution of goods established by it have come into crying contradiction with that mode of production itself, and in fact to such a degree that, if the whole of modern society is not to perish, a revolution in the mode of production and distribution must take place, a revolution which will put an end to all class distinctions.

-Engels, Anti-Dhuring, P96

When the Relations lag too far behind, economic crises strike. The Great Depression almost a century back, 2008 and 2020 prove the USA needs and can have Socialism, and does so blatantly and overwhelmingly, akin to how lava proves its "hot" by melting all in its path.

All of this, and Infrared has the audacity to spit out this gordian knot of a sentence:

The critique of private property doesn’t mean taking property away from people.

And there we go! Letting the mask slip for but a moment, he accidentally exposed his real views. Go for a revolution, sure! Unite against the abstract and anecdotal "monopolists", bring down their domination, but expropriation is off the table!

I will ask, yet again: How can we take from the Proletariat the private property they do not have?

Whose "property" are you defending here?

Our critique of private property does, in fact, call for the destruction of private property. The Proletariat does not have any private property to lose, hence "nothing to lose but your chains".

You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people. Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create planned economy.

-Stalin, Marxism versus Liberalism

For the last thing at hand before we move on to trends, Infrared finally completes his decisive break with class analysis and reveals a nobel-prize worthy lack of understanding regarding Socialism and basic reality, something only possible by detached petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals like himself:

It [R.S.: Critique of private property] means using political power in a way that serves the common interests of the people, rather than the private interests of money. The contractual forms of association between the people - which allow people to secure their rights of ownership - will continue to exist far into the future, and will only disappear when they are rendered unnecessary by the productive forces - when no institutional challenge to their ownership will even exist.

Combinism claims to want a state which magically exists independently of anything else, has its own "pro-people" agenda and serving the "common interests" of society [and not once is class mentioned], keeping and defending the "contractual forms of association" [wage labour and exploitation of labour power by capital], private ownership, and these will only change when two conditions occur. One was fulfilled over a century ago, the other will not be fulfilled until private property ceases to exist. Combinist undialectical idealism at its zenith.

I won’t tire anyone by focusing on everything Infrared repeated here, after already proving its utter nonsense multiple times. I will focus on what is new: how the condition "no institutional challenge to their ownership will even exist" is just saying "never". Class struggle persists under Socialism [and this ideology can never reach there].

The transition from capitalism to Communism represents an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch has terminated, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this hope is converted into attempts at restoration. And after their first serious defeat, the overthrown exploit- ers—who had not expected their overthrow, never believed it possible, never conceded the thought of it—throw themselves with energy grown tenfold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundredfold, into the battle for the recovery of the “paradise,” of which they have been deprived, on behalf of their families, who had been leading such a sweet and easy life and whom now the “common herd” is condemning to ruin and destitution (or to “common” labor...).

-Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, P31

The predicament, or rather noose, the Combinists seek to place us in is thus:

• Private owners are protected and not repressed
• Private ownership will continue until no institutional challenge to it remains
• The Private owners are part of the "people"
• They will never give up their privileged positions
• "We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world."
• "The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy." -"if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place."

(quotes are by Stalin)

The capitalists (new and old) are unwilling to part with their power, and will resort to violence to keep it. The state refuses to force this change and will back down. It prioritises the interests of the Bourgeoisie, it is a Bourgeoisie state, and a revolution is needed yet again. This will occur organically due to the relation between base and superstructure.

The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will.

-Marx, The German Ideology

However, people are judged, not by what they think of themselves but by their political behaviour.

-Lenin, Under a False Flag

2.2) Combinism as an Ideological Trend

It must be kept in mind that Combinism did not come from nowhere. So long as it does not have mass influence it cannot be regarded as a trend in and of itself, but because it has roots in various petty-bourgeoisie trends and wishes to unite them, we can judge the direction it "wants" its trend to have.

Trends can be analysed through similar (but very importantly, distinct) lenses of base and superstructure. Here is how Stalin defined them:

The base is the economic structure of society at the given stage of its development. The superstructure is the political, legal, religious, artistic, philosophical views of society and the political, legal and other institutions corresponding to them.

-Stalin, Marxism and Problems of Linguistics

Ideological views and trends also arise from the mode of production, that much we know. But such trends have their foundations [distinct from base] and presentation [very distinct from superstructure]. The foundations of a trend is the class it actually serves, and where it draws its power from, which dictates its real policies, actions, tactics, but also its presentation, vis, slogans, phraseology, "who they claim to be".

Combinism, in such rich irony, represents privileged petty-bourgeoisie intellectuals and opportunists, while aiming to spread bourgeoisie influence among the proletariat.

This is not a question of individual figureheads or followers (Some of the latter can change their views once exposed to actual Marxism, these ones honestly wish to do good and do not know how, those who abandon Combinism in favour of Marxism ought to be welcomed and helped in doing so; "our task is not to champion the degrading of the revolutionary to the level of an amateur, but to raise the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries.)". They represent reaction just as cops do, objectively, regardless of their personal will.

It is said that history is fond of irony, of playing tricks with people, and mystifying them. In history this constantly happens to individuals, groups and trends that do not realise what they really stand for, i.e., fail to understand which class they really (and not in their imagination) gravitate towards. Whether this lack of understanding is genuine or hypocritical is a question that might interest the biographer of a particular individual, but to the student of politics this question is of secondary importance, to say the least.

-Lenin, The Bourgeois Intelligentsia’s Methods of Struggle Against the Workers

And objectively, Combinism once again blatantly plagiarizes Kautsky by attempting to hide its renunciation of Marxism-Leninism by [falsely] referencing the "masses".

MAGA is irrefutably the only worker’s political movement that exists in America.
The unity of Communism with MAGA is nothing more than the unity of Marxism with the worker’s movement.

No political sophistry about empty talk of "partisanship" can change the fact of the matter; The MAGA movement does not have its roots in ending capitalist exploitation but in protecting it, in turning labour against labour instead of labour against capital.

If only Lenin would have written about this exact situation, if only there was a ready made answer to this question...

One of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its reference to the “masses”. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism?

-Lenin, Imperialism and the Split in Socialism

If only Infrared could read!

And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.

-Lenin, Imperialism and the Split in Socialism

Furthermore, dear reader, have you noticed the position Infrared takes regarding the Monopolies?

it [R.S.: Socialisation] could only happen as a result of the people’s own historical development. In the meantime, what Communists seek is the overthrow of the monopolists, the bankers, big pharma, big agriculture, big tech, and others - which have hijacked the American republic in the name of the ‘sacred institution of private property.’

What seems so disconnected from reality to you, as someone with proletarian class consciousness, is natural to the petty-bourgeoisie who detest capitalists but champion capitalism, Infrared argues from the point of view of a "small proprietor" fighting a "big proprietor":

When that is how matters stand, to flaunt such phrases as “a most determined policy of socialisation”, “routing”, and “completely putting down” is just missing the mark. It is typical of the petty-bourgeois revolutionary not to notice that routing, putting down, etc., is not enough for socialism. It is sufficient for a small proprietor enraged against a big proprietor. But no proletarian revolutionary would ever fall into such error.

-Lenin, "Left-Wing" Childishness

The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state capitalist or state socialist.

-Lenin, Ibid

With this in mind, Infrared behaves like a deer stuck in the headlights about how leftists and the ‘democratic socialists’ want to expand our rotten and corrupt government to step on the toes of the American people, beyond the bounds of their rights and constitutional liberties., securing the monopolies of Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Federal Reserve bankers and others by eliminating all possibility of competition with them., They plan on ‘financing’ their ‘socialism’ by raising taxes, which the moneyed interests have no problem doing as it is a price well paid for securing their thousand-year-reich monopolies..

Social-Democrats are objectively the moderate wing of Fascism, they no doubt want to strangle the workers and secure the monopolies. Infrared fetishises these symptoms instead of focusing on the cause: Which class does Social-Democracy serve?

For Marxist-Leninists, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is non-negotiable. What is a dictatorship?

Like a blind puppy casually sniffing first in one direction and then in another, Kautsky accidentally stumbled upon one true idea (namely, that dictatorship is rule unrestricted by any laws) Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.

-Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, p9-10

We do want a "strong" government against the bourgeoisie, and a liberating government in relation to the proletariat, but only after overthrowing the present base and the structures on it (government included) and replacing it with a Worker class dictatorship, a dictatorship of the entire proletariat as a class, jointly.

And what of monopolies? This is our enemy, right?
Wrong. Our enemy is not the monopoly but the monopolist, because the monopolist is a capitalist, and the capitalist class is the one we seek to overthrow.

Applying morality to a tool is philistine, it all depends on its context, who uses it and why. Food that alleviates the hunger of a peasant does good. The same food in the hands of a Nazi soldier does bad. This is all subordinated to class morality, what is good for the working class is good.

A Monopoly is a tool. A capitalist will use it to exploit and enslave, but a workers state will use it for the benefit of the workers. We are for such monopolies, as was Lenin:

For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy -- and then it is a step towards socialism.

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

-Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it

A petty-bourgeoisie will always object to monopolies because they impoverish the petty-bourgeoisie and turn them to ordinary workers. The big fish eats the small fish. The Proletariat can only change its situation by the expropriation of private property: For the petty-bourgeoisie, it is either impoverishment and becoming an "ordinary" worker, or wealth, leading to hiring wage-labour, becoming a bourgeoisie. This is the source of their vacillations and why such special care is needed to win them over, under the guidance of the Proletariat, while ruthlessly exposing any crook attempting to win over the Proletariat to the "guidance" of the petty-bourgeoisie.

Another perfect illustration of Infrared’s petty bourgeoisie analysis is found here:

Meanwhile, they [R.S.: Democratic Socialists] want to raise taxes on regular working Americans, who are already being ‘taxed’ to death through debt and banks. ‘You’ll own nothing and be happy’ - that is the socialism the elites have planned for the American people.

I will not doubt the validity of this statement. My focus here is how it is put, and from which point of view. The main focus is not placed on the debt the Social-Democrats will preserve [sans perhaps superficial concessions] and by extention the class domination in their society, it is not placed on the fact these taxes are robbed from workers by the state of the capitalists. It is placed on Taxes. A simple boogeyman conjured by a simpleton. Recall Marx’s previous statement on those who obsess over the question of taxes.

Once again the petty intellectual experiences a temper tantrum over state control, as if to say ‘taxes are the ultimate evil and they alone will make you poor’.

2.3) Infrared cannot tell Left from Right

The concepts Left, "Left" (The two are distinct!), Center, Right have precise definitions in Marxism standing for decades. They are not spacial concepts standing on a spectrum, these are precise definitions for precise trends. It is not quantitative but qualitative. To use "the width to height ratio of this wall is 3:4 or 8:4" to judge parties or trends, "This party is slightly to the right of center, this one is mostly left" is wrong. To use "This wall is red, this one is blue", "this party is leftist, this one is rightist" is correct.

I kept this part of chapter 2 for last because the previous ones are needed to understand these concepts well. Once looking at the world through class lenses is hammered in, and once we understand and judge trends, these concepts become intuitive and simple. I will give a brief simplified description of each, but familiarisation with them is expedient. I recommend going over to the sources as well. It is worthwhile to add that these definitions are tailored to the struggle of the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, Capitalism and Socialism, I.E. Modern conditions.

Left: A Proletarian trend with a Proletarian view. It represents the emancipation of labour and expropriation of capital. "Leninism is the most Left (without quotation marks) trend in the world labour movement." (Stalin)

Right: A trend representing the ideology of the exploiting ruling class of the current mode of production. More simply, rights uphold Bourgeoisie ideology. These can be the parties of capital [In the US examples are Republicans, Democrats, and the Social-Democrats like Bernie Sanders] which openly uphold capitalism, or rightist deviations from Marxism, a trend hostile to Marxism inside Marxism, which "Under capitalist conditions the Right deviation in communism signifies a tendency, an inclination that has not yet taken shape, it is true, and is perhaps not yet consciously realised, but nevertheless a tendency of a section of the Communists to depart from the revolutionary line of Marxism in the direction of Social-Democracy. When certain groups of Communists deny the expediency of the slogan "Class against class" in election campaigns (France), or are opposed to the Communist Party nominating its own candidates (Britain), or are disinclined to make a sharp issue of the fight against "Left" Social-Democracy (Germany), etc., etc., it means that there are people in the Communist Parties who are striving to adapt communism to Social-Democratism." (Stalin)

"Left": Speaks like the first but behave like the second. These "revolutionary champions" are such enemies of the rights they turned 360 degrees away from them!
Jokes aside, "lefts" are the rightist deviation, but disguise themselves by posing as lefts. As an example, imagine its 1917, Tsarist Russia. A right deviationist might say, appealing to Kerensky and the Bourgeoisie, ‘we must not have a revolution in the midst of the war! Defend the Fatherland!". In 1919, a "left" might say, ‘there can be no talk of peace. We must continue the war against Germany even if it means losing the victories of our revolution’. A real left will say ‘We will defeat the enemy in our own country first, and then, owing to the impossibility of defeating the Germans, achieve peace and build up Socialism’.

The right will say "give the NEP more economic freedom! Allow the capitalist and kulak to develop!"
The "left" will say "Down with the NEP! Introduce Socialism now!"
The left will say "our country lacks the material basis for Socialism, it lacks electrification and large scale industry. The NEP will be the path to Socialism, and we will prevent capital from growing too strong until then"

"Lenin referred to the "Left Communists" as Lefts sometimes with and sometimes without quotation marks. But everyone realises that Lenin called them Lefts ironically, thereby emphasising that they were Lefts only in words, in appearance, but that in reality they represented petty-bourgeois Right trends.
[...]
There you have a picture of the specific platform and the specific methods of the "Lefts." This, in fact, explains why the "Lefts" sometimes succeed in luring a part of the workers over to their side with the help of high-sounding "Left" phrases and by posing as the most determined opponents of the Rights, although all the world knows that they, the "Lefts," have the same social roots as the Rights, and that they not infrequently join in an agreement, a bloc, with the Rights in order to fight the Leninist line.
[...]
But if the Trotskyist trend represents a "Left" deviation, does not this mean that the "Lefts" are more to the Left than Leninism? No, it does not. Leninism is the most Left (without quotation marks) trend in the world labour movement. We Leninists belonged to the Second International down to the outbreak of the imperialist war as the extreme Left group of the Social-Democrats. We did not remain in the Second International and we advocated a split in the Second International precisely because, being the extreme Left group, we did not want to be in the same party as the petty-bourgeois traitors to Marxism, the social-pacifists and social-chauvinists."

-Stalin, Industrialisation of the country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)

And finally,
Centrist: It is not a trend found ‘between’ any of the above. Its a distinct trend seeking to make the lefts and right deviationists one body, subordinating the former to the latter [Combinism is distinct as it "only" wishes to unify the right deviation with the right]. These differ from the "left". The "left" attacks the right and poses as their most determined enemy, while the center defends the rightists ‘from the left’.

"Centrism must not be regarded as a spatial concept: the Rights, say, sitting on one side, the "Lefts" on the other, and the Centrists in between. Centrism is a political concept. Its ideology is one of adaptation, of subordination of the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie within one common party. This ideology is alien and abhorrent to Leninism.

Centrism was a phenomenon that was natural in the Second International of the period before the war. There were Rights (the majority), Lefts (without quotation marks), and Centrists, whose whole policy consisted in embellishing the opportunism of the Rights with Left phrases and subordinating the Lefts to the Rights."

-Stalin, Industrialisation of the country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)

Directly on this ground Infrared uses a very dirty ploy; To reconcile between Marxism-Leninism and MAGA [or put correctly subordinate the former to the latter], between the most Leftist trend and a rightist, black-hundereds one, he arbitrarily comes up with new definitions for these already defined terms. This is an attempt to drive a wedge between the working class and Leftism, an attempt to goose-step them into reaction. This crude attempt at wordsmithing will do the Combinists no good.

This is what Infrared has to say on the matter:

Leftism represents the highest development of the bourgeois political ideology, which is based on what is supposed to be the ultimate form of change. Leftism is the ideology of American unipolar imperialism, the highest stage of bourgeois political modernity, which seeks to formalize not only all politics, but all culture, society, etc. under the principle of universal formal equality. [R.S. Emphasis]

I refuse to believe this banal hypocrite does not see the irony of him complaining about the servants of the Bourgeoisie who uphold ‘the principle of universal formal equality’. A pitiful sight, a grown man fighting his own reflection in a puddle. There’s more:

Leftism is a type of mental retardation, according to which the latest ‘open’ agenda constitutes real historical change. [...] Leftism is the muscadin, the death squad, the white terrorism of American unipolarity, sent down to ‘open’ all sectors of society to ensure its proper alignment with the system as producers and consumers of information.

Leftism is indeed the hegemonic ideology of the American unipolar empire

The degenerate NeoNazi is, aside from the bad-manners of having any public presence, are Leftists proper.

its existence implies a rather awkward, but increasingly unavoidable fact: That Leftism is actually Right-Wing. [R.S.: Hahahahahaha!]

The true heir of fascism, is none other than Leftism itself.

Enough! You have for yourself seen above what Stalin and Infrared had to say on the matter. When we sweep the chicanery aside, we see that Infrared’s target here is not the ‘Lefts’, but the Lefts; The turncoat opened fire on Leninism.

For all the effort that no doubt went into their shoddy dollar store excuse for a ‘Manifesto’, the tricks they use are a century old. Morbid curiosity might prompt the question, ‘how is it possible to justify such an attack on Leftism by a supposed Marxist?’ - This is Infrared’s justification:

there is an acute difference between an actual left-wing alignment, and leftism (the same is true for the Right). Leftism and Rightism are ideologies of formal political alignment, that cannot tell the truth about any actual Left-Wing and Right-Wing position.

But this is not true. The terms are interchangeable. Have a look:

Concerning Left and Right. Rakovsky asserts that the opposition is the Left sector of our Party. That is enough to make a cat laugh, comrades. Obviously, such statements are made for political bankrupts to console themselves with. It has been proved that the opposition is the Menshevik wing of our Party, that the opposition has slipped into Menshevism, that, objectively, the opposition has become a tool of the bourgeois elements. All this has been proved over and over again. How then can there be any talk here about the opposition's Leftism? How can a Menshevik group which, objectively, has become a tool of the "third force," of the bourgeois elements, how can such a group be more Left than the Bolsheviks? Is it not obvious that the opposition is the Right, Menshevik wing of the C.P.S.U.(B.)? Evidently, Rakovsky has got himself thoroughly mixed up and has confused the right with the left. Do you remember Gogol's Selifan?—"Oh you, dirty legs. . . . You don't know which is right and which is left!"

-Stalin, The Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)

It is evident that ‘Left’, ‘Leftism’, and ‘Left-Wing’ mean the same thing. The same is true for right. Yet, lacking a directional and a moral compass, Infrared coopted a tool from the revisionist oppositionists Comrade Stalin defeated. Originally, in order to distort Lenin, they attempted to drive a wedge between the interchangeable terms ‘agreement with the middle peasant’ and ‘stable alliance with the middle peasant’.

Your mistake is that you have failed to understand the fraudulent trick of the opposition and have fallen a prey to their provocation; you walked into the trap the enemy set for you. The oppositionist swindlers noisily assure us that they are in favour of Lenin's slogan of agreement with the middle peasant, but at the same time they drop the provocatory hint that "agreement" with the middle peasant is one thing and a "stable alliance" with him is something different. In this way they want to kill two birds with one stone: firstly, to conceal their real attitude to the middle peasantry, which is not one of agreement with the middle peasant, but of "dissension with the middle peasant" (see the well-known speech of the oppositionist Smirnov, which I quoted at the Sixteenth Moscow Gubernia Party Conference); and, secondly, to catch the simpletons among the Bolsheviks with the alleged difference between "agreement" and "alliance," and muddle them up completely, by driving them away from Lenin.

-Stalin, Lenin and the Question of the Alliance with the Middle Peasant

Does this trick seem familiar? Infrared, being very bad at following directions and having lost his head, attempted to target the political orientation of the working class he claims to represent, and did so to forge an alliance with crude, far-right nationalism. I believe I can speak unanimously and on behalf of all Marxists when I say that we refuse this "kindly gifted" wedge, and that its sender can shove it back down his ‘bag of political tricks’.

When Infrared stated:

It is thus inevitable that the greatest enemies of the MAGA Communist movement will be leftists, who stand the most to lose from the unity of Marxism with the worker’s movement.

He made clear three things:
A) He does not understand the working class will suffer the most due to reaction, hence the task of the Leftists is combating such reaction
B) He does understand the Leftists were and always will be the greatest enemies of anti-worker chauvinism, of Fascism, in all its forms
C) He does understand he embodies one of the 'forms' in point B. With their own words, the Combinists admitted hostility to the working class and to Bolshevism. By the time the Proletariat is done with them, they will be ‘left’ to history.

3. Solidarity turned 180 degrees

This chapter has two aims. Firstly, to reveal and refute Combinism’s shameless attempts at demagoguery, their attempts to split and splinter our cause, to set workers against workers, to misdirect our fight against each other.

Firstly, what is a Demagogue?
Demagogues are those who weaponise dishonesty, slander, lies, well-crafted ‘half-truths’, distortions and fancy political games to abet their cause. These weapons are used to rile up the exploited sections of society, while diverting them away from the class responsible for their misery. Nazi antisemitism is demagoguery. Calling Covid """"the Chinese virus"""" is demagoguery. Attributing ‘sixty billion innocent Kulak families’ to Stalin’s death toll is demagoguery.

Contrast this with the Marxist method of truth, truth even when it is ugly. A materialist has in their duty to base all their attacks and polemics on what is real, and not what is convenient, and to represent even their worst enemies as they really are. We do not distort or twist their words, slander them, or play games. We expose the real crimes they have committed.

And, please — don’t hasten howling about my “uncomradely methods” of debating. I have not the least desire to doubt the purity of your intentions. As I have said, one may become a demagogue out of sheer political innocence. But I have shown that you have descended to demagogy, and I will never tire of repeating that demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class. The worst enemies, because they arouse base instincts in the masses, because the unenlightened worker is unable to recognise his enemies in men who represent themselves, and sometimes sincerely so, as his friends. The worst enemies, because in the period of disunity and vacillation, when our movement is just beginning to take shape, nothing is easier than to employ demagogic methods to mislead the masses, who can realise their error only later by bitter experience. That is why the slogan of the day for the Russian Social-Democrat must be — resolute struggle against Svoboda and Rabocheye Dyelo, both of which have sunk to the level of demagogy. We shall deal with this further in greater detail.

-Lenin, What Is To Be Done?

The next part will be about the Combinist fetishisation of American exceptionalism, in a way I can best describe as ‘putting the "national" before ‘socialism"’

3.1) The Demagogue aids the slave owners

One underlying theme in this distasteful work is the stormy offensive against Bourgeoisie ‘globalism’. By filling a room with darts you will technically hit the target. Through this basis, Infrared somehow managed to brute-force his way to one correct idea: That capitalist society crushes the individuality of people, and treats them like abstract automatons. He has arrived as close as a right-wing armchair intellectual can [granted, which isn’t much] to realising the state upholds the will of the ruling class. Yet even this slight achievement is muddled down by the crudest, most despicable demagoguery:

Hence the retards of woke political theory, who critique bourgeois formalism and universalism on account of neglecting differences completely miss the point. “We the people? Are you sure? What about fat trans indigenous woman?” We the people, and the universal statehood implicit in it, is a purported intention - a conceit. It does not claim to actually know or represent every individual person, it is the purport of a state which seeks to act as a universal people - and thus, an inherently abstracted form of the people, the people in the institutional purport of their sovereignty, i.e. if a state will act as the people it can only do so as a pure form which knows no distinction in content (i.e. between persons).

In the span of one paragraph, he has managed to blatantly attack 5(!!!) groups predominated by workers(!!!!!)

He has erected a scapegoat of a small group of people by playing with venn diagrams, and derides solidarity with the workers of that group, the vast majority of that group, with such bestial contempt. To hammer in the notion we are dealing here with an enemy of the working class, it took him scarcely 3 words from the beginning of the paragraph to use a slur.

Communists fight unconditionally for the working class – comprised of many nationalities, colours, genders, distinct ways suffering is imposed on them, and many more.

When the vast majority of Women are proletarians, and so regarding indigenous people, and so regarding transgender people, and so regarding overweight people, and so regarding people with disabilities – Any attack on these groups is an attack against the working class, and an attack on any individual worker of these groups is an attack against all workers, from all groups. That you see our protests over the mistreatment of these people with such utter revulsion proves only your own repulsiveness, turncoat!

By singling one hypothetical example of a particular person, and attempting to discredit this line of thought without even addressing it, Infrared played the part of a very inept demagogue. In here, an attempt is made to foster hostility to the very idea of standing with [and not, like entitled liberals will say, "up for!"] minorities, and to disingenuously and implicitly compare solidarity to identity politics and a fetishism of divisions, to anti-worker sentimentality.

And no amount of sophistry or political games will hide your distortion of the functions of a state!

The theses of so-called ‘universal people’ approaches the question from a narrow-minded nationalist view. You have mistaken the result for the cause. The state acts as the organ of the Bourgeoisie - It is not above the class question. There is no such state of the ‘universal people’ and there never will be. To this end Bourgeoisie nationalism is made to justify these policies

the exploiters inevitably transform the state (and we are speaking of democracy, i.e., one of the forms of the state) into an instrument of the rule of their class, the exploiters, over the exploited. Hence, as long as there are exploiters who rule the majority, the exploited, the democratic state must inevitably be a democracy for the exploiters. A state of the exploited must fundamentally differ from such a state; it must be a democracy for the exploited, “and a means of suppressing the exploiters; and the suppression of a class means inequality for that class, its exclusion from “democracy”.

-Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky

The whole point is that a bourgeois state which is exercising the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie through a democratic republic cannot confess to the people that it is serving the bourgeoisie; it cannot tell the truth, and has to play the hypocrite.

-Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky

Politics around the world have become globalized, which is to say Americanized. Leftism, even now in Latin America, where left-wing partisans had been the most formidable opponents to American imperialism - has increasingly come to mean the same thing. German leftism today is indistinguishable from the American kind, meanwhile, the ‘far-right’ partisan movements like the AfD attempt to recuperate natively East German Communist traditions. And this tendency is rapidly spreading to every corner of the globe. A decisive confrontation within modern politics is brewing in nearly every country which represents the greatest political realignment of the modern era, not the least including in the United States itself.

Behold how Infrared hoists a false flag! Social-Democracy has not been "distinct" between nations, in its essence, since Lenin was alive. Yet even if we "accept" the dishonesty in this argument, and instead of abstract opportunists apply it to abstract Communists, it would still be "indistinguishable" from state to state. Bolshevism is internationalist and its tactics are universal

While the workers of the whole world are realizing more and more clearly every day that the tactics of the Scheidemanns and Kautskys have not delivered them from the imperialist war and from wage-slavery to the imperialist bourgeoisie, and that these tactics cannot serve as a model for all countries, the masses of the prole- tarians of all countries are realizing more and more clearly every day that Bolshevism has indicated the right road of escape from the horrors of war and imperialism, that Bolshevism can serve as a model of tactics for all.

-Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, P76

Some say that Leninism is the application of Marxism to the conditions that are peculiar to the situation in Russia. This definition contains a particle of truth, but not the whole truth by any means. Lenin, indeed, applied Marxism to Russian conditions, and applied it in a masterly way. But if Leninism were only the application of Marxism to the conditions that are peculiar to Russia it would be a purely national and only a national, a purely Russian and only a Russian, phenomenon. We know, however, that Leninism is not merely a Russian, but an international phenomenon rooted in the whole of international development. That is why I think this definition suffers from one-sidedness.

-Stalin, Foundations of Leninism

Yet Infrared once again exercising his impeccable talent for ignorance, had not spared even internationalism. Praising the AfD for militancy and nostalgism. This does not resemble a Communist line of thinking, as this party serves the interests of the ruling class and goes against the German workers. Its overt racial chauvinism, aggressiveness regarding "traditional gender norms", and support for Israel are examples for the icing on the cake. Lenin’s apt description, "All oppressing classes stand in need of two social functions to safeguard their rule: the function of the hangman and the function of the priest.", if applied to Infrared’s argument, translates to "The hangmen are better then the Priests".

Once again, this lacks any principles.

An adherent of internationalism who is not at the same time a most consistent and determined adversary of opportunism is a phantom, nothing more. Perhaps certain individuals of this type will honestly consider themselves “internationalists”. However, people are judged, not by what they think of themselves but by their political behaviour. The political behaviour of “internationalists” who are not consistent and determined adversaries of opportunism will always aid and abet the nationalist trend. On the other hand, nationalists, too, call themselves “internationalists” (Kautsky, Lensch, Haenisch, Vandervelde, Hyndman, and others); not only do they call themselves so, but they fully acknowledge an international rapprochement, an agreement, a union of persons sharing their views. The opportunists are not against “internationalism”; they are only in favour of international approval for and international agreement among the opportunists.

-Lenin, Under a False Flag

The political Right has always been a very real orientation in the history of modern politics. Yet in contrast to the Left, Right-Wing partisanism had always been a self-evident absurdity. Mass politics and partisanship are inherently left-wing, for no other reason than that they entail revolutionary political change. The oft-cited examples of Right-Wing mass movements, from the Black Hundreds to Fascism, were actually more like paramilitary police forces, composed primarily of declassed, lumpen elements. Rather than being authentically popular, they rehearsed the spectacle of popular politics as a means of neutralizing and disarming those that actually existed. Today’s LGBT pride parades, or the 2020 BLM protests thus have more in common with the ‘mass politics’ of Fascism than today’s MAGA movement.

Comrades, can you see this aristocratic, milktoast "enlightened centrist" distaste for these two forms of struggle? Even a ‘regular’ worshipper of spontaneity would have had the iota of ties to the Working class required to understand these struggles and at least pay lip service to them; Every Marxist worthy of the title would have supported them. Pride is comparable to a demonstration, a protest of solidarity against reaction targeting the LGBT community. Communists ought to take part in this struggle. The majority of LGBTs are workers, LGBT rights are workers rights, hence its the Communist party’s job to guard and achieve them.

This whiteguard attack against a section of the workers was bad enough on its own. Yet somehow, Infrared yet again outdid himself, managing to aid reaction further still. After sanctioning the activities of the AfD as ‘attempting to recuperate natively East German Communist traditions’, he turns around, condemning Proletarian outrage and spontaneous backlash against the state which oppresses them. "Do not struggle, do not fight. If you are outraged, stay at home", he tells us – "BLM are comparable to Fascists". With what I have seen thus far, it is safe to assume this line originates from 'solidarity' with the "Small Business Owners", vis, small Bourgeoisie who exploit the labour power of a few people instead of alot of people, as if these are not enemies.

By doing this, Infrared is aiding the Bourgeoisie and the police:

Feuerbach was right when, in reply to those who defended religion on the ground that it consoles the people, he indicated the reactionary significance of consolation: whoever consoles the slave instead of arousing him to rise up against slavery is aiding the slaveowner.

-Lenin, Collapse of the Second International

3.2) Putting the ‘National’ before ‘Socialism’

Riddle me this:
What came prior, a branch of the Oak, or the acorn the Oak grew from?
This question is as simple as it appears. Answering it is of ease to a toddler, likely even before they are able to speak.
Infrared has not succeeded in solving such a question.

However, before class distinction, it is necessary to understand the more fundamental metaphysical difference that gives rise to modern political difference. Modern political difference, while related, predates the modern class struggle. The modern political discontinuity has its origins in the heartbreak of malign, or illegitimate sovereignty. This is first sovereignty illegitimate on its own terms, as in the tumultuous history of the English Civil War, where the sovereign cannot prove itself even by the terms of its own sanction (religion, inheritance, etc.), producing the devastating heartbreak for which everything once thought Good is unreal, illegitimate, false, etc. And then illegitimate in the terms of modern political theories which form in response to said heartbreak (i.e. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, etc.).

We are lead to believe class distinctions, and consequently the mode of production itself, are predated by the sphere of politics, vis, its direct consequence. The branch predated the acorn, the grandchild predated the grandmother. A striking example of the Petty-Bourgeoisie philosophy of playing pretend.

This is an idealistic conception of history. Let us contrast it with Marx:

This [R.S.: Materialist] conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages)

-Marx, German Ideology

Already here we see how this civil society is the true source and theatre of all history, and how absurd is the conception of history held hitherto, which neglects the real relationships and confines itself to high-sounding dramas of princes and states.
Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and industrial life of a given stage and, insofar, transcends the State and the nation, though, on the other hand again, it must assert itself in its foreign relations as nationality, and inwardly must organise itself as State.

-Marx, German Ideology

The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people.

-Marx, German Ideology

According to the materialist conception of history, the ‘catalyst’, is in production, specifically, the mode of production. The way production takes place socially, and the need for production. The subordination of some to others and the forms it takes [or lack thereof]. This has as a direct consequence the rise of a new mode of production, a new base, with its own superstructure – an entirely different ‘society’ – which repeats the same process until exploitation is done away with completely. This quantitative element turning to qualitative elements within modes of production, their development leading to their destruction and replacement, can also be applied to this process as a whole: The quantitative change in modes of production leads to the qualitative destruction of this cycle. The qualitative element of the main dialectical relationship within a mode of production is the quantitative element in the development of class history, and just as this former element rises and falls due to its corresponding quantitative changes, so is it the quantity responsible for the rise and fall of class history, the corresponding quality, in all its forms.

Yet Infrared persists:

In the United States, the MAGA Movement has come to be defined by being the exclusive American form of partisanship. As is well known, the distinction between the Republicans and Democrats, in nearly every election cycle, has never amounted to any real political distinction on the basis of Clauswitzean absolute enmity. Partisanship, that is impassioned political partiality, has made its definite return in the United States solely in the MAGA movement, which has again reintroduced real political enmity and distinction to the belly of the globalist beast itself. Having its origins in a rather accidental confluence of circumstances, in Donald Trump’s presidential election in 2016, the movement has become the host of every possible real counter-hegemonic ideological tendency within the Untied States.

The MAGA movement is precisely as ‘counter-hegemonic’ as Fascism. These do not have in their aims and do not bring about the destruction of the present, Bourgeoisie society, but its preservation by means of violence. They attempt to present themselves as ‘counter-hegemonic’ and ‘revolutionary’ only to draw in the dissatisfied elements of society and utilise them for its preservation. These can only be considered as opposing the present order, as counter-hegemonic, if one views history as a "collection of mistakes", as mere product of chance, as opposed to a natural development and result of concrete, absolute circumstances. Two will always be bigger than one, feudalism will always develop into capitalism, and ten thousand re-runs of the United States would have landed us where we are today. Yet, I am getting ahead of myself – Firstly I will show you how he raises this exact view:

It [R.S.: The MAGA movement] thrusts to the fore the basic question: Did America have to culminate in what it is today? Or, beginning from the very same premises, would an entirely different outcome have been possible? Make America Great Again, really means roll the dice again, repeat (with all the Deleuzian connotations) the origin of America, Reset American history.

This is a direct contradiction to historical materialism. Instead of looking forward and marching to progress. To changing the present and unjust society into a just one, to doing away with American imperialism and American capital, Infrared turns to the past: Could we have had a different course of development? A different capitalism?

While I am certain this discussion will be very welcome amongst alternative history fans and writers, this has no discussion in politics. Reality has spoken, has told us ‘given these material conditions, this is the result’, or ‘x = y’. To change the result you have to change the past conditions, to change ‘y’ you must change ‘x’. History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. Stalin spoke of this exact principle while explaining historical materialism:

If the connection between the phenomena of nature and their interdependence are-laws of the development of nature, it follows, too, that the connection and inter dependence of the phenomena of social life are laws of the development of society, and not something accidental. Hence, social life, the history of society, ceases to be an agglomeration of “accidents," and becomes the history of the development of society according to regular laws, and the study of the history of society becomes a science.

-Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism, p16

Hilarity ensues when Infrared stated:

Return America to the mercy of its progenitor. Nothing could evince the sign of middle-class midwit consciousness and historical nihilism more than the slogan ‘America was never great.’ America was great. It was great when it was other than what it only seems now, when it was latent with culminating into something else, a time that has been forgotten because it is impossible to remember. A time passed over, echoing forever into the annals of a lost past, lost but still felt like deja vu - like a trace memory from the future. MAGA is there in real America and not here in the empire of lies: whose most principal and founding lie consists in the notion that the highest necessity of Spirit culminates in the now of putrescent modernity.
[...]
MAGA makes clear that its virtual projection - the great America - is grounded in concrete necessity, and therefore something real, which is why it must be made great again, even if, technically, there was never a single point in history that suffices to define this greatness. MAGA does not want to return to a period of time, it wants to return to the premises of technomic American time itself, which is wanting of a malign sovereign (which they have found in the ‘Great MAGA King’ himself, Trump). MAGA represents a complete reversal of chronological ‘American progressivism’ culminating outward into the boundless ‘open Atlantic sea’ of the globalist open society, establishing a temporal flux bending backwards toward rugged, and ultimately metallic Earth. [R.S.: My bold text]

This drawing of abstract nostalgia is nothing new. Despite admitting that ‘there was never a single point in history that suffices to define this greatness’, that there was never a material point that he would define as ‘great’, he attempts to draw out energy and legitimacy from ‘what could have been’, from the mystic and the ideal, from fantasy, to draw something from nothing. Marx framed this perfectly:

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.
[...]
Thus the awakening of the dead in those revolutions served the purpose of glorifying the new struggles, not of parodying the old; of magnifying the given task in the imagination, not recoiling from its solution in reality; of finding once more the spirit of revolution, not making its ghost walk again.

-Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

The name of the US, the slogan about returning this shadow of a ghost to "greatness", its costumes of ‘real America’, the open invocation of a ‘deja vu from the future’ – all attempts to legitimise the struggle based on what was, on class society, rather then legitimising it based on the struggle against class. Under Imperialism, this nostalgism is always invoked to preserve the order of things and its core, the mode of production.

Let the dead bury their dead. We do not look to the past societies but to those of the future, like Lenin’s and Stalin’s USSR. Communists are the ambassadors of a new society. The reactionaries and Combinists can march in their place for as long as they wish. Our march of progress never stops.

The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content – here the content goes beyond the phrase.

-Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

Combinism undertakes the sisyphean task of abolishing the distinction between the proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie.

The American working class (the ‘mecha proletariat,’ defined by its ownership of the means of augmenting its labor power - trucks, tools, etc.) forms the fundamental core without which MAGA ceases to possess the force of political independence.

‘Mecha-Proletariat’ is inherently a reactionary idea. According to it, a poor teacher relying on public transport rests outside the "American working class", yet someone who owns tools and trucks fits in, with no mention of the use of these tools and truck. What are the possibilities?

Either this person is unable [not in the neoliberal sense of the word, meaning this includes ‘unable financially’, ‘unable due to risk’, ect] to use these tools as means of production [for our purposes, we might as well say "or won’t"], meaning they are proletarians. They sell their labour power to a boss.

Or this person uses these tools as means of production, and sells their services directly to the source of demand, not being exploited whatsoever. This person is petty-bourgeoisie.

The same air conditioner technician who owns their truck and tools can be either a proletarian or a petty-bourgeoisie. If that person has a boss, an employer, which gains profits from their labour, they are proletarian. If they employ themselves, they are petty bourgeoisie. A German factory worker owning a screwdriver back in 1880 does not change their class to "mecha proletariat".

To look for the fundamental distinguishing feature of the various classes of society in their sources of income is to give precedence to relations of distribution, which in reality are only a consequence of relations of production. This error was long ago pointed out by Marx, who described as vulgar socialists those who failed to see it. The fundamental criterion by which classes are distinguished is the place they occupy in social production, and, consequently, the relation in which they stand to the means of production. Appropriation of one part or another of the social means of production and its application to private enterprise, to undertakings organised for the sale of the product, is the fundamental distinction of one class in present-day society (the bourgeoisie) from the proletariat, which is deprived of the means of production and sells its labour-power.

-Lenin, Vulgar Socialism and Narodism as Resurrected by the Socialist-Revolutionaries

4. How Infrared turned Marx into Jordan Peterson

All these preversions we have examined for the last thirteen thousand words culminate here – Sympathy for the ‘misguided right-wing’, burning hate for the oxymoronic ‘leftist ruling class’, in essence chewed and regurgitated Strasserism covered in thin Marxist coating.

What is so silly about people like Jordan Peterson is how - as the most milquetoast ‘centre-right’ ‘conservative’ of the status quo, he accidentally represents something based - which is the minimum of a politico-ideological subjectivity misaligned with the establishment. Watching Jordan Peterson is a vector in the direction of ‘radicalization’ - because he is an accidental conduit of malign sovereignty, grounding the validity, truth, or value of thoughts in something other than the legitimate authorities (accredited professors, experts, mainstream media talking heads, etc.).

Somehow, Jordan Peterson represents, with his ‘centre-right’, ‘conservative’ views, something misaligned with Bourgeoisie society. Somehow, Peterson leads to Marx, and those who advocate his ideas stand closer to what the Combinists believe in then we do. The latter is the only honesty here, and the correctness of this statement will never cease to be a relief. Combinism is closer to right-wing conservative views than it is to Marxism-Leninism.

So-called ‘Rightist’ ideologists are thus today split between Azovites and the accidentally based. The more spontaneous rightist consciousness is, the more potent the partisan element within it.

Worship of grass-roots, spontaneous rightism! This is again a very profound mask-off moment. Spontaneous proletarian consciousness is always, at the very least, a sincere but reformist attempt at class struggle!

Yet they draw from this the same false conclusion as that drawn by Rabochaya MysI, forgetting that the instinctive is the unconscious (the spontaneous) to the aid of which socialists must come; that the “first available means of struggle” will always be, in modern society, the trade union means of struggle, and the “first available” ideology the bourgeois (trade union) ideology. Similarly, these authors do not “repudiate” politics, they merely (merely!) echo Mr. V. V. that politics is the superstructure, and therefore, “political agitation must be the superstructure to the agitation carried on in favour of the economic struggle; it must arise on the basis of this struggle and follow in its wake”.

-Lenin, What is to be Done, P26

This "spontaneous rightist consciousness" is a result of Bourgeoisie influence:

This accusation is leveled primarily and above all, not against the masses, who are always downtrodden, but against those leaders who, like the Scheidemanns and the Kautskys, failed in their duty to carry on revolutionary agitation, revolutionary propaganda, revolutionary work among the masses to overcome their inert- ness, who in fact worked against the revolutionary instincts and aspirations which are always aglow deep down among the masses of the oppressed class.

-Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky P74

By praising this, Infrared and the Combinists outright praised bourgeoisie influence on the workers, they have outright praised right-wing demagoguery.

Rightists will therefore inevitably serve as a tool for the ‘progressive’ status quo, or eventually become left-wing partisans of some kind.

And so, Infrared identified the Social-Democratic worker with their leaders, while keeping the door open to ‘Rightists’ joining them. This ‘Rightist’ goes anywhere from misguided worker to enemy of the people – this is the intended crowd of Combinism. He even drops the following Gem:

Actual Right-Wing politics is always the solidification of leftism. The Straussians who would become the neoconservatives of the Bush era were Right-Wing. But they were Right-Wing only insofar as they gave some permanent form to the ‘free and open West.’ To be a ‘Right-Winger’ meant to defend the ‘Western values’ of gay rights, feminism, tolerance, political equality, democracy, etc. - something which appears rather awkward from the perspective of the historical Right.

Indeed, Thatcher’s government defended "political equality", "tolerance" and "democracy" by butchering the Irish people. Indeed, Yeltsin, with aid from Regan, defended "feminism" by driving women to prostitution by hunger.

This dishonest scoundrel ought to get this in his head: Right wingers like he and his ilk stand and always stood for the complete domination of capital, for crushing the workers under their boot. The struggle for Gay Rights, Feminism, Solidarity (or as scoundrels like to call it, ""Tolerance"") and Democracy for the majority instead of the minority are all struggles the real Left, that Communists and Proletarians led and pioneered. "Political Equality" is a monstrosity you hypocritically preach, and has nothing to do with us. There can be no equality between exploited and exploiter.

The Combinist movement has Larouche as one of its major roots. Infrared himself admitted live that he views Larouche as a "brilliant thinker" and expressed full agreement in one of his core ideas, that the division between left and right, I.E. between progress and reaction, between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, is lesser in importance then "being infected with a British mindset". Hyperfixating on a single imperialist power to absolve the rest, placing emphasis on race instead of class – such are the Larouchites, such are the Combinists.

Larouche himself was a Trotskyist at least since 1948, having left the Trotskyist organisation in 1957 but "remaining in Trotskyist circles". By the 1980s, he lived in a "lavish 175-acre estate", and during his career had contacts with plenty of leading U.S. figures, like Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General who provided him legal council. Other notable clients of Clark include Nazi concentration camp commander Karl Linnas, and the war criminal Jakob Reimer. Larouche and the Larouchites supported U.S. Armament, including Regan’s SDI. According to John d’Amecourt, at one time programs director for the Department of Defence, his staff assisted the Larouchians, and one of their rallies was attended by two guest speakers from the Pentagon: Brigadier General Anthony Smith, back then director for European and NATO policy in the DoD’s international security policy division, and Franklin Miller, back then civillan director of Strategic Forces Policy.

This is but a sample of their ‘resume’, as there is much I will not cover to save space. I will add, however, that the Larouchites attacked organisers and activists during "Operation Mop-Up". Attacking the ordinary members of even revisionist organisations can only alienate them and those whom they reach out to from your movement. The message the Larouchite sent was "if you try and fight capital, we will fight against you". An anti-revisionist movement would have carried out correct and principled activities to direct the workers against capital and win them over from this influence, not terrify them into complacency with the status quo. The Larouchites played the role of Capital’s hangmen, they are social-fascists and ought to be branded as such.

The Combinists stand closer to Trotsky then to us. A proletarian revolution in America can only succeed in spite of them, and succeed it shall. These new enemies lack any originality in their crude distortions, they found it fitting to apply a single coat of paint for protection. They forget Marxism-Leninism has a long history of burying its enemies in history; Let it be known that ‘Maga-Communism’ will be no different.

5. Letter of Acceptance to the 2nd International

Now that we have finished dissecting this rotten corpse of economism, let us at least have the "fraternal consideration" to throw them where they belong.

Advocacy of class collaboration; abandonment of the idea of socialist revolution and revolutionary methods of struggle; adaptation to bourgeois nationalism; losing sight of the fact that the borderlines of nationality and country are historically transient; making a fetish of bourgeois legality; renunciation of the class viewpoint and the class struggle, for fear of repelling the “broad masses of the population”(meaning the petty bourgeoisie)—such, doubtlessly, are the ideological foundations of opportunism. And it is from such soil that the present chauvinist and patriotic frame of mind of most Second International leaders has developed.

-Lenin, Lenin: The Position and Tasks of the Socialist International

-Advocacy of class collaboration; Identification of a worker's movement with Trump and the Bourgeoisie trend he represents; Subordination to the petty-bourgeoisie.

-abandonment of the idea of socialist revolution and revolutionary methods of struggle; "Overthrow the superstructure, not the base!" Economicism in general. Openly attacking even embryonic, harmless forms of class consciousness due to where they end up in.

-adaptation to bourgeois nationalism; "MAGA", fetishising some abstract "american ideal", adopting ruling class chauvinism and arguably building up on it, dehumanization of stratas of the proletariat.

-losing sight of the fact that the borderlines of nationality and country are historically transient; Instead of Socialism there is a ‘new old bourgeoisie state’. It intends to "return" to a "future" of their nationality and country

-making a fetish of bourgeois legality; Appears not to exist, but "It could not happen at the expense of what the people want, it could only happen as a result of the people’s own historical development" is fetishising bourgeoisie property rights

-renunciation of the class viewpoint and the class struggle, for fear of repelling the “broad masses of the population”(meaning the petty bourgeoisie):
Adopting the petty-bourgeoisie point of view, struggling against "big capital" while preserving capitalism

I’m certain Kautsky will be happy to hear a new group wishes to join him. I will be just as delighted to see them taken away.

This despicable perversion of the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin has outlived its welcome since the day it was conceived. There can be no leniency while it lives and no doubt that it will perish. And to you, my overseas Comrades, I have no doubt you will show these wretches where they belong, that these scum will be mere footnotes in your struggle.

I have no doubt that the Combinists, specifically the most devout and most deplorable of this infantile trend, will come crying out: "enemies of Socialism! how dare puncture our tiny echo chamber!" To them I say: Many years from now, when the American Comrades at long last liberate themselves from the tyranny of Capital, I pledge to make a toast for "Maga Communism" - For all the mistakes and perversions you committed for our movement to educate against, for all the comedic value graciously and generously given by the first circus operating beyond the visible spectrum. Thank you for being such perfect case studies for everything a Marxist ought to avoid!

Workers of the world, unite!