"have helped the state’s aims. What the state wants is the narrative precedents required for carrying out these indictments, and all the future repression that’s been made possible by these actions."
A shocking number of comrades fall for this fear stoking. Did the Bolsheviks hide from the might of the Czarist regime or did they go through it? One's organizing cannot avoid the inevitable, that is idealism. Our class will respond and the bourgeois' state will to our response and so on. That is the nature of conflict, of dialectical development. Of course no one says toss strategy aside, however using fear as a crutch simply cripples us.
"Unlike the CIA, which operates with a scary level of undemocratic impunity, the DOJ can only function as long as there’s enough popular will to support its activities, or at least enough of an absence of organized opposition."
Not at all. The bourgeois state as a whole operates with undemocratic impunity. Do not allow yourself to become diluted with the lies of "democracy" or "freedom" under capitalism, these are methods of control. The way in which we approach the DOJ should be no different than the CIA.
"By targeting RAWM with unprincipled criticisms, then refusing to properly investigate what RAWM’s nature and purpose truly are, the sectarian elements in our movement have helped let the DOJ feel comfortable enough to carry out this attack against freedom of speech and assembly." I can see where he is coming from however he arrives here in an interesting manner.
"But if these pro-Russian orgs are the ones that should be distrusted so intensely, why have the anti-Russian orgs been so silent on the DOJ’s actions? What’s more opportunistic than refusing to challenge the DOJ out of expediency?"
Not a great argument but yes.
"The reason why there’s such a lack of principle within the left, and within the parts of the communist movement that view “the left” as the only element of the people worth trying to reach, is that in the imperial center there’s an incentive for leftists not to prioritize winning. Most of what we in America call the left isn’t actually concerned about victory, or else the class struggle would by now at the least be in a vastly more advanced stage. What it’s primarily concerned with is engaging in “movementism,” where actors build political projects as an end in itself. Or with building platforms within the “left” discourse spaces, wherein one can only maximize one’s popularity by adhering to a set of approved ideas. Trying to fit into such an insular and toxic environment is not conducive to a serious type of Marxist analysis. At best, it allows for selectively using quotes from Marxist theorists to support one’s assertions, while ignoring the parts of this theory which vindicate stances that challenge the circle’s beliefs."
He's 100% correct. What the American left is infected with is ultraleft pette bourgeois-minded (immature, concerned with popularity instead of factual soundness) under-developed workers who either have not or can not developed their commitment to the cause to maturity (towards principled Marxism), instead merely dipping their toes into the revolutionary lake as it were. These workers must become more serious and dedicated to the cause, and as the contradictions sharpen they will however a spade must be called a spade.
" Lenin provided a proper perspective for what relatively small societal elements these insular spaces represent, saying the parts of the labor movement which ally with imperialism are the “privileged minority” of well-bribed workers."
Yes, the labor aristocracy. Specifically opportunistic labor aristocrats. These too infect the left and have since Lenin's time.
"Just because somebody is on the left of the political spectrum, or purports to be the most “radical,” doesn’t mean they’re compatible with revolutionary politics. Given the insidious influence the Democratic Party has over the left, and how easy it is for the “ultra” lefts to aggressively side against anti-imperialist stances out of misplaced righteousness, these types can be among the most dangerous. We need to build connections with those who are most compatible with the pro-Russia, pro-China, and otherwise revolutionary orientations. Not with the “left” actors who will betray the class struggle as soon as they find a contradiction in one of the countries that’s fighting U.S. hegemony."
This paragraph and the one prior to it..I would appreciate if he specified who he is suggesting we focus on. Pro-Russia one can think of conservatives, but who is pro-China or China orientated aside from us?
Overall I concur with comrade Shea, in the anti-war front, as I've stated before on this matter, a broad coalition benefits the cause over a sectarian one. I am more skeptical over his inclusion of those types for the revolution however that is a separate matter.
