I guess it’s tempting to say stuff like this when you can point to capitalists moving their factories to China to take advantage of cheap costs of production, but you do realize that capital is recoiling in total fear of the monster that their investment in a legitimately socialist country has created, right? If Marxism-Leninism is the ideology of the factory owner, why are American imperialists (who politically answer to and are controlled by the forces of capital) so dead-set on isolating and crushing China? Why are they trying to open 3 fronts around China, separating them from Iran and Russia, as well as creating a proxy army in Taiwan?

Furthermore, why is it that liberals and fascists can more or less be trusted to reliably communicate what their intentions are (within some margin of error, it’s especially necessary substitute “development” for “colonization” when you listen to them talk about the economy), but when it comes to communists they actually mean the opposite of what they say? Fascists are pretty open about believing that the causes of conflict are the impure rabble that have corrupted the noble races. Liberals are pretty open about believing that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the system of liberal democracy in the West, the problems are with foreign influence (Russiagate, TikTok) and with poor regulation/over regulation, or with too little government influence and too much (depends on which side of the Keynesianism debate a liberal lands). But when communists say, labor must seize the means of production and become the rulers of society, what they really mean is that a small cabal of vanguardists should rule over the workers like dictators? Why is it that the communists are understood as inherently duplicitous?

edit: Maybe I’m naive to expect a response but I did feel like expanding on my argument about the suspicion placed on communists that isn’t placed in equal measure on fascists, particularly. There is a sense in which fascists are duplicitous, hide behind many layers of masks like the ever-present chan-board irony culture that has actually influenced much of the modern internet. But communists are the opposite! Communists can’t operate behind secrecy and with the kinds of tactics that fascists employ because communists rely on the masses. For communists to be successful, they can’t trick the masses into believing one thing, then implement another; they must educate the masses about what the masses must themselves do, then empower the masses to carry out revolution. I think that Roderic Day does a good job of explaining this phenomenon in his essay Really Existing Fascism, where he even generalizes the instinct to conceal reactionary aims to also apply in equal measure to 21st century liberals:

According to Marx, solidary forms of social organization that in the past had arisen simply out of need and circumstance, which were equally superseded by need and circumstance (by the efficient oppression of man by man, by slavery), were to make an emancipatory comeback. However, this time around they would be enshrined and protected by masses of conscious workers, workers who know the value of their labour, who demand an economy that they have made, that they know they have made, and that they are capable of remaking ongoingly. [60]

Nietzsche, if we accept the reading of him as the ultimate fascist philosopher, is easily understood as making an analogous plea to his own reactionary constituency. Where Hannah Arendt and John Seeley try to claim that Western colonization and slavery were “absentminded” pursuits, Nietzsche persuades readers that there is glory in all of it, if done properly, aesthetically, “beyond good and evil.” Where Marx wants the masses to rediscover “primitive communism,” only this time consciously, Nietzsche wants elites to pursue the brutal programme of “primitive accumulation,” only this time consciously and without private shame.

I say private because, in anti-symmetry with Marx, and fully aware of the danger of letting people know what he’s really about, Nietzsche recommends concealing one’s aims. Thus we come to understand Nietzsche’s warm reception in the liberal West, whose architects turn out to be much better pupils of Nietzsche than the Nazis ever were. George Kennan posits American supremacy as an end in itself, donning a perfectly serviceable mask of liberal pluralism, then goes on to play an important role in planning several decades of “Pax Americana” on the basis of genocidal terrorism. The defining characteristic of the fascist is that they defend their anti-egalitarianism purposefully. The fundamental cleavage between Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism is simply the heightened awareness, given the Revolutions and Counter-Revolutions of the 20th century, that it is tactically expedient to wear a mask.

Removed by mod