GenZedong

Yet these Nazbol Reich-wingers have no fucking problem whatsoever with the criminal crackers on Wall Street or in Brussels, that they vote for, use sanctions and "aid" programs to plunder the global south. They're just mad that people dare to flee to even try and build a better life.

I mean, I consider some of the current patsoc types to fall under "cosplaying as one to try to fuck things up" or "cosplaying as one to try to capture labor energy under a new brand of fascism, much like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc." It's not that I think they're all internet trolls; more so that this particular one doesn't read like someone who is sincerely trying to be a communist. Either way, the outcome is much the same, that we have to make it clear what is and isn't helpful and acceptable.

That said, I can tell you some of the tells of it that makes me think it's more "total bullshit" than "sincere but wrong", so that people can consider it for spotting nonsense in the future. 1) It is vacuously academic. It leans heavily into overly formal academic language, as some communists are prone to doing, but doesn't do meaningful analysis with it. 2) It ends with the unearned "comrades" as if it's talking to party members it has fought alongside in pitched battle. 3) It uses a lot of "and the rest of the fucking owl" reasoning, jumping around in a racist premise to get to its conclusion. 4) It's got a username like "Karlkropotkin". Same energy as "hello fellow kids" but "hello fellow communists, what a marxist day we're having. Have you read up on kropotkin lately? I have. In fact, I was just doing communist things over in my communally shared place of residence in order to advance the cause of the global proletariat against the bourgeoisie."

That's why I said "talks shit", no work is above criticism but going "uhhhh he's not even Marxist he's just anti white" or a variation thereof is suspicious as fuck and expected whenever you say "read Settlers".

It's the "Marx loved dictatorships and murder" of white leftists, repeated far too often from people who really should see for themselves.

Sakai makes a nuanced critique of WW2 that correctly points out that the oppressed peoples of the world were conflicted in their loyalties because to them the colonial empires that had oppressed them for so long were being attacked by another nation dressing themselves in a pro-worker rhetoric (even if we know now it was a very thin facade). The British and the french accused them of atrocities but what good was their word when they said the same of the USSR, of every nation that cast off their colonizers? What good was their talk of atrocities while they were starving the Bengalis? How could they trust Belgians knowing what they did to the Congolese?Sakai's point is precisely how quick imperialists are to shift the blame to people for not having undying subordination to their brand of empire.

As to the denial of Nanking, I certainly don't recall it and it would have stuck out like a sore thumb when he dedicated some fifty pages to how the west coast was built by Chinese and Latino workers only for the settlers to demand their internment and expulsion(excluding, of course, any woman a white man wanted to claim as his wife and property). But if you have a source handy pointing me to it I'd like to read it.

Good catch. I didn't see the /f/

Could be someone running Postmill.