It is hasbara to dilute Marxist discourse and sow conflict.

Quite literally using the liberal take of "read something not written by a white man". You're not fooling anyone. You're talking like an American or someone imitating one.

You are the one who needs some lessons lib.

You're ignoring how politics work, you're ignoring my points, but worst of all you're ignoring theory and trying to distract from class struggle.

There is nothing gross about my attitude of saying that class struggle is the most important goal of any socialist movement.

You are wrong just as other modern self-proclaimed socialists are. Champagne college student socialists aren't Marxists. They do not understand Marxism, they do not understand politics and socioeconomics altogether and they don't understand the working class life.

Nothing but class struggle will ever be the main focus of communism. Your personal goals are not more important than humanity. Ideology doesn't morph to suit you. And it's disgusting that you're trying to use it to push your own agenda to the top.

If you are put off by this, you're in the wrong circles and ideology. We have no need of liberals nor the need or goal to win you over. You've already disagreed with me and insulted me. With that you're dead to me and I don't give a shit about your personal struggles. You do no represent any movement, neither the LGBT movement.

More Hasbara great

Not usual and they've just relabelled themselves.

Communist parties in the west have done nothing to build socialism or create the conditions for revolution since the fall of the Soviet Union. Arguable even before.

Before we can build socialism, we need to overthrow the old order. For that we need agitation, populism, destabilisation and acceleration. The existing communist parties have not achieved this. If we stand by doing nothing or founding even more splinter communist parties we will be lost once a revolution arrives. Then it will be fascists seizing the reigns of any mass unrest or civil war.

What we need is to seize the narrative and rhetoric. That's what a new populist party is better suited to do than a tiny party of old farts reminiscing about the old days.

Personally I'm very much vocally supporting a security apparatus for the party that can prevent any subversion from non-socialist populists joining. Also as a note the party has been thorough with their membership application process. I had to wait nearly a full year for it to be complete.

The DKP hasn't achieved anything in decades. It's not getting any traction or any growth. Most members are just old ostalgists.

We need movements that can agitate and destabilise. That is what the BSW can be. I'm fully aware that it will never lead a socialist state, but it will create the conditions for one to arise and replace it. In the East German states the BSW already achieved election results rivaling the old parties and the far right.

Currently a quarter of German electoral and parliamentary politics is held by the far right. It could rise to a third. The old parties won't prevent this. The BSW can both further cause the decline of the old parties and stop the far right from coming to power.

Die Linke because it's neither a marxist party and is flooded with lifestyle leftists aka university students, social democrats and democratic socialists. Marxists are a minority platform and with the founding of the BSW most left. Also it's been dying until recently.

As for the DKP and MLPD, because they're tiny parties and not going anywhere. Communist parties will not revive themselves. As said previously in their current state they wouldn't be able to become a vanguard for any revolution.

They also have their own issues. The MLPD is a bit suspect because leadership has always been in the hands of one family and their friends. And perplexingly enough they're pro-Ukrainian or at least opposed to Russia in the Russo-Ukrainian war. The DKP had a revisionist streak, though since about 10 years ago turned away from revisionism towards more revolutionary politics again. At the same time rehabilitating Stalin. But again they're still in no position to lead any revolution.

I have recently been finally approved for membership.

I do disagree with outsiders calling the part socially conservative. It doesn't take issue with things like LGBT rights, deviation from the "nuclear family" or anything else that allows people to live their personal lives as they see fit.

What they did criticise is the overfixation on liberal gender issues. The party doesn't view intersectionality as an important topic. And I tend to agree with that. The focus of any Marxist or otherwise left party should be the working class. If there is a societal push to greater LGBT rights or the like, it should be supported. But it's a waste of resources to spend too much on those issues, if there isn't. Specifically changes to grammar of the German language were made. To be more inclusive gendered nouns are slowly being replaced with neutral nouns that are aesthetically unpleasing and don't really do anything about inclusiveness (One of the most common new spellings includes an asterisks in the middle of the word *). Neither has language been specifically un-inclusive. It's a way too overblown issue and waste of time.

Take China as an example with it's three no's in regards to LGBT (no approval, no disapproval, no promotion). Homosexuality bas been decriminalised in the 90s or early 2000s if I remember right. No one is stopped from being gay, bi, trans, etc. Yet the LGBT movement in China is no important political issue. Therefore the CPC isn't championing LGBT rights or making any sweeping reforms in regards to such. It's a puzzle piece, not the entire puzzle.

As for the party itself, it's not a Marxist party, but much of its leadership come from Marxist circles. It does incorporate democratic centralism. But the goal of the party isn't to establish socialism. It's a vehicle to break up traditional neoliberal politics via populism and revive the left. Hopefully some day reviving Marxist movements and communist parties in the west. Because honestly speaking if a revolution were to break out anywhere in the first world, no communist party there today has the organisation or numbers to lead it.

But you see, a country doing that if the constitution allows for that is democratic. Because the country is democratic and so the constitution is democratic making the country democratic. Simple liberal math.

Thanks for that. I feel like way too few people were willing to have a discussion that wasn't in bad faith and instant dismissal. I could not conclude much except that the main disagreement is over critical support which is something I cannot support in the form it's lived in.

Anyone got more of an understanding of the Nepali communist party?

As I understood it they promote socialism with Nepalese characteristics, similar to how China is adapting socialism for itself. And that they came out of a merger of a Maoist and a Marxist-Leninist party.

Saw others call them revisionist. Is there any grounds to that?

Of course. Cuba would be great, my only issue is that I'm not too fond of high temperatures like in the Caribbean. But that will be a problem in the future anyway.