Yes that is a debatable point. It brings up once again the old concept of labor aristocracy and we have to ask ourselves to what extent do the material interests that have been formed in the imperial core even allow for the development of true revolutionary potential...

I myself find that i alternate between doomerism and revolutionary optimism on this topic. On the one hand i am perpetually disappointed seeing how bribed and/or complicit the population of the imperial core is, their lack of class consciousness and solidarity with the oppressed peoples of the global south... but on the other hand it feels wrong and elitist to simply discard the majority of the western masses as inherently reactionary.

Because how can one call onesself a communist if one does not trust in the masses? As a communist i am part of the masses, i am not above them, i am not better than them, i am not smarter than them, i just happen to have had my eyes opened a little earlier than the rest, and if i could come to the correct conclusions and learn to reject liberalism, idealism and reactionary prejudices then so can they.

It would be easy to give in to the temptation to simply discard the majority of Americans as reactionary so that i could feel superior, especially as i am not American so i could pretend like my own country is somehow better, but frankly from what i've seen and experienced so far it's really not.

Sure, maybe their material circumstances will have to change first in some way before that kind of change can take place on a scale large enough to begin to make real difference, but it can and it will happen eventually.

At least it's not anarchoposting lol.

On one hand i have some critiques of his articles, mostly because he seems to swing from the depressed doomerism to maniacal optimism which do seems to colour his analysis too much, but on the other after filtering this he sounds mostly correct.

Problem is, from what i can say the US leftist politics is completely fucked up with everyone accusing everyone else of being feds all the time.

So i would generally refrain.

I mean... His articles often seem to generate quite a bit of controversy here, so...if the shoe fits? He has lately been writing a lot about an as yet unresolved debate that is happening among the (mainly US) left and from what i can see this ideological struggle will likely go on for a long time without a resolution. But the discussions that this generates are very interesting and i find i learn a lot from the informed critiques that get written in response to his articles. For me as someone not directly involved in what is happening in the US it has been very interesting to follow. A few of the responses sometimes fall flat but that's ok too, this is the leftist infighting community after all, what better place than here is there to express one's disagreements and frustrations with other leftists?

I'm personally a fan of Black Agenda Report, i think they do a lot of good work, i always enjoyed reading them and listening to their programs and i find it quite sad to see this conflict that has developed between them and certain parts of the communist movement in the US. But i was also quite shocked at how many NATO talking points about the Ukraine conflict that they have repeated. I don't believe that they do this for any malicious reason but simply because the imperialist propaganda is so overwhelming and omnipresent, and the pressure to accept at least part of it in order to not be completely ostracized and demonized in progressive and other liberal adjacent circles is so high.

It's of course your prerogative to disagree with Rainer, there are valid critiques to be made of the strategy that he endorses, but i do think it is about as unfair and disingenuous to accuse him of "carrying water for fascists" as it would be for the other side of this debate to accuse you of guilt by association with imperialists because you support BAR who have connections with so-called progressive and pro-Democrat organizations.

Ultimately coalition building is always going to be messy. Someone is always going to be disappointed and some of the temporary alliances of convenience that one enters into are going to make some people feel "impure", as if merely by associating with certain people with whom one has ideological disagreements one's soul becomes "tainted" or "dirty". This is understandable as we all have certain ideological positions that we are very heavily emotionally invested in, and when we encounter people who take the opposite position our negative emotional reaction is very strong, particularly when the issue in question is one that affects us personally.

For instance if your number one enemy are internal reactionaries and the threat they pose to you and your community then it makes sense for your own self-interest to compromise on imperialism and ally with liberal adjacent forces. I can't blame anyone for making such a choice for the sake of their own safety and survival, even if i do fear it may be short sighted. It takes a certain amount of privilege to be able to assign a lower priority to the threats that reactionaries pose to marginalized communities. But by the same token don't be surprised when people for whom the primary threat are not domestic US reactionaries but the actions of the US empire abroad (which is the case for most of the global south) choose the compromise that they feel keeps them safer.

On the whole i will say though that i think both sides of this particular debate make some valid arguments but i also see problematic aspects in each camp. I am hopeful that this can be resolved because i think there are more commonalities than differences, and in my opinion the disagreements are kind of being exaggerated...it's not so much that there is a major qualitative ideological difference but merely a difference of where the focus lies, what each side sees as their number one strategic priority.

I do wish you would continue to read what Rainer has to say and continue to seriously critique it, i think that these discussions are valuable, they are the kind ideological struggle that needs to be carried out internally among the left until we arrive at a synthesis to resolve this contradiction we are seeing.