Chapter 3: But What About All The Other Ideologies? Part V

The Korean War, the Vietnam War, all of these can be understood in this context of the social democracy/fascism dynamic. What distinguishes the social democratic structure from the nazbol one is the ownership of the means of production. In social democracy, the means of production are privately owned and controlled, with a portion of the wealth diverted to buying off the petties and the pettified labor aristocracy, in accordance with the balance of forces in that society. In a nazbol society, the means of destruction are collectively owned by the master race so they can directly exploit the subject races together, which as a practical matter encompasses control of the otherwise privately subject-owned means of production too.

The distinction between the two seems minor, but the difference can best be demonstrated with gun rights. Guns didn't really exist in the Mongol khanates, but if they had, Genghis Khan would have ensured every Mongol had one. However, your average social democrat reacts with horror at the thought of gun rights, trusting petty agents of the government to guard their best interests. Social democrats are close enough to liberals that such patently utopian notions aren't alien to them, but no Mongol would have trusted the subjects of the empire long enough to go around unarmed.

As all this shows, a truly socialist society will require a dictatorship of the proletariat. In plain English, if every state is the means for one class to oppress another, then the workers' state must be the means for the proles to oppress the bougies, instead of being the means for the bougies to oppress the proles as is currently the case. One of the myriad reasons the Soviet Union fell is that after the death of Stalin, the Soviet Union was no longer a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of the petty bourgeois intelligentsia. The Soviet state became a means for the petty intelligentsia to oppress the rest of society, albeit under cloak of lawyered communist ideology. It could not have evolved otherwise in those material conditions: the red petties were absolutely necessary to the continued survival of the Soviet Union, from the military that matched American thermonuclear blackmail with their own homecooked variety, to the engineers that made it possible for the USSR to be the first spacefaring civilization, to the spies that kept them all safe from the CIA, to the industrial enterprise managers and technicians that kept production humming for all the above.

Moreover, this intelligentsia-led state was even a reversion to form for Eurasian society. The Chinese dynasties since Qin Shi Huang Di purported to be led by a scholar-emperor overseeing Confucian principles, and the notion of scholar-emperors as a legitimizing institution was spread by the Turkic and Mongol conquests across the region as far as Russia. It was an arrangement that the Soviet and Chinese peoples understood and could easily backslide into; if they could not have a prole dictator like Stalin, a scholar-chairman like Khrushchev or Mao could serve as a comprehensible rallying point for the middle class and a continuation of longstanding institutional forms.

But Khrushchev and Mao were absolute garbage fires. As they led their peoples in a reversion to these ancient institutions, the petty underpinning of these concepts came to the fore. Outright fascism crept into their systems and manifested themselves in the Sino-Soviet split. Khrushchev denounced Stalin's "crimes" like the spineless petty he was, which splintered the Marxist-Leninist world as Kublai Khan had done the Mongol world by reverting to Chinese liberal institutional forms away from Genghis Khan's nazbol institutions. After this split freed his hand, Mao decided that the only thing missing from Marxism-Leninism was fascist revanchism. So he sent hundreds of comrades to their deaths fighting the Soviet Union for control of Damansky Island in the most feckless sucker punch in history. Had Mao been able to seize that island, he planned to press north all the way to Kamchatka, to secure more lebensraum for the Han master race. Thankfully for the Soviets, petty bourgeois self-interest is corrosive, and Mao's reich lasted about as long as Hitler's had. After his many failed utopian schemes, the Chinese Politburo decided to get rid of Mao and his clique and settle in for a relatively quieter capitalist-roader restoration instead. To this day, the Dengists running the show in the Middle Kingdom euphemistically refer to Mao as "70% correct," and honestly that's still too generous.

This is why Leftbook is also a garbage fire - it's run by the same red petty class that ran the Chinese revolution into the ground, using the same lawyered red petty methods of self-crit and denunciation for the same red petty ends of self-aggrandizement masquerading as egalitarianism. This is why their favorite word, "problematic," is itself "problematic," because it's meaningless twaddle proferred by petties trying to distract you from their class crimes by looking radical. If the revolution is led by these twits with bad haircuts, the revolution will lose, and furthermore, it will deserve to. The best thing to be done with people such as these is to throw them into Antifa with the other anarkiddies and Bernie voters and let them go to jail punching Nazis for the street cred. Social democrats and anarchists are the very "red fascists" they accuse us "Stalinists" (their word, not ours) of being, and they have the class privilege to prove it.

Onwards to Chapter 4!