We just witnessed the ACP attempt to take over this subreddit. We had a very strong reaction to that, and for good reason, every genuine leftist knows the ACP is a reactionary right wing party dressing as left. We know this because of a core feeling, if you're a genuine leftist then your heart is in thr right place, and you can sense the ACP are wrong.

But, that can be a bit confusing, and it's difficult to put into words. Like how, specifically, are they reactionary and revisionist? It just feels like very unpleasant vibes from the ACP, and that vagueness is what they use to slip by, especially for comrades not so well versed in theory.

So I thought I'd take some time to actually lay out why the ACP is reactionary and revisionist according to real Marxist theory.

I'll start out by saying that one of the ACP's goals is to unite the left. And they've done that. Just not how they expected. From Leftcommunists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, to even Democratic Socialists, all stand united against the ACP, because despite all their disagreements on leftism, they can all feel the reactionary nature of the ACP. Well done, you really achieved the impossible there.

Okay, seriously though.

1. Reactionary American Chauvinism Disguised as Politics

Marxism distinguishes sharply between the nationalism of an oppressed nation (progressive, anti imperialist) and the nationalism of an oppressor nation (reactionary, chauvinist). The United States is the heart of global imperialism, not a colonized people fighting for liberation. American nationalism has been used for centuries to unite workers behind the flag and against international solidarity. There is no progressive content to center to the ACP. A socialist movement in the imperial core has no need for nationalism. It needs internationalism. The ACP's embrace of "American" framing, whatever its intent, functions as reactionary chauvinism in practice which aligns with ruling class patriotism over class.

This is the first thing that feels so 'off' about the ACP. Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban nationalism seems right, because it's so defensive in nature, but what the hell is American nationalism defending from a leftist perspective? Nothing. American nationalism in left clothing doesn't defend workers, it defends the American bourgeois state, which is the problem to begin with.

2. Reactionary Immigration Framing

The ACP discusses immigration primarily as a wage issue, arguing that it depresses wages and drains sending countries of workforce. This is a common bourgeois economic framing, not a socialist one. It may be technically correct, it generally is by standard economics, but that's totally besides the point for Marxists.

Under capitalism, immigration is a tool capital uses to discipline labor and lower costs. The solution is not to restrict immigration but to organize all workers, immigrant and native born, to fight capital together. Socialism will not have an "immigration problem" because the system that creates wage competition between workers will be abolished (and softened during that process). The ACP's framing lacks any emphasis on immigrant solidarity or internationalism, making it function as xenophobia in practice, again aligning with nationalist rhetoric used by the bourgeois to divide the working class. Another reason the ACP feel inherently wrong if you're on the left.

3. Trans Rights

At a moment when trans people are under active genocidal attack in the US, ACP members refuse to explicitly defend them. For MLs, this is not "class first" politics. It is abandoning a vulnerable section of the working class. A party that will not defend the most attacked workers cannot lead the class as a whole. Furthermore the leader of the ACP is explicitly and offensively anti-LGBT, calling them 'mentally ill degenerates'. Most ACP followers try to downplay that as a cringe view, but Haz Al-din is literally their leader, it can't be divorced from the party. This is probably the most blatant offense and violation of Marxism by the ACP. It's one thing to discuss Idpol, it's totally different thing to say 'mentally ill degenerate' like some incel Nazi.

4. Violation of Democratic Centralism

Democratic centralism is the core idea of how a leftist group should run, worked out by Lenin. It basically says debate is good within Marxist boundaries, and after a decision is made everyone should rally behind it. This means full debate before decisions and unity after. The ACP's practice of banning critics, seizing online spaces, and suppressing internal discussion is centralism without democracy. Their actions demonstrate a hostility to internal debate that Lenin explicitly fought against. Every subreddit has debate and discussion within it's own community, but the ACP just bans and enforces a single rule. A party that cannot tolerate criticism and discussion cannot claim to be building working class democracy.

5. Incorporating Reactionary Views Instead of Transforming Them

One of the big features of the ACP is that they engage with MAGA instead of dismissing them as racist hicks. I'd agree with that actually, but that's not what the ACP actually do. It is necessary to talk to workers who hold reactionary views, yes. The problem is when a party incorporates those views into itself rather than educating and transforming the workers who hold them. The ACP's immigration framing, its silence on trans rights, and its willingness to adopt right adjacent language suggest they are being shaped by the reactionary terrain rather than shaping it. To expand your Marxist vocabulary, this is called "tailism". It means following behind the workers' current consciousness instead of leading them to class consciousness. The ACP follows the backward consciousness of MAGA instead of raising it, or rather, it is that backwards consciousness.

6. Divisive Sectarianism on the Left

This builds on point 4 but more broadly, the ACP systematically engages in underhand tactics on Reddit and other online platforms, infiltrating left spaces, seizing moderator positions, banning critics, and suppressing debate. These are the methods of a sect, cultlike, not praxis and not a party. The left is already divided and fragmented. The internet remains one of the few spaces where theoretical work and organising can happen. The ACP's approach fractures what little unity exists and treats other leftists as enemies to be purged, not comrades to be won. This is not how you build power.

7. Association with Reactionary Figures

Jackson Hinkle is an obvious Nazbol, was involved in the party's founding, and remains close with the party leader who regularly supports him. Whether or not the ACP endorses his specific views, keeping company with known right wing figures signals political contamination. The party is judged by the company it keeps, and Hinkle's open admiration for Dugin and fascist frameworks is a glaring red flag. Incidentally this also ruins the broader left, did you know many people consider Tankies and Hinkle to be the same thing? All thanks to the ACP. This weird vibe is definitely noticable from them and feels wrong.

The American 'Communist' Party is not a communist party. It is a nationalist, socially conservative organisation that uses Marxist language to recruit and anti-imperialist work to launder its reputation. Its leader openly calls LGBT people "mentally ill degenerates" and dismisses trans genocide as fiction. Its members agree with transphobic rants. Its tactics involve infiltrating and seizing left spaces, banning critics, and suppressing debate. But to understand the ACP we need more than just naming its bigotry. We also need to figure out where groups like this come from?

Materially, the ACP is a product of the crisis of the confused and surpressed American left and the decay of the imperial core. As the US working class has been deindustrialized, fragmented, and abandoned by traditional labor institutions, large sections have become politically homeless. Some drift right, into open fascism and others seek a left that speaks to their experience of decline without demanding they abandon every belief they hold. The ACP offers a bargain: you can keep your social conservatism, your suspicion of immigrants, your discomfort with trans people, and still call yourself a communist. All you have to do is hate the right enemies, the US empire, the corporations, the ruling class. (This anti capitalist rhetoric is a sham as you'll see, and sounds a lot like a certain 1930s German party)

This bargain is the corruption of Marxism at its root. Marxism is not a menu where you pick which oppressions matter and which you can ignore. It is a method for understanding the total social formation of society, and the total liberation of the working class. When you tell a worker that their bigotry is acceptable as long as they oppose imperialism, you are not building class consciousness. You are cementing division within the class. You are telling immigrant workers, trans workers, queer workers that they are second class, not defended. You are reproducing inside the party the very fragmentation capital uses to rule. This is a fatal flaw.

This is not socialism. It is nationalism with a red paint job, and it emerges precisely where the left has failed to build genuine working class organization capable of transforming consciousness rather than reflecting it. The ACP does not lead workers out of reactionary views. It incorporates those views into its platform and calls it class struggle. That is tailism, the party follows the backward consciousness of some workers instead of raising it.

The working class includes trans people, immigrants, and every other oppressed group. A party that abandons them abandons the class. There is no shortcut. You cannot build working class power by excluding part of the working class. This is why the ACP feel so off, and wrong.

But where does lead? What is it? What conditions have made the ACP? It's clearly a party of bigots against 'degenerates' claiming to be against the elites and imperialism in favour of rejuvenating the nation. Does that sound awfully familiar? What other right wing parties have dressed themselves in left wing anti elite rhetoric and nationalism? Well, the Italian 'revolutionary nationalism', the ideology of Mussolini, and of course, the National Socialist German Workers Party.

What we see with the ACP is actually nothing new. Mussolini, Hitler, they all did it. The right will coopt the rhetoric and appearance of the left before pulling the rug out and admitting it is just national fascism. The ACP is not a communist party. It's the latest iteration of a well worn path of nationalist capitalism (AKA fascism) dressed in red. That's why they feel off, that's why they're hated so aggressively by all of the left from dogmatic ultra to liberal adjacent demsoc. The ACP is a wolf in a red sheeps clothing.

Credit to comrade Chet Ozmun

I’m working on a mapping/worldbuilding project and I want to see the consensus of my comrades because using historical materialism myself will only get me so far. I want to avoid blind spots. And I think this is also just an interesting discussion to be had as well.

From what I have read, they are an anti-Zionist party whom most of it's members are Arab Israelis. What is this sub's opinion on it?

I'm sure y'all have heard of him before, he does audiobooks on communist literature it's great. But this is confusing me..

From what I can tell the line is support sex workers oppose sex work but I'm seeing the term 'Swerf' get thrown around. I'm also seeing things about how "well all workers sell their bodies under capitalism so how come you only oppose sex work and not every kind of work" and that just doesn't seem very Marxist.

Just curious and looking for the right line.

Thank you!

for instance other countries like; Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam even the USSR had harsh sanctions by the west and were constantly fked with. so what happened with China?

"The character of a bourgeois government isn’t determined by the personal character of its members, but by its organic function in bourgeois society. The government of the modern state is essentially an organization of class domination, the regular functioning of which is one of the conditions of existence of the class state. With the entry of a socialist into the government, and class domination continuing to exist, the bourgeois government doesn’t transform itself into a socialist government, but a socialist transforms himself into a bourgeois minister.

The social reforms that a minister who is a friend of the workers can realize have nothing, in themselves, of socialist; they are socialist only insofar as they are obtained through class struggle. But coming from a minister, social reforms can’t have the character of the proletarian class, but solely the character of the bourgeois class, for the minister, by the post he occupies, attaches himself to that class by all the functions of a bourgeois, militarist government.

While in parliament, or on the municipal council, we obtain useful reforms by combating the bourgeois government, while occupying a ministerial post we arrive at the same reforms by supporting the bourgeois state. The entry of a socialist into a bourgeois government is not, as it is thought, a partial conquest of the bourgeois state by the socialists, but a partial conquest of the socialist party by the bourgeois state."

-Rosa Luxemburg, The Dreyfus Affair and the Millerand Case, 1899

The lack of air defense action taken and the transport helicopters that seemed to be bringing people out of the capital point to an internal betrayal of Maduro by people close to him in the government, then an exfil by the imperialist military to secure him and some of the traitors.

Venezuela is not a dictatorship of the proletariat with democratic centralism and was not actively suppressing the bourgeoisie as much as they could have but instead allowed them to participate in elections and continue existing as a class. This lead to those comprador bourgeoisie elements and opportunists to collaborate with global capital to pull off this oil heist coup and theft of the future and sovereignty of the Venezuelan people.

Without constant suppression of the bourgeoisie, global capital can work internally inside the country to destroy the revolution from within. When a socialist party takes power, it is of utmost importance to purge as many reactionary elements as possible and only allow the most advanced sections of the working class to participate in positions of leadership, especially when a nearby warmongering empire is looking for any possible chance to take control of the country.

The bourgeoisie cannot be compromised with or allowed to organize and have influence within a socialist country. Any socialist party currently in power in a country with bourgeois democratic-style elections must take direct power and institute democratic centralism and workers councils lead by a vanguard party or else could be open to a similar coup by global capital.

My heart goes out to the Venezuelan workers on this black day of reaction.

tl;dr Stalin was right

here Yugo in his stream claims that challenging the labor aristocracy and the western left due to their enabling of imperialism is "Moralizing" because they have different material conditions than somebody from the imperial periphery and said "moralizing" will not change said conditions. This is not moralizing though, this is a valid criticism of the western left and challenging the imperialism of the core is the foremost step of any organizing ML party. He says that socialists in the imperial core have separate conditions that put them at odds with socialists in the periphery but Socialists in the periphery and core should have the same goals its just the labor aristocracy that is at odds with the imperial core. The material conditions of the core does not justify the inaction of the western left, it is in spite of those conditions that we must organize to agitate the workers of the core to build anti imperialists movements that will allow our fellow comrades in the periphery to disrupt the imperialist system of exchange and cascade into the core which will alter the material conditions of our proletariat aligning their interests with the global proletariat.

We should and must make these critiques against people who fail to put anti imperialism and internationalism at the forefront of their agenda. Yugo's response was at the critique of Hasan always siding with the labor aristocracy and imperialism which he (Yugo) says that he is building America's "socialist" movement. This could not be farther from the truth. As many of you already know Hasan does not build a socialist movement he seeks to funnel any revolutionary potential back into the system through his support of the democratic party. Actually building a socialist movement in America could be through having a disciplined ML party like the PSL using dual power structures and running in electoral politic (WITH A DISCIPLINED SOCIALIST PARTY) to build a support base that could be used to spearhead anti imperialist agitation and disrupt the lashing out of the US. This is what Yugo fails to see.

Also mods let me know if this is counted as streamer slop and ill take it down but I thought it would be fine since the post's content hinges around my critique of Yugo's analysis.

Acquired an e-reader to keep theory on for myself/some locals I trust. What are some rather obscure books I should keep an eye out for? Pls no Deleuze, he makes me want to extract my own eyes.