Recently, I saw the left circle elements attacking the association and was reminded of “The Worker”—a suspected online publication affiliated with the U.S. Communist Party Reconstruction Committee (CR-CPUSA)—an editorial published on December 26, 2023, this article. I have now translated a first draft (see the second floor), but because the original English grammar seems quite hellish (not as good as the one criticizing the Filipino Communist Party), the translator often cannot generate usable Chinese translations directly, so progress is slow and there are many parts I don’t quite understand. I have included the original English in parentheses after brackets.
Below is a small part of the article (bold is added by me):
For some time, the cancel culture has been attacking American revolutionaries and tirelessly trying to defame “The Worker.” They have already begun efforts to expand their snitching movement internationally, which must be strongly condemned. The websites of cancel culture are gutters of various distorted or fabricated “testimonies,” but their common point is that they attempt to smear proletarian discipline, proletarian organization, proletarian regulation, especially the ideology of the international proletariat, as “cults,” and according to their postmodern standards, all of this is classified as “abuse”—a method to intensify internal contradictions among the people rather than resolve them. In this gutter, like all gutters, garbage sinks, accumulates, and rots.
…
The cancel culture cannot escape the anti-communist academic tight-fitting suit they have put on themselves. Recently, in a podcast hosted by the revisionist blog Cosmonaut and Inside the Red Guards, the dominant figures behind the cancel websites exposed Maoist cult stated that any Leninist organizational model that demands personal obedience and certain discipline belongs to a cult.
…
The cancel culture uses inflammatory rhetoric and sensational effects to attack their political opponents, thereby conducting a comprehensive attack on communism, especially targeting Maoism. Do not misunderstand: they are actually attacking the ideology of the international proletariat, regardless of whom they substitute as targets. This is vividly reflected in their obvious opportunistic facts. As long as short-term goals override political principles, opportunism exists. The cancel culture shows no scruples about opportunism and lacks any proletarian morality. They are indifferent to communicating with bourgeois reactionary media see, even when their articles openly defame Chairman Mao and Chairman Gonsalves. The cancel culture simply does not bother to hide their anti-communism: they regard slandering Chairman Gonsalves as “self-empowerment”—achieved by demonizing Chairman Gonsalves as a clown—and feel conflicted only because they have been brainwashed, believing this is their last resistance on the way to so-called true “freedom.” Elsewhere, they claim to be “triggered” by the red flags raised by revolutionary students or the images of the great proletarian leaders on social media, especially on X, formerly Twitter. By studying their interviews, we will clarify everything to anyone who might be deceived by sensationalism and scandal-mongering.
The first article appeared on a bourgeois scandal website, which uncritically quoted documents from the interviewees’ operated website. This is obviously a one-sided attack article, even failing to meet the “objectivity” standard of bourgeois news reports. The ruling class waits like vultures for those expelled or betrayed from the communist movement, eagerly providing them with a platform to speak out in the anti-communist “church.” Through examples like the imperialists’ handling of Trotsky or their lamenting Liu Shaoqi’s fate, we see this phenomenon. We have also heard of the pathetic persecution of anarchists by the Soviet Union, but in any other case, these people are regarded as terrorists in bourgeois historiography. The most favored narrative of reactionaries is that innocent people are brainwashed and manipulated by evil communists, and once they return to the ruling class ideology, they provide the best testimonies; thus, traitors can wash away their mistakes and collective betrayal, stain themselves with imperialist filth, and ultimately defect to the enemy camp. In this specific article, behind the anti-communist veil, is the bourgeois yellow journalism propaganda of revisionism, whether it is tailism American Democratic Socialists (DSA) candidates or yellow union traitor bureaucrats, portrayed as legitimate “leftists,” i.e., victims of Maoist extremism. We see yellow journalists, cancel culture, FBI, social democrats, and worker aristocrats forming a united front spontaneously.
…
In the podcast interview hosted by a revisionist website, the cancel culture first defined “cult-like behavior” as “abusive or harmful organizations among the left,” a definition relying on postmodern inflammatory rhetoric rather than Marxist standards, lacking a class understanding. Here, the concept of “abuse” itself has a ghostly connotation, not limited or defined. In the eyes of the cancel culture, even the most basic communist discipline constitutes abuse. Postmodernism has deliberately conflated all forms of discipline and coercion from the beginning. The interviewed cancel culture figure presents himself as a frustrated intellectual: he originally enjoyed privileges without considering politics, but now, fallen into the proletariat by the privileged class. Unless they turn into Marxists, these people tend to take risks and show destructive tendencies—formally left, substantively right—this is precisely the characteristic of postmodernism. In fact, this cancel culture admits that their motivation is emotional rather than rational.
…
What “abuse” did this poor cancel culture suffer? This politically degenerate ignoramus claims he was “placed to work in an Amazon warehouse”; participated in “large study groups,” “meetings [and] training.” Poor guy! Selling out your labor for survival is capitalist abuse, not communist abuse. The rest are routine requirements of any organization—whether proletarian or not. Why does this cancel culture cry about the current state of any revolutionary activist? If, as you say, Chairman Mao’s advice can help you solve your shitty managers, why not continue to implement it? Mao Zedong once said: “Work means struggle. Where there are difficulties and problems, we need to solve them. We work and struggle to solve difficulties. The more difficult the place, the more we need to go—this is what good comrades do.”
Even the revisionist host seems bewildered—how can any information provided by this cancel culture be forcibly labeled as “cult”? Sometimes they even point out that these so-called problems are quite common among leftist radicals. The host asks the cancel culture: “What are the signs of cult-like dynamics?” This sad cancel culture person says that joining such groups “eliminates the fear of being responsible for oneself.” When pushed into our class, petty-bourgeoisie naturally have survival fears—they fear proletarianization, fear losing their relative privileges as small exploiters or intellectuals. But what about communist organizations that make people no longer responsible for themselves? Nothing. Communist party members insist on finding their direction, exerting subjective initiative, and conducting self-criticism in work. Here, there is no space to escape responsibility, although this cancel culture will continue to try to escape as long as its pathetic survival state allows it.
For this cancel culture and all others, the basis for proving that a group has “cult-like dynamics” is its attitude toward secret work—if an organization or movement cannot be liquidated by exposing itself to the old state, then it must be liquidated from within. Whether opposing secrecy and illegal work, or claiming these activities are cult-like dynamics, all serve the same purpose—liquidation! To push the organization fully underground (publicize) and liquidate it into liberalism, or to smear it as a cult, to achieve external sabotage. These are political strategies and theories of internal class enemies within the workers’ movement.
This is precisely summarized in the cancel culture’s hope for its red-policing work (see note ④): “My greatest hope is that people can step back and live better lives.” Is there anything clearer? Conversely, communists insist that regardless of one’s stance on mistakes, errors, or deviations, the important thing is to maintain contact with the masses, carry out class struggle, and fight the two-line struggle to achieve unity. Stepping back and “living better” is pure escapism for the proletariat. This is surrender and liquidation. The masses yearn for organized resistance, and revolutionaries tirelessly strive to rebuild the Communist Party. Under exploitation and oppression, what is a “better” life? In reality, can paid or voluntary snitching truly bring anyone a “better” life? Those disheartened, traitorous former revolutionaries may enjoy their 30 silver coins, but we cannot pretend that this is a “better” life than wholeheartedly serving the people.
The existence of “charismatic leaders” is used to justify the “cult” accusations. This standard is utterly absurd. Any leader may have personal charisma, and any recognized leader may be accused or regarded as charismatic, regardless of whether it reflects reality. The attack by the cancel culture in this regard is an attack on leaders, especially on communist leaders. They deny that class struggle breeds leaders, who are forged in the class struggle. The revisionist host openly sympathizes with the cancel culture, attributing the so-called “personal charisma” to the fact that: they attack Maoism, and the “charismatic leaders” mentioned are “very rigorous, disciplined, and approachable,” and “very sincere” when contacted. What is described here is nothing but expectations for leaders and any growing communist—professional ethics of any true revolutionary—twisted into this vulgar “charismatic leader” theory.
The cancel culture complains of “mental and physical exhaustion, mental breakdown due to heavy workload.” We cannot help but ask: is it the leaders demanding such workloads, or is it the environment in which American revolutionaries find themselves? And what is the solution to this problem? The cancel culture, following bourgeois postmodernists, advocates “self-care,” “step back,” etc. Confronted with the task of moving mountains and filling seas, the attitude of communist party members is entirely different—they know that only by establishing better contact with the masses and mobilizing them can the most basic “workload” be completed. Failing to do so will lead to exhaustion. This is where the entire movement must be criticized. This is not only the fault of the cancel culture but also the fault of today’s American [Communist movement] leaders and every revolutionary. No one establishes enough contact with the proletarian masses, and everyone continues to fight in this way; there is more to do than capable people can handle. This is a fact. But what is the communist attitude, and what is the liberal attitude? Mao Zedong taught us to fight many battles tirelessly; he set an example during the Long March.
Communists have always opposed arbitrary rest, advocating orderly work, understanding the dialectical relationship between action and rest, and taking action as the main aspect. In contrast, liberals are indifferent to the masses; they view the whole world through personal life, do not carry out struggles among the masses, and are content to turn a blind eye to the situation until they need to suppress the masses.
Anyone who thinks revolutionary activity and communist life are easy and effortless is deluded and doomed to become bureaucrats. “The psychology of cadres who rely on accidental convenience and luck to win without hard struggle or blood and sweat must be thoroughly eliminated.” Mao Zedong once wrote: “We must persist and work tirelessly; we will also move heaven and earth. This heaven and earth is none other than the people of all China. When the people of the whole country rise up with us to dig out these two mountains [feudalism and imperialism], what can’t be dug out?”
Because of opposition to the norms and correct working methods of professional revolutionaries, the task of mobilizing others to participate in revolutionary work is immediately undermined. In short, if a person refuses to accept the theory of professional revolutionaries, secrecy, and hard struggle, he has already cut off the true connection with the masses, weakening the bonds needed to mobilize them for revolutionary plans and work. This approach will inevitably overconsume limited strength. The real cause of “overwork” is liberalism; and those who feel exhausted even from the easiest work are liberals. The petty-bourgeois resistance to proletarianization runs throughout the cancel culture’s narrative.
…
