- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Today I’m talking to Joti Brar, one of the leaders of the Communist Party of Great Britain, the editor of the party’s publication, and the Spokesperson for the World Anti-Imerialist Platform.
Joti Brar of CPGB-ML is the daughter of the late Harpal Brar.
“Neutrality Studies” is some Swiss nonsense, but at least they’ll listen to communists and anti-imperialists.
You must log in or # to comment.
FYI I reported this post:
Rule 5: No right-deviationists. CPGB-ML is “socially conservative” and Joti herself is a Caleb Maupin collaborator (she went on his show to spew transphobic hatred).
(Edit) CPGB-ML expels members for “propagation of LGBT ideology”:
Congress therefore resolves that the propagation of identity politics, including LGBT ideology, being reactionary and anti-working class and a harmful distraction and diversion from the class struggle of the proletariat for its social emancipation, is incompatible with membership of the party, rendering those involved in its promotion liable to expulsion.
Examples of their reactionary rherotic:
LGBT ideology wants more than equal rights
But, to return to the question of the demands of the self-appointed LGBT activists. Unlike ordinary people who happen to be gay or transgender, they are not happy with simply being allowed to live their lives in peace and without discrimination; it is not just a question of men and women wanting to be accepted even though they’re different.
For the so-called activists, it is a question of going far further than that, to the point of absurdity. Transgender activists want us, for instance, to encourage little boys and little girls who prefer the lifestyle that society offers to people of the opposite sex to the one that accords to their own sex to actually physically mutilate themselves in order to achieve the appearance of a person of the other sex.
https://thecommunists.org/2019/04/20/news/why-gay-rights-is-not-a-class-issue/
The reactionary nightmare of ‘gender fluidity’
Are ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ synonyms? Well they are synonyms, but a certain group of academics in the seventies in the United States decided that they weren’t synonyms. They were going to use ‘gender’ in their own way; they were going to use ‘gender’ to mean the social construct of behaviour surrounding what was expected of the biological differentiation among human beings (men and women).
But biological differentiation between male and female is a real thing. It doesn’t just exist in humanity, it exists in many species throughout the natural world. Sexual reproduction is a natural biological process that has persisted in nature due to the diversity it engenders; it is a phenomenon encountered in the natural world.
Why deny the material reality of gender?
Why did it become a fashion to say there’s no such thing a male and female?
Who is pushing this ideology that there is no such thing as gender? That there is no such thing as sex? That it’s not real?
There is even a movement termed ‘ableism’ or ‘trans-ableism’. There exist people who say: “I look as if I’ve got two arms and two legs, but actually in reality, I feel like I was born disabled.”
https://thecommunists.org/2019/03/23/news/the-reactionary-nightmare-of-gender-fluidity/
‘Transgender rights’ are bourgeois ideology. The whole issue confounds reality. It is pure idealism because the reality is that we cannot choose our identity at will. It is an illusion, a mistake and a crime to teach people to think that they can choose like this, under capitalism.
https://thecommunists.org/2018/12/07/news/the-only-thing-that-unites-us-is-class/
They also voiced their opinion on JK Rowling:
The author’s brave stance in defence of reality must be defended, and her hysterical detractors exposed as the reactionary bullies they are.
And here’s them openly promoting US patsocs:
Working-class antiwar rage sends US woke mafia into a head fit
Unlike other self-identifying (and self-neutering) antiwar movements (essentially middle-class ‘left’ rackets in hock to the Democratic party in the USA or the Labour party in Britain), the Rage movement might actually pose a real threat to the establishment.
https://thecommunists.org/2023/03/11/news/usa-working-class-antiwar-rage-woke-mafia-head-fit/
If you missed the whole RATWM thing, here’s an explainer: https://www.blackagendareport.com/why-rage-against-war-machine-rally-antiwarsowhite
And lastly here’s the YT video I referenced in the report: youtu.be/5v7bWFFLzUY?t=1666
Last time I looked into CPGB-ML was like 5 years ago, but I can see since then Caleb released plenty of interviews with both Joti and Harpal Brar (CPGB-ML chairman) so the collaboration is very official and not a singular lapse of judgement on Joti’s part as some people tried arguing back then.
Thanks. TERF island, how you disappoint. Fortunately, the interview sticks to the topic of imperialism/anti-imperialism.
No. You could as well promote any US patsoc when they stick to the “right topic”. Or any fascist for that matter, they always appropriate some correct leftists stances. Communist spaces shouldn’t platform them even when they parrot the correct line.
I’ll tend to avoid them in the future. I do remember RATWM. Maupin I think is on a whole nother level, that of nazbol grifter.
The focus on Russia and Iran here is really weird from an ideological standpoint. Neither of those countries is going to support anything remotely resembling democratic socialism, much less communism. Is this just a multilateral geopolitics thing? Like an “enemy of my enemy is my ally” thing? If Russia were to achieve its goals, it wouldn’t solve anything. We’d just have a new imperialist, fascist, oligarchy controlling the world order. The only benefit I can see here is that the conflict might be a distraction that allows a third party an opportunity to implement constructive change. Am I missing something here?
The only benefit I can see here is that the conflict might be a distraction that allows a third party an opportunity to implement constructive change.
That’s in the ballpark.
Iran & Russia are capitalist states, but they’re not—at the moment—imperialist ones. Right now they serve as antagonists to the currently-existing imperialist states, and they’re neutral-to-protaganistic toward imperialized states. Imperialism is the foremost obstacle to any vassal state ever developing into socialism.
Honest question from a non-communist, based on your reply here. Does one need to support Putin to be a Marxist?
In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.
Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.
@davel Russia is definitely imperialist, they have their fingers in a good chunk of the Middle East and have in-roads into Africa. Are they on the same level as the USA? Not remotely. But all they would need is a power vacuum in order to make it happen.
Not every relationship is an imperial-vassal one.
Russia was providing aid to Syria against Israel, until the Western imperialist-backed “moderate rebels” finally seized power, and Assad fled to Moscow. This was the culmination of a project that started as soon as France gave up control in 1946. Russia also recently helped Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso kick the French military out.
Whether Russia will eventually turn imperialist on these states remains to be seen. I don’t think it’s in a position to in the foreseeable future, because that wouldn’t sit well with the imperialist states nor with China.
@davel Imperialism isn’t about the creation of vassals, it’s an economic division of the world, which Russia certainly does. International oil is a huge thing for them, just as it is for the US. And one imperial side helping the global south against the other imperial side should not be surprising. As it is, African nations are seeing Russia as a better alternative to the USA and China, which is of course by design, and is nothing new.
Imperialism isn’t about the creation of vassals, it’s an economic division of the world, which Russia certainly does.
Imperialism is about economic exploitation, and not every economic relationship is exploitative. Until imperialism & capitalism is eradicated, the world will be divided into blocs, but not every bloc will be an imperialist one, because not every state will be imperialist or imperialized. Some will be non-vassalized capitalist states (known as “non-aligned” during the first Cold War), like Iran, and some will be socialist states, like Vietnam.
