Om konservatismens familjepolitik

Ukrainsk-amerikanska Slava i Chicago, med användarnamnet @ukr_socialist på X (bilden nedan hämtad därifrån), är en av förbindelselänkarna mellan nya ACP (American Conservative Party) och ävenledes ganska nya CPGB-ML (Conservative Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)). I likhet med Carlos Garrido, ACP:s utbildningsansvarige, har hon medverkat på Alexander Mckays kanal, och hon kommenterar hela tiden flitigt och kunnigt i hans chatt.

Slava beskriver sig som “Wife, Mother, Ukrainian American, ML, ACP”. De senaste dagarna har hon berättat mer om sig själv och sin konservatism:

“ACP is often criticized for the lack of female representation in the party. But who told you that women are craving to rule or lead? We are better at taking care of our children, the elderly, and our communities. We are nurturers by default. Of course, there are exceptions, but generally speaking, women want to be protected by physically stronger men, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are enough women in leadership and membership of the ACP. I have met many amazing ladies at our first convention in Chicago last weekend. Proud to be working alongside them and many amazing male comrades as well!”

“So, according to our critics, women must strive to lead because men can’t understand or represent women properly. Well, guess what? Women who skip family building and motherhood and jump straight into leadership ALSO can’t understand or represent the majority of women. Only those who experience the struggles of pregnancy and maternity can relate to the masses, see where the government fails, and try to address these issues.”

“I am in a leadership position of the party which means I represent interests of the working class women. And I am holding this position not as a diversity hire but based on merit. I’ve embraced the reality, had children and experienced what it means to be a woman in a capitalist society. Now I can serve better using my experiences. And I encourage young women to not get brainwashed by bourgeois feminism, hate men and become childfree cat ladies. It’s not going to serve them well in the long run.”

“Reasons I was called a fascist in the last 24 hours:

– Being feminine/a real woman

– Having children and enjoying motherhood

– Loving to cook healthy, scratch-made meals

– Not fighting with men for power

– Encouraging other women to abandon capitalist feminism, etc.

Yes, I am a traditional woman, and I am a communist – just like millions of Soviet women were. Being traditional doesn’t contradict a revolutionary spirit. In fact, being a mother motivates me to fight harder for the future of my children!”

“In the last couple of days, I was told that there are only two choices for women: to be a trad wife/family-oriented or a girl boss independent lady who can lead and rule. But I believe there is a third option! You can be both! But how can one be family-oriented and dedicated to the party at the same time? It’s not an easy task; it requires intentional effort to create boundaries that allow for quality time with loved ones while also fulfilling commitments to the party. Embracing this balance not only strengthens our resolve but also enriches our perspectives, ultimately enhancing our contributions to both the party and the community. In both spheres, finding harmony fuels our passion and purpose.”

ACP:s styrelsemedlem, brottaren Eddie Liger Smith, kommenterar:

“Based! We are proud to have you as a member and we accept & embrace your cultural values fully! Just as we are tolerant of those who have different family values in our party. The fascist American left claims to be the most tolerant but they have no tolerance for traditional family values.”

Right-Wing Knuckle-Dragging Lunatics

Also called "eejits". George Galloway:

Om konservatismens invandringspolitik

Haz Al-Din, nu företrädare för nya American Conservative Party, sammanfattar på X konservatismens invandringspolitik. Relevansen även för Europa är uppenbar. Sammanfattningen visar tydligt varför populistnationalismen är meningslös och överspelad, i alla fall om syftet verkligen är att lösa invandringens och mångkulturens problem. Ja hur den bara förvärrar dem genom sitt stöd för den antikonservativa höger som är deras främsta orsak.

“First, if they seized power, Communists would restrict all unilateral global immigration. No Communist state in history had ‘open borders’.

Immigration would be restricted to countries with bilateral economic agreements to ensure that it is rational and harmonious with national economic plans.

Additionally, cultural differences would carefully be taken into account so as to not produce scenarios of misunderstanding, conflict and confusion that inflame national, ethnic or religious tensions.

This is how, practically, all Communist states dealt with immigration. Carefully and extremely controlled.

Under socialist economic planning, spontaneous and unrestricted mass immigration is impossible.

The flow of labor, the settlement of populations, and the patterns of life cannot be treated as a ‘free for all’ when your economy is actually planned in a rational way.

But at the same time, Communists reject antagonizing immigrants under the current capitalist system. Here are the reasons:

1) Strategically, it makes no sense to give your enemies – the capitalist ruling class – a free base of support.

By demonizing immigrants, you drive them into the arms of your enemy. The enemy should always be divided, never given the chance to unite on any basis.

2) It is fruitless. The same cannibal frenzy and instincts that lead people to demonize immigrants will eventually lead to cannibalism and division within the ranks of the national working class. Especially in multi-ethnic countries like America.

Division within our own ranks cannot be tolerated and must be stamped out ruthlessly.

Prioritizing the issue of immigration only builds a movement that is focused on immigrants themselves – not any actual institutional or state policy.

We can see that anti-immigrant politics never actually changes the policy. Look at Meloni in Italy. Trump also didn’t ‘build the wall’.

It just whips up duped and distracted idiots into supporting the system.

To change any state policy one must have an impersonal, wise, and collected view. Anti immigrant hysteria is not conducive to this.

3) It reinforces national chauvinism in the context of US imperial policy. By demonizing Haitian immigrants for example, consensus is built for more US-led intervention into Haiti.

It is also hypocritical and unprincipled to forego responsibility your own government has in enforcing the same global imperialist system that devastates and enslaves other countries, leading to huge refugee populations and economic migrations.

To oppose immigration policy while supporting the US global system is a violation of one’s own national honor. It is craven, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt.

4) It mistakes the cause for the effect. The chief cause of mass migration is to import a class of foreign slaves so as to enforce the dismantlement of the native power of Labor.

But the domestic cost of labor has only risen so immensely because rentier parasites have driven up the cost of living to an extraordinary degree. This has led to de-industrialization on a mass scale.

Mass immigration is not the chief cause of the destruction of the power of Labor- but a symptom of it.

Therefore, the focus should be based more on the root cause, which is the domestic struggle for economic sovereignty and emancipation from debt slavery.

The more Americans face economic pressure, the more they will be whipped into a frenzy looking for people to hate and to blame. The more resentment will increase.

Communists, while having the correct, realistic and wise position on mass immigration and its root causes, will not lower themselves to this frenzy of stupidity and cannibalism – or somehow confuse it for a principled opposition to the policy of mass immigration.”

Alltså fortfarande: konservatismen mot det globalimperialistiska etablissemang som nu alltmer är tvunget att stödja sig på populistnationalisterna och fascisterna, som å sin sida villigt ställer sig i dess tjänst som en del av systemet.

Hade populistnationalisterna, som det ett tag såg ut som om de skulle kunna, drivit en egen, självständig linje av en ny socialkonservatism på nationell grund, tydligt skild från både systemetablissemangets och den skenoppositionella fascismens, och utifrån denna plattform från den borgerliga högern vunnit över seriösa och genuina konservativa av det meningsfulla slag som vill stå för överordnade värden, hade det varit en sak. Det är en annan sak när de visar sig vara endast vad Haz kallar lurade och förvirrade idioter.

Frågan nu för etablissemanget (som givetvis består även av vänstern, det hade inte gjort någon skillnad om populistnationalisterna allierat sig med den i stället, den är nästan bara en opinionsmässigt nödvändig alternativ förpackning av monopolfinanskapitalets regim) är hur det ska kunna fortsätta genomföra den fascism i sak som systemets – inklusive invandringspolitikens – överlevnad kräver, och samtidigt upprätthålla bilden av att detta är den “liberala demokratin”.