Communists Should Learn to Stop Being Annoying: Tactics, Strategy, and Optics
László Molnárfi
28th February 2025
The Communist Movement Lacks Self-Reflection
Political behaviour is first and foremost libidinal, impulsive, and chaotic, rather than rational, contemplative, and policy-based. Its discursive realm is predomindantly sociocultural, rather than economic. The superstructural realm is just as material as the base and — within discourse — the visible takes precedence over the hidden. Sadly, socialist revolutionaries seem affronted at the idea of connecting their movements to popular culture, aesthetics, and mass appeal. The rise of mechanical materialism — the drive to explain societal behaviour in purely terms of structural factors — is a symptom of the inability to face an uncomfortable issue within our movement. That is, it has become clear that the masses no longer place faith in socialism. The sweeping victories of the right wing in the past decade and a half can be ascribed to the socialist left losing the protest vote in a process of political dealignment that is driven by sociocultural considerations, rather than merely ‘misdirection’ from mainstream media, the capitalists, and politicians in response to successive economic crises. In essence, leadership cannot be absolved from blame in this tragic historical process — this much becomes quite clear upon interacting with ordinary people.
What Are the Two Trends Damaging the Movement Today?
On the one hand, liberalism is infiltrating the communist movement. Our policies and use of language does not manage to address people in an intelligible way. This is clear from the association between liberalism and socialism, a historical anomaly by any measure. Revolutionary language is now that of the ivory tower academic, filled to the brim with identity politics and exclusionary to the vast majority of people. This is present in both online and offline spaces. This is well described by Mark Fisher’s 2013 essay Exiting the Vampire Castle[1]. Each day, novel discourses emerge which fry the brain and are vastly disconnected from the real world, but fester amongst our communities. The last twitterstorm I recall was about BDSM being problematic, which is ironic because we say it is conservatives who pry in the bedroom — maybe we should retire "Republicans out of the bedroom!" and the new catchphrase should be "Maoists out of the bedroom!". Recently, there was also great uproar at a dating event organized by NYC-DSA, as the self-appointed, modern-day preachers of morality decreed it problematic that comrades should like each other; they should, rather, confess their sin of sexual desire, abstain from all such activities and serve the parish. James Connolly is correct in stating in his 1904 work Wages and other things[2] that some comrades see the movement as a "means of ventilating their theories on such questions as sex, religion, vaccination, vegetarianism, etc." and that this has no place in our party policies because socialism is about class emancipation and holds space for "the greatest intellectual freedom, or even freakishness".
On the other hand, we have the rise of syncretic ultra-leftism. Lex Von Clark writes in Ultraleftism Ascendant: Understanding the Infantile Disorder[3] in 2025 that syncretic ultra-leftism is a cross-tendency phenomenon in which activists "revel in the subcultural status afforded by their arcane ideologies and small sectarian communities, always using the most radical (and often the most opaque) language possible to distinguish themselves from ‘normies’. Rather than running campaigns based on widely and deeply felt issues, they shout only the most revolutionary slogans and demands, denigrating anything less as cooptation and compromise”. The historical roots of ultra-leftism that are relevant for our age find themselves in Maoist-Thirdworldism starting in the 1960s, when it was claimed that the workforce in the West is a labour aristocracy and that revolution can only come from the Global South. This engendered a regime of passivity, in which communists have positioned themselves on a “hurler on the ditch” soapbox where none of the revolutionary work is to be done by themselves and they can hold an attitude of liberal distrust toward the masses. Within this paradigm, all that is left to do is stand idly by, appear to support actions in the Global South, and wait for the ever-approaching revolution; it is the "original sin" of the substitution of aesthetics for substance. This fatalism has shaped the cultural dynamics of the socialist left. Namely, practices like the public kowtowing of “radical self-critique” are rooted in Maoism’s adaptation of Confucian values of filial piety, guilt, and obedience, translating into purity politics — the elevation of dogma over sober analysis. Within leftist spaces, rhetoric trumps material analysis, aesthetics take precedence over fact and links between vanguards and the masses break. This lifestyleism, which — instead of being all-inclusive — imposes a dogma in the form of radical aesthetics while castigating those who do not fit within. Instead of thinking for ourselves, it seems to be motivated by a reaction to those on the opposing side of the political spectrum, to stand out as the most progressive in absolute diametric opposition to the right wing.
It is these trends that are in enmeshment with one another, forming one assemblage, its constituent parts changing in influence from one day to the next. In turn, communists are seen as annoying, hyper-moralistic, and preachy rather than advocates from and for the working class. Overall, it is a turn away from mass-line-based politics toward adventurism and sectarianism.
Ultra-Leftism
As Vladimir Lenin recognizes in his speech to the Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.)[4] in 1918, politics belongs to the masses. “The millions-strong masses—and politics begin where millions of men and women are; where there are not thousands, but millions, that is where serious politics begin”, he said. At the outset, it should be stated that this is the case whether socialists engage in propaganda by deed, direct action or mass action. The variations in political action are necessitated by the context of the historical moment. None of them enjoy superiority over one another. However, in all cases, political action, and its constituent parts such as optics, should resonate with the masses. The assassination of Brian Thompson over cruel healthcare policies, the student encampments for Palestine and the anti-water charges protests in Ireland of the 2010s constitute examples of each aforementioned category. In these cases, the level of direct mass engagement proceeds from lowest to highest, yet the level of indirect mass engagement is consistently high. The link is thus unbroken between the vanguards and the masses, as the micro-political revolution brews on the ground, in terms of political consciousness, which is expressed from the people and expressed by the leaders at the same time. Despite this, there is an attitude that the masses have ceased to be necessary for revolutionary socialism, that they are fundamentally reactionary and thus need to be substituted by radical activist groups engaging in minoritarian actions that can "move the dial". The distrust of the masses reflects a liberal worldview, but framed within the prism of revolutionary socialism.
This derivation of revolutionary socialism has found fertile ground in the 2020s due to the fate of the 2010s social-democratic movements. It is the total inversion of the social-democratic movements toward its negative mirror image of ultra-leftism. As Lenin put it in "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder[5] from 1920, ultra-leftism and liberalism are mirror images, they make “the same mistake, only the other way round”. It begins with blind anti-electoralism: the assumption that boycotting parliamentary forms of democracy is invariably correct as a political principle. The move away from electoral politics is the anarchist petit-bourgeois turn of the syncretic ultra-leftists. As Lenin explains in the same pamphlet, there is a difference between liberal democracy needing to be overcome as a system and whether we should use its structures as a means to an end. Electoral politics standing for local and national, and even European, elections — given current conditions — is a worthwhile endeavour to raise the profile of socialism amongst the masses, should it be deemed that we have the organizational capacity for it. Electoralism is not corrupting in itself. It is a form that can be filled with content, reactionary or revolutionary. It is thus a mistake to take one of its historical manifestations as its ahistorical, fixed, unchangeable nature. In the past, communists have participated in parliaments without ending up as opportunists, such as the Bolsheviks in the Duma (1912-1917). This substitution is an error of analysis that fetishizes tactics and strategy. A prevailing sentiment is that the 2010s show the failure of electoralism within liberal democracy. However, proponents of this argument err insofar as those social-democratic movements were not revolutionary socialist. Their failure arises from the inability to stand by socialist principles — this is the case for Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, and Syriza, at the very least. The socialist rhetoric espoused, as well as standing for election, proved successful; but when it would have come to resisting neoliberals — within the Labour Party, within the Democratic Party, within the European Union — this necessary break could not be made. The bending of the knee to the capitalists was a conscious choice on the part of the social democrats rather than the fault of electoralism and the successful populist rhetoric espoused. It is possible to build on these successes while recognizing their fundamental flaw.
In What Other Ways Do Ultra-Leftists Turn Away From the Masses?
For instance, the disdain for religion, spirituality, and patriotism by comrades is a tactical and strategic error that will lead to communists further isolating themselves from the masses. It hints at the obsessive need of communists for purity politics. These social outlets are important to millions of people and do not immediately hint at reactionary attitudes. Mutual aid drives are often organized through these communities. In fact, in history until now, communists and communist movements such as James Connolly, Eugene Debs, Earl Browder, and Latin American liberation theology have made our politics work within various religious and patriotic contexts. For instance, in Earl Browder’s 1936 publication What is Communism?, he posits that within the United States, “the work of Communists, especially their anti-war work, brings them into contact with large sections of the American population which are connected with church institutions in one form or another” and that “as far as religious workers go, the Party does not insist that they abandon their beliefs before they join Party”[6]. In other words, the lives of workers do not begin and end in the workplace, but span across various social outlets with which comrades should familiarize themselves. In all cases, it is unwise to speak down to those who find solace in God or those who express support for their own country’s cultural practices, provided that these are not reactionary positions. To mind one’s language and limit one’s personal ventings about these matters is the task of the revolutionary socialist, lest they alienate themselves from the masses. “One of the main ways ultraleftists artificially separate themselves from the masses is by demanding that participants in their movements agree with them on every conceivable issue, including those issues not immediately related to the subject at hand”, “ as put by Lex Von Clark in Ultraleftism Ascendant: Understanding the Infantile Disorder[7] in 2025. When addressing the reactionary tendencies of these social outlets, engaging people in the struggle makes conversations easier, but the entry barrier should remain as low as possible.
If communists are enmeshed in purity politics, then it is no surprise that our attitude to community organizing has been experienced as attempts to take over and impose a political line by an elite, rather than to lend a helping hand in the struggle. It leads to a novel type of entryism which should be avoided as much as possible. For instance, it is wise to avoid treating people as “raw materials” that are “prime” to be “radicalized” into “cadrés”, and their movements as targets to “intervene in” to build the movement. People are radicalized by experience, not by evangelizing manipulation and off-putting language and will remember negative experiences. Educate, but not forcefully; guide, but do not impose. A shifting mood in the working class toward revolutionary socialism will come about as the result of historical experiences that affect millions, at which conjunction revolutionary socialists are able to guide people to understand the present in terms of the class struggle by expressing coherent politics, but not impose a dogmatic line, totally pure, absolutely unproblematic imported from X (formerly known as Twitter). There is a need to work with the concrete material we are given, which is far from perfect, as the masses are found in politically underdeveloped groups and movements.
A Suggestion and Example To Irish Comrades To Avoid Ultra-Leftism
The ultra-left approach manifests itself in various tendencies on the ground. By ultra-left approach, we mean the conception of tactics and strategy as moral rather than pragmatic need. Tactics and strategies for approaching the masses matter to a crucial degree in organizing. For example, the commonly-held approach to the rise of anti-immigration sentiment in Ireland is flawed. Counter-protests at every single anti-immigration rally do not work, because they are liberal in nature, speaking to an imagined audience and establishing a diametricism between vanguards and the people. It would be a wiser approach to cease organizing these counter-protests and to engage within these communities through social initiatives, local politics, and on-the-ground initiatives. For example, we can directly organize refugees so that they cannot be exploited by the ruling class as easily. This can be done by making them aware of their labour, migrant, and tenant rights and supporting them in exercising these. Solidarity can thus be forged between them and the communities they are entering via trade unions, tenant organisations, and other associations. The appearance of external groups with party flags, especially ones that engage in electoral politics, coming in and standing literally opposite the road from communities should be avoided. If one believes in making change, then political praxis must be effective, not a symbolic performance. It is a touchy subject, but one that needs discussion. By refocusing our efforts to follow the mass-line, we are not abandoning migrants, but helping them. In other words, paradoxically, reaching for a less visible action is a better way of reducing anti-immigration sentiment.
Ultra-Leftism Meets Liberalism
Unfortunately, instead of a reassessment of the 2010s social-democratic movements, there has been a reactionary retreat which pushed the communist movement toward left-identitarianism. At its core, this is a reaction to the class-wide demands that these social-democratic movements put forward with great success, involving millions of working people from diverse backgrounds. Various identity-based issues were not ignored, but the starting point was universal demands which branched out to specific demands. Having seen that millions were involved, but the movements ultimately failed, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Left-identitarian policies are not ultra-leftist by nature, but the latter's disregard for the former’s lack of mass appeal are two factors that are intertwined in a mutually reinforcing manner. Already in the mid-2010s, most ridiculous and damaging actions were done in the name of fighting so-called class reductionism such as when protestors disrupted the speech of Bernie Sanders in 2016. By 2020, the DSA’s Afro-Socialist Caucus engaged in a polemic with DSA’s Bread and Roses caucus and urged delaying Sanders' endorsement until he revised his stance on reparations, after he said there were better ways to help black people than “writing out a check”[8]. As well as this, attacks on Sanders for being on the Joe Rogan podcast to spread his platform to millions of people in 2019 reveal an obsession with purity politics rather than utilitarian evaluation of tactics and strategy. These sorts of actions constitute liberal posturing and this trend is also visible in what policies we prioritizse as communists. There are liberal campaigns that are obvious non-starters in their political viability, feasibility or usefulness, but are fiercely supported by communists. This includes reparations for slavery and the broader social ontology of "antiracism" as the basis from which analysis flows, identity-based affirmative action, and cancelling individuals on a recurring basis as if that is political praxis that can rectify wrongs and lead to change. It is also visible in the support of communists for the problematic type of hate speech legislation that grants the state and law enforcement expansive powers, not realizing it is they themselves who will be targeted with such legislation wherever it is brought in under a capitalist regime. In certain cases, a policy does not need to be advocated for if it is non-implementable, can be circumvented by a better one or if it is politically expedient to momentarily disregard it by focusing on populist ideas and achieving the same ends. The works of Adolph Reed[9,10,11,12] and Ben Burgis[13] solidly demonstrate the difference between the liberal approach and a Marxist approach to identity, cancel culture, and free speech and proceed to suggest suitable alternatives for each of these. For example, instead of reparations, investment in poorer communities; instead of identity-based affirmative action, a "poor people’s box" would serve to unite the working class and because marginalized members of that class tend to be poorer, would help them specifically[14]
; and cancelling individuals is not a worthwhile use of resources of the communist movement. Notably, it is the social-democratic movements that succeeded in avoiding these optical minefields and managed to rally the masses behind appealing programmes which go far above and beyond these ivory-tower ideas.
Use of Liberal Language
Similarly, the social-democratic movements were skillful at public relations with a diverse working class, while recognizing the necessity of recruiting using universal, rather than identitarian language. The enmeshment of liberal policies with the communist movement leads to the adoption of liberal language. Our use of language matters insofar as it is necessary to unite the masses under the banner of socialism[15]. It is both permissible and necessary to highlight that amongst the masses, there are groups that are systematically disadvantaged, whether by race, gender, sexuality, and the like. However, the use of liberal terms should be retired because they are exclusionary to those in the working class that do not belong to intersectional categories. In addition, for both those in and outside of intersectional categories, it makes socialism less accessible to those who do not have the privilege of third-level education, considering the academic jargon at hand. In order to get someone on our side, it is an obvious fact of life that they should not be made to feel like they are responsible for the terrible oppression of others. This is the case even if they occupy a privileged position according to sociological statistics. As well as this, the knee-jerk reaction of someone hearing that they are in a privileged position is to refer back to their own struggles within life, rather than reflect on whatever academic jargon they have just been handed. Privilege discourse is of no advancing value; it relativizes suffering in a way where it considers an individual privileged so long as there is someone worse off, rather than it being a call to empathy to fight injustice. Within its linguistic-world, it thus suggests a sense of scarcity and competition, as if the little someone has will be taken to benefit others, rather than emphasizing collective action for the liberation of all. The white male worker would have this reaction upon being told of the male privilege; the white female worker would have a similar reaction upon being told of white privilege and so on and so forth in an endless series of permutations in which there is always someone that is being oppressed by someone else within the intersectionality matrix. We need to recruit the masses for our cause, amongst whom in Western countries majorities are white male/white female, so we need to adapt. Therefore, there is no need for communists to use terms such as "white supremacy", "toxic masculinity", "privilege" ... and the likes out in the open, even if these are socially-existing processes. We can introduce people to the concepts in layman’s terms, in a way that fosters solidarity and unity with marginalizsed people. If the ruling class recognizes this[16], so should we. It is our role to educate people, but political consciousness develops unevenly and with a solid opener focusing on material issues, a seed can be planted. “We start by running campaigns based around widely and deeply felt issues – ‘our concept is to unite people in action around the issues on which they’re moving’ – since by focusing first on already-popular demands, rather than morally-righteous but unpopular demands, we can mobilize large groups of people and in the process radicalize them to support those currently unpopular demands (Camejo 1970). [...] By eschewing unpopular overly-radical posturing in favor of widely and deeply felt demands like medicare for all and student debt relief, Bernie was able to tap into a broad base of support, organizing hundreds of thousands of volunteers and in the process educating millions of Americans about class struggle and socialist politics. Of course, the success of the mass-action elements of Bernie’s campaigns has been recently overshadowed by his opportunistic loyalty to Genocide Joe and the Democratic Party, but just as Lenin extracted the mass-politics portions of Kautsky’s thought from his ultimate opportunism, so too should we seek to embrace the mass-action elements of Bernie’s campaigns while discarding his opportunism”, as put by Lex Von Clark in Ultraleftism Ascendant: Understanding the Infantile Disorder[17] in 2025.
Use of Liberal Ontologies
The liberal force field captures an increasing number of communists, intensifying the process of abandoning universalism for identitarianism. This is visible in basic mistakes in dialectical materialist analysis that alienate the working class. In the United States, vocal communists, especially Maoists, are yet again branding the white working-class as inherently counter revolutionary based on settler-colonial theory[18], and using terms such as “Turtle Island”, “AmeriKKKa”, and the like to refer to the country. Within this doctrinaire paradigm, there is no basis to build a multinational, multiracial, and multiethnic working-class movement. This is nothing more than hyper-moral posturing, a Christian duality of good and evil, and a rejection of mass politics that does not serve the communist movement. It results in disconnection from political praxis and isolates communists artificially from the given segment of the masses. The United States began as a settler colony, but the primary contradiction today is that of the capitalist and the worker. The nature of oppression has changed throughout the course of history. The liberation of oppressed nationalities thus goes hand in hand with the liberation of the working class as such, who are in this century all oppressed under the capitalist-imperialist regime. This is not to discount the fact that the “demands of indigenous peoples deserve special consideration and are distinct: full sovereignty and national development of indigenous peoples, and the protection of their cultures, languages and traditions” as put by J. Sykes in Marxism-Leninism and the theory of settler-colonialism in the United States[19] from 2024. Communists have fought with tears, blood, and sweat for the liberation of all workers throughout history as a basic principle. For instance, as Earl Browder says in What is Communism? from 1936, “[w]e Communists have always had as one of our main jobs the fight against discrimination in the trade unions and elsewhere, against Jim-Crow lynching and brutality and against every kind of oppression by the white ruling class of this country. We have tried the best of our ability to carry out the maxim laid down by Marx many decades ago, that labour with a white skin cannot free itself until labour with a black skin is free”[20]. It is the united movement of the entire working class that can overthrow capitalism. Those who agree with the previous sentence may find themselves attacked using identity-opportunism!
What is Identity-Opportunism?
Identity-opportunism is a liberal rhetorical device that is used to shut down debate. It is the instrumentalization of identity politics toward a desired outcome, specifically by setting up a hierarchy of privilege. Identity-opportunism has been observed at pro-Palestine student encampments, especially by adventurists when it comes to tactical and strategic questions about accepting compromises between camps and the academic institution. When it comes to the concrete issue of divestment, technicalities must be observed, thus half measures, compromises, task forces etc; but syncretic ultra-leftists refuse to accept this, they demand immediate and total divestment now. Indeed, refusal to engage with a material reality, substituting it for rhetoric, is ultra-leftism. In aid of a line which refuses to accept compromise deals on campuses, there are sentiments that express that the "white individual", "the American", "the European", "the Westerner", "the Western settler, "the Western colonizer" etc. are unable to formulate tactics and strategies due to their inherent biases arising from dependency on the empire, and that we must defer any and all questions to Palestinian comrades rather than open democratic discussion, echoing the 2000s Occupy Wall Street movement's tendency to prioritize specific groups for speaking rights. This hinders discussion on crucial movement-building questions due to fear of being labeled as a traitor to the cause. When evoking Palestinians, it is akin to a wizard conjuring an apparition, and — coincidentally — the Palestinians that the adventurists have conjured appear to be of one opinion, in agreement with the adventurists. This example is without a doubt familiar to the reader because it can be applied mutatis mutandis to every other issue that is discussed in this essay, insofar as when debate is attempted, it ends up engaged in identity-opportunism.
The Theoretical Underpinnings of Identity Politics
Identity politics has its roots in the "epistemological suicide" of post-structuralism, in which lived experience is elevated to the status of fact and prioritized over the creation of metanarratives from empirical research: in other words, "standpoint epistemology". There is a lack of a totalizing theory, which means that subjectivism comes to replace collectivist experiences of oppression situated in a broader structure. Each marginalized group receives its own group-silo, rather than a place in a corresponding theory based on material conditions, from which they assert their own difference and fight for improved conditions. This approach is able to pinpoint where oppression lies, but is unable to show why oppression exists, because its social ontology explores only the superstructure rather than the base, detaching one side of the dialectic from the other. This alienates one individual from another based on sociocultural characteristics and strips them of their own revolutionary agency. This is a bleak world in which empathy, communication and understanding is made impossible under a capitalist hyper-competitive framework of competing identities.
On the other hand, class reductionism errs in reverse and explores only the base, decapitating the superstructure. This can never rouse the masses to revolutionary action because it refuses to situate itself in social reality. In this way, it is merely the topsy-turvy version of liberalism insofar as it refuses to acknowledge the reality of both sides of the dialectic. The drive to establish a primacy of either the economic or the sociocultural is a mistake, the former of mechanical materialism and the latter of idealism. Both approaches forego totality in respect of its constituent parts which are elevated to the status of social reality. While the base limits the possibilities of the superstructure, the superstructure affects back on the base, engaged in an eternal process of dialectic entanglement.
It is the duty of revolutionary socialists to oppose both deviations of dialectical materialism by referring back to totality rather than its constituent parts. Vladimir Lenin, in his 1919 speech Anti-Jewish Pogroms[21] against anti-semitism, demonstrated this principle when he said that amongst the Jews there is a majority who belong to the working class and a minority who belong to the ruling class, highlighting class (universal), then identity (specific) and establishes a unifying principle (solidarity), thus dissolving the issue in respect of a complete totality toward the establishment of socialism, the overthrow of the ruling class by the working class.
The Combination of Ultra-Leftism and Liberalism
Ultra-leftism and liberalism is the most curious combination. On the one hand, ultra-leftism leads to the most extreme formulations of revolutionary politics, which puts it in opposition to liberalism, but on the other hand, ultra-leftism finds common ground with identity politics which attaches it to liberalism. This oscillation between the two poles is clear evidence of the inability of this tendency to ground itself in dialectical materialist analysis. Both have to be combatted at the same time.
In terms of a solution, revolutionary socialists should critically engage NGO-like community groups, student unions, and trade unions, as well as movements through openly advocating for "radical" approaches, if there are resources to do so. This is in contrast to cozying up to them for networking, press, and social media attention, or, alternatively, ignoring them and retreating from the battle; both of these leave the masses under liberal influences. Lenin writes of this in “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder[22] from 1920. Eloquently, he also cautions us not to mistake our political desire for the masses to lose trust in liberal leadership for an already-accomplished fact. The divide between communists and liberals needs to widen, and criticisms need to be made so as to shift the Overton window and secure mass support for the "radical" approach.
This should be done in a manner that is based on mass politics, rather than ultra-leftism. Local communist cells should be working on taking over leadership roles within, but not as party activists, rather as genuine community members to help with concrete issues, wherever they see fit. This way, organic links between particular issues and the system as a whole can be found, moving away from dogma, and dynamizing the movement. This process will result in conflict with established leadership, but it is exactly these schisms that result in the development of political consciousness and so we must not be afraid to get our hands dirty.
Thus, both the pitfalls of liberalism and ultra-leftism are avoided with criticism of liberalism and mass politics.
Mass Politics As The Future of the Communist Movement
In conclusion, the success of revolutionary socialism depends on reconnecting with the masses by adopting pragmatic approaches. By moving beyond syncretic ultra-leftism, moral posturing, and left-identitarianism, communists can refocus our optics, develop mass-line strategies, and create solidarity across diverse working-class communities. Effective political praxis must reject performative tactics. Revolutionary socialists must engage with concrete material conditions, fostering genuine relationships with the masses and guiding them toward class consciousness through shared struggle, rather than alienating rhetoric or doctrinaire purity. In this way, revolutionary socialism can reclaim its historic position as a transformative force for collective emancipation.
Footnotes
Fisher, M. (2013, November 24). Exiting the Vampire Castle. OpenDemocracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/
Connolly, J. (1904). James Connolly: Wages and other things (1904). Marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1904/condel/conrep.htm
Von Klark, L. (2025, January 5). Ultraleftism Ascendant: Understanding the Infantile Disorder - Aontacht Media. Aontacht Media. https://aontachtmedia.ie/2025/01/05/ultraleftism-ascendant-understanding-the-infantile-disorder/
Lenin, V. (1918). Extraordinary Seventh Congress of the R.C.P.(B.): Section One. Www.marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/7thcong/01.htm
Lenin, V. (1920, June). “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder. Www.marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
Browder, E. (1936). What is Communism? Marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/browder/what-is-communism/
Von Klark, L. (2025, January 5). Ultraleftism Ascendant: Understanding the Infantile Disorder - Aontacht Media. Aontacht Media. https://aontachtmedia.ie/2025/01/05/ultraleftism-ascendant-understanding-the-infantile-disorder/
Cozzarelli, T. (2020, June 16). Class Reductionism Is Real, and It’s Coming from the Jacobin Wing of the DSA. Left Voice. https://www.leftvoice.org/class-reductionism-is-real-and-its-coming-from-the-jacobin-wing-of-the-dsa/
Cineas, F. (2022, September 12). The Marxist scholar who thinks reparations are “a waste of time.” Vox. https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2022/9/12/23345041/reparations-counterproductive-adolph-reed
Jr, A. R. (2023, August 9). The Uses of Affirmative Action. Www.thenation.com. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/affirmative-action-inequality/
Reed, A. (2018). Antiracism: a neoliberal alternative to a left. Dialectical Anthropology, 42(2), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-017-9476-3
Reed, A. (2016, September 16). How Racial Disparity Does Not Help Make Sense of Patterns of Police Violence. Nonsite.org. https://nonsite.org/how-racial-disparity-does-not-help-make-sense-of-patterns-of-police-violence/
Burgis, B. (2021). We Can’t Cancel Ourselves Into a Better World. Jacobin.com. https://jacobin.com/2021/05/canceling-comedians-while-the-world-burns-cancel-culture-moralism-social-media
Jaradat, M. (2022, February 14). Perspective: We need a poor people’s box now. Deseret News. https://www.deseret.com/2022/2/13/22914653/perspective-we-need-a-poor-peoples-box-now-diversity-affirmative-action-supreme-court/
Kupswezski, S. (2024, December 7). The importance of language in revolutionary struggle. Socialist Voice. https://socialistvoice.ie/2024/12/the-importance-of-language-in-revolutionary-struggle/
Martin, J. (2024, December). Brian Schatz to Democrats: Talk Like Normal People - POLITICO. POLITICO; Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/27/brian-schatz-democrats-talk-like-normal-people-00196058
Von Klark, L. (2025, January 5). Ultraleftism Ascendant: Understanding the Infantile Disorder - Aontacht Media. Aontacht Media. https://aontachtmedia.ie/2025/01/05/ultraleftism-ascendant-understanding-the-infantile-disorder/
Sakai, J. (1983). Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat.
Sykes , J. (2024, December 4). Marxism-Leninism and the theory of settler-colonialism in the United States. Fight Back! News. https://fightbacknews.org/articles/marxism-leninism-and-the-theory-of-settler-colonialism-in-the-united-states
Browder, E. (1936). What is Communism? Marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/browder/what-is-communism/
Lenin, V. (1919). Anti-Jewish Pogroms. Www.marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/x10.htm
Lenin, V. (1920, June). “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder. Www.marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
