📓 Modern Communist Manifest

👤 NathanR
🏷 reddit communism

The Non-Economic and Economic Nationalist ManifestoA modern communist manifesto.

Concise theory designed to help with recognizing which parties are anti-revisionist or revisionist. Reading theory in depth is important, but the barrier to entry for a base level competency of advanced political topics is too high because it unnecessarily requires reading too many books.

Non-Economic and Economic NationalismThere are two main categories of policies: progressive and regressive. There are two main sub-categories of policies: non-economic and economic. In the long term, progressive or regressive economic policies force society to adopt progressive or regressive non-economic policies, respectively. In the short term, progressive economic policies can only make the economic aspect of non-economic policies progressive, effectively making economic and non-economic policies separate during this time. 

There are two main categories of oppression: non-economic and economic. There are additional sub-categories of both. There are two main sub-categories of economic oppression: economic, non-exploitative and economic, exploitative.

There are two main relational categories of nationalism: non-economic and economic. Progressive nationalism is base nationalism where no regressive oppression of foreign nations occurs, but either term is fine.

Progressive non-economic nationalism = single nation countries

Progressive economic nationalism = communism

Progressive Economic Nationalism (Communism)The only main economic systems are communism, capitalism, and feudalism so economically one can only be a communist, capitalist, or feudalist, respectively. Anti-communism during capitalism is no different than anti-capitalism during feudalism. Capitalists are betraying the economic revolution now just as feudalists did in the past. Hybrid models of these economic systems are possible. Semi-capitalist and semi-feudalist countries exist today. As do semi-communist and semi-capitalist countries. But semi-communist countries are revisionist communist countries that are basically building capitalism instead of communism.

Private propertyism and private propertyist are also useful terms to combat capitalists who try to portray themselves as something else. Anti-capitalism is communism or feudalism. Anti-private propertyism is communism. Revisionist communism is semi-communism or capitalism. Anti-communism is capitalism or feudalism. 

Those who try to claim anti-capitalist, anti-private propertyist, and anti-communist titles simultaneously are capitalists (private propertyists). Those who think a progressive state isn’t required to keep private property banned during the transition to communism are private propertyists, because they can’t enforce the ban without a state. Those who wrongly try to deny they’re revisionist communists or capitalists are private propertyists, because they can’t escape that title since they’re blatantly allowing private property to exist. 

The most progressive economic nationalism is communism because each economic system is more economic nationalist than the next and because only communism can solve the economic contradictions that capitalism poses. Communism nationalizes all industries too. So one is either an anti-economic nationalist (capitalist) or an economic nationalist (communist). Because communism is a sub-category of nationalism and not vice versa.

Capitalism is anti-economic nationalist, technologically regressive, and anti-science compared to communism because its for profit production doesn’t allow for a nation’s labor value to only benefit its workers, slows technological progress, and accelerates climate change, respectively.

There are two main categories of capitalists: temporary anti-imperialist and imperialist. Capitalists can only be temporary anti-imperialists, because eventually they will try to turn imperialist due to the for profit production of capitalism. So only communists can be permanent anti-imperialists.

In the modern era there are three main categories of imperialism (global exploitation of surplus value): net exploiter imperialist, net exploited semi-imperialist, or net exploited imperialized. Net exploiter or exploited is short for net economic, exploitative oppressor or oppressed, respectively.

Net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries exhibit regressive economic nationalism because they exploit foreign nations. Net exploited semi-imperialist semi-communist or capitalist countries exhibit both progressive and regressive economic nationalism because they try to resist exploitation but also significantly exploit. Net exploited imperialized semi-communist or capitalist countries exhibit progressive economic nationalism because they try to resist exploitation.

Those who use terms like economic populism or patriotism are afraid of the word nationalism, because its non-economic and/or economic aspects are too revolutionary for them. Communism to nationalists is a means to an end to do what’s economically best for the nation, not an end in itself. Nationalists fight for their people in both categories, not only the economic category. Communists in net exploiter imperialist countries who don’t care about the non-economic category would be more useful to the revolution by anonymously donating their imperialist wages to militant communist and temporary anti-imperialist capitalist parties in net exploited imperialized countries, than continuing to pay dues to revisionist communist parties in their own countries who promote capitalist reform policies.

Communism is a universal fact that different species across different galaxies utilize. It was not invented by humans. So no specific sub-ideology other than communism (economic nationalism) is required for the economic category. The general ideology is nationalism that’s comprised of both the non-economic and economic categories. So ultimately one is either an anti-nationalist or a nationalist. But communists should be interested in the correct positions no matter where they’re from, they should be judged by their political lines. And not having a specific sub-ideology is a more efficient way to combat revisionism, dogmatism, and maintain a communist party, that before the revolution, constantly breaks parties one into two with those who hold the incorrect positions. Because it’s more revolutionary to have a small correct communist party than a large incorrect one.

Communism is solely an economic policy and its sole purpose is to abolish all forms of private property and class to liberate the proletariat class (industrial workers who produce surplus value and have nothing to lose but their chains) from regressive economic, exploitative oppression. The means of production need to be owned by all the workers collectively and centrally planned. All products produced by the means of production they produce constitute private property, nobody will be allowed to own them. This includes surplus value that can be in the form of shareholder wealth and imperialist high wages. 

Dictatorship of the Proletariat needs to be established, with a one party state utilizing Democratic Centralism and majority rule. A progressive authoritarian communist building state needs to be required to keep private property banned until the state withers away. All forms of government are authoritarian dictatorships, they’re either communist, capitalist, or feudalist. But despite the various forms of dictatorship, there’s still some democracy within and the masses of people control the government, insofar as economism/materialism allows them to, because the politicians are mostly representatives of the workers. And there’s no such thing as corruption, when anyone steals surplus value they’re acting as a capitalist.

In the long term, to maintain a communist building state, economic-political capital (forces of production) is primary while cultural-political capital is secondary. In the short term, cultural-political capital (relations of production) can also be primary to the aforementioned goal. 

Part of the reason the latter can be primary in the short term is because even though it’s ultimately the workers who control the type of government, revisionist communists have taken over the communist parties and conducted counter-revolution. So a Cultural Revolution needs to take place to revolutionize the masses and help prevent revisionist communists from joining the communist party by progressive economic, non-exploitative oppressing them. Past conscious revisionist communists have killed anti-revisionist communists and contributed to social murder by restoring private property, so we can’t be lenient on them. And like capitalism, communism will require multiple revolutions to solidify its rule. 

To revolutionize the masses, communists need to produce a limited number of main, overarching Cultural Revolution instruction pieces that are concise for effective teaching, to respects workers’ time. These pieces need to include nationalism and labor aristocracy information. The masses don’t view communists as both non-economic and economic nationalists and it’s a problem, it’s time to correct that. And proletarians shouldn’t pursue the unstable labor aristocracy status, which is discussed further in the next section.

Additionally, all classes aren’t abolished just because private property is banned under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Despite the capitalist/bourgeoisie class being abolished, the unproductive and productive workers, and their sub-categories, remain different classes. This class distinction can only be abolished when the forces of production develop enough. Until that happens the proletariat class still needs these other worker classes for society to function, despite unproductive workers being more susceptible to counter-revolution.

Eventually maybe the communist party shouldn’t run the country and should instead focus on working with the masses and performing economic theory work. It could be that only the state needs to be strong to prevent counter-revolution, not necessarily the communist party. Referendums could be included to draw the workers into directly running the country, along with mandating contested elections. This would create a mix of representative and direct democracy to give the workers more of a say in the country. These methods will have to be practiced to be tested though, as they’re not certain and could be inefficient.

The purpose of communism is defeating both foreign imperialist capitalism and domestic capitalism. So communists cannot blame capitalists or external factors for failing to build communism.

Capitalist reforms are promoted in various economic systems such as communism, net exploiter imperialist capitalism, and net exploited imperialized capitalism. Each reform has its own independent problem and must be dealt with separately as no two reforms are identical. Capitalists accept that feudalism couldn’t be reformed, but regressive hypocritically don’t follow the same logic with capitalism.

During communism, revisionist communists promote capitalist reforms by taking more than a decade to ban private property after taking state control, producing for profit instead of for use, legalizing private property, denationalizing industries, creating a stock market, not industrializing, funding counter-revolution abroad, promoting domestic and/or foreign peaceful co-existence with the capitalists instead of expropriating them, party pluralism, etc. But capitalist reforms should be opposed completely because they’re not necessary to build communism since economism has already given us the knowledge that we didn’t have during feudalism to build the productive forces and change the relations of production from capitalist to communist. 

During net exploiter imperialist capitalism, revisionist communists promote capitalist reforms by supporting wage increases for the labor aristocracy, claiming only a section of workers are labor aristocrats when it’s all workers, claiming their workers are proletarians but then conveniently not building an army, promoting the false idea that capitalist reforms will lead to communism, pacifism, mutual-aid, harm reduction, etc. 

During net exploited imperialized capitalism, revisionist communist promote most of the same capitalist reform policies listed above, but the main reform is not building an army when the proletariat exists, because pacifists shouldn’t complain about being exploited if they’re not willing to fight.

A communist party is near useless until it builds an army, even those in net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries where it’s not time to build one since there’s no proletariat. One can’t become a communist until they’re in an anti-revisionist, militant communist party that has an army. Before then they’re communist sympathizers, and pretend revolutionaries if they think otherwise.

Anyone refuting already proven policies is a revisionist communist or a capitalist. Previous communist leaders who may have disagreed with some of these policies were not conscious revisionist communists because they had to go through trial and error practice to discover these new policies. But contemporary communists are conscious revisionist communists because they refuse to accept the lessons that have already been learned. One can only be an unconscious revisionist communist when theorizing a new policy that hasn’t been practiced. 

Capitalists, capitalist sympathizers, and revisionist communists are anti-intellectuals who want an opinion based world, instead of fact based, to protect private property by denying facts, ignoring contradictions, and promoting regressive policies. Because despite violently overthrowing the feudalists and conducting social murder, they all still contradict themselves and denounce communists for using violence. Facts should be presented not propaganda, whether it’s communist or capitalist. Communists should never lie to the masses of people. Free speech is a myth in any system, whether communist or capitalist. The message should be criticized, not the messenger or the tone. Continued political engagement with those who deny facts once shown is a waste of time since they’re not willing to accept reality.

Anti-Regressive Economic Nationalism (Anti-Imperialism, Anti-Unequal Exchange, and Anti-Labor Aristocracy)The masses of people’s economic views primarily arise from the economic conditions/materialism. The economic conditions produce revolution in a country mainly when the economic system can no longer develop the forces of production, when a war breaks out, or when the workers are exploited — and lack of revolution when the workers aren’t exploited. The masses of people, not individuals, hold the power to revolution when they choose to follow a disciplined communist party.

All legal workers in net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries are imperialist labor aristocrats who only have high wages/quality of life because they exploit workers in net exploited imperialized capitalist countries through unequal exchange. They’re not exploited because they receive near or above the full value of their labor in the form of high wages, which are made possible by the stolen surplus value from abroad. Once a worker crosses a certain wage on a global basis under imperialism, say ~$8+/hour in 2025 USD, then they become a labor aristocrat, regardless of other factors due to value transfer considerations. It’s not only a sub-section of workers that can be labor aristocrats in a country, it can be all workers from all nations in that country. 

So no nations inside the net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries face regressive economic, exploitative oppression. They may face other types of oppression, like regressive economic, non-exploitative or regressive non-economic oppression. But they’re all regressive economic, exploitative oppressor nations. Imperialist, labor aristocratic nations. Labor aristocrats are a separate class of workers, regardless of other class categories. Which makes them class enemies of the global proletariat. This is the main economic reason that the masses of workers in these countries are pro-imperialist capitalism and anti-communism, because they’re labor aristocrats who are products of their economic environment. This also includes non-feudal, non-labor aristocrats who benefit from imperialism without working.

And like the capitalists, they will not give up their labor aristocracy status willingly. They need to be forced to by the net exploited imperialized capitalist countries, who will need to cease unequal exchange trade, if not all trade, with net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries to end their high wages. This is why the net exploited imperialized capitalist countries will turn communist first, because communism offers a higher quality of life than net exploited imperialized capitalism. Communism currently doesn’t offer a higher quality of life than net exploiter imperialist capitalism though. So communism in one country, and not a world permanent revolution, should be the standard. Because labor aristocrats aren’t ready for communism and also because communist revolution is a nationalist struggle at first and an internationalist struggle second. 

It’s not impossible that the labor aristocracy could be bypassed with other methods though, like progressive non-economic nationalism or failure to continue to develop the productive forces under imperialism since labor aristocrats could decide to abandon imperialism for communism in order to save their nation from being replaced or to just have better productive forces if communism manages to develop the productive forces better than imperialist capitalism in the future, respectively. 

It’s regressive economically to ignore or downplay the fact that imperialism and high wages preserve capitalism while explicitly supporting higher wages/quality of life for labor aristocrats. Labor aristocracy denialism and the redistribution of stolen wealth only fuels imperialist capitalism. Those who do this in net exploiter imperialist countries are imperialist capitalists and can’t really even be considered revisionist communists, because again it’s the economic conditions that determine economic views. If a communist party in a net exploiter imperialist capitalist country supports higher wages for the labor aristocracy, then they’re conscious imperialist capitalists because they’re labor aristocrats benefitting from imperialism. If a communist party in a net exploited imperialized capitalist country supports higher wages for the labor aristocracy in net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries, then they’re unconscious revisionist communists solely on this issue because they’re not labor aristocrats benefitting from imperialism. They shouldn’t support higher wages for labor aristocrats in their own countries either though, a class analysis needs to be performed.

During net exploiter imperialist capitalism these capitalist reforms need to be opposed, because it’s regressive economically to raise imperialist wages/quality of life and because capitalist reforms don’t lead to communism. But during net exploited imperialized capitalism, these capitalist reforms can be supported because they’re not imperialist wages/quality of life. But it still needs to be stated to the masses that raising wages/quality of life are not solutions in the long term, because again capitalist reforms don’t lead to communism.

Settler-immigration has two main categories: non-violent and violent. The violent form is settler-colonialism, which is regressive non-economic and economic nationalism. 

The labor aristocracy nations have four main categories: host, non-violent settler, violent settler, and multi.

The host nation labor aristocracy is the “native” nation in a country that has become labor aristocratic (native is in quotes because no people are actually native to any land). The non-violent settler nation labor aristocracy has immigrated. The violent settler nation labor aristocracy has settled after genociding most of the host nation. The multi nation labor aristocracy can be all of these nations. There can also be more than one host and violent settler nation in a country. And whatever nation an immigrant assimilates into is the nation they belong to, so it’s possible to immigrate non-violently and then immediately become part of the violent settler nation. Recognition of these nations are is crucial and can’t be done without a correct nation definition, which is discussed in the next section.

If the host nation doesn’t have a violent settler nation present in the country, then the host nation in charge of the country. If the host nation does have a violent settler nation present in the country, then then violent settler nation is in charge of the country, unless the host nation has taken back control.

The contradictions in a labor aristocratic and/or settler country are interchangeable in order of importance, depending on the situation. If all workers from all nations in a country are labor aristocrats, then the primary contradiction is that the multi nation labor aristocracy will try to resist communism. If only the in charge host or violent settler nation in a country are labor aristocrats, then the primary contradiction is that in charge host or violent settler nation labor aristocracy will try to resist communism by first scapegoating the other non-labor aristocratic nations and also starting new imperialist wars on foreign countries, and this could also apply to multi nation countries and/or unions without non violent settler-immigrants. If no workers are labor aristocrats in a country, but there’s an in charge violent settler nation present, then the primary contradiction is that the violent settler nation will try to resist communism by first scapegoating the host and non-violent settler nations. Non-violent and violent settler immigrant nations can be just as anti-immigrant as host nations. Settler nations can also become host nations.

These contradictions are difficult to solve because it’s uncertain if communist revolution or secession or remigration for the non-violent or violent settler nations should come first. But even after revolution both of them either need to remigrate, assimilate, or secede because they’re both limiting the growth of the host nations. The violent settler nations probably need to be defeated in a war first and forced to remigrate if they’re the in charge majority, but even this varies because if they become a minority from national replacement through non-violent settler immigration, then that could solve violent settlerism.

Communists should stay neutral in inter-imperialist wars between countries that want to stay or become imperialist. But communists can support the premise of warring capitalists trying to destroy each other because it can help communism take root, and there has to be a war in the first place for communists to be able to denounce it to win the masses over.

Imperialist capitalism doesn’t want every country fully industrialized. Net exploited imperialized capitalist or semi-feudalist countries need to realize it hurts their chances of industrializing. So they should turn communist if they can, decouple from net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries if necessary, primarily trade with countries who have a similar price level, set up a tax on exports with the net barter terms of trade economic concept, and build a strong national defense through nuclear weapons and an army.

Whether these countries choose the communist or capitalist path to industrialize, they should be supported initially in a united front either way. But after they gain progress, communist parties in these countries should then be primarily supported as only communism can fully industrialize and end exploitation in general. Anti-imperialist capitalists can only be trusted in the short term to not sell out the nation. So communists parties must always maintain political independence and state that communism is the only correct path.

The only time a communist country can engage in unequal exchange and not be considered revisionist is if they trade with capitalist countries richer than themselves to gain access to some certain product or technology. If they engage in unequal exchange with countries poorer than themselves, then they are seeking to take advantage of other nations for monetary profit reasons and not only for access to certain products or technology. Industrialization also needs be required for building communism because countries must be self-reliant to counter revisionist communists and capitalists who want to use them as colonies to extract natural resources.

Communist countries need to also teach their citizens about the labor aristocracy and unequal exchange to prevent false capitalist propaganda from portraying capitalism as a better option to communism. Because communist countries in the past weren’t aware that entire countries could be labor aristocratic so they falsely told their people that workers in all capitalist countries are struggling despite it not being true. People need to know that net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries are only rich and have high wages because they exploit other countries, and that it’s not a stable economic system. So labor aristocracy status shouldn’t be pursued. This is why the topic of the labor aristocracy is important outside of the imperialist countries.

Progressive Non-Economic Nationalism and Internationalism (Nation)Internationalism isn’t possible without nationalism. It’s in the name. Internationalism is not cosmopolitanism or interpatriotism. One can’t be an internationalist without also being a nationalist. Progressive non-economic nationalism and internationalism are when nations govern themselves in single nation countries and form alliances, respectively. Progressive economic nationalism and internationalism are when exploitation ends domestically and abroad, respectively.

A nation is current historical constitution resemblance and language. Or current race and language. Basically one has to look and speak the part. Those who use terms like ethnicity and person of color are trying to distract from the fact that resemblance and language are nation dividers, because they don’t want people to learn their real nationality. It’s not possible to be loyal to two nations. Those who are mixed resemblance and/or language will have to continue assimilating. Past prominent communist leaders have agreed that resemblance is a nation divider. Lingually, it’s telling the language one thinks in is the nation they belong to. Ancestry is irrelevant because of assimilation, and it’s impossible to tell accurately anyways so we have to go by the current status in both categories.

Having the correct nation definition is important because it’s impossible to analyze geopolitics correctly without it.

People and languages preceded class, so nations exist outside of the non-economic social superstructure and economic base. This doesn’t contradict the fact that nationalism has adjacent relational non-economic and economic categories though. But relational categories aside, nations themselves are about the people, not the land/oppression status/type of government/political ideology/culture/etc.

Communists who claim otherwise usually have an inconsistent nation definition and are basically trying to sweep national contradictions under the rug, they aren’t much better than anti-border communists who claim nations shouldn’t exist at all, despite communist countries requiring borders to defend against imperialist capitalism. Neither want resemblance and/or language independence for people. To be both a non-economic and economic nationalist, one must meet the three main independence and merger categories: resemblance, language, and communist economy. Missing any categories results in only being 1/3 or 2/3 nationalist.

Communism and capitalism are only economic systems, they can be either single or multi nation. But single nation countries are a progressive non-economic policy because nations governing themselves in their own countries should be the standard. So multi nation countries and/or unions are a regressive non-economic policy. International alliances need to be formed instead. Communist nations who trap other nations are regressive non-economic oppressor nations. Some past communist leaders have wanted large multi nation communist countries and/or unions to counter the large capitalist countries, but there’s no reason alliances can’t accomplish the same goal.

Most communists agree on secession/self-determination of nations, so single nation countries aren’t too controversial. Some communists inconsistently promote secession for one regressive non-economic and/or economic oppressor or oppressed nation while denying it for another. But all nations, regardless if they’re oppressors or oppressed, should be allowed to secede because single nation countries are progressive, and make for more effective decolonization too. And it’s not racism or supremacy to desire national independence.

A mixture of merger, secession, population transfer relocation, reverse assimilation, assimilation, remigration, etc. policies need to be utilized to create single nation countries and solve the national question worldwide. Nations can form one connected country on separate continents. Eventually single nation planets might be a reality as well. Nations should always be supported when they’re trying to reunite their nation, regardless of other factors. The only time nation should split up is when half wants to turn communist and the other half doesn’t, but even then the communist side should always plan to reunite.

Non-violent settler-immigration is caused by imperialist capitalism because capitalists in net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries want immigrants for various purposes such as: supposedly cheaper but non-exploitative domestic labor, using immigrants to fill jobs nobody wants to do, combatting low birth rates without raising the standard of living, using pseudo-diversity to make all countries made up of the same people to protect capitalism by dividing workers, weakening host and/or settler nation land claims to prevent them from being anti-immigration, desiring workers on temporary visas so they can easily deport them if they cause political or union trouble, etc. Regardless of single or multi nation countries, communism would end mass immigration.

Violent settler-immigration is also caused by imperialist capitalism for various reasons such as seeking new lands to exploit, etc.

Host nations experience national resemblance and language replacement through various ways such as violent settler-immigration, non-violent settler-immigration, annexation, distant language assimilation, etc. Non-violent and violent settler nations can become host nations. Historically, settler nations have become host nations by completely genociding and assimilating the previous host nations. 

National replacement through violent settler-immigration is wrongly supported in the name of economism to build capitalism or communism in those settled countries. National replacement through non-violent settler-immigration is wrongly supported in the name of economism to build communism in those host countries by using immigrants for revolution and to lower the labor aristocracy’s wages, which are debatable. National replacement through annexation is wrongly supported in the name of economism to counter imperialist countries who try to help the country being annexed.

It’s anti-internationalist to ask host nations to sacrifice themselves for any reason. This doesn’t apply to non-violent or violent settler nations. The only time communists should stay neutral on this matter is if multiple nations’ immediate independence are at stake on both sides of the conflict.

National resemblance replacement/demographic decline from non-violent settler-immigration is a statistically irrefutable phenomenon that needs to be opposed, as it’s national regressive economic, non-exploitative and/or non-economic oppression on the host nations. Communists who ignore it, but accept resemblance is a nation divider, should be criticized because they’re disregarding a real issue and basically supporting the extinction of host nations. Communists who also bring up lowering the labor aristocracy’s wages with immigration, but don’t also bring up national resemblance replacement are intentionally being dishonest. Most communists get hysterical whenever this factual, taboo topic is brought up because they’re not brave enough to be nationalists and internationalists, and their own cowardice angers them.

Total anti-protectionists claim that using non-violent settler-immigration to lower wages can alone end the labor aristocracy. But this is uncertain for many reasons. Imperialism can raise wages to outpace the wage elasticity of immigration. If it does lower wages it might not lower them enough to be meaningful, the current slow immigration might not end the labor aristocracy in any frame (it should only be supported if it could end it in a reasonable time frame so national replacement wouldn’t be a risk since it would lead to overcrowding instead of replacement, with remigration after). 

Completely open borders with no work permit restrictions might end the labor aristocracy in a reasonable time frame, but we don’t know if imperialist capitalists would even allow it for various reasons like security. And they haven’t even tried to do it anyway, presumably because imperialism also requires borders. Immigrants are also alienated from revolutionary progressive nationalism, and using them for revolution wrongly reduces them to pawns on a chess board.

The only certain way to end the labor aristocracy permanently is by net exploited imperialized countries turning communist and stopping unequal exchange trade, anything else could rightfully be considered conjecture. Being against immigration in this regard is also not downplaying imperialism’s role in preserving capitalism, so it’s okay to oppose it. Plus who’s to say that restricting immigration entirely wouldn’t actually impede imperialism in other ways? The only exception to allowing immigration would be if the immigrants could readily assimilate and only have to learn the language, but even that’s harmful because it depopulates the nation the immigrants are leaving from.

It’s certain that national resemblance replacement is currently occurring for some host nations. But what’s uncertain is if replacement will outpace assimilation. Because a lot of immigrants and their offspring tend to assimilate. Only time will tell if this will be the case under capitalism though. But either way, as long as capitalism and the labor aristocracy exist, non-violent settler-immigration is unlikely to end, so during this time immigrants who have strategic intent to assimilate themselves and their offspring, into both the resemblance and language categories, shouldn’t be vilified. Society also has to be pro-assimilation or else mixed people won’t be accepted and have nowhere to go.

Aside from national replacement, national regressive economic, non-exploitative and non-economic oppression is disappearing in the net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries. Because as a result of national replacement and pseudo-diversity, the personnel spots in law enforcement are becoming increasingly filled by non-host and/or non-violent settler nations. Imperialist capitalists have little use for the host and violent settler (after a period of time) nations now, and communists in net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries who think otherwise are failing to adapt to imperialism’s changing landscape. But all nations in net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries don’t really have a desire to secede despite the various regressive non-economic oppressions they face, because they don’t want to risk forfeiting their high imperialist wages.

Contradictions, whether non-economic or economic, don’t just disappear. So those who don’t have a consistent nation definition and don’t want nations to govern themselves in single nation countries are fighting a losing battle. Because regardless of the economic system, nations will always fight for their independence. Even if issues like national replacement, whether it’s the resemblance and/or language aspect, could be solved in a multi nation country, the contradiction that a nation isn’t truly governing themselves won’t end unless they’re in a single nation country. The only time single nation countries can be contended is if a nation keeps trying to start imperialist wars and refuses to pay reparations, in which case drastic measures like occupation can be taken in the short term, with the long term goal of ending the occupation.

Pre-revolution in a multi nation capitalist controlled country, a communist party can be either single or multi nation as long as all members are required to support single nation countries. And with the knowledge of the correct nation definition, where the same nations exist in multiple countries and continents, communists should use their imperialist wage savings to leave their unrevolutionary net exploiter imperialist capitalist countries and go help wage revolution in the net exploited imperialized capitalist countries where their proletarianized nation is in charge of the country or able to secede.

The nationalism of the economic and/or non-economic oppressor nation is regressive compared to the progressive nationalism of the economic and/or non-economic oppressed nation. And oppressors complaining about being oppressed, while not trying to stop being oppressors, is insincere. But nationalism can always be progressive as long as it’s based against regressive non-economic and economic oppression. Progressive nationalism isn’t just for combatting imperialism and violent settlerism, it’s also needed to build communism.

Nation examples:

European-English (white-English) nation = U.S./Canada/UK/Australia/New Zealand

• Host nation status in the settler countries is uncertain, but if remigration back to England and national language reverse assimilation and remigration back to Europe don’t occur, all seceded parts of these countries will be renamed to a European/white version of England and will retain the red and white England flag

• Ireland/Scotland/Wales need to reverse assimilate by predominantly speaking their own languages again if they want to be independent or fully embrace the English identity and rename their countries to England

• European-English people in South Africa are few in number and will need to remigrate back to a European-English country

African-English (black-English) nation = U.S./England/Jamaica/Trinidad/Guyana/Belize/Papua New Guinea/Cameroon/etc.

• Host nation status in the U.S. and England is uncertain, but if national language reverse assimilation and remigration from the U.S. and England back to Africa or to other African-English countries don’t occur, all seceded parts of these countries will be renamed to an African/black version of England with a new flag

• Jamaica and other countries need to decide if they want to reverse assimilate and speak their own languages predominantly again or only speak English

• The South Asian Indian-English nation in Trinidad and Guyana will need to secede

Published by NathanR