Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

4 Comments

  1. This sort of Shactmanite propaganda only works if your audience can’t define imperialism, and has no idea what a national liberation movement actually is.

    According to these dupes, ‘national liberation’ is being a (far-right religious) mercenary who supports the U.S. plan to occupy Syria, which Paul Wolfowitz first revealed to Gen. Wesley Clark in 1991.

    Supposedly ‘national liberation’ is supporting seven decades of C.I.A. destabilisation in Ukraine S.S.R., based around the funding of Nazi collaborators and other ultranationalists — who in 2014 overthrew the government, and crushed the labour movement (by banning the opposition parties and press outlets).

    We are also told to support the related U.S. policy to ‘liberate’ Russia, by smashing it up into tiny warring statelets (the ‘Captive Nations Policy’ and the C.S.C.E. ‘Decolonisation Plan’).

    The ‘liberation’ of Libya was perhaps even worse, when apparently free healthcare, education, electricity and housing all had to be abolished — so the U.S. could install fanatical ultraconservative goons as the ‘liberators’.

  2. Shactmanite never heard of it.
    Is Shactmanite like Krytonite to Campists?

    Wow

    I think I will keep some with me.

    So I have learnt another new word. I didn’t know what Shactmanite was, so I had to look it up. It seems that Shactmanite is like Krptonite to Campists. Who knew? I didn’t. I guess it doesn’t hurt to know the terminology. I didn’t know what a campist was either, not until I read Daphne Lawless excellent explanation. Which made it all clear to me.
    Now I know why some people who claim to be ‘Left’, and even espouse left causes, can heartlessly justify, and excuse, mass murder and imperialist aggression and invasion. Because mass murder and military aggression and invasion, isn’t mass murder and military aggression and invasion, if it’s not done by the US.
    I didn’t know that either.

    1. When Dan La Botz recently coined his new ‘campism’ slogan in the pages of the D.S.A. journal, what was he referring to?

      La Botz did not create a new theory. His position is the Third Camp position of Max Schactman, which the Harringtonites of the D.S.A. always supported.

      His article simply declared that opponents of Schactmanism should now be called ‘campists’.

      This is the same Dan La Botz who supports virtually every U.S. regime change operation: calling for the overthrow of the governments of Nicaragua, Cuba, Syria, Iran, China, and Russia.

      He openly promotes this by featuring N.E.D. funded speakers at his conferences.

      Of course, this puts him in direct opposition to the labour movement in all those countries — an inevitable consequence of Schactmanism.

      Unsurprisingly, La Botz does not want people at home to rise up against their own government, or even start their own party. The D.S.A. claims that workers must instead make an alliance with Wall Street liberals!

Comments are closed.