CW: A really shitty rant our central committee couldn’t agree on the contents of.

Earlier in Worker’s Spatula’s history, before we had intervened so much in the internet left that we became known personalities, even if nobody but the ISO dare speak our name in their publications, people were unsure what the point of Worker’s Spatula was. Not just in terms of the project’s political role, which even we are often unsure of, being too fixated on the Process (SWT), but also in terms of what we stood for in terms of Marxist theory.

People who read us would wonder, how much of what we say is satire, how much is genuine? On one forum, a person once even asked something to the effect of “do you think they’re making fun of communists from the inside or the outside?” and was responded to with something to the effect of “it must be the inside, who else could be this fanatically angry about Trotsky?”

Well internet, we are indeed angry about Trotsky. We’re angry because when he got hit with the ice axe, he didn’t die, but rather lived on in his formal and essential followers’ “praxis”.

While formal Trotskyism is thankfully retreating even from the imperialist centres which are its historical home, there are still some Trots who can continue to recruit. This fact is deeply offensive and must spur us to action. There must be no Trots. Trots? Down with them!

What do we want? Not Trots!

When do we want them? We do not want them at any time.

Furthermore, even if all of these scoundrels gave up on the cult of Trotsky, there are many so-called “Marxist-Leninists” who are carrying on his work in essence. This relates to a piece by a Maoist friend, in which he attempts to draw a line of demarcation between us and himself on the question of how to approach Trotskyism…

1) Our friends, the Maoists

While, elhamdulillah, this page is run by “Hoxhaites”, we none the less remain on good terms with many Maoists, both Gonzaloites/MLMs and those who hold what appear to be anti-revisionist positions (including against the Dengites) but who claim to uphold Marxism-Leninism and “Mao Zedong Thought”.

Anyone who has been seriously following us knows that among these is known friend of the page J. Moufawad Paul, who is rightly something of a celebrity theorist among Anglo anti-revisionists, and thanks to his contribution to Abstrakt, among Turkish anti-revisionists as well. In addition to his extremely valuable interventions on Marxist theory in general, some of the most critical and theoretically serious of contemporary Maoists, he has also penned a polemic in defence of his own ideology directed against the Trotskyites. While it should go without saying that everyone at Worker’s Spatula has disagreements with the text, we wish to be very precise in where we agree and where we disagree, and further, we do encourage interested readers to actually read it, unlike the usual left internet practice of reading nothing and then chastising anarchists for “lacking theory”, so that we can be clear on what precisely our dividing lines are. Of main relevance to the sort of interventions to which the Spatula is committed, JMP refers to:

“the older question of “Leninism or Trotskyism?” asked by anti-revisionists or rugged orthodox Stalinists. The latter was a question that was often asked in bad faith because it began by presupposing that, true to the Stalinist narrative of Trotsky’s expulsion from the Soviet Union, Trotsky was an arch anti-Leninist, a “wrecker”, and possibly even an agent for imperialist reactionaries.”

JMP is not, he would admit, representative of all Maoists when he speaks of the Marxist-Leninist tradition as having been fundamentally mistaken when…

In those days it was enough to call Trotskyists “revisionists”––or worse, “social fascists” and “wreckers”––and then attempt to ignore them… except when their more orthodox adherents showed up at an event they hadn’t helped organize to chastise everyone for being fake communists. [–p.3]

That is, he writes this knowing full well that most Maoists relish attacking Trotskyites in exactly the same terms as all other “Stalinists”, as wreckers and frauds and objective agents of the enemy, etc. And JMP has shown in theory and in practice that he draws a clear line of demarcation between people like us on the one hand, and the Trots on other (whom he does not view as a sincere revolutionary movement, even lauding the leftcoms above them!). In spite of strong formal disagreements (his need to claim that Trotsky personally was being “honest”, our attacks on Trotsky as a “rhetorical swamp”, etc.), JMP seems to essentially agree with us that “Trotskyism” is a revolutionary “dead end”. Somehow, history has always prevented Trotskyism from even accidentally finding itself as much on the front lines of revolution (that it claims to aspire to) as almost any other trend (including trends that we and JMP would identify as “revisionist”, as well as trends which have never even claimed to be Marxist). And yet its followers persist, precisely as JMP identifies, not because it is a critical response to a “dogmatic” “Stalinism”, but because it is a cult.

But JMP is making a crucial point in attempting to distance himself from a reflexive “anti-Trotskyism”, which he explicates for us on the very next page of his own polemic (which again we implore people to read as a starting point for the delineation between the anti-revisionist critiques of the Soviet Union and the Trotskyite cult masquerading as criticism, in spite of our own disagreements):

The eventual behavour of a degenerated RCP-USA in the RIM proves that Maoists can also be wreckers. These are charges that can be made of communists in every Marxist tradition

Definitely, we cannot pretend that a formal non-Trotskyism means one is a sincere revolutionary, or that formal Trotskyism is automatically more “wrecking” behaviour in 2018 than its absence. There is however, the problem that Trotskyism is the “Marxist tradition” which defines itself in a heritage that, if we do not call it “wrecking”, can most generously be described as “non-revolutionary” (as JMP himself admits).

But, at this juncture, the Trotskyites likely would intervene and ask us how Trotsky was a wrecker. We must answer the questions of why we hate Trotsky and Trotskyism.

2) Why do we hate Trotsky?

First of all, it is extremely important for us to define our terms. Hopefully most people reading this know that when we speak of Trotsky as a “wrecker”, we believe he was wrecking actually-existing socialism. We, like JMP, consider that before the “market socialist” revisionism of the CPC, for example, there was something worth defending in the Chinese revolution that the Chinese masses and the Chinese Communist Party were fighting for, and something despicable and fraudulent in the Chinese Trotskyites’ attempts to split this movement on what were essentially utopian and counter-revolutionary grounds. But who was Trotsky, that Trotskyism should be built around him, in China or anywhere else? We agree with JMP, that Trotsky was ONCE engaged in apparently honest and even heroic revolutionary practice, within the Bolshevik Party, crucially BEFORE Trotskyism as such emerged as a trend (thus the period of Trotsky’s life which Trotskyism lauds is the period to which we anti-revisionists object). Further, of course, even if we appraised Trotsky as being, like Stalin, an honest Leninist to the end in spite of his shortcomings, even this would be too critical an appraisal for Trotsky himself, who unironically and sincerely believed that “Trotsky did nothing wrong”:

In all conscientiousness, I cannot, in the appreciation of the political situation as a whole and of its revolutionary perspectives, accuse myself of any serious errors of judgment. [–“My Life”, p.143]

Who among us would dare speak this way in earnest about ourselves as individuals in public as representatives of a Marxist movement? To hear Trotsky tell it, he made less serious errors than Marx (who every Marxist who has done any reading will certainly accuse of “serious errors of judgment”)! This is not the maturity of a political leader, it is not even the standard of self-criticism that you all hold our semi-joke page to! Lenin understood this well, summarising Trotsky’s delusions of grandeur thus:

“Trotsky is very fond of explaining historical events . . in pompous and sonorous phrases, in a manner flattering to Trotsky”

For more such “gotcha” quotes, any interested reader can peruse many other anti-revisionist pages which have already dedicated a great deal of energy to attacking the Trotskyites. We are hardly the first to publicly attack Trotsky for wanting to be crowned King of the Soviet Union on flimsy theoretical pretexts (as even diverse “anti-Stalinist” Marxists will agree Trotsky’s interventions were sectarian and self-serving rather than revolutionary and critical), or to gather together quotes of both Trotsky and Lenin exposing Trotsky’s narcissism (normal for cult leaders such as himself) in addition to his many errors (more numerous than Stalin’s, and like Enver Hoxha and Salma Hayek, we know Stalin made mistakes, but learn from them as we learn from our entire movement’s errors throughout its history, instead of trying to fashion a pure heritage ex nihilo).

But many people reading Worker’s Spatula are neither familiar nor interested in the full scope of these arguments, in the development of the Marxist-Leninist movement over its history, in the positions and theories of actually existing revolutionary organisations today. What they want to know, time and again, in the simplest language, is “why do you hate Trotsky so much?”. Surely we do not find anything wrong with movement-internal criticism, even when delivered by flawed figures? Do we detest him merely because we, like the Modern Revisionists, refuse to hear any criticisms of something that we consider to be a real-world manifestation of socialism (no matter its flaws), and attack anyone who dares point these out as “wrecker”? Why then do we not label Kollontai and the Workers’ Opposition “wreckers”? No comrades, there is something else beneath our hatred of Trotsky entirely, and at the risk of offending JMP and others, it is the dreaded anti-revisionism of yesteryear: we think Trotsky was personally counter-revolutionary in much the same way as Khrushchev. Stalin (like Hoxha) was a defiant Marxist-Leninist leader, not an essential theoretician (although we, like Che Guevara, do read him), but we defend such figures precisely in opposition to these groups.

Khurshchev’s perfidious and erroneous views, his treason to the revolutionary camp, are well known, and the many errors made by modern revisionists and anti-revisionists alike must be discussed in detail. But our subject here is Trotsky, and since he was expelled from the Soviet Union, he cannot be accused of surrendering the class struggle from within in the same way as Khrushchev, can he?

This would be a statist revisionism of Marxism, to suppose that the class struggle is personified only and entirely within the socialist state. While the socialist state is a crucial phase of transition, it too must wither away through the very process of revolution. But socialism is necessarily international in content, and the class struggle within socialist states is no less important than it is in the remaining “fully” capitalist world. It is here that Trotsky was able to carry out what we view as wrecking behaviour, in the crucial years when capitalism-imperialism’s child of crisis, fascism, was emerging as a real threat to the class struggle.

[at this point, some old Trot, probably in England, is reading this, sputtering out a fake laugh: “HA! HA! HA! isn’t that RICH? STALINISTS accusing TROTSKY of not being internationalist enough! Trotsky INVENTED internationalism by building a strong movement dedicated to saying nice things about him in ALL the major imperialist countries! Stalin was a nationalist, because not all Februaries Stalinists have supported became Octobers, whereas not a single October we have aimed for has ever stayed stuck at the point of a February, safely remaining in January!”]

It is our contention that Trotsky (“perhaps” knowingly and willingly) aided the fascists in interwar period as his main difference from Stalin. Thus, at the period of Trotskyism’s formation as Trotskyism, even if there had been no Soviet Union to defend, Trotsky was personally invested in disagreeing with the rest of the communist movement (“the Stalinists”, in his arbitrary terminology for anyone who didn’t think he should be king of the world) in such a way that harmed the masses in their struggle against fascism.


We very well could do that, Trots. Our movement read and responded to Trotsky and his allegations against the actual international communist movement, which was led by Stalin at the time, and Olgin was not wrong in his general telling of our side of the story. The Trotskyites can attempt to argue with us about Trotsky’s intentions at this or that period, and we admit that Trotsky may have been sincere in one period, but was Trotsky’s assessment of the fight against fascism correct? As Olgin articulates correctly, Trotsky wanted us to “take [social-]fascists at their word” in the name of a united front of “the working class”… yet a broad anti-fascist popular front in diverse is condemned as “social patriotism” as a means of condemning a strategy that… actually does confront and defeat fascism??? Comrades, we have heard this story before, from Bordiga in criticising the “Stalinist” who famously declared Trotskyism “the puttana of fascism”:

“Clearly, it was a double and incompatible historical vision: Gramsci’s clearly anticipated the line of the future Italian anti-fascist bloc, while I opposed it as resolutely as I could.”

…and yet again, Bordiga, for his grievous error, is still only viewed as workerist or ultra-left, and not an agent, as Trotsky was. What was so horrific in the figure of Trotsky that we are railing against him, today? Partially because Bordiga, for his part, was honest. Bordiga also opposed Trotsky as being similarly Leninist to Stalin (and many “Marxist traditions” struggle to delineate Stalin and Trotsky in theoretical terms, because both of their theoretical training was within the same party, led by Lenin), and would have opposed the united front consistently, whereas the Trotskyites supported it in opposition to the “Stalinist” popular front… except when a united front actually took hold, as in France!

The Trotskyites might protest:

“Bordiga left politics for years after you all accused him of ‘Trotskyism’, and his new movement never amounted to enough of a threat for you to vilify him, there’s the difference!”

But those who live in glass houses should not cast stones: in the long term, both Bordiga and Trotsky’s followers ended up being not much of a threat to our enemy, capitalism-imperialism, and its child, fascism. Both are mere wastes of the energy of potential revolutionaries who are pulled into their ranks. But Bordiga also is not accused of having colluded with the Japanese and German fascists, which might go a bit further than our “loyalty” to “bureaucracy” in explaining our animosity towards this particular figure, and our suspicion of his popularity as an “alternative” to “Stalinism” in several countries.

But this dichotomy between “Stalinism” (that is, most of the actual revolutionary history of 20th century Marxism, with all its mistakes) and “Trotskyism” (that is, a reflexive opposition to said history) would remain one of many more arcane theoretical points that only people on pages like Worker’s Spatula care about were it not for the physical construction of a “Trotskyist” movement in the form of the so-called “Fourth International”. Trotsky certainly led this effort, and his followers are proud of him for it, posing him as the equivalent of Lenin founding the Third International in light of the failings of the Second International for doing so. Let us compare the two cases…

3) The so-called “Fourth International” and its disintegration

Why do the Trotskyites want to claim Lenin as theirs, why is he our “point of unity”? Not only because Lenin was a great Marxist theoretician, which he was, but also because his personage was the focal point for a practical, world-changing process. Lenin split the Second International over crucial international dynamics and principle, helping end the barbaric imperialist war that was raging at the time, beating back capitalism and imperialism, and giving birth to the world’s first socialist state.

We would not dare put Stalin in the same position as Lenin. Stalin was the last sincere socialist leader of the Soviet Union, but we do not live our lives for remembering when the Soviet Union was the most progressive country in the world (and part of the reason why Trots who follow us get suddenly outraged when they realise our historical commitments is that our Facebook page is more full of theory and contemporary political work than pictures of Stalin and his beautiful moustache). Yes, what matters is the correct theoretical and practical work of anti-revisionist communists alive today. But the Trotskyites do not view Trotsky as merely “the last sincere Bolshevik leader”. He is a new Lenin in their cultish eyes. But why? What did the Fourth International achieve?

“A whole lot of nothing” might seem a pithy appraisal, but honestly, what the fuck did it achieve? They split from COMINTERN on the grounds that:

  1. Why doesn’t Stalin like, totally kill Hitler already?
  2. Why doesn’t Stalin like, totally spread the revolution?

So the Fourth International clearly expected the movement to be judged in terms of its achievements. Dealing with these claims in order, the Trotskyites (but not Trotsky, who was killed by an ice axe) witnessed that it was indeed the Stalin-led Soviet Union and COMINTERN which did the bulk of the fighting which actually brought down all those fascist governments, ringing in a new era of relative peace for Europe, and indeed safeguarding social democratic gains which the Trotskyites would go on to enjoy in most of the countries where they ever “organised” for “revolution”. This is not an unimportant point, we think, both for the historical reference and also for contemporary readers: in the struggle against fascism, the Trotskyites claim that we make too many excuses for COMINTERN’s zig-zags during the period leading up to the defeat of fascism in Europe, and so a particularly clever Trotskyite could point out that whatever crimes Trotsky is accused of in exile, these too could be justified as tactical moves if Trotsky had managed to defeat fascism (which he didn’t, Stalin did that). But, yes, let us suppose Stalin and Trotsky were both trying to defeat fascism: it then obviously follows that Stalin was worse because, although he actually did defeat fascism, he made more or bigger mistakes before doing so, more noticeable because he was actually responsible for international politics and the lives of millions. If we were in the IMT, that’s the “argument” we would make.

Naturally, the fact that the Fourth International built itself out of concerns that Stalin and friends were not going to defeat Hitler meant mass reverse defections when Trotsky’s merry band failed to accomplish a goddamned thing and that sexy hunk of a man, Stalin, did in fact beat Hitler so hard that thousands of Trotskyites were forced to “repent”. But this was not the end of history, and as we now know, the Soviet Union did in fact descend into revisionism (as eventually did all of its former ally states, albeit at different times and in different ways).

Numbers are no indication of superior Marxist theory, and the Soviet Union commanded the greatest number of loyal cadres until its revisionism caused it to abolish itself. Throughout this process, various errors on the part of the Soviet Union caused mass defections in diverse countries (China and Albania and so forth), each with their own errors. And here we get to a crucial point: those that maintained a culture of self-criticism, seeing in themselves a constant need for dialectical development, the “anti-revisionists”, are also the ones who found themselves on the front lines of revolutionary moments. Those who decried (in effect) the whole of 20th century Marxist practice as “Stalinism” remained as uncritical as the modern revisionists, and remained distant from actual revolution.

4) Modern revisionism and “Stalinism”

Did the modern revisionists carry out revolutionary practice? It would be a vulgar reduction to claim that the Soviet Union was a purely counter-revolutionary entity from the whole period from where it descended into revisionism [the editorial staff could not agree on a year for the descent of the party of Lenin as a whole into revisionism, citing various years between 1936 and 1956], but it is certainly fair to say that it had abandoned the Marxist method to a degree that, in the final instance, was to the advantage of counter-revolution (in its own borders and internationally). Today, optimistic appraisals of Cuba’s leadership aside, can we not say that we agree with the Trotskyites that what they call “Stalinism” is what we call “modern revisionism”?

If the Trotskyites themselves were to sincerely unite in struggle with the international revolutionary forces, including the still-fighting anti-revisionists, in the process they would be forced to learn the Marxist-Leninist method of self-criticism and, applying it to Trotsky, they would have to recognise that Trotsky was also a flawed Bolshevik leader like Stalin, but one whose mistakes in practice have been more damaging to the progress of revolution than Stalin or “the Stalinists”. If we were to accept some unity of ortho-Trots and anti-revisionists against all the revisionists, however, there would be a much bigger problem: we agree with what Comrade Lenin said in one of his greatest works, “On the Significance of Militant Materialism”:

“One of the biggest and most dangerous mistakes made by Communists (as generally by revolutionaries who have successfully accomplished the beginning of a great revolution) is the idea that a revolution can be made by revolutionaries alone. On the contrary, to be successful, all serious revolutionary work requires that the idea that revolutionaries are capable of playing the part only of the vanguard of the truly virile and advanced class must be understood and translated into action. A vanguard performs its task as vanguard only when it is able to avoid being isolated from the mass of the people it leads and is able really to lead the whole mass forward. Without an alliance with non-Communists in the most diverse spheres of activity there can be no question of any successful communist construction.”

So even if we were to say that all Trotskyites today are in effect just Marxist-Leninists opposing the revisionist theory espoused by the Chinese party (for example), we do not necessarily feel more affinity with them than we do with all modern revisionists (for example those who followed the Soviet Union or China up to a point when we might not have but are not so blind as to pretend that China is revolutionary and socialist today). Various Marxist and even non-Marxist groups in countries like Palestine, Lebanon, Ireland, Kurdistan, Colombia, etc. may not be genuinely Marxist-Leninist in our eyes, but they are still pushing forward revolution, which no single Trotskyite party in our understanding is really doing (certainly not in practice, and generally speaking most of these post-Trot groups that Ortho-Trots rightly mock don’t even have any particular theoretical edge on the modern revisionists either). While as dialecticians we demand of ourselves a totality of praxis which is revolutionary, as materialists we must begin with the actual practice of revolution.

And let us go to the most extreme example: in Kurdistan, the KCK’s theory is such a revision of Marxism that it no longer even claims to be a form of Marxism at all, but the Kurdish liberation movement allows communists who work with them for the cause of the liberation of their people to make propaganda and agitate among the toiling masses. The fact that new Kurdish cadres are being drawn into Marxist-Leninist organisations through this work alongside people who believe they are too good for Marx is far more important than whether we agree with the Trots that China is not socialist, when obviously it is not.

Here many Trotskyites accuse us of opportunism, or lacking class consciousness, but they would say the same of Marx when he said:

“The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland. The lever must be applied in Ireland. That is why the Irish question is so important for the social movement in general.”

Or perhaps they would not, but then, will they concoct a Trotskyism which is more popular front-ist even than COMINTERN? Are they going to turn to the “stageism” that they accuse Stalinists of, thereby risking supporting diverse Februaries that might not become new Octobers? HOW BOURGEOIS! HOW PRAGMATIST! HOW STALINIST! HOW… LENINIST?

But Trotskyites often settle on one “prophetic” point: how Trotsky “foresaw” the “possibility” of bureacratisation being the means through which socialist construction might be reversed. But the fact of a new capitalist class being built within the bureaucracy does not of course make the existence of “bureaucracy” the issue: Trots know full well that the class forces which control bureaucracy matters a great deal, and the Ortho-Trots distinguish this in their dealings with the bureaucracy of, for example, trade unions (opposing the trade union bureaucrats who objectively arrest the progress of the workers’ struggle, but seeking bureaucratic positions themselves if it allows them to advance said struggle, but not so far as a February of course).

Knowing anyway that everyone from Stalin to Che to Hoxha to Mao also “foresaw” this issue and this was always a struggle which took places in parties in actually existing socialism, and knowing that most people who have read this far know that this is our stance, why is there still more piece below this? Just to annoy our Trot readers with more jokes at their expense? That would be funny, but no. To convert Trots? That would be great, but no.

Rather, we’re providing historical context so that readers understand that beneath our formal anger at the historical personage of Trotsky, there is an essential sort of figure who Trotsky was. Trotsky was an arch-sectarian and egotist, who thought a movement following him was more important than the movement for the liberation of the masses. Trotsky was a fascist appeaser, who beneath his formal anti-fascism actually sought conciliation with the very social structures which allowed fascism to be born. It is against these trends, and all errors, even those made by our anti-revisionist heroes (and it must be us, the anti-revisionist Marxists who lead the charge in thematising, problematising, theoretising these errors), which we must struggle against.

5) Most of the actual wreckers know that Trotskyism is dead

The fact that almost all Trotskyite groups fall into these errors makes them an easy group to exclude. The fact that even the best and most critical Trotskyite groups end up as nothing more than centres for a weak politics of protest out of a fear of opportunism, and the exceptions tend to abandon Trotskyism, is all the more reason why we must be more vigilant against Trotskyite errors by ostensible Marxist-Leninists.

Now, here some more theoretically aware Trotskyite and anti-Trotskyite individuals and organisations, seeing the direction we’re going with this, may object: surely if we just employ “Trotskyism” as a euphemism for “people we dislike”, aren’t we doing what we accuse Trotskyites of doing when they refer to “Stalinism” as a catch-all for everyone who rejects their own cultish heritage? Probably, lol. Doesn’t that suck?

So no, let’s not do that, as funny as it is. Particularly on the English-language left internet, where the theoretically uninformed “Marxist-Leninists” actually do use “Trotskyism” as a euphemism for “Marxist who disagrees with me”.

Let us instead say this: to all the Marxist-Leninists reading this, who spend your time trying to revise Marxism-Leninism to make China the Soviet Union of today (despite China’s actual historical role against the Soviet Union, even in cases where all of us would agree our criticisms of the latter should be less than those of the former): stop that. You’re not a Trot, but you are doing what Trotsky did in so far as rather than try to revolutionise your social context as part of a broad front of the revolutionary masses against the oppressive and exploiting ruling classes, you are building a revolution on paper and condemning anyone who doesn’t go along with you as a traitor, despite the actual facts in reality.

These are desperate times, and if you are not responding like Lenin did to World War I, by reading Hegel, who are you to call the theoretically serious “revisionists”? If you are not uniting the progressive forces of all poor, oppressed peoples, women and gender oppressed in a struggle against capitalism, imperialism, and the rising fascist tide, while the planet itself is imposing a ticking clock on human liberation, who are you to condemn those who do as “counter-revolutionary”? Don’t be Trotsky. Read everyone, but especially Lenin.

We have written all of this, and provided much more serious further reading, and yet sadly, we know that the overwhelming majority of readers, both Trotskyite and otherwise, will engage with it in the most shallow way, if they even bother to skim any lines of it. We hope, however, that our few theoretically serious regular readers will find something of value in this intervention, taking what they like from it and using it in their own way, or criticising what they find flawed. You know how to be in touch with us.

But if you’re going to fucking criticise us in a non-comradely way, at least have the decency to post it on your own platforms instead of expecting us to use our platforms to host your propaganda.

Workers and oppressed of the world – unite!

Note: When the Trots (who were expecting this piece to focus on certain buzzwords that we won’t name) inevitably come around asking us about their favourite buzzwords in the comments, you can expect some ranting answers to those down there.
↓     ↓     ↓     ↓     ↓

Image expropriated from a Twitter account named “Leon Trotsky”.

Did you enjoy this piece, or anything else on Worker’s Spatula? Then consider donating as little as one imperialist Yankee dollar a month to supporting our work!


New 12-Step Programme AAAA Founded for those Addicted to Artisanal Anti-Revisionism


CW: Addiction, self-harm

A BASEMENT IN LOS ANGELES – A new twelve-step programme called “Artisanal Anti-Revisionism Addicts Anonymous” (AAAA) has been founded in Los Angeles (or by its full, original, Spanish name: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili), which is targeted at anti-revisionists too disattached from the social dogma even for Gonzaloism.

You know, the sort of people who read Abstrakt and write for Worker’s Spatula and have strong opinions about the TİKB splits.

These poor souls have had their chance at a normal life ruined by a crippling addiction to reading condemnations, analysis, and declarations from various anti-revisionist groups so obscure in the mainstream discourse and so furiously angry at the various frauds who masquerade as Marxists these days that they make the RIM look like social democrats. Using the traditional twelve-step format for other addictions, they hope to come together and become normal, healthy, functioning (but critical) members of popular fronts.

The inaugural meeting began with all attendees going round the circle and introducing themselves in turn, in the form: “my name is [FIRST NAME], and I’m addicted to obscure boutique anti-revisionist publications”.

“It started with reading old Stalinist Workers Group for Afro-American National Liberation and a New Communist International polemics against anyone and everyone. I thought it was no big deal, just a fun way to arm myself theoretically against the modern revisionists,” explained one young man, who was fired from his job for spending an entire workweek doing nothing but printing up hundreds of pages of opinions on precisely what went wrong in China.

“The next thing I know, I’m casually using terms like ‘modern revisionists’, and teaching myself Tamil so I can read NDMLP propaganda from Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka. That’s like extra bad island India, with extra annoying Trots. Our comrades in the NDMLP say that…” trailed off the young man before bursting into tears, horrified at what he had become.

The young woman seated to his right patted him on the back to comfort him before taking her turn: “I started talking to some of the APL people in some leftbook group. It seemed like there couldn’t be any harm in reading Enver Hoxha. Then I found out that in Turkey, Hoxhaism is so mainstream that there are multiple kinds of Hoxhaist who disagree with each other on how to criticise Hoxha, whether to do it like Hoxha or Stalin or Freire or Che or something. I hit bottom last week when I found myself snorting the ashes from a printed-up stack of Devrimci Proletarya tweets I had smoked while listening to Kutup Yıldızı and screaming ‘FACTIONALIST! SPLITTER! NEO-BERNSTEINITE!’ at the mirror.

“My mother came in just as I had punched the mirror, shattering it to pieces. When she tried to take my wounded hands in hers, I pulled away screaming ‘NO, COMRADE MOM, I NEED TO WRITE A SELF-CRITICISM IN MY OWN BLOOD!'”

A minor spat broke out between two members over which four-person Guevarist group hiding in the Andes whose faxed pamphlets they had read in the library was more correct in their critical engagement with the Bolivarian Revolution, causing the moderator to have to intervene and remind them: “Comrades, let’s not forget that we want to be the sort of people who can hear the word ‘Venezuela’ without launching into an hour-long sectarian tirade against sectarianism.”

All members of the group, regardless of tendency or number of screeds they have wheatpasted to the walls of their college campus, could agree on their higher power to which they would appeal as they worked their way through the steps: the dialectic of history.

Did you enjoy this piece, or anything else on Worker’s Spatula? Then consider donating as little as one imperialist Yankee dollar a month to supporting our work!

Hypocritical “Communist” Owns Smartphone, Doesn’t Use it to Read Marxist Theory and Spread Propaganda


MELBOURNE – Sources close to Tyler Cheng, a suburban anti-capitalist in Melbourne and proud owner of all the DVDs and weed you could want if you’re thinking to come by his place later, have confirmed that in spite of his flirting with the self-designation of “communist”, he hypocritically owns a smartphone which he neither uses to read Marxist theory nor to spread communist propaganda.

“Ugh, Tyler’s so annoying. He’s always talking about anything that annoys him in terms of it being ‘capitalist’, but he doesn’t even seem to grasp that his comfortable life is made possible by an internationalised mode of production held up by monopoly-controlled imperialist powers which produce the goods and services he takes for granted. So you can imagine I never see him organising accordingly,” explained friend and classmate Jaswinder Kaur.

“Yeah, for sure, I hate when I see his stupid hammer and sickle background photo on his smartphone. What a hypocrite. Does he realise that the capitalist mode of production is a material reality that can’t be fought by idealism and formalism, but only by materialist dialectics as the theoretical basis for revolutionary practice?” concurred fellow classmate and Jaswinder’s partner Peter Smith.

Tyler’s Sociology professor Nancy Gold had this to say about Tyler’s outbursts in class, which we’re told never go beyond class as he’s too busy getting high all the fucking time to interact with anyone who isn’t explicitly asking for engagement as she does: “Tyler always shouts out something about capitalist society being stupid and responsible for the terrible essays I ‘make’ him write, but capitalism is amazing when you think about it: it puts in the palm of his hand a device which allows him to read diverse critical theoretical texts written over a timespan of over a hundred years on sites like Marxists Internet Archive and communicate with people in diverse social conditions, and he passes all that up in favour of looking edgy and stupid all the fucking time. I’m going to fail him.”

Tyler’s girlfriend Sharon Wong confessed that she too has become tired of her boyfriend’s posturing: “He’s always writing these papers for class which claim to criticise all actually existing conditions, but he never publishes them outside class or does any other propaganda work. It’s like, you go to a good university, you wear nice clothes made in sweatshops, you own a smartphone made by exploited workers the world over, all of these things place you within a respected social context such that you could reach dozens of young people in your own environment for the purpose of organisation. And yet, you’d rather just intellectually masturbate when you could go join RaFFWU and start a reading group with the other organisers or something useful.

“Do you know what communists actually believe? They don’t believe in you spending all your time on Facebook. They believe in you spending a few hours a day of your time on Facebook explaining how the capitalist society which produced Facebook is itself a product of generations of social development within class society, a state of affairs which could be overturned, but not if people like you just uncritically accept your own social belonging and fail to organise against it.

“It’s like, you live in Australia, Tyler. You can’t be a communist. Not without grasping our society’s objective existence as a parasitic settler-colony atop the oppressed Aboriginal people and within a system of international exploitation which includes the countries from which our parents hailed and is the material reason for our existence here.”

Image expropriated from Kriffed.

Did you enjoy this piece, or anything else on Worker’s Spatula? Then consider donating as little as one imperialist Yankee dollar a month to supporting our work!

Turkish State Refuses Offer of Sam Kriss Prisoner Swap


VIENNA – As various observers of Turkish politics continue to speculate as to whether, when, and how the Turkish authorities will return to the negotiating table with the PKK in these tumultuous times, all have been blindsided by the latest news that state representatives have met with another group which they and their media lackeys characterise as “ontological terrorists”, “namussuz piçler”, and “affedersiniz, Ermeniler”: Worker’s Spatula.

While official sources continue to deny that the right Kierkegaardian government led by the AKP would meet with the Hoxhaist rebel news team, we assure our thousands of readers around the world that we have been meeting in Vienna with the AKP with the express purpose of securing the freedom of Max Zirngast via a prisoner swap.

Max Zirngast, as much of our readership know, is an Austrian Marxist-Leninist who was imprisoned for reading too much Hegel in Turkey, a country where “the Hegelians” have been added to the growing list of “terrorist organisations”. Hiding their hatred for Max’s mastery of German philosophy behind bogus, unsubstantiated, and to a great extent “confidential” claims of “terrorist propaganda”, the AKP have jailed one of those precious few western Marxist-Leninists who is both theoretically competent and practically useful. His defence in the AKP court of the “universal values” of socialism is but his latest act of “terrorism” which consists of working with impoverished children of diverse backgrounds, writing for various leftist publications, and trying to awaken in the masses a consciousness of themselves as a revolutionary political subjectivity, all alongside his comrades from TÖP who have also been picked up and subsequently jailed on completely meaningless and groundless “terror” charges.

Our initial offer of trading Sam Kriss for Max Zirngast’s freedom was refused when the Turkish negotiation team discovered that Sam Kriss’s only practical work consists of shameless self-promotion, and the bulk of his theoretical work also consists of shameless self-promotion. They were particularly furious to discover that the organisation which we claimed Kriss was involved with, the MLOGB (Maoist-Lacanist Organisation of Great Britain), was nothing more than a Spatular fabrication, an elaborate bit of banter (or “geyik”), like Yr Aflonyddwch Mawr in Wales.

Subsequently, we changed tactics and proposed a handover of an assortment of New York City academic Marxists, perhaps a trio of Vivek Chibber, David Harvey, and Andrew Arato. To this the AKP team replied that “come on, even we know Arato’s not a Marxist” and “give us Ollman”, to which a member of our team replied “over my dead fucking body will you touch Ollman, he’s the only real one, we’re attending his Seder in April”.

Despite the lack of success in negotiations thus far, we did receive word through Max’s lawyer that he is in high spirits, keeping busy learning Arabic, a language he started learning while in Hatay helping organise the local Alawite Arab population, and which he hopes to be the first westerner to successfully learn to any level of meaningful conversational proficiency, instead of just saying “shwaya shwaya” and changing the subject, like they fucking do.

Other rebuffed offers to the AKP included trading Max Zirngast for various low-level Gülenist refugees, a box full of Öcalan flags, a Circassian dance troupe, the abstract concept of hubris, and the southeast Asian country of Malaysia. The AKP team inform us that they already have all of these things in their possession, or can acquire them without our help.

With negotiations still ongoing, a Worker’s Spatula team are currently plotting to take Sam Kriss hostage anyway, “just in case somebody wants him”.

But seriously:



New “Communist Rap Song” Just the Phrase “Fuck Capitalism” Repeated 452 Times


Leftbook and Left Twitter alike are abuzz with some stunning new SoundCloud content out of Gainesville, Florida. Rapper “Lil’ Che”, a high school student from the northern Florida town and self-described “Maoist insurgent”, has released his new track “Fuc* KKKapitalizm (the teardown)” to critical acclaim from the commentators who constitute the closest thing he faces to actual criticism, in an artistic or organisational sense.

“This shit WHIP,” explained one of the many like-minded commentators. “I fuckin bump this at the police”.

“12 people are capitalists,” added a YouTube commentator, presumably commenting at a time when only 12 people, as opposed to the current 3079, had “disliked” the video upload which contains the track in question.

The track, which opens with the expected post-trap music beat which sounds fantastic if you have a rig with big woofers and like absolute garbage out of your laptop speakers, consists almost entirely of Lil’ Che muttering, shouting, and apparently asking if, and we quote: “fuck capitalism”. The phrase, which forms an even greater percentage of the lyrics than it does of the title, has been summarised by fans as “pulling no punches” and “in your face”.

“FUCK CAPITALISM! FUCK capitalism, fuck CAPITALISM… fuck capitalism?” exclaims and then subsequently enquires the rapper as the beat builds towards a never-quite-arriving never-quite-hook.

“FUCK CAPITALISM fuck CAPITALISM FUCK CAPITALISM FUCK CAPITALISM fuck capitalism? FUCK CAPITALISM fuck capitalism fuck capitalism FUCK CAPITALISM fuck capitalism fuck capitalism FUCK CAPITALISM FUCK CAPITALISM FUCK CAPITALISM” continues the song, which has been repeatedly described as “a big mood” by alienated proletarian listeners from Maine to Melbourne.

The white southern rapper turned down the Spatula’s offer of an interview, replying to our e-mail, which begins with the question “Your hit song respells the word ‘capitalism’ to begin with three sequential K’s. How would you say that your work fits within the broader picture of rap as a commodity in the age of the internet, and of so-called ‘race relations’ in the imperialist United States, particularly in the south, whence you hail?”, with “lol n**** wtf u jus say?”.

Did you want to read some reviews of formally less-Marxist art with essentially more Marxist content? Then check out our Humourless Marxist Reviews series!

Did you enjoy this piece, or anything else on Worker’s Spatula? Then consider donating as little as one imperialist Yankee dollar a month to supporting our work!

Revolutionary Communist Party of Argentina Still Exists, they report


BUENOS AIRES – Our top secret Argentine source reports that the almost-ICOR member/affiliate PCR (Revolutionary Communist Party) of Argentina continues to exist, according to extremely credible information passed to them by the PCR itself, stating, and we quote “we are still holding it down for all the clowns in this bourgeois town”.

The reasons for the use of English to correspond between Argentine and Argentine could not be ascertained. Top dialecticians at the Spatula suspect that the PCR is so incredibly cognisant of the totality of class struggle that they foresaw that this statement would be significant to the Spatula, and would have to be translated to English accordingly.

Alternatively, perhaps we made up the quote for a gag on our stupid page.

Confirming that they “still hate Deng and everything” and “Trots should get shot”, the elusive and ROL-friendly Argentine Maoists sent in several photographs of themselves talking to the masses, which were very impressive, proletarian, and dialectical.

We did see a photo of them drinking wine, but it’s Argentina, so that’s proletarian there, right? In Turkey alcohol is so expensive that even the cheapest of beer reeks of petty bourgeois decadence, and in the rest of the normal world, wine is a bit French, innit?

Despite repeated e-mails, by time of press, no confirmation could be found that the hardest Argentine guerrillas of all time, the ex-Trots of PRT-ERP, still exist in any meaningful sense. But our PCR friends assured us that the People’s War™ in Perú continues, and will spread to Argentina around the same time “our people learn to speak proper Spanish”.

Did you enjoy this piece, or anything else on Worker’s Spatula? Then consider donating as little as one imperialist Yankee dollar a month to supporting our work!


Humourless Marxist Reviews: Behzat Ç.


Behzat Ç is a Turkish police drama about the existential crises of a detective investigating murders in the Turkish capital Ankara, which would not seem the usual target for a Humourless Marxist Review, particularly written by an Australian comrade, but here we are, aren’t we?

Why did I spend the past three years learning Turkish through this programme as my only form of international theory or practice, while my only domestic practice, organising fast food workers within RaFFWU, dwindled to nothing? Because the Worker’s Spatula Central Committee ordered me to do so, and if the vanguard of the vanguard of the vanguard of the world revolution tells you to watch some Turkish guy with a messy haircut run around in the dark punching criminals and being sad about it, you fucking do it, comrade.

When [REDACTED] first discovered me, I was just a low-level member of Socialist Alliance trying to organise the fast food workers of Melbourne. Now I speak fluent Turkish and am intimately familiar with Turkish drinking culture, and also I’m on my way to “Angara” to join the (Birleşik) Devrimci Parti’nin saflarına. All thanks to three seasons of a show about a cop.

Obviously, this is no communist show. The hero is an officer of the bourgeois state, after all. But the portrayal of the police in the show is consistently revealing of the limitations of “justice” in class society: driven by an honest conscience, whenever Behzat and his friends try to do the right thing, they are either forced to go against the explicit orders of the state bureaucracy and struggle against the actual forces of the state, or they find themselves undermined, and the unjust order uses the police force at large to protect the bourgeois individuals and class interests which, in the final instance, command them.

It’s easy to miss this theme, even for many critical Turkish viewers. In the service of gaining a more total understanding of Ankara society in all its diverse class and social contradictions than any Turkish person, merely from watching this television show, I have not left the house in the past six months, surviving on cigarettes, tea, and rakı, just like Behzat and his friends.

I’m told that a lot of Turkish “diziler” are fixated on the toiling lower classes, and Behzat Ç. is no exception, with many scenes portraying working class neighbourhoods, and even militant leftist organisations. The portrayal of these groups is in many ways inaccurate, but it is broadly sympathetic, and leftist viewers will certainly be interested in this theme.

The gender politics are also not perfect, as one might expect from a show so dominated by men, but it is interesting to watch how even in this context, men have the ability to show emotional vulnerability and cry, etc. Presumably, this show influenced the US programme Steven Universe, which combines Harun’s love of snacks with the more emotionally healthy and gender-progressive men characters to create the titular Steven Universe, the Ankara cop of Anglo children’s TV heroes.

I have reported to [REDACTED] that I finished this series, and would recommend it to others trying to acclimate themselves with the Turkish language and the Ankara culture; she replied that I ought to write this review and publish it on the Spatula page. She then presented me with a thumb drive full of other Turkish “diziler” which she recommends for my flight to Turkey, including “Masum”, “Leyla ile Mecnun”, and “Şahsiyet”.

When I asked if these series were also about Ankara, or were about left politics in Turkey, she replied “no, they’re just really good for binge-watching”.

Did you enjoy this piece, or anything else on Worker’s Spatula? Then consider donating as little as one imperialist Yankee dollar a month to supporting our work!

Worker’s Spatula Begin Second Three-Year Plan


AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION IN THE SWISS ALPS – Coming up on the third anniversary of the founding of Worker’s Spatula on the 16th of this month, Worker’s Spatula’s Central Committee have convened in a village in the Swiss Alps to appraise the successes and failures of the first Three-Year Plan and outline the second one, to be put into action immediately.

The Three-Year Plan was originally conceived of as a rough guide to the collective’s interventions for the coming period, both in terms of the process and the desired results. Following our general criticism of the 20th century experience as having been insufficiently dialectical, we chose a three-year period over a five-year period on the grounds that a change in quantity would effect a change in quality, and also Lenin: “Better Fewer, But Better”.

Several members spoke of their appraisal of our achievements with regard to our initial ambitions:

“Obviously the greatest success has been the high level of theoretical development of our cadres within the Spatula’s network, as well as our many readers scattered across all continents,” began one German representative, passing around some cigars procured on his recent trip to Haiti, the homeland of the Lordship–Bondage dialectic (citation: Susan Buck-Morss). “We are completely ahead of schedule on that front. Our original stated goal was to exceed Žižek’s level of Hegel-fetishism by 2018, we have actually transformed the international anti-revisionist movement into an invisible army of Hegel scholars. Praise the dialectic of history!”

“Typical German idealism,” hastily interjected an English representative. “Our greatest success has been material, namely our transformation of Worker’s Spatula from a backwards website into a great industrial power able to economically outproduce Great Moments in Leftism, and to do so relying principally on Turkish resources, against the vulgar economist predictions of the leftcom scoundrels.”

“Comrades, comrades,” interrupted a sobering voice with a Turkish accent from the back of the room, “it is the accepted thing at congresses to speak of achievements. That we have achievements is beyond question. They, these achievements, are, of course, not inconsiderable, and there is no reason to hide them. But, comrades, it has become a practice with us lately to talk so much of achievements, and sometimes so affectedly, that one loses all desire to speak of them once again. Allow me, therefore, to depart from the general practice and to say a few words not about our achievements, but about our weaknesses and our tasks in connection with these weaknesses.”

Recognising the Stalin quote, several Central Committee members present shifted uncomfortably in their seats, preparing for accusations of bureaucratisation.

With each week that brings us closer to 2019 and the 300th anniversary of the Nazi Nightmareland which is Liechtenstein, it becomes more and more obvious that no matter which tactics we employ, we are utterly powerless to bring down this regime. Nobody dares say it, but since we are all thinking it, I will stake my reputation on telling the truth: Liechtenstein imperialism is so impervious to our efforts to bring it down precisely because there is another, more powerful imperialist country defending it. I speak of course of Swiss imperialism.

At the beginning of our first Three-Year Plan, we determined that there was a need to grasp the Leninist assertion that imperialism is in fact the highest stage in the development of capitalism, and to retheorise this against the economically ignorant misconceptions which have become predominant in our movement. Our attacks on Liechtenstein have, in this light, been very correct and crucial for world revolution. But we cannot ignore the fact that we have spent considerable resources in 2018, suffering splits and even sacrificing martyrs to ensure the downfall of Liechtenstein from our base here in Switzerland, when it is the objective social and economic relations within Switzerland, and not our subjectivity as anti-Liechtenstein guerrillas, which have been holding back this revolutionary war.

We cannot hold this criticism back until the New Year’s Message and Self-Criticism: the head of global imperialism is Swiss monopoly capital, a force more powerful even than Liechtenstein. Our next Three-Year Plan must include a commitment to the theoretical and practical development of the revolutionary movement within Switzerland itself. Only thus can we construct a revolutionary movement actually capable of confronting these two greatest imperialist powers: Switzerland and Liechtenstein, who together prop up all others and indeed the entire capitalist world-system.

After a tense moment of silence, this speech was greeted with applause, and chants in support of the construction of a “pan-Alpine guerrilla movement” by August 2021.

Other criticisms of the first Three-Year Plan were that the seriousness of our commitment to Marxism has also weakened our ability to intervene in the sphere of internet content. The second Three-Year Plan is to include a commitment to gaining at least one new content-creator for every four people who have to stop contributing because of the demands of our real-world politics.

As the meeting rounded up, other aspects of the second Three-Year Plan were agreed upon in a democratic centralist fashion. By 2021, Worker’s Spatula expect to have:

  • Achieved full vegetarianism of the Central Committee and achieved majority vegetarianism by all Worker’s Spatula contributors. Bream will be phased out last among meats, and all meat-eating readers are encouraged to spend the next year transitioning through a bream-based diet to a vegetarian diet as quickly as possible.
  • Re-educated all cishet man comrades to never accept any relationship with a woman other than one based upon the heroic principles of socialist matriarchal polyandry.
  • Spatular agents within every single ICOR affiliate, a broad influence on other international anti-revisionist projects.
  • Recognition not only as the pinnacle of Marxist-Leninist internet content and the vanguard of the vanguard of the vanguard of the revolution, but also take over all those other communist meme pages on Facebook, directly or indirectly.
  • Used Twitter to make the sort of jokes we used to make on WordPress, then as the character count increases on that site, gradually turn the Twitter content into the sort of lengthy screeds which are now normative on the WordPress site, and by the end of the Three-Year Plan have to find another platform for dumb jokes on.

Did you enjoy this piece, or anything else on Worker’s Spatula? Then consider donating as little as one imperialist Yankee dollar a month to supporting our work!

France to Celebrate Football Victory by Returning to France as Usual



PARIS – As ecstatic crowds took the streets across France (as well as other Francophone countries and in many other places around the world) to celebrate France’s decisive victory over Croatia in the World Cup hosted in Moscow today, our correspondents in France peppered themselves throughout the crowds to surreptitiously extract the views of the celebrating masses.

“Yesterday, Bastille Day, today the World Cup! LONG LIVE FRANCE!” exclaimed Jean Thomas, a drunken gentleman wearing one of those tricolour leis who appeared to not particularly comprehend our correspondent’s question: “Do you think that this win will help legitimise the imperialist dominance of France over semi-colonial countries under the rubric of ‘Francophonie’ given the multinational origins of the French team and the consequent international support for this victory?”

“FRAAAAAAAAAAAAAANCE!” added Thomas, for emphasis.

Other slightly more sober French individuals gave insufficiently sober analysis of the win:

“I think it’s a wonderful thing that we won with such a diverse team. I think it will really bring France together, to show how many different kinds of people are all equally French,” explained Agathe Kowalski, a young liberal who is apparently just too young to remember the past few decades of domestic French politics.

“Bien sûr, parce que un étranger devient français quand il marque deux buts pour ce pays,” responded our correspondent, to empty stares from Kowalski and her friends.

Slightly removed from the crowds, some white French were more forthcoming with their less palatable views: “After everything we’ve given to these countries, why shouldn’t they feel themselves French? We have a culture, a civilisation, we gave them the football, you know,” explained one “absolutely not racist” gentleman with an intolerably French name.

“I would prefer if there were more French boys on the team,” interjected one of his friends.

“French boys?” enquired our correspondent, raising an eyebrow.

“Originally French, or non-immigrant, euh… t’vois, des blancs.”

Oh là là! Would you be interested in some slightly more intellectual or humorous but equally dismissive pieces about France? Voilà, fellow haters of bourgeois French society and its dictats!

Did you enjoy this piece, or anything else on Worker’s Spatula? Then consider donating as little as one imperialist Yankee dollar a month to supporting our work!


US Democrats Who Won’t Shut Up About “Russian Conspiracy” Part of Liechtenstein Conspiracy


WASHINGTON DC – Speaking on conditions of anonymity and that if for any reason their identity should be compromised, we would take them into a safehouse for the foreseeable future, a US State Department official revealed some shocking details about the ongoing “#RussiaGate” controversy in that country:

“Any reasonable person can see that the media and various public figures are kind of running with the idea that Russia’s behind every single controversy in the United States, without any of these necessarily making any sense. That’s not the interesting part.

“Some of us started getting suspicious around the time they declared Jill Stein was backed by the Russians. Now, it’s conceivable that Russia would want to use a third party vote to get Trump into office, but then they started talking about Sanders as part of some Russian conspiracy. Sanders would’ve beaten Trump, so that doesn’t make any sense.

“By now I’m sure you’ve heard, the DSA is Russia, #AbolishICE is Russia, Black Lives Matter, it’s all Russia, right? Now nobody can really believe all of that, can they? Is it just journalists having a bit of fun? But then why are Democrats going along with it? So I asked Senator [REDACTED], ‘do you really believe all this stuff about Black Lives Matter being paid by the Russians and so on?’, well he tells me ‘no, but I have to say it’.

“‘Why, the lobbyists?’ I asked, ‘which ones?’. Now, I could imagine all sorts of big money interests behind the Democrats want to keep steering the party as far right as they can, but no, he says, ‘certain fanatical anti-communist groups, if you know what I mean’.”

At this juncture, our informant gave our correspondent a meaningful look.

“Anyone who’s worked for the State Department for even a week knows he means Liechtenstein. I mean, you know these fucks, they still have their Nazi war criminal monument, they use their banking money to put the kibosh on anything that stinks of socialism from here to Sydney.”

[REDACTED], our top secret source at [REDACTED BOURGEOIS NEWS SOURCE], confirmed that several individuals with “German accents” had been seen going into meetings with journalists who were reporting on “RussiaGate”:

Yeah, #MeToo suddenly became Russian, every protest became Russian, I asked [REDACTED] if she felt ethical about spreading such obviously fake news, and she said ‘they offered me an all-expenses-paid trip to Vaduz for Memorial Day Weekend, what do I care if people who will vote for anyone who’s not a Republican think about some marginal left groups?’

I think it’s disgusting personally, but that’s the society we’ve been living in for some time: corporations own the media, special interests own the politicians, and when Liechtenstein says jump, everyone says ‘how high?’

It’s a shame that so many people who aren’t directly benefiting from Liechteinstein’s hush money are parroting their line, but what can you do?

Asked about the allegation that Black Lives Matter, the #MeToo movement, the Green Party, and significant sections of the Sanders campaign and the DSA (particularly the Boston branch) were all under the control of US ICOR affiliate ROL, [REDACTED] responded “well sure, but there’s no money in telling the truth, is there?”

Did you enjoy this piece, or anything else on Worker’s Spatula? Then consider donating as little as one imperialist Yankee dollar a month to supporting our work!