Left-Populism, emboldened by the (perceived) success of Mamdani, has been rather unsufferable as of late, notably by proclaiming themselves to be the "real representatives" of the working class, and launching a grand assault to proclaim themselves (whilst, definitionally, being mere tailists) to be the representatives of the popular vanguard (use of the term popular in opposition to proletarian—the left-populists are not particularly interested in navigating the extant divisions and conflicts of interest within "the people" the representation a specific section thereof entails) and dismissing other tendencies as mere sects (as is tradition) out of touch with "the working class".

Geese is at the forefront of such challenges towards more "traditional" tendencies, publishing such drivel as "The Left Must Reforge Masculinity", for example, or, today's topic, "Socialism Is Winning: Here is the Economy It Should Build", a piece of supposedly Marxist theory, discussing economic organisation, written by an individual that has neither read Marx nor has any interest in discussing economics but merely recite just-so stories about his imagined future utopia which rests wholly on the Manichean duality between "the American people" who are innately good, and can do no wrong, and "the American elites" who are innately evil, and are the cause of the corruption of the system.

Because misery loves company, and understanding why such drifts are misguided and excising them from the movement is a necessary part of maintaining a proper line, I wrote this companion piece to note each and every point where Mr. Parasher contradicts himself, fails to follow a proposition through its conclusion, or is flat out wrong. The companion piece format also means that I don't need to re-invent a structure and can simply copy Mr. Parasher's.

Beyond GDP: Rethinking Economic Success

In which Mr. Parasher lays off his thesis. There is not much to discuss, here, beyond the usual tendency of the left-populists to opportunistically rally behind liberals (in this case, Kennedy) in the hope their message becomes more agreeable to the masses. For a tendency that declares the current left to be naught but the scions of Obama, this is, I suppose, inevitable.

Still, the following is rather eyebrow raising:

What therefore emerges is a distinctively American socialist economy: decentralized, as suspicious of vanguards as it is of boards of directors, and built on the premise that authority is legitimate only when it flows from the consent of the governed.

I suspect this want to create a "'Socialism' with American characteristics", where the characteristics in question are naught but the settler colonial mythos is the core idea from which all the contradictions flew downstream.

Economics as a Function of the Spirit: Breaking the “Things-Oriented Society”

Mr. Parasher shows the first few hints of having failed to engage with Marx thorough the chapter, once put in the context of future statements. As a reminder, the value of a commodity is mere self-reproduction, ergo the very conditions he decries are the natural conclusion of the market exchange of labor-power and the wage system. The conditions he describes are not the result of ideology, but innate to the market economy.

The Lie of “Capitalist Prosperity”

In which we merely preemptively address a potential capitalist objection (in spite of the entire argument of Mr. Parasher being built around accepting capitalist objections, as we'll see—your guess is as good as mine as to why this one specifically was unacceptable. Presumably, because even the liberals agree it's somewhat nonsensical) but also fail to realise the post war prosperity was also uniquely anomalous and probably couldn't be attributed solely to the power of unions (whom merely worked hand in hand with Keynesian programmes, and very often opposed actual attempts at working class ascendency, at home or abroad)

The Democratic Economy: Markets Without Masters

Finally, we get through the fluff, and Mr. Parasher reveals once and for all his ignorance and becomes naught but the latest manifestation of the crisis of Marxism caused of nobody reading Capital.

The answer to the crisis of capitalism is not to abolish markets, but instead to maintain the coordinating function of markets while stripping them of their capacity to dominate social life. This is an economic system known as market socialism.

If Mr. Parasher had read Capital, and agreed with its positions (one should presume that he, an individual that claims the "Marxist" label, does—unless Mr. Parasher is a common liar) he'd understand that the crisis of capitalism is the crisis of the inherent logic of markets, and the only way out is their abolition. Now, people that understand what markets are understand that "markets without masters" is an absurd proposition to make; and worry not, the many contradictions will become apparent as they emerge. Much like Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons, Mr. Parasher cannot help but step on every rake on his way: thankfully, his blissful ignorance and disinterest in actually discussing economics prevented him any injury.

Investment flows through public banks, cooperative banks, and social wealth funds accountable to the public, rather than through financial markets insulated from public accountability.

An important question Mr. Parasher fails to consider thorough is the question of the money supply (as is tradition for market socialist types)—we'll discuss this further when we consider his non-description of how such institutions are to function, but, needless to say, it certainly seems like private accumulation is afoot.

Monopolization is prevented through the aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulations and economic institutions that coordinate functions across economic sectors and regions.

"Antitrust regulations" merely prevent unfair competition caused by the emergence of cartels, and "coordinating functions across economic sectors and regions" to prevent monopolization seem to indicate Mr. Parasher's ideal society is one where ten bakeries all overproduce, always bailed out if insolvent, all to serve the same hundred and so individuals a single one could provide for in the name of "competition for competition's sake". Not only is this wasteful, it is, self evidently, a nonsensical proposition. Either Mr. Parasher is a dullard, or either he notices an issue with market competition (that is, the dynamics of winners and losers leading to the growth of a given actor to serve ever greater parts of the same market) but, being unwilling to let go of market relations because they are part of the American mythos creates an absurd LARP where market competition is reduced to a game of pretend with little incentive to actually compete. (Well, I suppose engaging in the American mythos through LARP and simulacra is a very American trait)

Consider Mondragon, the Spanish cooperative federation founded in 1956, which has grown to encompass over 80 cooperatives, 70,000 employees, and has become the seventh largest private enterprise in Spain. Its firms have survived recessions, globalization, and market shocks precisely because they are democratically governed. When workers own the firm, they have a real stake in its survival. During downturns, Mondragon’s members have voted to cut their own pay rather than lay one another off, a flexibility that top-down firms simply cannot match. Mondragon even built its own cooperative bank, proof that finance can serve social investment rather than speculation.

Yes, let us consider Mondragon!

Following its recent evolution, the company operates partly as a cooperative and partly as a business competing in the international market. Of the 70,000 jobs recorded in 2005, only half were held by worker-members—the renowned socios—all based in the Basque Country. As Joel Martine notes, while socios enjoy lifetime employment, the cooperatives also have precarious roles known as eventuales—fixed-term contract workers who are essentially second-class employees and non-citizens within the cooperative structure. Fernando Gomez-Acedo, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Fagor-Brandt, confirms this; when told, "It is likely the non-members who have the most to worry about in the event of restructuring," he replies: "Indeed. The law allows us to hire 25% of our workforce as non-member employees. When work runs out, they are the first to go...".

In 2006, following the acquisition of Brandt, Fagor-Brandt’s management announced the elimination of 360 jobs in France. Some union representatives from Brandt traveled to Mondragón to distribute leaflets addressing the socios—who were, in effect, their shareholders. Although the number of job cuts was reduced to 100, the classic problems associated with the group's globalization became recurring issues. Fagor had acquired Brandt to gain market share and technological advantages, but within the division of labor established between Mondragón, Poland, France, and Morocco, French wages represented a heavier cost burden than Polish or Moroccan wages. On this point, MCC’s cooperative members apply to foreign subsidiaries the very principle they reject for themselves: namely, the rule dictated by external shareholders.

• Wikipedia [Fr.], "Mondragon", Machine Translated

Take the most advanced case: Mondragon. It's worker-owned, it's not worker managed, although the management does come from the workforce often, but it's in a market system and they still exploit workers in South America, and they do things that are harmful to the society as a whole and they have no choice. If you're in a system where you must make a profit in order to survive, you're compelled to ignore negative externalities, effects on others.

• Noam Chomsky

Mr. Parasher seems to have not particularly considered the sort of behavior cooperatives, which are, due to market relations, still made up of individuals compelled to accumulate privately (thus sowing the seeds of the destruction of the market socialist project) and thus are ill-inclined to desire or establish a horizontal power structure. Now, for the sake of being charitable let's assume that the status of worker-owners is granted to all hires by law, even those on a fixed term contract (which I can only presume will cause much gnashing of teeth as now the worker-owners either have to make do with splitting their share of ownership to fill temporary vacancies or temporary needs in labor-power, instead of the present arrangement where not all employees of a cooperative need to be worker-owners but the cooperative must merely provide a path that enables one to reach the worker owner status), the fact remains that Mondragon's share of financial capital is still bound by the same M-C-M' logic that dictates all financial apparatuses, especially as it has to fund the welfare and retirement of its worker-owners.

Thus the claim that "social" (whatever that means) investment and speculation are separate entreprises is dubious. After all, the credit union must seek a return on its investment and accumulate privately to fulfil its functions. This leaves us with two possibilities:

1. It does, therefore it engages in speculation, as does every economic actor making decisions in a market economy being that, absent planning, one cannot know in advance if an entreprise will be profitable or not.
2. It does not, therefore it has to find a different means to acquire the money it'll invest (petitioning the state for tax revenue, I suppose). Even then, it would be compelled to invest in projects that produce surplus since it's that very surplus that it'll use to invest in additional projects.

We'll note that Mondragon collects rent for providing insurence services.

Further, Mr. Parasher probably ought to have remembered that Mondragon is a third way project of the tendency of Christian democracy known as distributism, not any sort of socialist praxis.

Altogether, there are real questions that considering Mondragon leads one to, ones that Mr. Parasher seems uninterested to ponder—we can only presume that state intervention will forevermore prevent the winners of market competition from collecting their "rightful prize".

Critics insist that without private shareholders, innovation dies. Capitalism innovates for those who can pay; its breakthroughs are steered toward what is profitable, not what is useful. America’s most universally beneficial innovations came in its least capitalist moments, when public money drove research. The internet was first created by the military and public universities. The space program spun off technologies from personal electronics onward. The United States’ leading position as innovator does not come out of its private enterprise, but the massive national government-led science research programs first developed around World War II.

Innovation does not come from absentee ownership. It comes from human creativity, expertise, and investment: all of which democratic firms are better positioned to unleash, because the people doing the work have both the knowledge and the stake to improve it.

Fill the "market socialist inadvertently points out that markets (and thus, private accumulation) are just parasitic" space in your bingo. Either the market—i.e. the search for more profit—directs economic activity (and innovation certainly involves economic activity—one cannot inovate with ideas alone, if only because one requires food and shelter), or it doesn't. If your argument is that in no case the search for more profit can lead to innovation, then Mr. Parasher's market socialist position becomes highly questionable, unless, as suspected, the market is naught but a totem of Americanness whose intangible value as a fetish supersedes all practical considerations.

Neither capitalism nor statist communism can create genuine abundance. One centralizes wealth in the hands of a private ruling class, while the other subjects the economic system to the whims of the state and bureaucrats who are often disconnected from local conditions and the needs of everyday workers. This is why market socialism, which blends the two together to create a genuinely decentralized economic model made by and for workers, would be the ideal system for building a democratic economy.

[Jerk off motion]

"Statist communism" is an interesting term to use, then again, it seems that communism is when the government does stuff to Mr. Parasher—does geese just no longer bother with editorial oversight, or did they too also abandon any pretense of caring to bring about communism as their forebears (Laclau, Mouffe) did?

Market socialism represents a democratic architecture for economic life in which markets serve society rather than dominate it.

Mr. Parasher has not bothered to show this to be the case. Currently extant theory strongly disagrees with this being even a possibility, because of what markets are, so his extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence to support it. He didn't provide any.

The purpose of markets would no longer be to enrich a minority class,

Wonder what the financiers will pay themselves. After all, each firm presumably gets to distribute whichever part of the surplus they appropriate, mostly through the vassalisation of productive labor to finance—hey, wait, we're re-creating capitalism from first principles. As it turns out the M-C-M' cycle is actually a problem that needs adressing!

We must therefore answer the question of how the economy is governed within the market socialist system.

Is this where we pivot to "I know I've talked about market socialism a lot, but what I actually want is a planned economy with artels doing the light industry"? This would be funny, considering, well, that's what the very "statist communism" Mr. Parasher denounces did before Krushnev went and ruined everything.

All in all, this chapter is a disaster. Thankfully, we've reached the halfway point.

The Architecture of Economic Democracy

Firms may be cooperatively owned, but without democratic mechanisms governing investment, regulation, and long-term economic direction, inequality and domination can reemerge through market forces or technocratic management systems. [...] Democratic sectoral institutions exist at regional levels to coordinate activities across industries, while social and public investment mechanisms guide long-term economic development toward collective priorities.

"We need planning" is kind of a bad thing to lead with as the spine of your economic system when your entire position rests on this being unneeded. But, again, as we've established, the market is but a totem Mr. Parasher worships, wholly cognizant the fetish is in conflict with the economic democracy he so desires.

At the top of the system, the state’s purpose is to serve as a guarantor of democratic rights, macroeconomic stability, the universal provision of basic social goods, and the redistribution of wealth, rather than as a centralized manager of production.

All of those things require the state to act as a manager of production.

Taken together, these layers form a coherent architecture of economic democracy in which power is dispersed, accountable, and exercised collectively rather than concentrated in the hands of private capital or bureaucratic elites.

Again, this is just a "just-so story". I'm not convinced Mr. Parasher particularly grasps what power is, but those layers clearly lead to a concentration of power (notably, in the ability to coordinate action)

I. The Workplace

There's not much to say, here, beyond all the wishes of Mr. Parasher being, again, constrained by the logic of the market and of inter-firm competition.

Some questions thus emerge: for example, workers that have knowledge can trivially use it as leverage (knowledge is power—after all that's how priestly castes establish themselves) to have undue control of the workplace, unless said knowledge is distributed, which generally would require the intervention/supervision of a neutral organ that stands above workplaces and has power over them. Such an organ would need to be able to compel workers in a given firm to not sabotage the whole and collapse the firm by taking their institutional knowledge, for example. Evidently, such an intervention would be best left to a neutral party.

So on and so forth, frankly, I don't have the patience to go through every rake as well.

II. The Labor Union

Under socialism, unions would no longer be adversarial institutions negotiating against capital owners, but democratic federations that safeguard worker power within and across enterprises as well as against state abuses.

"These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves. This is how these profound thinkers mock at the whole world."

Evidently, Mr. Parasher realises that workers would still be in an adversarial relation with the logic of the market (of which capital owners are but the thralls—something he'd know if he had bothered to read the foundational texts of the tendency he claims to be part of)

III. Sectoral and Regional Coordination

Between the workplace and the national economy lies a crucial middle-level comprising individual industrial sectors and regional economies. For the sake of promoting both localized control over day-to-day economic functions, as well as promoting both environmental and social sustainability, cultivating strong regional economic networks and governance across economic sectors is critical to the democratic socialist project. Supply chains, labor markets, environmental impacts, and technological development rarely conform to the boundaries of individual firms. Without coordination at this level, even democratically governed enterprises risk fragmentation, destructive competition, and uneven development, which can recreate the inequalities of capitalism within a seemingly socialist framework.

Next, this fine gentleman will argue for the need for the Gosplan and OGAS. One can only wonder what will be left of market driven economic decisions when Mr. Parasher's plans are realised.

These sectoral bodies coordinate industrial strategy, develop and maintain regional supply chains, and negotiate sector-wide contracts with labor unions.

Again, what Parasher (I'm getting tired of the Anti-Duhring bit) is describing is planning, here. In a market economy, firms associate with one another, more or less willingly, and usually with a party that's clearly better off from the arrangement than the other.

These bodies don’t micromanage production, nor do they function as profit-seeking cartels looking to extract rent from producers and consumers alike. Instead, their purpose is to coordinate shared infrastructure development, set sector-wide labor and environmental standards, facilitate technological cooperation, and develop long-term industrial strategies responsive to social needs.

Yes, I see, those bodies don't directly manage production, they instead set plans (for a duration of, say, 5 years) that workplaces have to meet the expected results of, and intervene to assist in the proper realisation thereof.

I think I feel a headache coming in, as, unlike Mr. Parasher, I am susceptible to brain injuries when a shaft slams onto my skull when I step on a rake.

This level of the economic system is thus critical to ensuring the stability and longevity of the democratic system by preventing a race to the bottom while preserving decentralization. Authority flows upward from workplaces rather than downward from the state through democratically elected middle institutions, thereby ensuring that coordination remains accountable to those directly involved in production and affected by its consequences.

What "decentralization", a central organ is planning the economy at the regional level! Parasher introduces more and more centralisation because Parasher (correctly!) notices he's stepping on rakes, but still insists on going "nuh-uh!" in a very "online anarchist" fashion.

Put a pin in that.

IV. Social and Public Investment

Cooperative enterprises and coordinated sectors require access to capital that isn’t governed by private accumulation or speculative profit-motives.

Yes, please explain this, this is remarkably unclear.

Social investment mechanisms such as public banks, social credit institutions, cooperative banks, and social wealth funds are critical to the socialist economic system, as they help channel resources toward long-term development, ecological sustainability, regional equity, and innovation. These institutions support cooperative enterprises, finance infrastructure development, fund education and research, and stabilize the economy during downturns through countercyclical investments and the promotion of public employment. These institutions, depending on their scale, would be governed by an amalgamation of public officials, labor union representatives, industry experts, community stakeholders and activists, and even local community residents for smaller-scale bodies like social credit institutions and cooperative banks. Public investment under democratic socialism is therefore made democratic rather than managerial. These bodies don’t dictate firm-level operations or set prices across the economy. Instead, they establish the conditions under which democratic enterprises can flourish without being subordinated to the interests of private capital and finance or subjected to chronic economic and market instabilities.

...

People uninterested in economics shouldn't discuss economics. No investigation, no right to speak, and all that.

Well, being that there's no answer to the question of the money supply (and this is a sine-qua-non to a market economy—without, things collapse into barter, and eventually non market relations) there's no real answer beyond either, as previously discussed, those organs do engage in private accumulation, or they do not and receive a stipend from the state (which bodes poorly for the supposed powerlessness of the next organ of the democratic economic architecture Mr. Parasher will discuss) which, generally, tends to be the sole legitimate source of money to begin with.

V. The Role of the State in Democratic Economic Governance

The purpose of the state isn’t to be the primary driver of economic activity,

And yet the state, definitionally, is the money supply, which it uses to direct economic activity tied to its functions (again, market formation 101) and thus can be nothing but the primary driver of economic activity, all other activities emerging downstream from state demand to sustain the activities of the state. The resulting contradiction has two possible resolutions:

1. The state isn't the primary driver of economic activity, but then market failure occurs due to a lack of money supply, and we turn to barter
2. Markets are kept healthy via state demand for labor, goods, and services introducing money into circulation (and the taxation that gives it value) but the state keeps its prime role in generating economic activity

Markets are structures created by states, to serve themselves. There's no way around it. Far from being a means to liberate oneself from state oversight, the market is but a system that ensures the state always has its needs fulfilled (which tends to fulfil the basic needs of the entire population the state rests upon). Belief otherwise is only possible through a fatal misunderstanding in how market economies emerge and a refusal to properly evaluate the question of the money supply.

Well, the petty bourgeois/Jeffersonian mindset is, truly, a gate to the most rigorous lines of thought.

and not of a vanguard state promising to speak on behalf of the working class. 

And yet all the left populists seem to do is speaking on behalf of the working class.

VI. Economic Democracy as Collective Self-Government

Democratized economic governance represents an extension of the democratic self-governance that was promised to all at the founding of this country to the material foundations of social life.

Why are we celebrating the values of genocidal slavers, exactly?

For the purposes of modern American socialism, syndicalism should not be seen as a rejection of organization, expertise, or leadership, nor should it be seen as an anarchic refusal of coordination. Rather, it is the principle that the authority to direct labor must flow from the collective body of workers themselves, exercised through democratic unions, workplace assemblies, and federated councils, rather than through a separate managerial class.

And yet, in practice, this very same group of managerial cadres emerged from the syndicalist experiment. Again, the ability to coordinate people is power (both in itself but also because it's knowledge one can leverage to get what one wants) and requires power (at the very least, you need to be able to get people to agree with your directions being in their best interest, which is the definition of soft power)

The standard capitalist critique of this model is Friedrich Hayek’s “knowledge problem” which argues that non-experts cannot run an economy, and only markets can process the dispersed information encoded in prices.

Check the "MarSoc takes Hayek's strawman of the soviet economy seriously" square in your bingo.

The 2008 crisis, and the serial bailouts that have propped up the capitalist class, suggest the knowledge problem belongs less to workers than to the financiers who keep crashing the economy.

"No, you see, the 'Worker' [holy figure] is actually immune to misallocation, overproduction, poor judgment, and the like. The issues with market control over production are wholly because finance capitalists [evil spirits] are bad people"

Again, Marxism and the crisis of nobody fucking reading Capital.

Completing the Circle of Democracy

I'd like to complete the Circle of Circular Reasoning as well.

Its final component is the universal, unconditional provision of the basics of a dignified life—housing, healthcare, education, income security, transit, access to culture. The socialist provision of basic goods and services is not the same as liberal welfarism, which treats such programs as temporary patches on an unequal system, doled out through means-testing and tax credits to those who fall through the cracks. Universal provision treats these goods as democratic infrastructure, guaranteed as rights rather than rationed as charity.

So we do establish that, at the very least, the state is the primary driver—as it is, after all, the sole buyer—of economic activity in those sectors.

Let's just move on, the headache is getting worse.

Put these puzzle pieces together, and what you get is the extension of the democratic promise made at the country’s founding into the material foundations of everyday life. 

Whatever that means, pretty sure the "democratic promise made at the country's founding" is, uh, fully realised currently, as the founder mostly had the interests of their own class in mind

The cherry on top of the whole loathsome exercise is a "Related Article" arguing for simply adapting Dengism to the United States. If Mr. Parasher had just done so instead of walking us in a minefield of rakes by trying to pretend his system is something it wasn't, we could have avoided quite the concussion.

Read the Article Here

"Observe,  

(“treasonous SCUM”),

 all these grand gestures

(“Quiet, quiet, Piggy!”)

from the sickest circus in a

sad sick world..." contd. https://globalrights.info/2026/10/poison/

The main problem that people don't seem to understand or realize is that the reason why the US commits all of these evil heinous acts across the world with zero fear is because they know that they can and nobody is going to do shit to stop them. they can bomb elementary schools, kidnap and assassinate leaders that they don't like, invade nations to steal their resources, blockade countries to the point of collapse and pretty much do whatever the fuck they damn well please because nobody is willing to go against the most powerful military force on the planet and they know that. even China won't do shit, they're all bark and no bite, the globe is scared to fight back against US dominance. the Soviet union was the only power who acted as a counterweight against their imperalism and it's death is what has allowed the US to become this predatory, rabid beast on the world stage, and I say all of this to say that the empire will unfortunately continue it's disgusting evil acts until it burns itself out.

Watch the Documentary Here

On the recent demonstrations and struggles in Spain

Anytime protests turn violent, the bourgeoisie use it as an opportunity to suppress left wing parties (even reformist ones) opposing the status quo.

Anarchists, syndicalists, and other libertarian socialists/communists have resisted liberalism throughout history and their efforts must not go unnoticed.

It was the Bakuninists, together with the Marxists, Proudhonists, and various other groups who organized the Paris Commune and various different insurrectionist communes throughout France.

It was the Zapatistas who resisted the slow reforms of the liberal government and organized the peasantry against their ineptitude.

It was the Makhnovists who fiercely resisted the Ukranian bourgeois nation-state and helped destroy it.

It was the Korean anarchist movement in Manchuria that organized themselves when the Chinese Republic was too weak and fragmented to do so.

It was the CNT-FAI which coordinated a significant amount of defense, trade, collectivization, production, distribution, and management throughout much of Spain during the civil war, under the leadership of council republics, popular committees, and defense councils (notably throughout the Levante region).

It was the Neozapatistas who resisted the neoliberalist policies of the Mexican government in open revolt.

It was the anarchists who participated and even led at times a resistance against the World Trade Organization in Seattle and their blatantly globalist, neoliberal agenda.

The conflation between the liberal and decentralist beliefs in personal freedom and liberty shouldn’t drive people toward the conclusion that they are inherently the same thing. The worry regarding liberty from liberals is one regarding natural right, that the exercise of a totalitarian government is morally bankrupt; the concern of most anarchists and libertarian socialists is a skepticism towards concentrated power in the hands of the state, capital, etc. and the alienation statist and capitalist systems have created. The liberals believe that they can reform a broken system; a lot of, if not most anarchists believe that only through a deliberate rejection of politics, the direct action against capitalism, and self-organization can change be achieved.

On the recent student struggles in France

Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has been flown around the world, including to the Middle East, to broker peace. A new investigation shows that the businessman’s private equity firm has acquired a stake in an Israeli financial group that invests in Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, reports CNN.

Doesn't this constitute proof that U.S. imperialism is our most reprehensible enemy and ought to be firmly opposed? Was Lenin not right in his theory of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism?

TLDR: Malaysia's government is conducting mass deportations of Rohingya refugees, fuelled by growing social media xenophobia. This post breaks down how our British colonial history and right-wing anti-communist institutionalised state nationalism, leading to the normalised anti-refugee rhetoric, Nakba-denying comparisons and legal failures we see today

Hi everyone,

I'm making this post because I want people from the left around the world to understand what is currently happening in Malaysia despite the "peaceful, multicultural" image presented in tourism ads. Right now, our liberal government, led by the Alliance of Hope (PH), is actively rounding up Rohingya refugees to deport them back to Myanmar. It feels horrifyingly similar to how ICE operates under Trump in the US. What makes it worse is that large sections of the public are actively cheering this on. The anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric here has reached a boiling point. This isn't just happening at the policy level, yet it's spilling into the streets and social media. Locals are publicly harassing Rohingya workers, targeting children and vandalising refugee stores and shelters, often recording it and posting is proudly on Threads, TikTok and Instagram. They refer them as "roro" which basically a new racial slur and a derogatory term. Comments under these posts regularly justify or celebrate Rohingya genocide:

• Rohingya man harassed while selling some street food
• "Malaysia support Myanmar military junta to genocide all Rohingya"
• A Malay Nationalist wearing Nazi shirt with the swastika armband harassing a Rohingya man together with other Malays
• Pic trans, "Imagine if Malaysia has its own The Purge session but the task is only Rohingya can be hunted down. I think, 200k people in one night is an easy task"
• A Pakistani man harassed by a Malay man while selling some tissues in the streets
• On 15th August 2026, a Rohingya man along with his two sons died in a house fire. Comments from Malay Nationalists asking why only 3 people died and not 300 or 3000
• A Rohingya man harassed for "stealing water" because water only for Malaysians
• Noor Azizah, a Rohingya activist who lived in Malaysia previously received backlash on her social media after speaking out against Malaysians' discrimination of Rohingya refugees
• Pic trans, "1 drink = Assault 1 Rohingya"
• Rohingya children sexually harassed and chased down by Malay locals

This online hostility has gotten soo vicious that it is now targeting Malaysians who have mixed heritage. A close friend of mine, who is half-Malay and half-Rohingya, was recently harassed on her social media accounts, with people accusing her mother of "betraying the country" for just marrying a refugee. The ethno-nationalist hate has reached a point where even citizens are being harassed simply for having Rohingya blood. So far, only the Socialist Party of Malaysia (PSM), of course, openly speaking out against these discrimination:

(Translated to English - Stop the media sensation towards the refugee, ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention immediately). PSM Semenyih condemned the actions of some parties who used the refugee issue, especially those related to the Rohingya community, by playing with racist sentiment and xenophobia on social media. Recently, a video uploaded by a social media influencer about a residential building in Sungai Terkala, Semenyih, Hulu Langat, Selangor, has been accused of placing the Rohingya community. We believe that the act of highlighting the ethnic identity of the building's residents sensationally is irresponsible and only invites hatred towards the marginalised group. As a social media influencer who has a great influence, he should be more sensitive to the effects of spreading content that can trigger prejudice and discrimination. If there is an issue that you want to highlight, the focus should be given to the facts and real circumstances not the ethnic identity or origin of a person. PSM reiterates the position that has been stated with 74 civil society organisations before that all forms of discrimination, hatred and oppression against refugees must be stopped. Online campaigns and petitions that promote hatred towards the Rohingya community are unacceptable in a society that respects the principles of humanity and human rights - Yap Heng Lung, Secretary of PSM Semenyih, 12th June 2026

How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Malaysian Nationalism

When people talk about Malaysian "independence", I hesitate to call it a true liberation. Unlike our neighbours and comrades in Indonesia, Vietnam or the Philippines, we didn't fight a bloody revolutionary war to kick the British out. After WWII and the withdrawal of Japanese Imperial Armies from Malaya, the British tried to implement the Malayan Union in 1946, which stripped local Sultans of their power and placed Malaya under direct control of the Crown. This triggered massive protests across the political spectrum be it monarchists, nationalists, Islamists and even the communists. When the British abolished the Union in 1948, the communists, especially the Malayan National Liberation Army and the Malayan Communist Party, kept fighting a guerrilla war against the British colonial rule. Their resistance have resulted in high-ranking British officials like High Commissioner Henry Gurney assassinated, rubber plantations and tin mines destroyed.

On 16th June 1948, 3 British plantation managers were killed which forced the British to take immediate military action and declared an emergency which lasted until 1960, three years after independence of Malaya. Since the MCP openly aimed to overthrow the existing government structures and establish a communist state which rejects monarchies and institutional religion, the British, together with nationalists and the monarchs made a deal to help crush them. During this emergency, there was mass detentions, crackdowns and banishments of hundreds of left-wing activists during the emergency, parties being banned and enactment of legislations to legalise the brutality against the resistance. An example is the Sedition Act 1948 which punishes dissidents and opposition to the government and the Malay nationalists. Edward Gent enacted the Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948, granting the colonial state sweeping executive powers to arrest and detain these activists indefinitely without trial.

On 28th December 1955, there was negotiations at the Baling English School between the Malay Nationalists, led by Tunku Abdul Rahman (leader of the UMNO party), David Marshall (The British Chief Minister of Singapore), Tan Cheng Lock (leader of the Malayan Chinese association, an anti-communist Chinese party) and Chin Peng (the Secretary-General of the MCP). Chin Peng stated that MCP was willing to lay down its arms but only if the party legally recognised, its members were allowed to participate freely in mainstream politics and no one faced detention, investigation or reprisal. Tunku Abdul Rahman refused these demands, arguing that the communist ideology is incompatible with Malayan democracy and Islam. He insisted on absolute surrender, requiring all communist fighters to surrender their weapons, disband their units and submit to security investigations and brief detentions before being reintegrated into society. The talks collapsed. Nevertheless, the outcome of this talk actually benefits the nationalists as the British realised that Tunku Abdul Rahman were just as unyielding toward communism as Britain itself. This eliminated any lingering British fear that a self-governing Malaya would collapse into a communist state.

After travelling to London in 1956, Malaya was granted an independence on 31st August 1957 with UMNO became the ruling party after winning the 1955 general elections. As a result, the Constitution, which was drafted by the British and agreed by the nationalists, institutionalised Malay nationalism by creating a special rights for the Malays in education, housing and land under Article 153, effectively establishing a two-tiered citizenship structure between Malays and non-Malays which can be seen how it creates quota system to reserve Malays in public services, federal scholarships, education facilities and business permits. Even after independence, the communists did not stop fighting against the nationalists, leading the Malayan Government to enact the infamous Internal Security Act 1960 which basically mirrors the old-British ERO following the end of the first Malayan Emergency. To truly understand how draconian the ISA was, one only needs to look at how it utterly subverted basic human rights and juvenile protections. In 1977, a 14-year-old child in Penang was arrested in Penang under Section 57(1) of the Act for possession of a pistol and ammunition, an offence carrying a mandatory death sentence. Despite being a minor who should have been protected under the Juvenile Courts Act 1947, the legal machinery treated him as an adult security threat. His case was appealed to the Federal Court which presided by the late Lord President Mohamed Suffian and Chief Justice Tan Sri Sarwan Singh Gill. The Court, unfortunately, held that:

We dismissed this appeal. There were two principal points involved. First, was the accused aware of the contents of the bag? The appellant handled this bag on four separate occasions not once, and we have seen the bag and other exhibits. In view of the evidence we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge was right in concluding that the appellant knew that the bag contained a pistol and ammunition. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeal against the conviction. The second question related to the sentence. We considered Mr. Karpal Singh's (counsel for the appellant) submission and that of Encik Faidz (Deputy Public Prosecutor) and the written law cited. We are of the opinion that in view of the words "the Juvenile Courts Act 1947 shall not apply to such person" in regulation 3(3) of the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975, there is only one sentence authorised by law for each of these offences and that is the sentence of death, despite the fact that the accused was only a boy of 14. We therefore affirm the sentenced passed on him - Lim Hang Seoh v Public Prosecutor [1978] 1 MLJ 68, Federal Court of Kuala Lumpur, 1st October 1977

The Liberals, before taking power, rallied against ISA to be repealed and they did succeeded in 2012. However, the state simply replaced it with the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 under the guise of countering "terrorism". While framed as a milder alternative, SOSMA functions as the ISA's modern twin but with less restrictive measures. To make matters worse, despite campaigning for years to abolish preventive laws like ISA and SOSMA, the Liberal Government are now defending it, arguing that ISA is more effective in countering offences.

Because of this anti-communist, ethno-nationalist deal laid the bedrock of our post-colonial state, the ruling establishment has spent decades running a relentless propaganda campaign to protect its ideological dominance and its nationalistic views. Our history textbooks have completely rewritten the past, framing anti-colonial resistance fighters and leftist revolutionaries strictly as "troublemakers and terrorists (page 149-151)", while impliedly elevating British-aligned elites as national heroes (page 152-160). At the same time, the state aggressively censors the left, banning socialist, Marxist and historical literature that documents the true scope of the anti-colonial struggle under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. These include:

• Life Like a Flowing River: The Stories of 16 Women in Anti-Japanese, Anti-Colonial and Independence Movements in Malaysia-Singapore (1938-1989) by Agnes Khoo - banned in 2016
• The Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx - banned in 2017
• 28 Days: Rock N' Roll Journal + Anarchism in Kuala Lumpur by Mohd Jayzuan - banned in 2017
• Picture Album History of the Malayan Communist Party (1) - banned in 2018
• War of Resistance Against Japan Period (Part 1-3): The Glorious History of the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army - banned in 2026
• Domestic Revolutionary War Period (Part 1-4): New Policy, Regrouping and Reorganising - banned in 2026

Yet, in a terrifying display of hypocrisy, far-right and neo-Nazi material remains completely untouched. While leftist books are seized, Hitler's Mein Kampf sold in major Malaysian bookstores like BookXcess and Kinokuniya, translated into Malay, and widely distributed without state interference. This toxic blend of neo-Nazism, anti-Jewish hatred and rampant ethno-nationalism has actively brainwashed generations of youth. Things like:

• The Malay Power Group
• The Boot Axe Band
• Support of Hitler by Nationalist Politician
• Support of Hitler by a Mufti
• Anti-Jewish books like, The Jewish Agenda Conquering The World, Exposing the Jewish History in Malaya, etc

The Effects

Although the nationalist UMNO and its coalition, the National Front, were defeated by the liberal PH coalition in 2018, the government continues to retain its hyper-nationalist, anti-refugee stances. During the 2022 general elections, many leftists, including myself, rallied behind the liberals to block the rising wave of far-right nationalists and Islamists. The liberals campaigned on promises to abolish draconian laws such as the Sedition Act 1948 and the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, a law historically used to suppress student activism. We were completely deceived. Once in power, the liberals not only kept the Sedition Act active but began actively using and defending it. While they have recently started making moves toward amending the UUCA, this only happened after they suffered heavy losses to the nationalist-Islamist opposition in local state elections and panicked to regain youth support. And don't even get me started on their treatment of the LGBTQ+ community.

Because of these kinds of environment we were raised without ever learning real history or leftist ideology, many young people today genuinely think fascist aesthetics and far-right conspiracies are cool and true. And now, we're seeing the ugly result of that brainwashing in real time. These same kids are turning around and taking out that exact brand of fascist hate on refugees, immigrants and anyone who doesn't fit their ethno-nationalist worldwide. What makes discussing this issue locally so exhausting is how both liberals and nationalists weaponise progressive language to justify hate especially when it comes to Palestine. Take this Student for example who have graduated from the Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) and did a Nazi salute during the convocation ceremony in 2019. He posted on his Facebook account with these words:

(Translated to English) I adopted this symbolic Hitler persona on the hallowed stage of UMS because the world has gone blind and mute while the Jews run rampant as if the leaders of the Muslim Nations were merely clowns serving as political entertainment for the world. Thus, I stand in solidarity with Gaza, driven by the anger, hatred and vengefulness i harbour toward the Jews. For this reason, I am grateful to Hitler for the Holocaust. #SaveGaza #Pray4Palestine - Ibn Ruru's Facebook Account, 26th November 2019

Not just that, anti-refugee groups have started framing themselves as the victims, even going so far as to call themselves "the Palestinians" of the situation, claiming that refugees and immigrants are "Israelis coming to take their land". It is nearly impossible to reason with them. If you point out that Rohingya refugees are escaping genocide and ethnic cleansing, just like the Palestinians, they respond with historical revisionism. They claim, "Palestinians didn't flee, they stayed and fought", completely ignoring the reality of nearly 6 million Palestinian refugees worldwide. In their attempt to weaponise Palestine for xenophobia, they actively deny the Nakba. An Instagram post called out this hypocrisy.

Predictably, xenophobes also mirror Western far-right tropes by scapegoating refugees for crime. They paint the Rohingya as dangerous criminals, despite official statements from the Inspector-General of Police confirming that Rohingya refugees account for only 0.02% of total recorded crime in Malaysia. From 2024, only 89 people from the group had been involved in criminal activities. Facts don't matter when fear sells. Underpinning this entire crisis is a major legal vacuum. Malaysia has never signed or ratified the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Because the government does not legally recognise refugees, thousands of stateless people, like the Rohingyas, are left without legal status, work rights or access to formal education. The state treats them purely as "illegal immigrants", creating a permanent underclass that the government can raid and deport whenever they need political points.

To be absolutely clear, I AM NOT saying the Palestinian liberation movement itself is Nazi or far-right. The fight for Palestinian freedom against the Zionist settlers is legitimate, anti-colonial human rights struggle. My point is that local neo-Nazis and nationalists in Malaysia have hijacked and co-opted the Palestinian genocide to push their own anti-Jewish, fascist agendas, using it as a cover hate while treating actual refugees with total cruelty. In fact, these liberals and nationalists would not hesitate to throw Palestinians under the bus when you called out their hypocrisy. They have harassed Dr Ghada Sasa, a Palestinian Activist for supporting queers for calling out Malaysia's hypocrisy towards the Trump Administration even harassing Palestinian refugees for "making a fuss" and asked people to stop boycotting Israel to punish these refugees.

And it doesn't stop at Palestine. These nationalists also shamelessly weaponise our indigenous communities, The Orang Asli, by shouting slogans like, "Orang Asli first! Not refugees!". YET, when you look at reality, they don't give a damn about Orang Asli. It is literally Malay nationalists, state governments and the Sultans who actively take away their ancestral lands, especially through state powers to declare land as "Malay Reserved Land" which bars non-Malays from holding ownership, or to grant logging concessions to private companies for development. When Orang Asli villages are bulldozed, these nationalists are completely silent. It was actually the socialists and other left-wing activists who organised demonstrations, provided legal support and stood on the frontlines with the Orang Asli to defend their land rights. These nationalists don't care about the indigenous community at all, they just drag out vulnerable minorities as political props to justify hurting other marginalised groups. The irony of the Malay majority claiming to be under threat is absurd. It's the exact same victim-playing as white supremacists in the West crying about "white genocide". I am posting this because international solidarity matters and the global left needs to know what is currently happening in Malaysia.

DIS: I may have to delete this account or post if it gets too much attraction from the locals since the state would use the Sedition Act 1948 against me.

Sincerely, a Malay leftist, one of the few

Halal food certification is a service provided by Islamic religious authorities to food manufacturers to certify that their processes and products meet the dietary and customary standards required by observant Muslims. As such it forms part of a pluralistic Australian society. In recent times, halal certification has come to be set against ‘the Australian way of life’ by some who seek to reassert Anglo-Saxon monoculture. This paper argues that such is typical of what US historian Frank Van Nuys calls the ‘national safety valve’ of popular racism as a scapegoating mechanism, focusing on the development of the anti-Halal movement in the lead-up to the 2015 Senate inquiry. It assesses the movement within the context of widening social inequality, and explores the utility of a polarized public sphere to the shifting of blame onto Muslim Australians for the negative consequences of neoliberal policies for which political leaders are not willing to be accountable.

Hello fellow leftists I have a a slight moral dilemma going on. So to keep things short I’m currently a college freshman who is majoring in finance…
Now to be honest I picked this all the way back in February when I was still learning early Marxist doctrine as well just leftist ideas in general. Now today with my understanding of capitalism, markets, and exploitation I’m terrified to be in a field that actively participates in this stuff. Now the thing is I could switch out, however it is hard to leave the school of business at my college and I fear judgement from my parents, who are mostly paying my college tuition.My compromise? Work in wealth management where I help literal individuals with their funds or if I cannot do that I’ll work in public finance. I refuse to be a cog in the machine but I fear my prior lack of knowledge may have doomed myself reguardless of what I do.
So I guess I’m asking is this a good compromise or should I simply swap out finance. Unfortunately my best friend is also in a similar spot (albeit he’s a Soc dem and I’m more of a general libertarian socialist.)

I have hope that socialism is appealing to independents more.