"Flowers of the Red Army" A response to @KeithWoodsYT's recent...
Karimį“³į“®@KARIMAXXING
41 views
May 30, 2026
~8 min read
Advertisement
1
"Flowers of the Red Army"
A response to @KeithWoodsYT's recent article and the disillusionned right-wing's critique of Marxism - š§µ
A response to @KeithWoodsYT's recent article and the disillusionned right-wing's critique of Marxism - š§µ
2
Recently, I have been engaging with a lot more right-wingersā¦ and what a revelation! They have no idea what they are doing as much as the current left! Their critiques of Marxism are outdated while they're being outpaced by figures such as Hinkle.
3
Keith Woods, your favorite white nationalist, published a new article criticizing Marxism. Let us respond.
-Marxism is failed ideology
The first and immediate right-wing impression of Marxism is that it is a āfailed ideologyā. As Keith Woods says:
-Marxism is failed ideology
The first and immediate right-wing impression of Marxism is that it is a āfailed ideologyā. As Keith Woods says:
4
But the question to ask is: by what standard exactly? The irony is that, the right-winger, when he says that Marxism failed, follows the same exact standard of victory that the pan-leftists preach.
5
He thinks the success of Marxism would be a motherly embrace of nature and an anarchic society with no moral imperatives. But this is not a standard of victory - this is a mere fantasy of 20th century hippie-leftists.
6
On the grounds of a real victory, which is simply the maximum propagation and instantiation of revolutionary methods - the real movement - Marxism is actually the ONLY ideology that has EVER won after modern liberalism.
7
Only Marxists have succeeded in founding the powerful empires outside liberal modernity, these being the USSR and modern China, that have given the breathing room for peripheral sovereign countries to form (Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, etc).
8
The fascists, the anarchists, the social-democrats, the nationalists and the libertarians have all either been completely integrated into liberal modernity or, in the case of the libertarians, never have been able to be sovereign and WIN.
Why is it then that Marxism WINS?
Why is it then that Marxism WINS?
9
This is a question that stupefies the right-wing. Thus, they resort to metaphysical explanations to explain the event of communism: that it was the JEWS, that it is because of RACE or that it is the slavish WOKE-CHRISTIANS.
10
All of these explanations do not explain the ground of possibility of Marxist victory.
11
Metaphysical explanations give supra-material grounds for events, as if certain ethnicities, races or religions had the powers to circumvent the laws of material reality and instantiate their victory. Let us showcase the absurdity of this type of explanation.
12
Letās say that the JEWS completely CREATED Marxism and PROPAGATED it (even though Marxās ideas were fundamentally Christian and his followers all the same).
13
Now, for them to be able to do so, you need a country that is; not sovereign politically, divided to the utmost limit of class composition because of imperialism (peasants and the noble-bourgeois are an example in Tsarist Russia), culturally and intellectually backwards (i.eā¦
14
ā¦education introduces them to revolutionary ideals). All of these CONDITIONS are objective and INDEPENDENT from individuals. IN OTHER WORDS, it doesnāt fucking matter what āindividualā leads the peasants - IT WAS BOUND TO HAPPEN.
15
Jews do NOT have mystical powers to CREATE these objective conditions. Therefore, communism can NOT be a Jewish creation but an OBJECTIVE EVENT.
16
The same can be said for any other metaphysical place-holder the right-wing tries to ascribe to Marxism - lower-class races, Christian wokes, etc.
Then, why is it that the MARXISTS win and not any other political group?
Then, why is it that the MARXISTS win and not any other political group?
17
Well, it is simple; Marxists simply had the best ANSWER to modernity, in that their answer was based on a scientific apprehension of the class conditions in Europe, Russia, China, etc. For example, the Marxists would answer to the Narodniks (the previous Christian peasantā¦
18
ā¦revolutionaries of Russia) that they did not ally with the fundamental FORCE that existed in Russia - that is, the URBAN proletariat. Their focus on the peasantry because of ideological reasons (mainly Christianity) lead them to failure.
19
But when the Marxists allied with BOTH the proletariat and the peasantry - they WON. Thus, Marxist CLASS ANALYSIS is what leads to victory. And this is the justification of materialism Woods is looking for.
20
Only materialism can be self-critical, renounce metaphysical explanations and locate the objective conditions of victory. Therefore, only Marxists win.
21
-Chinaās Success and the failure of fascism
Because only Marxists win, the fascists often try to steal the victories of the communists. They claim that āStalin was fascist, North Korea is fascist and modern China is fascistā. As Keith Woods says:
Because only Marxists win, the fascists often try to steal the victories of the communists. They claim that āStalin was fascist, North Korea is fascist and modern China is fascistā. As Keith Woods says:
22
Ironically, this is a complete showcase of the fact that fascism, from the start, was a mere cope faced with the force of communism.
23
The Nazis tried to replicate the aesthetics of a revolution without a real revolution (they designed their suits inspired by the Red Army, their rhetoric was āsocialistā and they named themselves the WORKERās Party).
24
Once they started to lose, because all they ever were were dogs of the imperialists funded by the German and British bankers, they started to say that Stalin was a fascist. What an irony when they were themselves an anarchistic replicate!
25
Keith Woods then tries to claim that China is fascist. This puts the fascists of today in a curious position; if they want to get to their desired āfascismā, they have to go through communism first!
26
They have to go through the PROLETARIAN revolution, the incredible land reform of Mao, the primitive accumulation of the Communes, the co-operative industries & agriculture and the new national industry.
27
The only way for all of the previous accomplishments is a SCIENTIFIC and MATERIALIST class analysis - which the fascists deny to worship the state instead.
28
Dengās Reforms make absolutely no sense without their reference to the ownership of the Land that the Chinese people have, something the fascists could never achieve (they collapse way too quickly for anything they wish to do precisely because they do not have class analysis).
29
Chinaās economic planning is not an ideal but an objective development POST-REVOLUTION - after the proletarian revolution is completely consolidated by the abolition of previous bourgeois monopoly, political power, state & imperialist machinery, something the fascists NEVER did.
30
They thought they could āreformā their countries, as the social-democrats do. China is completely Marxist-Leninist and is the greatest showcase of the power of communism in recent times.
31
Hereās a challenge for Keith Woods: if you want to achieve the success of China, then you should follow in their objective footsteps: stop calling yourself a fascist, advocate and accomplish a proletarian revolution as Mao did and be a communist by name.
32
Then, after all that, youāre going to have your little desired āfascismā. Ironic how only communists accomplish what you dream about!
33
-Marxist Ethics
Another point the right-wingers usually make is that Marxism is a moralizing force - that it denounces evils and then goes on to āfight evilā. Hereās Woods on this:
Another point the right-wingers usually make is that Marxism is a moralizing force - that it denounces evils and then goes on to āfight evilā. Hereās Woods on this:
34
But this is a completely laughable perspective on Marxism. In fact, Marxism would be the LEAST moralizing methodology - even LESS than Nietzsche (Nietzsche in fact just introduces a new morality and cries about 2000 years of History). Why?
35
It is because Marxism locates the objective conditions for victory and accomplishes it. It does not care about morality (in fact Marx would scoff at anyone bringing up morals in scientific analysis) when it analyzes capitalism, it cares only about POWER, VICTORY and ANALYSIS.
36
As Marx says:
37
The Marxist critique of capitalism and imperialism for example, is not āuh no it is evilā but āit is objectively collapsing - your system is untenableā. Morality only comes AFTER.
38
-The Labor Theory of Value
A point more advanced right-wingers bring up is the labor theory value and all its controversies. As Woods says:
But this misses the point of Marxās critique of political economy.
A point more advanced right-wingers bring up is the labor theory value and all its controversies. As Woods says:
But this misses the point of Marxās critique of political economy.
39
Marx was REFUTING the pervading Labor Theory of Value of his time (namely by Adam Smith and Ricardo), he wasnāt creating a new principle. Smith and Ricardo asserted that all wealth was produced by labor while Marx asserts that only VALUE is produced by labor.
40
Value is not material wealth but a temporal category - translated into surplus for the capitalist class. This means that value is historically specific, it is bound to collapse.
41
A NEW method of producing will come about, because of the development of productive forces, to outpace modern human wage-labor. THAT is Marxās point. THAT is the falling rate of profit. The only ones who benefit from human labor are the bourgeois class.
42
The abolition of wage-labor and the reduction of labor time (which the bourgeoisie replaces with useless labor and imperialism) is antithetical to the bourgeoisie, only the working class can accomplish it. Thus the way to outpace the bourgeoisie is to ally with the proletariat.
43
As Marx says:
44
-The question of ethnicity
The final cope of the right-wing faced with the relentless victory of communism is to say that: ābut but but Marxism is anti-White! Only the nationalists and the fascists can prootect the White people!ā As Woods says:
The final cope of the right-wing faced with the relentless victory of communism is to say that: ābut but but Marxism is anti-White! Only the nationalists and the fascists can prootect the White people!ā As Woods says:
45
Ok. Tell me a single nationalist or fascist country that has ādefended white people from mass immigrationā. There are none. They all collapse and lose their sovereignty to NATO or America, precisely because of their class basis.
46
Thatās exactly what happened with the Nazi integration into NATO or today with the Azov battalion. On the other hand, Marxist-Leninist countries would be considered culturally āconservativeā precisely because proletarian morality has won over the country.
47
The historical laws of nationhood, as outlined by Stalin in his work āMarxism and the National Questionā, are taken into consideration in communist countries, which results in strict border policies and no mass immigration.
48
Which is a phenomena Marx opposed as it enhances cultural and economic divides within the working class).
Thus, any proletarian movement in America or Europe will be majoritarily white - this is inherent to proletarian revolution itself.
Thus, any proletarian movement in America or Europe will be majoritarily white - this is inherent to proletarian revolution itself.
49
I have no idea why right-wingers have this fear of āthird-worldist communistsā when Marxism has always represented the majority of the population, whether it be in Russia, in China, in North Korea, in Cuba, in Germany, etc.
50
In conclusion, the right-wing doesnāt have an answer to Marxism. And it never will. The Flowers of the Red Army will continue to bloom regardless.
