There have been some takes I've seen lately that I want to criticize. There's an idea people seem to have about how they do not want a movement that is led by the white proletariat. Now, I understand where the concern comes from. There's a worry of rejecting various struggles.

The struggle for national liberation for New Afrikans, Chicanos, Indigenous peoples, etc. are all positions that the communist movement must focus on. But the way the criticism is posited seems to be under the impression that the communist movement is ONLY led by whites.

The claim, so it goes, implies that white communist organizers want the whites to be the SOLE leaders of the movement, and placing oppressed nations in a subordinate role. Now, for anyone with a basic understanding of Marxism, such a position would be incorrect.

The communist movement must start by uniting with the advanced sections of the masses. It will thus not be solely white communists dominating the movement. The advanced sections of the masses will necessarily include leaders among the oppressed nations.

Any communist movement that fails at this task will be doomed to fail. Any communist movement that fails to unite with the advanced sections of the New Afrikan, Chicano, Indigenous masses, and so on, will fail.

However, where I take umbridge with this claim is that it acts as though A: there is no communist leadership from oppressed nations, B: the white leadership is consistently focused on pure chauvinism and vulgar materialism, and C: this proves the futility of communism.

It's a false equivalence rooted in a logical fallacy. "These people did X, they claim to uphold this ideology, therefore the ideology itself is bad." It's no shocker that the people I've seen expositing these points have, by and large, been anarchists.

Is communism inherently opposed to national liberation? No. Lenin and Stalin made this clear, and struggled against the opportunists and revisionists who rejected its importance. The era of imperialism necessitates support for national liberation.

So then, what white communists would oppose national liberation? On the one hand, Dengites, Trotskyites, and other revisionist liquidators certainly would. The Dengites defend the chauvinist revisionism of Browder and Foster, who destroyed the revolutionary line of the CPUSA.

But those revisionists are not communists. To be a communist in today's world is by necessity to be a Maoist. To be a Maoist would necessarily include national liberation. So what kind of Maoist would reject national liberation? None, unless they're revisionist.

Communists must unite with the most oppressed sections of the masses. This by necessity includes those subject to national liberation, and uniting with them, their most advanced leadership, and engaging in their struggles. Otherwise, there can be no movement at all.

But let us not act like any successful revolution in the United States will be led purely by whites. The intensification of the New Afrikan struggle will make it all the more necessary to unite with advanced sections of the New Afrikan masses.

Anyone who thinks the communists will never do this is ignorant. Anyone who claims to be a communist and rejects this task is a fool. No serious communist thinks there will be a purely white-led revolution in the United States. Chauvinism would cripple the movement if so.