Excellent post. Here in Canada we see the same kind of red- brown alliance, a militant named Yves Engler is running for leadership of the New Democratic Party which is our social democratic party in both federal and provincial legislatures, and another fellow, a very Pro-Putin defeated Green Party leadership candidate named Dimitri Lascaris gets thousands of hits on his YouTube channel that he broadcasts daily.
Both are red- browns and when this is pointed out they and their followers fight back, defending the vile anti- Jewish and pro Putin rhetoric. They are attempting to take over the NDP which of course would be a disaster, most progressives are not there, and NDP voters are certainly not. Interestingly their policies are very, very, very similar to those of the Communist Party of Canada but they publicly have
nothing to do with the CPC no doubt because the CPC received .01% of the vote in last spring’s federal election.
Also perhaps because the CPC still is run like a military organization so no member ever steps out of line while both Engler and Lascaris are loose cannons.
This is very good ideas to contemplate back to politics and conservative leftist in my country. One crucial pitfall of them is their retreat from class analysis.
Our article on the conservative left was based on a special issue of Anticapitalistas, the magazine of the Anticapitalist Network of Fourth International members in Portugal. It's worth sharing here a response to a reader who wrote: "I'd say the only thing this piece leaves out is that the disintegration of working-class Left politics under neoliberalism left "Left politics" as something that happens in academia and the professional staff of unions and other NGOs. And that's the social base of conservative Leftism - a cadre of Left-wing activists who are not actually working class and thus are always doing politics "on behalf" of an imagined "working class" which may not resemble the real one. They also have a sheer internecine hatred of middle-class (neo-)liberals and build their politics on just putting a minus whereever neoliberalism puts a plus.
This leads to (a) "workerist" distortions (seeing existing degraded class consciousness as Noble Savage stuff) including capitulation to racism, transphobia and other forms of social reaction; (b) a helplessness concerning worker self-activity which leads to dreams of an anti-neoliberal Big Brother, expressed in either populist demagogues (hence jumping on Right-populist bandwagons) or foreign authoritarian states (campism)"
In replying, it's worth drawing out some more of the insights in the special issue we based our article on. The reply is below:-
I believe your comment offers a highly pertinent analysis of the characteristics and underlying social bases of the "conservative Lefts," a phenomenon deeply explored in the January 2025 issue of *Anti-capitalista*. The articles provide significant material to corroborate and elaborate on the points you've raised.
Social Base and Disintegration of Working-Class Left Politics
The articles largely align with your observation that neoliberalism has eroded traditional working-class politics, shifting "Left politics" towards other spheres. The editorial "Do conservadorismo de esquerda ao comunismo ácido" in *Anti-capitalista* issue 78, for instance, highlights how the period following the Cold War aggressively narrowed the ideological space for anticapitalist alternatives, while a violent neoliberal offensive attacked workers. This presented a dilemma for the Left: either be radical and risk marginalisation or moderate and become indistinguishable from other neoliberal parties.
The "conservative Lefts" are indeed seen as responding to this situation, often by prioritising traditional structures and tending to overlook individual freedoms, as discussed in "Anatomia das Esquerdas conservadoras". The same issue's editorial notes that the defeat of the Democratic Party in the US led to discussions about a supposed abandonment of the working class in favour of identity politics, a theme also seen with the BSW in Germany and Fabian Roussel in France. Economic transformations of the post-Fordist era, marked by increasing social inequalities, deindustrialisation, structural unemployment, and the **fragmentation of community ties**, have led to an **atomised individual experience** and a decline in democratic belief, weakening traditional structures like trade unions and leaving many feeling isolated and vulnerable.
Internecine Hatred of Middle-Class (Neo-)Liberals and its Consequences
Your point about an "internecine hatred of middle-class (neo-)liberals" is reflected in the articles' critique of "wokism" and certain Left-wing nationalisms. The piece "Wokismo. O conservadorismo de esquerda que a direita prefere" describes "wokism" as a "conservative Leftism that the right prefers," which is a **depoliticising element** that isolates causes and frames demands within a right-wing common-sense framework. This approach is seen as an "individualistic and competitive approach to politics," reflecting a liberalism that fails to connect with class consciousness.
This stance, as the articles suggest, contributes to several problematic consequences:
* **"Workerist" Distortions and Capitulation to Social Reaction:** I see that the articles explicitly state that conservative Lefts struggle to integrate minority rights, viewing multiculturalism or affirmative action as threats to existing working-class hierarchies. They are accused of **ignoring structural racial inequalities** and treating them as secondary to economic struggles, often expressing scepticism towards open border policies, which they perceive as a threat to local jobs and cultural cohesion.
* **Examples:** Sahra Wagenknecht's politics in Germany are cited as a prime example, dividing the working class into "national workers" and "immigrants" and advocating alliances with employers against immigrant workers, as mentioned in "Anatomia das Esquerdas conservadoras". Her discourse is described as populist and nationalist regarding immigration, aligning with the far-right's strategy, which effectively means an "alliance de facto with the European far-right" and increases the prevalence of "racist and obscurantist common sense".
* **Climate Negationism:** Some Left-wing figures, such as Demétrio Alves and Raquel Varela, are criticised for "climate negationism," dismissing climate change as a pretext for "green taxes" that burden workers, which is viewed as a "reductionist bias" that prioritises "workers first, the planet later". The article "Para uma responder a uma crise complexa: Ecossocialismo" argues that this "negationism arises as the political expression of a reductionism in analysis".
* **Anti-Feminist and Anti-LGBTQIA+ Sentiments:** "Fim ao Genocídio" details how the ultraconservative right capitalises on working-class resentment by defending traditional family structures against "gender ideology," promoting a reactionary project that advances a **"masculinidade reativa ao feminismo e à dissidência"** (masculinity reactive to feminism and dissidence), appealing to those who feel "defeated" by current capitalism. The "Wokismo" article also points to how the "ultra-identitarian" discourse is used by the right to attack feminist and LGBTQIA+ gains.
* **Helplessness and Dreams of an Anti-Neoliberal Big Brother (Populist Demagogues or Foreign Authoritarian States/Campism):** The editorial "Do conservadorismo de esquerda ao comunismo ácido" critiques the "exhausted model of conservative Lefts," calling for "radical creativity" instead of a "refuge in orthodoxy" that leads to sectarianism and isolation. This lack of a coherent alternative sometimes translates into supporting authoritarian figures or states.
* **Populist Demagogues:** The strategy of *La France Insoumise (LFI)*, as described in "O Sol do Futuro: é apenas um pouco tarde," exemplifies the turn towards a populist demagogue model. LFI's approach explicitly avoids traditional Left-wing terms like "class," replaces "The Internationale" with "La Marseillaise," and aims to build an "interclassist" political bloc against an "oligarchy." Their organisational structure, described as a "parti-oignon" (onion party), centralises power around the leader, allowing for agility but limiting grassroots participation in decision-making. This model, while aiming for a "radical end to the current system," does so through electoral means and a strong, centralised leadership, which could be interpreted as relying on a "Big Brother" figure.
* **Campism:** I found that the articles extensively define **campism** as the historical identification with the Soviet Union, which for some conservative Lefts today, manifests as **"support for Putin and the Russian regime"**, as detailed in "O campismo, doença senil de alguma esquerda." This is viewed as a continuation of Stalinism and a nostalgia for the Cold War's bipolar order, where the USSR is romanticised as an "alternative." This approach is criticised for justifying "any imperialism that opposes the US," thereby determining strategy based on "interests of governments and not peoples," regardless of those regimes' authoritarian nature. "Novos tankies e o neoestalinismo digital: como é incubada a Esquerda Conservadora" further illustrates this with the use of Soviet tank imagery in communication, suggesting that the solution to everything is to "send in the tanks". The support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, even characterising the Kyiv regime as "fascist" while ignoring Putin's ties to Trump and other far-right movements, is highlighted as a dangerous manifestation of this. This stance is seen as reflecting a "lack of a real socialist strategy," relying on rhetoric rather than concrete transformation. The introduction to issue 79 also explicitly states that "o campismo não é promotor de paz mas cúmplice da guerra".
In essence, while some on the Left struggle with the complexities of contemporary capitalism and the need for new strategies, the "conservative Lefts" often fall into the trap of simplifying these issues. They are adopting a defensive, sometimes reactionary, posture that, while claiming to represent the working class, ends up betraying core socialist principles by accommodating racism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism, often by negating perceived liberal excesses rather than building a transformative, inclusive agenda. The emphasis on "organising wills" into "real collective experiences" and building alliances with diverse groups is the necessary counter to this trend.
"Our diverting of working class frustration into useless intersectional BS is beginning to fail but fear not, we can continue sabotaging the left by doing more of the same BS" - on 5 pages of boredom.
Ah what an accurately named substack that is: Red Mole, it could be more aptly named only if would go by "Billionaire sponsored, CIA sanctioned controlled opposition"
Thanks for reading all five pages. That's commitment.
Let's test your thesis against actual history. Britain, 1984. The NUM is fighting for its life against Thatcher's government. The official Labour movement? Kinnock denounces the pickets. The TUC wrings its hands. The "mainstream" working-class institutions do what they always do under pressure: capitulate.
Who actually delivered solidarity? Women Against Pit Closures: miners' wives who'd never been to a political meeting in their lives, organising soup kitchens and then speaking on platforms across the country, transforming the strike and themselves in the process. Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners: collecting buckets on the streets of London, sending thousands of pounds to the Dulais Valley, building an alliance that no one in the official movement had the imagination to conceive. The miners marched behind the LGSM banner at Pride the following year. Not because they'd been corrupted by "intersectional BS." Because those were the people who'd stood with them when it mattered.
Now here's the part that should give you pause. You know who actually works to prevent those kinds of alliances? The CIA spent decades funding operations to fragment working-class solidarity: splitting trade unions from liberation movements, promoting "pure" economism against broader social struggles, ensuring that workers never linked up with the other forces capable of threatening capital. The billionaire-funded think tanks, from the Atlas Network to the Koch operations, pour millions into convincing working people that solidarity with other oppressed groups is a distraction from their "real" interests. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's documented history.
So when someone walks into a comment section insisting that connecting workers' struggles with other forms of oppression is "CIA-sanctioned controlled opposition," they're not fighting the establishment. They're doing its work for free.
Calling miner wives helping the strikers “feminists” is like calling the Munster rebellion in 1534 “marxist”, as for the AIDS conspiracy theory helping to establish your lucrative industry of “reserve army of revolutionaries” inserting your rainbow flag all over the place – a brilliantly shrewd move of your billionaire sponsors indeed. So here it is again:
Class consciousness is October Revolution and leads to Valentina Tereshkova, first woman in space
Intersectionality is suffragettes advertising smoking for Edy Bernays and leads to Playboy
You've made an interesting move here. You've conceded the historical facts (miners' wives organised, LGSM delivered material solidarity) while insisting those facts don't mean what they obviously mean. Women Against Pit Closures didn't call themselves feminists because a sociology lecturer told them to. They called themselves feminists because the experience of organising transformed their understanding of their own oppression. Jean McCrindle, Ann Suddick, Betty Cook: read what they actually wrote. They were explicit about it. You don't get to retrospectively de-politicise them because their conclusions embarrass your schema.
As for the Soviet example: you might want to pick a different one. The same regime that sent Tereshkova into space recriminalised homosexuality in 1933, banned abortion in 1936, and rehabilitated the patriarchal family as a pillar of social order. That wasn't an accident. It was the Stalinist bureaucracy actively reversing the genuine liberatory gains of October 1917, when the Bolsheviks did decriminalise homosexuality and advance women's liberation as integral to the revolution. Your own example proves the opposite of what you think it proves. Class consciousness without a commitment to total human liberation doesn't lead to Tereshkova. It leads to the Thermidorian reaction that instrumentalised her.
The question was never "class or liberation." It was always: whose class politics? A class politics that tells workers to ignore the oppressions that divide them is a class politics designed to lose. The people who built solidarity in 1984 understood that. The people who fund think tanks to keep workers isolated from other oppressed groups understand it too, from the opposite direction.
I have some limited knowledge of each of the tendencies that you mentioned. I see what you're trying to do here and I think it is valuable to criticize these kinds of errant tendencies but I think the approach could be better. I especially liked the ctitique of DSA. When I think about these matters I try my best to put them in historical context your article tends to treat them somewhat more abstractly. For example the whole construct of the red brown to me can't be understood separately from the German Konservative revolution and the Weimar context of SPD collaboration WW1 etc. Where I most strongly disagree in terms of content is with your section about what you refer to as tankies. What I'll say in response is that I think these people are the most open to learning from AES and I think there's a lot of common ground that could be out there around a critical examination of the history of AES with an eye toward our contemporary problems. You seem to underestimate this possibility and it makes sense in the context of your article where we take things like a Stalin did nothing wrong meme are taken at face value.
While we appreciate the impulse to learn from past socialist experiences, our critique of the "tankie" phenomenon is precisely about the manner of this engagement: one that often appears superficial, aesthetic, uncritical, and ultimately counterproductive to building a broad, effective, and truly emancipatory left movement in the present. For example, most of the people in that current have no deep awareness of "Actually Existing Socialist". We aim for a radical, anti-systemic socialism that overcomes the limits of past socialist movements, including their bureaucratic degeneration.
Excellent post. Here in Canada we see the same kind of red- brown alliance, a militant named Yves Engler is running for leadership of the New Democratic Party which is our social democratic party in both federal and provincial legislatures, and another fellow, a very Pro-Putin defeated Green Party leadership candidate named Dimitri Lascaris gets thousands of hits on his YouTube channel that he broadcasts daily.
Both are red- browns and when this is pointed out they and their followers fight back, defending the vile anti- Jewish and pro Putin rhetoric. They are attempting to take over the NDP which of course would be a disaster, most progressives are not there, and NDP voters are certainly not. Interestingly their policies are very, very, very similar to those of the Communist Party of Canada but they publicly have
nothing to do with the CPC no doubt because the CPC received .01% of the vote in last spring’s federal election.
Also perhaps because the CPC still is run like a military organization so no member ever steps out of line while both Engler and Lascaris are loose cannons.
This is very good ideas to contemplate back to politics and conservative leftist in my country. One crucial pitfall of them is their retreat from class analysis.
I agree completely. The way they end up supporting rival bourgeois states, even against their own working class, is quite horrific.
Great post
Our article on the conservative left was based on a special issue of Anticapitalistas, the magazine of the Anticapitalist Network of Fourth International members in Portugal. It's worth sharing here a response to a reader who wrote: "I'd say the only thing this piece leaves out is that the disintegration of working-class Left politics under neoliberalism left "Left politics" as something that happens in academia and the professional staff of unions and other NGOs. And that's the social base of conservative Leftism - a cadre of Left-wing activists who are not actually working class and thus are always doing politics "on behalf" of an imagined "working class" which may not resemble the real one. They also have a sheer internecine hatred of middle-class (neo-)liberals and build their politics on just putting a minus whereever neoliberalism puts a plus.
This leads to (a) "workerist" distortions (seeing existing degraded class consciousness as Noble Savage stuff) including capitulation to racism, transphobia and other forms of social reaction; (b) a helplessness concerning worker self-activity which leads to dreams of an anti-neoliberal Big Brother, expressed in either populist demagogues (hence jumping on Right-populist bandwagons) or foreign authoritarian states (campism)"
In replying, it's worth drawing out some more of the insights in the special issue we based our article on. The reply is below:-
I believe your comment offers a highly pertinent analysis of the characteristics and underlying social bases of the "conservative Lefts," a phenomenon deeply explored in the January 2025 issue of *Anti-capitalista*. The articles provide significant material to corroborate and elaborate on the points you've raised.
Social Base and Disintegration of Working-Class Left Politics
The articles largely align with your observation that neoliberalism has eroded traditional working-class politics, shifting "Left politics" towards other spheres. The editorial "Do conservadorismo de esquerda ao comunismo ácido" in *Anti-capitalista* issue 78, for instance, highlights how the period following the Cold War aggressively narrowed the ideological space for anticapitalist alternatives, while a violent neoliberal offensive attacked workers. This presented a dilemma for the Left: either be radical and risk marginalisation or moderate and become indistinguishable from other neoliberal parties.
The "conservative Lefts" are indeed seen as responding to this situation, often by prioritising traditional structures and tending to overlook individual freedoms, as discussed in "Anatomia das Esquerdas conservadoras". The same issue's editorial notes that the defeat of the Democratic Party in the US led to discussions about a supposed abandonment of the working class in favour of identity politics, a theme also seen with the BSW in Germany and Fabian Roussel in France. Economic transformations of the post-Fordist era, marked by increasing social inequalities, deindustrialisation, structural unemployment, and the **fragmentation of community ties**, have led to an **atomised individual experience** and a decline in democratic belief, weakening traditional structures like trade unions and leaving many feeling isolated and vulnerable.
Internecine Hatred of Middle-Class (Neo-)Liberals and its Consequences
Your point about an "internecine hatred of middle-class (neo-)liberals" is reflected in the articles' critique of "wokism" and certain Left-wing nationalisms. The piece "Wokismo. O conservadorismo de esquerda que a direita prefere" describes "wokism" as a "conservative Leftism that the right prefers," which is a **depoliticising element** that isolates causes and frames demands within a right-wing common-sense framework. This approach is seen as an "individualistic and competitive approach to politics," reflecting a liberalism that fails to connect with class consciousness.
This stance, as the articles suggest, contributes to several problematic consequences:
* **"Workerist" Distortions and Capitulation to Social Reaction:** I see that the articles explicitly state that conservative Lefts struggle to integrate minority rights, viewing multiculturalism or affirmative action as threats to existing working-class hierarchies. They are accused of **ignoring structural racial inequalities** and treating them as secondary to economic struggles, often expressing scepticism towards open border policies, which they perceive as a threat to local jobs and cultural cohesion.
* **Examples:** Sahra Wagenknecht's politics in Germany are cited as a prime example, dividing the working class into "national workers" and "immigrants" and advocating alliances with employers against immigrant workers, as mentioned in "Anatomia das Esquerdas conservadoras". Her discourse is described as populist and nationalist regarding immigration, aligning with the far-right's strategy, which effectively means an "alliance de facto with the European far-right" and increases the prevalence of "racist and obscurantist common sense".
* **Climate Negationism:** Some Left-wing figures, such as Demétrio Alves and Raquel Varela, are criticised for "climate negationism," dismissing climate change as a pretext for "green taxes" that burden workers, which is viewed as a "reductionist bias" that prioritises "workers first, the planet later". The article "Para uma responder a uma crise complexa: Ecossocialismo" argues that this "negationism arises as the political expression of a reductionism in analysis".
* **Anti-Feminist and Anti-LGBTQIA+ Sentiments:** "Fim ao Genocídio" details how the ultraconservative right capitalises on working-class resentment by defending traditional family structures against "gender ideology," promoting a reactionary project that advances a **"masculinidade reativa ao feminismo e à dissidência"** (masculinity reactive to feminism and dissidence), appealing to those who feel "defeated" by current capitalism. The "Wokismo" article also points to how the "ultra-identitarian" discourse is used by the right to attack feminist and LGBTQIA+ gains.
* **Helplessness and Dreams of an Anti-Neoliberal Big Brother (Populist Demagogues or Foreign Authoritarian States/Campism):** The editorial "Do conservadorismo de esquerda ao comunismo ácido" critiques the "exhausted model of conservative Lefts," calling for "radical creativity" instead of a "refuge in orthodoxy" that leads to sectarianism and isolation. This lack of a coherent alternative sometimes translates into supporting authoritarian figures or states.
* **Populist Demagogues:** The strategy of *La France Insoumise (LFI)*, as described in "O Sol do Futuro: é apenas um pouco tarde," exemplifies the turn towards a populist demagogue model. LFI's approach explicitly avoids traditional Left-wing terms like "class," replaces "The Internationale" with "La Marseillaise," and aims to build an "interclassist" political bloc against an "oligarchy." Their organisational structure, described as a "parti-oignon" (onion party), centralises power around the leader, allowing for agility but limiting grassroots participation in decision-making. This model, while aiming for a "radical end to the current system," does so through electoral means and a strong, centralised leadership, which could be interpreted as relying on a "Big Brother" figure.
* **Campism:** I found that the articles extensively define **campism** as the historical identification with the Soviet Union, which for some conservative Lefts today, manifests as **"support for Putin and the Russian regime"**, as detailed in "O campismo, doença senil de alguma esquerda." This is viewed as a continuation of Stalinism and a nostalgia for the Cold War's bipolar order, where the USSR is romanticised as an "alternative." This approach is criticised for justifying "any imperialism that opposes the US," thereby determining strategy based on "interests of governments and not peoples," regardless of those regimes' authoritarian nature. "Novos tankies e o neoestalinismo digital: como é incubada a Esquerda Conservadora" further illustrates this with the use of Soviet tank imagery in communication, suggesting that the solution to everything is to "send in the tanks". The support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, even characterising the Kyiv regime as "fascist" while ignoring Putin's ties to Trump and other far-right movements, is highlighted as a dangerous manifestation of this. This stance is seen as reflecting a "lack of a real socialist strategy," relying on rhetoric rather than concrete transformation. The introduction to issue 79 also explicitly states that "o campismo não é promotor de paz mas cúmplice da guerra".
In essence, while some on the Left struggle with the complexities of contemporary capitalism and the need for new strategies, the "conservative Lefts" often fall into the trap of simplifying these issues. They are adopting a defensive, sometimes reactionary, posture that, while claiming to represent the working class, ends up betraying core socialist principles by accommodating racism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism, often by negating perceived liberal excesses rather than building a transformative, inclusive agenda. The emphasis on "organising wills" into "real collective experiences" and building alliances with diverse groups is the necessary counter to this trend.
"Our diverting of working class frustration into useless intersectional BS is beginning to fail but fear not, we can continue sabotaging the left by doing more of the same BS" - on 5 pages of boredom.
Ah what an accurately named substack that is: Red Mole, it could be more aptly named only if would go by "Billionaire sponsored, CIA sanctioned controlled opposition"
Thanks for reading all five pages. That's commitment.
Let's test your thesis against actual history. Britain, 1984. The NUM is fighting for its life against Thatcher's government. The official Labour movement? Kinnock denounces the pickets. The TUC wrings its hands. The "mainstream" working-class institutions do what they always do under pressure: capitulate.
Who actually delivered solidarity? Women Against Pit Closures: miners' wives who'd never been to a political meeting in their lives, organising soup kitchens and then speaking on platforms across the country, transforming the strike and themselves in the process. Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners: collecting buckets on the streets of London, sending thousands of pounds to the Dulais Valley, building an alliance that no one in the official movement had the imagination to conceive. The miners marched behind the LGSM banner at Pride the following year. Not because they'd been corrupted by "intersectional BS." Because those were the people who'd stood with them when it mattered.
Now here's the part that should give you pause. You know who actually works to prevent those kinds of alliances? The CIA spent decades funding operations to fragment working-class solidarity: splitting trade unions from liberation movements, promoting "pure" economism against broader social struggles, ensuring that workers never linked up with the other forces capable of threatening capital. The billionaire-funded think tanks, from the Atlas Network to the Koch operations, pour millions into convincing working people that solidarity with other oppressed groups is a distraction from their "real" interests. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's documented history.
So when someone walks into a comment section insisting that connecting workers' struggles with other forms of oppression is "CIA-sanctioned controlled opposition," they're not fighting the establishment. They're doing its work for free.
Calling miner wives helping the strikers “feminists” is like calling the Munster rebellion in 1534 “marxist”, as for the AIDS conspiracy theory helping to establish your lucrative industry of “reserve army of revolutionaries” inserting your rainbow flag all over the place – a brilliantly shrewd move of your billionaire sponsors indeed. So here it is again:
Class consciousness is October Revolution and leads to Valentina Tereshkova, first woman in space
Intersectionality is suffragettes advertising smoking for Edy Bernays and leads to Playboy
You've made an interesting move here. You've conceded the historical facts (miners' wives organised, LGSM delivered material solidarity) while insisting those facts don't mean what they obviously mean. Women Against Pit Closures didn't call themselves feminists because a sociology lecturer told them to. They called themselves feminists because the experience of organising transformed their understanding of their own oppression. Jean McCrindle, Ann Suddick, Betty Cook: read what they actually wrote. They were explicit about it. You don't get to retrospectively de-politicise them because their conclusions embarrass your schema.
As for the Soviet example: you might want to pick a different one. The same regime that sent Tereshkova into space recriminalised homosexuality in 1933, banned abortion in 1936, and rehabilitated the patriarchal family as a pillar of social order. That wasn't an accident. It was the Stalinist bureaucracy actively reversing the genuine liberatory gains of October 1917, when the Bolsheviks did decriminalise homosexuality and advance women's liberation as integral to the revolution. Your own example proves the opposite of what you think it proves. Class consciousness without a commitment to total human liberation doesn't lead to Tereshkova. It leads to the Thermidorian reaction that instrumentalised her.
The question was never "class or liberation." It was always: whose class politics? A class politics that tells workers to ignore the oppressions that divide them is a class politics designed to lose. The people who built solidarity in 1984 understood that. The people who fund think tanks to keep workers isolated from other oppressed groups understand it too, from the opposite direction.
I have some limited knowledge of each of the tendencies that you mentioned. I see what you're trying to do here and I think it is valuable to criticize these kinds of errant tendencies but I think the approach could be better. I especially liked the ctitique of DSA. When I think about these matters I try my best to put them in historical context your article tends to treat them somewhat more abstractly. For example the whole construct of the red brown to me can't be understood separately from the German Konservative revolution and the Weimar context of SPD collaboration WW1 etc. Where I most strongly disagree in terms of content is with your section about what you refer to as tankies. What I'll say in response is that I think these people are the most open to learning from AES and I think there's a lot of common ground that could be out there around a critical examination of the history of AES with an eye toward our contemporary problems. You seem to underestimate this possibility and it makes sense in the context of your article where we take things like a Stalin did nothing wrong meme are taken at face value.
While we appreciate the impulse to learn from past socialist experiences, our critique of the "tankie" phenomenon is precisely about the manner of this engagement: one that often appears superficial, aesthetic, uncritical, and ultimately counterproductive to building a broad, effective, and truly emancipatory left movement in the present. For example, most of the people in that current have no deep awareness of "Actually Existing Socialist". We aim for a radical, anti-systemic socialism that overcomes the limits of past socialist movements, including their bureaucratic degeneration.