Musings on the Betrayal of Friendship by the Left and Lawful Responses

19 August 2025.

Composed January-February 2025?

Just as we have Woke Stalinism in great purges of #Cancellation, so too do we have a problem of Liberal Stalinism in the absolute fear of entering into collective bonds, and a fundamental mistrust of the very concept of friendship. It must be made clear that, though these two failings are named after notable examples in the Stalin Government, they are not at all unique to that government, nor are they some peculiar error of Comrade Stalin's thought and action. Comrade Trotsky, arguably Comrade Lenin or Russian Marxism as a whole (again, I cannot speak to Menshevism), have as well demonstrated such unfriendly world-conceptions.

To give credit to Comrade Lenin (if memory rightly recalls), he did put aside his political disagreements, staying his polemic when Comrade Martov's and Comrade Plekhanov's deaths were near, shewing some kindness to them. In fact, an odd coincidence occurred for the latter, rather lucky: not only did Comrade Lenin kindly insist on the publication of Plekhanov's works to his widow, but it just so happens that he was the second-favourite Marxist philosopher of a certain Bolshevik named Iosif Vissarionovich! Lucky indeed, considering Comrade Stalin was not so given to friendliness. I imagine that is why Comrade Plekhanov's five-volume Selected Philosophical Works was so ready to be released by 1956. I myself have a different edition from 1990, somewhat hauting to think about when you consider it was Gorbachev who allowed Comrade Plkhenov to technically be purged via the fate of his works' future publication (death)... and after such incredible luck.

Every movement has its heretics and unlikable followers. To put an end to such categories, I understand, may prove impossible, nor do I think such a policy even necessary. The objectives of Gladsnost and Politstroika in this matter is for the former to limit the wanton expansion of these categories, and for the latter to establish a legal and open conduct for proceedings and protections of the members in said categories. The alternative to accomplishing both of these objectives is the steel hammer of revolutionary law, id est mass repression and routine purges: the reign of terror, not any sort of socialist rule I should elect to recognise.

The question of friendship is wont to be misunderstood regarding its true importance. This seemingly obscure or fanciful parlour-concern harbours the deeper decision hinted at within itself. The question of friendship is nay less than the first decision about what the rule of socialism is to mean: whether rule by the Cheka and Party, or rule by the soviets, guilds, clubs, and free organisations (or some assortment as this). In order to countenance the latter, and in my view superior form, the basis of friendship, which is itself the basis for comradery, must be constructed per a prerequisite.

Comradery also, as a basic principle upon which the Left organises, has become degraded and brittle in the failure of neglecting the cultivation of strong friendship. Though the Cheka was still unruly under the watchful eye of Comrade Dzerzhinsky, it was only until after his death that the mass purges could become a possibility, and to be so consistent at that. Comrade Lenin had a friend he could trust in charge, and whose friendship had a real impact on the way the entire Cheka was run.

Some comrades may still question whether attributing such historical phenomena to friendship is going too far. They might reject Vladimir Brovkin's and my observation that Lenin's and Dzerzhinsky's relationship had anything at all to do with the internal function of the Cheka. They might try to counter that Menzhinsky, Yagoda, and Yezhov were friends with Stalin, or use this to prove that there was really nay special friendship betwixt Lenin and Dzerzhinsky after all. To these lingering sceptics I have one word to say, and one word only: et? I mean nay jest or trickery; why ought socialists to take the time to oppose the cultivation of grosser friendship, friendliness, and Cordialness, instead of striving to develop these benign traits almost universally considered virtuous?

Whether it affects politic or not, certainly a better criticism of friendship is necessary, if one wishes to do so. I am tired of being confronted with unfriendliness, thus I will kindly refuse to organise with those fiends of friendship. The revolution is not socialist if I have not the right for whom to associate with. Call me an anarchist or Left-Communist baby if you so desire.

I must point out that friendship is not merely important for the establishment of general trust, but also for the trafficking of honesty. As Comrade Mao might say, how can we be certain that comrades are truly understanding matters, and are not just afraid of being considered 'backwards' (stupid), or are bluffing an understanding for reasons of ego or machination/manipulation, which is far more dangerous than the former?

It is my though that friendship and toleration could prove an irreplaceable solution to to many of the problems which the Left finds itself mired in. But the question, as ever it is, remains how to effectively communicate an apologetic for something as obscurely disconnected to political thought as friendship. This is the social construction problem: the Left, due in part to its over-reliance on socialist revolution as an actively and positively constructive process, and in part to the poisonous influence of post-modern deconstruction, now severely devalues the very real and needful positive purposes fulfilled by 'social constructs'.

Friendship is, taken in a broad sense, an artificial social construction of relation, which societies have seen beneficial to foster and give credentialed approval of (except doomsday and terror cults, but we shall inded come back to that). There is nay firmly indentifiable set of traits which compel two towards friendship. In fact, this is one of the reasons contributing to the mysteriousness that surrounds the relation of friendship: one might intuitively think that like minds should coalesce within societies and find friendship most readily, but common wisdom has rebutted and nigh wholly rebuked such intuitions. Society normally must invest into the social construct of friendship, due to this unnatural elusiveness. Unlike misery, violence, and tyranny, we may suggest that friendship does not or cannot seek friendship, making it a consternating anomaly.

We must here turn to those men who pretend to the cultivation and valuation of friendship, but are seeking rather a tyrannical imposition. I will recite two phrases relating to the reciprocation of one's actions: one will be a genuine implorment to friendliness, and the other will be a duplicitous trick of tyrannical ideologuery.

I. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

II. 'What you would not wish for yourself, do not unto others'.

The tyrant-ideologue is quite sure of his affirmations, is not he? He justifies his persecution by intimating that he should love to be antagonised in a trial of his detractors' opinion if his 'entire world-view [were] nonsense. The quotes origins lead us into the next part of this matter. The first quote was from a fanatic named Matthew, and the second was from the Master named Confucius.

Now, about those doomsday and terror cults we mentioned! Indeed, the first quote begenders the perniciousness characteristic of both group types. Alas, the Left is nay less also characteristic of these group-types. It is imperative that we not ignore the millenarian tendency within the view of a socialist society. I feel some pity for Comrade Stalin, Comrade Trotsky, and their generation, which had to deal with the millenarian insanity of previous communist generations before them. And this rude grappling with reality, after undisturbed decades of millenarian fantasy, undoubtedly contributed to many of the deficiencies, not only of socialism in the USSR and PRC, but of the international socialist movement, still yet given to retreating into millenarian opium-delusions. We have spoken about the problem of Leftist terror ad nauseam, so I will not go on another diatribe about it here.

We come at last to the question of 'lawful responses'. I confess that lawful responses is not a very clear term, but a better one escapes me. I mean simply responses to unfriendly behaviour which remain within the bounds of Renewed Socialist Legality (and that should, ideally, adhere to Gladsnost/Cordialness).

If I recall, Comrade Dzerzhinsky, in his pamphlet Communist Morality, mentions friendship but once or twice, and he only does so on the personal level, never as a serious theoretical treatment. One thing Dzherzhinsky says, which is very concerning and is to me indicative of Hegelian and other philosophical excesses, is:

'you say that our feelings seem to relate in greater measure to mankind as a whole than to individuals. Never believe that this is possible. People who say so are hypocrites: they are simply deceiving themselves and others. It is not possible only to feel for people in general, people in general is an abstraction, for what is concrete is the sum-total of individuals. In actual fact, feelings can only be aroused in relation to the concrete phenomenon and never in relation to an abstraction'.

What do you mean I shot ,,Comrade'' Bukharin? I merely saved the proletariat, its party, and dictatorship from a reactionary MAGA Deneenite-deviationist saboteur in the Bloc of Mates and Virtuates. Remember, according to our great iron Comrade Dzerzhinsky's teaching, that in contrast to these sacred institutions of proletarian power, 'comrades' in general are a fallacious abstraction concocted by MAGA Right-Bukharinites to divert and deviate the Party from the salvific truth that is the Hegelian Stalinist dialectic.

Obviously, the head of the state security police saying stuff like this is deeply worrying for the object of employing only lawful responses to unfriendly hostility and suspicion. That being so, combatting this kind of cold, philosophically detached reasoning is one task which should hopefully remain lawful, and is absolutely ethically in the right.

There are, of course, the partially useful platitudes one might dole out, were this an unserious consideration, such as 'be kind', 'meet new friends', 'embrace a metaphyiscal variety of cheek-turning slave morality' (which should merely breed resentment upon either side), 'be more Leninist (suspicious) in your dealings', so on. These are barely real options to promote a reform of this problem on the Left, but all the actual solutions outside of individual ones will be difficult to implement, and are generally institution- or policy-based.

Exempli gratia, the Union Council of Communist and Comrades' Parties could reduce both the level of hostility and misunderstanding betwixt Leftist parties by forcing them to begage each other in a mostly free, yet protected, atmosphere, to defend and develop their positions and policies for a non-state, non-burgher, elected republican legislature of fellow Leftists. But for something like the Union Council of Communist and Comrades' Parties or even the Court of Socialist Hearing to materialise, some parties should have to agree to cede authority and resources to these institutions— when they all believe themselves to be the one true vanguard party of the proletarian and voice of Leninism. It is an unlikely endeavour.

This leaves us to discern potential policies instead, albeit understanding that without an institutional solution backing them up, they are the slow and blundering secondary option...

[Manuscript End]