Notes on Haz al-Din's Analysis of Deng Versus Bukharin Relating to Recent Cuban Reforms

25 September 2026.

Link to the video being commented upon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFStK8NVJeg

Note: we thought about renaming this to a commentary, since it is perhaps a bit more substantial than a few mere 'notes' on this video, but have decided, for the time being, that videos can not qualify as having commentaries to them. Cultural degeneracy begins with a drop of irony or carelessness, to soon drown all that is high and virtuous neath a sludge wave of decrepit standards. If we call this a commentary, who is to say that this will not be the origin point for the death of the book-based commentary, the destruction of an ancient tradition of high culture? Nay, we will not risk it. Only written works may possess the glory of having commentaries made upon them.

0.11. Comparing the Cubanish Reform, especially in relation to the Chinish advice in favour of Cubanish economic reform and opening up, does, in fact, make sense. Nay one of intelligence is suggesting a strong similarity betwixt Cubanish and Chinish conditions. But Comrade al-Din is handicapping his analysis by renouncing any sort of comparison. Most experimentation, far from happening in a liberal scientistic vacuum, relies on historical analysis and some amount of reasoned indication thereof. By looking at the Chinish Reform and its various results, the Cubanish comrades may pre-empt erroneous experimentation for that which might suggest superior benefit. Cuba does not have an infinite capacity to experiment with, after all, which beworths a success made the quicker and better.

0.27. One could retort that, adhering to the wishes of our gross Comrade Lenin, comrades who are 'too rude' in making such unpolite... capricious, et cetera statements as this ought to be purged from the office of general secretary or chairman by their party. But what does the ,,malding Trotskyite-Bukharinite intelloid'' Vladimir Ilyich know, I suppose!

1.05. If one is caused a drug-induced distemperance by the making of any political comparison, the I should recommend both sobriety and a removal from political discourse for a time. Of course, at the current breve new heights of cultural degeneracy, it is unsurprising to hear about the impossibility of reasonable political discussion. Violence over disagreement is now implied in the very parlance.

⸿ As for the topic of Bukharinism and Dengism, I think it is not too inconceivable to draw an evolutionary line from Comrade Bukharin to Comrade Deng— then to Reform-Leninism in the modern day —so long as their differences in method for advancing the peasantry's class-existence are kept account of. It ought to be remembered that, unlike the conspiratorialist Bolshevik Party, neither Comrade Mao nor the Communist Party of China imbued ridiculously stringent, even self-referential, dogmatism with a secret proof of political allegiance. The Cultural Revolution is perhaps the one exceptional span where it was remotely comparable, and this error was quickly resolved afterwards. Comrade Stalin erred deeply in his commitment to this mode of 'gnostic communication'. By coincidence (or perhaps unso), it is Comrade Bukharin who was least affected by this insidious Æsopian speech from the days underground. After the dogmatic turn in the Cultural Revolution, which similarly resembled processes occurring during Soviet collectivisation in this regard, is it truly that much of a stretch to locate a shared political concern betwixt the respective circles of Comrade Bukharin and Comrade Deng? I think not, nay indeed, we think not, as the intellectual lineage and historiographic analysis of Reform-Leninism testifies to.

1.38. Why must this question of policy be derrogated into a petty contest over whether the Folk's Republic of China proves ,,The Theory of Stalin™'' or ,,The Theory of Bukharin™'' to be ultimately correct? Besides the fact that a theory which is ultimately correct is an impossibly dogmatic conception in view of invariably changing material and social conditions, which full communism itself will not so recognise as valid. For communism is but the beginning of history.

⸿ Comrade Chet Ozmun, in his lecture on the work Governing the Party, by Comrade Xie Chuntao, mentioned a Chinish maxim which he renders wonderfully as 'neither æra shall negate the other '. This sentiment has been a corner-stone of Reform-Leninism in dealing with the whelming many factional and theoretical divides which compose the majority of Leftist history. It is hard for Comrade al-Din to recall, surely, but Comrades Lenin, Bukharin, Stalin, and Trotsky were all comrades in the same party at one point. In fact, is not the concept of one line from many theories the very function of democratic centralism? If this is not so, then I do not understand what the purpose of democratic centralism is— at least in the context of the ACP.

2.36. Comrade al-Din states that the peasantry 'did not ', rather than could not participate in the state dictatorship, that they were 'on the periphery'. The peasants are never 'on the periphery' in revolution. The Soviet comrades attempted to push them to the periphery, due to dogmatic theoretical preconceptions, and hostility to any semblance of Narodism or SRism, to say nothing of the peasantry's supposedly inescapably feudal world-view. Is this not what Comrade al-Din chides Comrade Trotsky as a ,,glasses-wearing urbanoid Jew-boy'' (or whatever) for? Comrade Trotsky, whilst I often disagree with him, is still capable of maintaining a coherent view from one sentence to the next. I am beginning to wonder, however, if the same may be said for Comrade al-Din, or not.

⸿ The simple inconvenience of fact for Comrade al-Din is that Comrade Mao, thankfully, did not follow the Soviet error in the spheres of the peasantry and agriculture. Who can say that Chinish peasants were not instrumental during the Civil War and the Resistance War against Japanish Aggression (should Comrade al-Din dare to)? Comrade al-Din perhaps considers the French revolutionaries as nay more than ,,Parisian legaloid coffee-cuck parasites'', but here again, the peasantry was not 'on the periphery' in advancing radical developments and garnering social and political influence. Yet I will grant to Comrade al-Din that Comrade Deng differed from Comrade Bukharin in pressuring the peasantry to proletarianise by reversing much of Comrade Mao's pro-peasant policy. This, in our view, set the Folk's Republic back from attaining communism, and even perhaps from socialism proper. Socialism is, in our view, the universalising synthesis of feudal culture within the system of a direct-democratic construction of personal, comradely relations (in place of the lordly ones) and capitalist political-economy, id est its superior industrial capacity and logistical load in distribution.

2.49. To abstain from discussing one of the most pertinent theoretical and policy contribution of Comrade Lenin for Cuba's current reform is blatantly not a Marxist view-point. The Cubanish comrades and we ought to be discussing the New Economic Policy at length, analysing it alongside Reform and Opening Up, as well as the Hungarian and late Soviet reforms, if we are good Marxists, that is. What Marxist could sincerely express such loathing for doing relevant study and analysis? I implore Comrade al-Din to reconsider this erroneous attitude.

3.10. Comparison and analysis for prospective discernment in this reform is not at all likening Cubanish condition to those presiding for those historical policies. It has been said that China and Vietnam have been advising Cuba to institute this kind of reform for a long while. Thus, Chinish and Vietnamish comrades must not consider Cubanish conditions too different from theirs for the successful implementation of similar policies to these. Ergo, a deep study and discussion of these historical policies is absolutely warranted by plausible utility. History can teach without rote repetition. And is it even considerably education if it is mere memorisation of flash-cards, unrooted therefrom?

⸿ It is quite ironic that the comrade denouncing a deep historical investigation of practically similar economic reforms is the same one decrying this as 'lazy and uncurious'. Examining historical precedents and experiments now constitutes uncurious laziness? What Æsopian Newspeakery have we descended to! You need not 'explain' any thing to us: nay investigation, nay right to [explain].

5.00. This summary of Comrade Trotsky's view sounds extremely incorrect. Firstly, Comrade Trotsky did not 'over-inflate' the presence of proletarians post-Civil War: most of his policy and theory focussed on resolving what he clearly viewed as a damaging lack of proletarian forces. This should be a pivotal experience informing his later concerns on the USSR's purported degeneration. Whilst I, once more, disagree with much of Comrade Trotsky's analysis, there is nay gain to be had by misrepresenting his views.

⸿ Comrade Trotsky, as far as I am aware, was not solely focussed upon urban centres, either, but also industrial towns and the underburgs (as far as they existed then). Regarding the Israel comparison, I have something interesting and probably controversial to say. Firstly, the Netanyahu comparison is laughably stupid or tragically so— it is entirely false, not to mention uncomradely. Now, I will submit that the rise of the Nazi Ukrany actually demonstrates retroactively that Comrade Trotsky was much more correct in his wariness towards the Ukrop peasantry than we had hitherto realised. The only correct policy for both rednecks and fascists— as Comrade al-Din acknowledges Comrade Trotsky's (eminently and utterly correct) position to be —begins and ends with three. That Comrade al-Din does not see this himself is his own error.

⸿ It is imperative that any sovereign New English state, be it socialist or not, heeds the lesson of Comrade Trotsky when dealing with the redneck provinces and of remaining vigilant against Confedcrop racial terror and Yankeephobic pogroms. A general policy will in any case be dependent upon how entrenched and successful fascist elements are at the given time, both within New England and around it.

5.40. This so-called ,,urbanoid centre'' criticism, erroneously merges the alienating urban artificiality problem with the necessity of cultivating an organic intellectual tradition and cohesive gemeanships. By confusedly amalgamating these two questions into a single problem placed at Comrade Trotsky's door-step, we are inclined to dismiss it. This is an especially muddled analysis, considering that neither Comrade Trotsky nor Comrade Stalin, as rigid Leninists, grasped the various important questions of culture, certainly not as the Cultural Bolsheviks (Comrades Gorky, Bogdanov, Lunacharsky, et alia) or the Chinish and Koreish comrades had and yet have to this day.

⸿ It is unfortunate that we must state this, but Comrade al-Din, whilst rightly criticising Wokerite cultural deconstruction and its reactionary identitarian world-view, also excuses and likely participates in redneck cultural degeneration. Crushing Progressive gangster and redneck brown-shirt degenerations in the name of a refined, virtuous socialist high culture, a socialist sociality at war with the sociality of both gangsters and rednecks, is not at all contradictory. In fact, it is the only coherent and principled view. Socialism or Barbarism means Communitarian Culture or Disturbed Degeneracy.

5.54. Unlike that fanatic Trotskyite Stalin and that ultra-Stalinist Trotsky, Comrade Bukharin did have some familiarity with virtuous and ethical questions, and was not as dogmatic as either of the two ,,arch-Leninist'' popes. Comrade Bukharin prefigures many of the developments under both Comrade Deng and Comrade Mao, of the generally better, more correct Chinish experience in building socialism ('favourite of the party' indeed).

6.01. 'Bukharin said "we are going to stay in our hunkered down, isolated urban centres, with our socialist institutions, with our Old Bolsheviks"'... Is Comrade al-Din suggesting that all of the Ald Bolsheviks are somehow not in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Party? Such an accusation is utterly slanderous, and holds the very concept of comradeship in contempt.

⸿ Responding to the whole point, was it not Comrade Mao who said that bases, or 'centres' are like the bottoms of the guerrilla movement, and that without these, there could be nay sitting down safely to elude exhaustion and the fiend? Was Comrade Mao really saying that he intended to ,,hunker down'' in the isolated caves of Yenan as some Buddhist hermit? Perhaps Comrade al-Din is a Bolshevik-Leninist after all, since the only alternative to compromising with the pro-property peasantry (Comrade al-Din seems to be under the erroneous impression that the kulaks were uniquely reactionary or backwards amongst the whole peasantry) is to send the Red Army against them. We suppose it unsurprising that a former warlord, indeed a Mongol boyar, should advocate a hostile deployment of forces for a solution. Apparently, Comrade Trotsky's true error was that he was insufficiently Trotskyist in his ultra-Left Bolshevik-Leninism for some! What Comrade al-Din is calling for, in effect, should be the ruination of the peasantry, their treatment as an entire class of reactionary kulaks. The myth of the 'proletarian-peasant' is on display.

⸿ Suffice it to conclude, there is nought to be found incorrect in the prioritisation of centres. Reliable centres are the corner-stones of logistic, defence, organisation, and practical control. Warlord adventurism gains the revolution nothing. Comrade Bukharin, aside from being in agreement with Comrade Lenin on the necessity of the New Economic Policy and the worker-peasant alliance, is simply correct regarding this matter in general.

6.04. In contrast to certain Genghis Khan-worshipping warlords pretending to mastery of theory and analysis, the 'glasses-wearing gate-keeper' Comrade Bukharin actually contributed something of value in this to the revolutionary movement. We do stand by our estimation that Comrade al-Din has contributed propagandical value to the movement, in so far as the ACP uses said value for the movement— but Comrade al-Din is also a massive egotist, which is, unfortunately, a commonality he shares with many Leftists.

⸿ Does Comrade al-Din sincerely not know that it was Vladimir Ilyich himself who recognised the need for, formulated, and instituted the New Economic Policy? It is not Bukharin's, Stalin's, or Trotsky's secret plot 'to contain and handle the peasants, and exclude them from the construction of socialism and Soviet democracy', but Comrade Lenin's ,,nefarious strategem''. Despite Comrade al-Din's proclaimed abdication of his title of Mongol Warlord, there is more alignment here with warlordism, id est ideologically wanting semi-opportunism by a professed revolutionary leader, than with principled, theoretically advanced and informed Leninism. A Bolshevik leader who does not know the most established of extraordinarily important fact is not a Bolshevik of any rank!

6.43. Once more, the New Economic Policy was Lenin's policy. Comrade al-Din is thus, ironically, accusing Vladimir Ilyich himself of being an anti-peasant, 'glasses-wearing' wrecker. What a queer argument this is!

7.47. The peasants as a whole more or less supported the policy paradigm that the kulaks did. Acquiescing to some of the economically backwards demands of the peasantry for the duration of socialist industrialisation is not the same as 'an alliance with kulak landlords'. Dividing the land and giving it to the low-peasantry is one such compromise, as is allowing the sale of commodities at market prices. Neither of these policies are uniquely pro-kulak or pro-capitalist, as they benefit the whole peasantry and smallburgherdom more than they do the top echelons of these classes. The sans-culottes were smallburghers, owning their means of production and employing some labourers, yet should Comrade al-Din argue that Citizen Robespierre was a 'glasses-wearing gate-keeper' of the silk-lords and merchant-magnates, in his capacity as an ally to the sans-culottes? Class interests, property relations, and policy are a bit more complicated in their interweaving than Comrade al-Din should himself like to think, alas. This, anywise, is the style of compromise that both Comrade Bukharin and Vladimir Ilyich acquiesced to. Opposition to this compromise may not, therefore, be counted as Leninist, and perhaps even as a deeper failing in one's Marxism.

8.44. The Bolsheviks had to pass through the feudal-minded peasantry as a whole to maintain the necessities for socialist industrialisation.

8.53. The dictatorship of the proletariat can not be sovereign if there is insufficient industry to develop and maintain the predominance of the proletariat in the society. In lieu of this, the proletariat must rely on a dictatorship through the party, and soon enough repression aimed against the peasantry. The alternative is a republican folk's dictatorship, wherein the ultimately revolutionary class (the sans-culottes in France, and the proletariat in the USSR) joins in alliance with another, not as revolutionary class or stratum of a class (the smallburgher professionals, or the peasantry). The revolutionary class is then able to build up the social forces necessary to wrest full practical control, to revolutionise society itself. Even if the class fails to develop these social forces, the Bonapartist government that follows is usually not a complete regression, and proves amenable to the wishes and fears of the erstwhile revolutionary class.

9.01. Declaring war on the peasantry is the inevitable outcome to be chosen in the above scenario. It is true that Comrade Trotsky had little patience for negotiating with the redneck, black-hundredite peasantry, but this is true for Comrade al-Din also. Comrade al-Din wishes to convert the peasantry into Bolshevised proletarians, without first having established the material conditions to do so. We suspect that, once awakened to this rude reality in contradiction, Comrade al-Din should have followed the ultra-Left Trotsky-Stalin line detailed above.

10.46. This is false. The Yezhovshchina was sparked by the anxiety inherent in a dictatorship of a materially and socially weaker class ruling precariously through the party. The growing severity of this contradictory state of affairs in the landside primed the fuse-rope in this keg, finally lit off by the shot fired at Comrade Kirov (Rise in Proletariat).

12.20. It is highly doubtful that Comrade Trotsky was making proto-Wokerite arguments against the peasantry in this manner. And the fact remains that the peasantry was economically backwards. Yet Comrade al-Din, in his diatribe against Comrade Bukharin, has made it most clear that this peasant backwardness is not to be even temporarily negotiated with. Trotskyism or Leninism: which is it?

12.32. Yet again, Comrade Bukharin (and Comrade Lenin) was making general pro-peasant compromises, which benefitted the kulaks least. Twainthly, such compromising was done only to allow for the completion of socialist industrialisation, which, being well under-way, should never have take nearly 'five-hundred years'. Indeed, it should have likely taken nay more than twenty years at the maximum, only ten more than the industrial strategy of ultra-Leftism (Trotskyism-Stalinism?). Granted, the fascist invasion may have affirmed the correctness or necessity of this strategy in hindsight, but hindsight is also characterised for its blind-side in the measuring of alternatives. For this reason, most 'alternative history' is idealist rubbish.

13.20. This is not our understanding of the terror-purge, and that is all we can really say.

13.53. Whilst we of course agree with the policy of socialism prioritised in one land (note, a Bukharinist policy), viewing Comrade Trotsky's Eurocentrism likewise as erroneous, we feel it responsible to point out that this view of Comrade Trotsky's was initially a majority-Bolshevik one. Since Comrade al-Din seems to not know that Comrade Lenin formulated and proposed the New Economic Policy, nay primitive fact of Bolshevik history may hence be taken for granted.

14.18. Correction, comrade: we are not libtards, but 'New Engltards', 'Yanktards', or ,,dayum Yankays'', if one wishes to uses the broken redneck speech— I shall never call it English —of our mortal fiend for maximal authenticity. Indeed, we oppose the ,,peculiar'' redneck sociality and its heinous institutions. Howbeit, this example of Comrade al-Din's is horribly mismatched. Comrade Trotsky was dealing with the class of peasants, but the redneck-Yankee divide is a national question, comprising not a class struggle, but a cultureclash, even a fundamental clash of the assumptions underlying the basic sociality. There are many different strata of Yankee and redneck, for nations are usually composed by at least two classes. The national sociality and consciousness influence all classes of a nation, to varying extents.

⸿ It is rather funny how the pan-Americuckism of the American Communist Party perfectly aligns with the designs of globalism, whose dream has ever been to crush the nations of this unhappy Union and subjugate our bold Canadish brethren, so defiant to the blood-stripes of the ,,Federal'' State Empire. I urge all free and brave nationalists— even those rednecks, be he ACP, KKK, or KFC, —to seek the delimitation of Empire against the sovereignty of your nation's autonomous existence, and that you ever recall the good example of our beloved general who, in doing whatever was necessary to prevent the extermination of the New English Yankee Nation in the War of ,,Southron'' Redneckery, made it rain with flame to the sea.

14.26. This tirade does not describe the views of Thoughts of a Comrade at all. Frankly, it does describe real organisations to a small degree, which makes one question whether Comrade al-Din's caricatures are worth the base cost of fabrication. His use of the Democratic Socialists of America proves well our point, being that both caucuses (and undeclared factions, too) and chapters harbour a massive spectrum of differing views, theories, and whole ideologies. Granted, many such groups are indeed Wokerite, arrogant, or culturally degenerate, but this does not serve to negate what good they do or necessity they perform as well. Certainly, Comrade al-Din is providing a typical Marxist polemic in this instance; but offering useful, scientific Marxist analysis he is not, alack.

14.38. Again, this is conflating the class and production questions of the USSR with the national question of the US Union and its constituent nations, what with their rival socialities, hostile relations, and contradiction-intensifying divergences (including on those former questions, albeit).

14.47. And Comrade Stalin could never be arrogant or dogmatic on some issue? What is the point of inciting this utterly needless division betwixt the gross revolutionary leaders Comrade Lenin, Comrade Bukharin, Comrade Stalin, and Comrade Trotsky (and wither the rest of our many gross Bolshevik heroes)? Such exaggerated divisiveness befits only the schemes of factionalist wreckers, or the spite to resemble them. Perhaps these flaws are tolerable in a streamer comrade, the simple propagandist who is expected to engage in trite polemic for the cause— but the leaders of a supposed vanguard party to rule? Are you a factionalising wrecker, or are you a Bolshevik who is bound to value and uphold comradeship? Every member of this movement must ask himself this question.

14.49. Comrade Bukharin and Comrade Trotsky were 'glasses-wearing Western Marxist cynics'? Further, 'Stalin's gambit' was not consistent: first he sided with Comrade Bukharin, then he directly flipped his position to an über-Trotskyist ultra-Left one. With all due respect for Comrade Stalin, becoming more Trotskyist than Trotsky likewise made his position more erroneous than than Comrade Trotsky's already was.

15.16. Peasants being 'good enough to build socialism' has nought to do with the development of socialism. Marxism deals in material and social conditions, as the latter respond to the former, being bound as they are, not the subjective and conditions-influenced character of a class. Nor is the question of a class building socialism a judgement of 'sufficient morality'. Capitalists tending to be delusional, queer, or perverse is only related to our scientific analysis into how the class relations, arising from the class's relation to production and existence in society, generally manifest in the behaviours and beliefs of members in that class. These behaviours and beliefs are themselves immaterial to the analysis of building socialism, unless they are undergirding a particular mode of production, for to change the material and social conditions, id est the relations of classes and production, changes these dependent characteristics. Sometimes, the problem of sociality or of culture, really to say problems of those things considered to be part of the superstructure, may impede the development of the production question, but this yet has nay such ethical or individual dimension.

⸿ Comrade al-Din has apparently fallen for some idealist concoction of transubstantiation, that merely believing in the peasantry's socialist potential through faith alone, and saying unto them 'take this, for this is our hammer', should by some mystery Bolshevise the newly gnostic peasantry into enthusiastically embracing the severe costs and outenqueer conceptions of a proletariat undergoing immediate, full-force socialist industrialisation. We have heard, of course, that Comrade al-Din has professed a quaint belief in a theologico-political metaphysic of progressively-revealed religion, culminating in his recent obsession with Hegelian-Islamic ,,communism'' (we use the last term with the highest reservation) as a serious scaffold for the material construction of socialism. Thoughts of a Comrade does not share Comrade al-Din's amalgamation of Heideggerian Duginism and Hegelian Christo-Islam, or whatever he is intending it to be. This potpourri is, in our view, filled with crack. The peasantry may only change when the material and social conditions around it have sufficiently been enabled to do so.

16.09. At least 'illiterate retards' know that it was Comrade Lenin who implemented that ,,evil NEP''.

⸿ Regarding Comrade Bukharin and Comrade Deng, we agree that differences dwelt alongside similarities and precursive intellectual traditions. Comrade Deng took a harsher stance towards the peasantry to pressure them into unmandated if not voluntary proletarianisation. But if Comrade Deng is merely a partial Bukharinist in his market policy, this also retroactively makes Comrade Mao a partial Bukharinist in his peasant policy. To this point, one R Kalain argues for such a 'Bukharinist phase' in Comrade Mao's economic thought. If we are judged to be 'making Mensheviks out of mould spores', it is for the sake of argument against lindicrously dogmatic, negationist ones.

16.57. The simple fact undermining all of this is that Comrade Lenin supported the New Economic Policy before Comrade Bukharin did, for it was he who conceived of it, making all this denunciation of Bukharin with the convoluted and confused counter-example of Comrades Stalin, Mao, and Deng on the true path of Lenin in reality an insult to them all, and most of all to the formulator of the New Economic Policy: to Comrade Lenin. This so-called ,,Marxist-Leninist'' chairman of a purportedly communist party ought to know these things, or ought not to speak of them until he has made an investigation.

17.05. To properly gauge the 'level of basic knowledge', it is agreed by the wizards of every nation, one must posess such a trait himself, or he shall not recognise it.

22.20. Thoughts of a Comrade completely agrees, except that we view Comrades Lenin and Bukharin to be the pioneers of market socialism. It might even be argued that the New Economic Policy held within it more opportunities for socialist development than Reform and Opening Up, but that is a frivolous historical contention unworthy of being here mooted. Ere we may bemoot it, we should have to do much more reading regarding both, anywise.

23.55. Thoughts of a Comrade has never considered the American Communist Party to be fascist. Whether it is plagued by the Yezhovite mind-set remains to be seen, and that is what concerns us most. In fact, we have been somewhat impressed by certain efforts of the party. The journal of the party, Red America, is also something to be esteemed, in our opinion.

25-27.35. Completely agreed, with the one caveat that not all of Comrade Gorbachev's (early) reforms were bad, and that not all political reforms are the same. Otherwise, we agree: market socialism with Cubanish sovereignty is the way to successfully develop socialism in Cuba, at this present moment. Market socialism in the service of renewed national industrial capacity is a sound objective, as well as the long-term objective of procuring nuclear deterrents.