news

No he isn't. He explains why a petty-bourgeois opposition arose in the paragraph you have quoted without giving any judgement of it.

You people have no interest of actually studying. I quote it here because HSC is assumed to be read. But here you go, since you need me to babybird you

The questions as to whether it is possible to reform the basis of imperialism, whether to go forward to the further intensification and deepening of the antagonisms which it engenders, or backward, towards allaying these antagonisms, are fundamental questions in the critique of imperialism. Since the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition, a petty-bourgeois-democratic opposition to imperialism arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in nearly all imperialist countries. Kautsky not only did not trouble to oppose, was not only unable to oppose this petty-bourgeois reformist opposition, which is really reactionary in its economic basis, but became merged with it in practice, and this is precisely where Kautsky and the broad international Kautskian trend deserted Marxism.

The quote you have posted says that challenging imperialism without challenging the trusts and monopolies is a "pious wish", a far cry from the statement that one would somehow be recreating capitalism in countries that didn't even stop being capitalist!

calm down self fashioned preacher. this is exactly what I mean when the kautskyite position is the flip side to your antiimperialist position. you recognize that you are simply supporting camps, likewise the liberal supports the opposite camp and yearns for peace, meanwhile you yearn for the return to the premonopoly capital time, the "multipolar world"

We are to believe that the collapse of the American wouldn't be the single greatest opportunity to advance the positions of the international working in the past 3 decades. Why? Because if we said that then we would be accused of adopting petty-bourgeois viewpoints (never mind that regime change is significantly more popular amongst the bourgeoise)

believe what you want, your belief has no bearing on the material conditions same with your "critical" support. the revolution will come when sufficient number of workers gain consciousness - and not "consciousness" as in sitting watching the news and hoping for their bourgeoisie to beat the other bourgeoisie. the critical piece is for them is to know which "marxism" is really materialist and which is idealist bullshit that proclaims the collaboration between the national bourgeoisie as the end-all-be-all with the same petty nationalism.

you can disengage until you read (and I mean, really read) this piece https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm since hsc is too much for a communist to read nowadays ig