Source since it wasnt provided, from the Australian Communist Party:
https://www.auscp.org.au/militant-monthly/the-business-of-war-how-capitalism-makes-a-killing
Racist shitbags, the lot of them, anti-decolonisation and has the same irrational hatred of "Chinamen" that most white Aussies do. They're a controlled op party, full of white folks who don't want to be "too extreme" in their communism, like liberating Aboriginal people, that would "alienate the masses" so our most oppressed minorities must continue to suffer for the sake of "optics". They uncritically parrot US state department lines on everything, they're somehow even more pro-US than our labor party, even if they do occasionally add a "US bad too though." to their constant slander of AES. The very definition of a labour aristorcrat petite bourgeoise "communist" party. They say empty, vaguely communist sounding things on their website, but in person they're just looking for an excuse to feel superior to the Oriental Savages.
I'm surprised actually I thought this was a ML party with a platform similar to the CPA. CPA in comparison has a pretty good platform from what I can tell, they're pro China.
Addit: I read their policy statement on PRC. Boils down to that they don't believe CPC is currently practising socialism, reject the idea of an "initial stage of socialism" as claimed by the CPC. But they stress that this is a matter for the Chinese proletariat and thus do not support any colour revolutions against the CPC. This is one step better than the Trotskyists in my view. To be honest I think there is a legitimate theoretical discussion to be had around the path which Chinese socialism has taken and doing so doesn't necessarily mean you're "following liberal propaganda". I think you can discuss pros and cons of the CPC approach without being an ultra. However any criticism must be based on facts. There is no oppression of minorities in China, this is a liberal fabrication. The "Imperialism" claim is hotly contested (by people much smarter than me on all sides) and certainly shouldn't be presented as it is in this article without so much of a hint of examination into its validity.
Source? Is this Red Flag or something?
