Leftist Infighting: A community dedicated to allowing leftists to vent their frustrations

First of all i have seen read little to nothing from Rainer that is anything like the views you described. In fact i have seen more that would indicate that he actually supports decolonization. The only thing i have seen him be critical of is the liberal co-optation of the slogan of "decolonization". I am also fairly sure he has praised the Black Panthers and held them up as a positive revolutionary example. As for what should be done with the US, i have to always add the caveat that i do not live in the US nor have any connection to it whatsoever so the most i can offer is an outsider's opinion.

I think pretty much all communists acknowledge that the US's revolution was a bourgeois one. But so was the French revolution. In today's context that would be reactionary but it could be argued, and as far as i know Marx himself also held this view, that at the time it served at least to a certain extent a progressive role in history. It did inspire the French revolution which, though it was also a failure from the proletariat's point of view, in turn had far reaching impacts on later revolutionary developments.

That being said, the state that the American revolution established pretty quickly became undeniably reactionary in character. As for Lincoln, Marx also had a fairly positive view of him, though obviously there were significant contradictions between on the one hand the real revolutionary liberation of the enslaved (which was unfortunately immediately followed by a severe reactionary backlash and the failure of reconstruction) and on the other the ongoing colonial genocide of the indigenous population and the theft of their land.

None of these historical developments and figures should be idealized by communists and we should also in no way be attached to the continued existence of the US, since it is more likely than not that its balkanization will become inevitable at some point. From where i'm standing i would consider it to be a net positive for the world if the US disappeared as a state, and i am sure much of the global south would rejoice over such a development - for good reason! On the other hand i can also understand how US communists may feel differently and may have reasons for wanting to avoid such a scenario since for them it may make their own conditions much worse.

I don't think it is productive to completely exclude and shut out communists who still have some reactionary prejudices that they need to unlearn, or who think that calling openly for the dissolution of the US would at this point be counterproductive to the struggle since it would alienate the masses. I am not saying they are right, in fact i think they mean well but are misjudging the situation, but i do think it's ok to have legitimate disagreements about what the right strategy is for building a revolutionary movement inside the imperial core. No group has so far had success, so why not let different groups try different approaches?

I don't know maybe i am completely off-base here, and maybe i'll get downvoted to hell again for this, but i just don't think there is anything to gain from simply dismissing so many potential allies by just labeling them "patsocs", then acting like merely because they have been given that label they are now taboo and not to be associated with, and lumping them all in the same category as certain online grifters.