Skip Navigation

Quote:

If your first instinct as a westerner is to criticize and lecture 3rd world communist movements, instead of learning from their successes, then you have internalized the patronizing arrogance of the colonial system you claim to oppose.

148 comments
  • oh I wonder why this is near the top of the active feed even though there's only 6 comments

    clicks the Federation button to see the post on its home page

    • I'm so glad I don't let lemmy.nazi federate to my server lol

      • i've been blocking (and getting banned from) plenty of .world politics and "history" comms.

        its really that terrible. red scare propaganda and anticommunism dressed up as "leftism".

        i had someone imply to me they admire marx engels and lenin and condemn socialist "authoritarianism" in the very same post recently.

  • I just had to explain this to someone the other day lol. Figure ur gonna get lots of hate from libs about this post so wanted to just come in and say hi. 你是很好老师同志。Your posts in response are nicely done. I hope people take the time to read them.

  • Idk how anyone can defend how we (the US) does shit. Especially after this year. If you weren't already privy to how monstrous we can be now you are, and now we pulled any good shit we might have done, too.

  • I am hard pressed to think of any Americans older than twenty five that I have ever met IRL that was truly opposed to colonialism. High-schoolers and college students; sure. That's about it though.

    EDIT: To be clear, I am not defending colonialism. I just don't think most Americans understand or think about its impact. Out of sight. Out of mind.

  • Meanwhile the success in question: The 3rd world communist countries have managed to more or less industrialize and build up wealth, but under (state) capitalist system with all the bells of whistles which are markets, commodity production, wage labor, etc. In other words, they used capitalism to build up wealth.

    Don't get me wrong, I actually think they had some absolutely amazing policies for the workers like free housing and social benefits, and good on them for building themselves up. However, this has nothing to do with socialism (socialist mode of production in this case) or communism as it was achieved with, and is therefore a win for capitalism - the same system that drove colonialism and the system that had already built up wealth for 'non-socialist' feudal/agrarian countries in the 19-20th century.

    EDIT: Damn, judging from the amount of upvotes, it genuinely feels like walking into a bar and everyone drawing a gun and pointing at you. This is probably the most antagonistic I've been towards ML (or MLM/Dengist/Maoist) ideology and it's kinda disappointing how there's no actual non-ML Marxists to be seen here.

    • That is another western chauvinist talking point. That any development of industry (the primary task of countries who've just freed themselves from colonial rule), is a "betrayal" of socialism, because it didn't go according to whatever the given critic laid out as sufficiently socialist enough, and that only the western critics of socialist countries have the correct plan.

      China specifically can't be called state capitalist in the slightest, considering that the CPC stands above the political system, unlike capitalist dictatorships where capital rises above political power:

      • You've done a really good job misrepresenting my argument, keep it up.

        That is another western chauvinist talking point.

        Yeah, any critique of 3rd world communist countries is western chauvinism, therefore we should avoid looking at those countries through objective materialist perspective and uncritically support them just because they're third-worldist - that's something an imperialist crakkka like me should know.

        That any development of industry (the primary task of countries who’ve just freed themselves from colonial rule), is a “betrayal” of socialism, because it didn’t go according to whatever the given critic laid out as sufficiently socialist enough, and that only the western critics of socialist countries have the correct plan.

        I'd like you to point out where I said that industrialization is bad. The argument is literally about how the development was achieved and I concluded that it was through (state) capitalism and capitalist mode of production rather than socialism, even saying how it's good that they managed to build up wealth. I explicitly didn't moralize this either, this is literally how these countries materially functioned.

        My critique also comes strictly from Marxism which is essentially the basis for communism regardless of culture, but sure.

        China specifically can’t be called state capitalist in the slightest, considering that the CPC stands above the political system

        You're confusing political power with class relations, the key isn't who holds political power but what social relations of production are. If a state (CPC controlled or otherwise) oversees an economy where wage labor, capital accumulation, commodity exchange persists, then it's still state capitalism.

    • We've spoken on this before, ultimately you still cling to the "One Drop Rule" as a consequence of undercooked study of Dialectical and Historical Materialism.

      Edit: to respond to your edit, non-ML-derived Marxists are a minority among Marxists globally. Trotskyists are a largely western phenomenon, as are Left-comms, so it's unsurprising that there would only be 1 or 2 non-ML Marxists. Further, ML is overwhelmingly the most common umbrella of Marxists these days because it has seen real success, and theory and practice have proven it. There are sub-tendencies, but the umbrella of ML is so well-established because it's correct, if we are to be Marxists.

      • And I'm adamant that it's a mischaracterization. Identifying the dominant mode of production is not a "one drop rule", it's literally foundational Marxist analysis - modes are defined by prevailing relations of production, not how it's managed or ideological labels put onto them.

    • What no theory does to you.

      No seriously, you need to read on this, you clearly have at best a very simplistic understanding of the subject.

      Private property and markets can't just be abolished immediately after a revolution, it's not magic. Young socialist systems have to go through a transitional phase during which private property and markets are still allowed under strict oversight of the state.

      His does not make them capitalist as the proletariat still has control over this private sector via the socialist state, such as in China where all of the essential industry that is necessary for every other, known as the commanding heights, are fully state owned and the enterprises that are private are required by law to have a party member on their board as well as a "golden share" owned by the state that allow it unchallenged veto power over the board's decisions among other means of authority over the private sector.

      • What no theory does to you.

        Yeah, if you're operating within Stalinist ML bubble. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's inherently "true", and it can be healthy to read other communist sides/perspectives. Some recommendations would be Marx's writings, Lenin, Bordiga if you want a lesser known but still respected Leninist who's critical of ML's/Stalinism.

        No one claims magic here, and it's true - a transitional DOTP period must happen, but it's not a license to preserve the capitalist relations indefinitely. The fundamental relations of production that I've mentioned must be consciously dismantled over time as a precondition for socialism, that's what the proletarian dictatorship is literally for. If not, then it's only a matter of time until the state reverts to bourgeois control disguised as "socialist".

        Nationalizing capital while leaving value production intact leaves capitalism functionally preserved, read Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx where he makes this explicit - converting private to state property without abolishing wage labor/value mediation and calling it Socialism is literally Lassallean nonsense.

        Capitalist production is not magically nullified by the presence of a party member or state shareholding either: workers still sell their labor-power, surplus value is still extracted, production is for market sale or in other words, capitalist mode of production prevails at full force. Legal oversight is a managerial form, not an abolition of class relations.

      • Private property and markets can't just be abolished immediately after a revolution, it's not magic. Young socialist systems have to go through a transitional phase during which private property and markets are still allowed under strict oversight of the state.

        That makes sense

        His does not make them capitalist as the proletariat still has control over this private sector via the socialist state, such as in China where all of the essential industry that is necessary for every other, known as the commanding heights, are fully state owned

        Okay... but when will this "transitionary period" finish.

        If a "transitionary period" takes more than a decade at what point do we say "they aren't transitioning" and call it what it is, state owned capitalism.

148 comments