Cowbee [he/him]

So essentially your reply is to ignore analyzing why the US acts in the way it does materially, and why the PRC acts the way it does materially, and instead analyze based on vibes and some deterministic idea that Chinese people will turn to conquest even if it benefits them more to continue down their current path?

This is absurd. Analyze why things happen like we have, otherwise you have nothing.

Your posts trend more on the “Communism is good, Capitalism is bad” side than showing straightforward facts like this post, plus the absolutely uncontestable fact is front and center.

Not saying your posts aren’t accurate, they are, but agitprop varies in effectiveness.

The best agitprop focuses on simple, uncontestable facts.

Politics are a huge part of Lemmy in general, and Lemmy.world is overwhelmingly bad with that respect.

You’re entirely ignoring davel’s point. The reason the US bombs is because of what davel calls “Imperialism,” and linked to examples of it. What you call “human nature Imperialism” and what davel calls “Imperialism as a stage in Capitalism” are fundamentally different concepts, you’re talking past davel, and davel is 100% correct here.

The reason the US bombs countries is not because humans are mean. The US bombs to protect its interests. This you both agree on. However, davel has successfully identified why the US’ interests depend on bombing others, and China’s interests do not.

To simplifiy davel’s point, Capitalism centralizes and spreads, until it spreads along international lines. This results in the country with more Capital leveraging this to gain favorable trade deals, so it can super-exploit foreign countries for super-profits. The bombing the US does is to keep their power projected and punish those turning against it.

China does not have a Capitalist system, it has a Socialist Market Economy. China manufactures the vast majority of its own goods, rather than manufacturing overseas, so its interactions with the Global South have a fundamentally different character. China wants to uplift the Global South so that the Global South buys from China and makes them even more money.

Both countries are acting in their own interests, but because of the structures in place, this results in the US bombing and plundering, and China building up infrastructure and hospitals. Even when China wants resources housed in the Global South, this difference in internal structure makes trade more mutually beneficial, rather than plunderous.

For sure, libs get scratched easily these days.

Thank you, appreciate the kind words! I’m going to step away from Lemmy for a few days and touch grass, but I’ll be back 🫡

You can check the modlog on my account, this was from a couple months ago on Lemmy.world

I appreciate you taking the time to read my write-up. I want to ask, why do you claim the PRC isn’t Socialist? 50% of the economy is in the public sector, a tenth in the cooperative sector, and the Private Sector is run with strict central planning and oversight from the government. Socialism doesn’t refer simply to a fully publicly owned economy - it’s a transitional economy towards Communism. In the PRC, the Public Sector further controls key heavy industries and infrastructure that the Private Sector relies on, so the Private Sector is subservient to the demands of the Public. The presense of Markets is not enough to claim an economy isn’t Socialist. From Engels himself:

Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

The reason Marxists believe Socialism comes after Capitalism is because Markets have a tendency to centralize in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall, which naturally forces the development of strategies and tools for internal planning. This naturally prepares the way for Central Planning. In the PRC, Capital in the Private Sector is trapped in a birdcage model, and the CPC increases ownership as these markets do their job and centralize. This is Marxism in action. I suggest you read the articles What is Socialism? as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.

Also, as a side note, “Stalinism” isn’t a thing. Stalin was not much of a theoretician, the proper term is Marxism-Leninism, as it is founded on the writings of Marx and Lenin primarily.

Additionally, you need to analyze who was happy to see the fall of the USSR. The answer? The West. In the vast majority of the post-Soviet populace, Capitalism brought death and destruction, 7 million people died due to it, and most long for a return to Socialism. In the Global South, the fall of the USSR was seen as an immense tragedy. The only ones benefiting were the Imperialist Capitalists that swooped in and looted the USSR’s former state structures and industry for profit at dirt cheap prices.

Ultimately, I think you have a lot of research to do if you want to hold a truly internationalist perspective, and not one tainted by Western bias, which is notoriously adversarial to Communism and the Global South in general, as the West relies on export of industrial and financial Capital to the Global South to super-exploit for super-profits. This is what Marxists call Imperalism.

Called what?

I understand that you hate Marxists, and yes, you’re most likely a liberal. It isn’t a coincidence that leftists tend to have similar stances to each other, when working from the same theoretical framework similar conclusions follow.

You tend to see it more on Lemmy.world, less so on instances dominated by Leftists.

The point about you knowing these people online or in person was secondary to my point about organizing. Individual people considering themselves Communists but unaffiliated with an org vere frequently misunderstand theory, develop strange and contradictory stances, and otherwise fail to bounce their ideas off of actual, practicing Communists who daily test their theory and refine it. That’s why “Party Lines” exist. These “Party Lines” generally form around specific tendencies within Marxism, because there do exist right and wrong answers when faced with material reality and consistent frameworks of analysis. No, a Communist shouldn’t automatically support anything, they should test their theory and keep what works and toss what doesn’t. The fact that the overwhelming majority of actual practicing Communists do support the PRC and USSR does not mean they are doing so thoughtlessly. Blackshirts and Reds is a good book.

The most major tendency of Marxism is Marxism-Leninism, as it has had the most direct proof of validity and consistency with theory and practice. ML organizations have had numerous successful revolutions, and most AES states follow an ML line. As such, the vast majority of Communists worldwide support the PRC and USSR.

Maoists, generally, reject Deng’s reforms that returned the PRC to a more traditional Marxist understanding of economics, and see him as a right-deviationist. Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, a more fringe ideology popularized by the Communist Party of Peru, are less consistent on this matter.

The only other major current of Marxism is Trotskyism, which has produced no real revolutions and no real results. Trots are common in the Western Left because it fits with the West’s overall anti-AES stance, and thus is easier to come to from a Western perspective. Outside of tiny pockets mostly in Latin America, Trots do not exist in the Global South. Trotskyism is a misanalysis of Socialism, Marxism, and Revolutionary Theory, and as such I was not including them as actual Communists. A good article is Trotskyists Don’t Believe Anything.

Seeing as how you’ve admitted to a European point of view, everything coincides with what I’ve said. I have been speaking internationally, you’ve been speaking from a Trot-heavy Euro-centric point of view. Again, the Western Left’s tendency to reject actual Socialism is more to do with compatability with existing world views. I recommend Jones Manoel’s Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, But Not Real Revolution.

I’ve seen Anarchists, Marxists, and progressive liberals all called “tankie” before, so either you aren’t looking or you consider them to be “tankies.” Secondly, I don’t know what you mean by “supporting authoritarian governments,” leftists don’t support the US Empire.

That quote is extremely hinged on context in which it was made, and it would serve you well to internalise that context before throwing this quote around pretending it to have been something Marx lived by.

Correct, Marx wasn’t just randomly terrorizing people. He was referring to the Proletariat making no apologies for revolution and taking up arms against the bourgeoisie and their enablers, something Lenin and the people of the USSR carried into reality. Lenin descibed what you’re doing to Marx and Engels right now quite well:

“What is now happening to Marx’s teaching has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the teachings of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes struggling for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their teachings with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to surround their names with a certain halo for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time emasculating the essence of the revolutionary teaching, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. At the present time, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the working-class movement concur in this “doctoring” of Marxism. They omit, obliterate and distort the revolutionary side of this teaching, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently, German bourgeois scholars, but yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they aver, educated the workers’ unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of conducting a predatory war!”

• Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution

That was not my claim, but thank you for so generously misinterpreting what I said. Lenin implemented the violent oppression of dissenters and opposition in a socialist system. That was carried further by Stalin, under whom ‘counter-revolutionary’ became an extremely malleable term that could mean anything not fully aligned with his ideas. The fact that you think political violence and terror is a core tenet of Marxism tells me that you’re the one who might need to brush up on their history a little bit.

Lenin implemented the world’s first Socialist state, and this state violently oppressed the bourgeoisie, fascists, the White Army, rebels, and so forth. The fact is, political violence is often sadly necessary against those who would crush the Socialist state, like the 14 Capitalist countries that jointly invaded the USSR after its founding. A Marxist project that rolls over and dies the second fascists and the bourgeoisie fight against it isn’t Marxist. Blackshirts and Reds is a good quick read on the tangible benefits AES states achieved despite brutal opposition from the outside.

In fact, authoritarian socialism - as practiced in virtually every single Marxist-Leninist country that ever existed - was completely counter to the ideals of Marx and Engels. The people we have to thank for creating the violent authoritarianism that pervaded communist countries in practice are Lenin and Stalin. “Dictatorship of the proletariat” may have been a phrase used by Marx, but he never fully elaborated on what that should or could look like. And fascism as created by Mussolini and unleashed upon the world by Hitler didn’t even exist during Marx’s lifetime. Even Marx’s views on religion were a lot more complex and multifaceted than what Marxist-Leninist governments turned them into.

This is nonsense. First of all, what separates “authoritarian” Socialism from “non-authoritarian” socialism? All Marxist-Leninist states practice democracy and allow more participation in the way society is run than Capitalist states for the average person. Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is a good resource on this. Secondly, the idea that Marx and Engels never had a clear idea of what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would look like is further nonsense - Marx described the Paris Commune as the first implementation of the DotP in reality. Marx and Engels knew quite well that violent suppression of bourgeois elements was required.

Furthermore, whether Marx or Engels really observed fascism is utterly irrelevant, unless your point is that they would not have been anti-fascist, which is nonsense.

I don’t know if either of you have ever lived in a Marxist-Leninist country (as in lived, not just visited). I was born in one. I lived in another for five years. I’ve seen the before and after, first-hand. That’s my pedestal. How’s the weather up there on yours?

A non-sequitor. Spending early childhood in an AES state does not mean you know how it works, nor what it deals with on a daily basis. Even people who live their entire lives in Capitalist states go without knowing how they function.

Are these Communists members of any Communist orgs, or just online people?

Stalin synthesized Marxism-Leninism, yes. He did so on the basis of Lenin’s theoretical advancements on Marxism. Stalin himself wasn’t that much of a theoretician, hence why it’s Marxism-Leninism, though Stalin has a few works under his belt. Yes, the Stalin. You’re free to read my introductory reading list if you want to learn more about Marxism.

Secondly, you have no idea what you’re talking about if you’re pretending Lenin came up with the idea of revolution and using the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to suppress fascists and the bourgeoisie. Such ideas came from Marx and Engels, who always advocated for revolution. From Marx:

“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”

I suggest you take the advice of @[email protected] and read up on Marxist theory and history before speaking nonsense from a pedestal.

Marxism is broken up into 3 major components:

1. Dialectical and Historical Materialism

2. Critique of Capitalism via the Law of Value

3. Advocacy for Revolutionary and Scientific Socialism.

Marxism-Leninism carries these 3 foundations forward, and analyzes Capitalism as it reaches Imperialism, as well as numerous expansions on the foundations of revolutionary theory and practice.

They are not “the same,” but the vast majority of Marxists are Marxist-Leninists, because Lenin’s application of Marxism to higher stages of Capitalism are invaluable to Marxism.