this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
318 points (83.3% liked)
Fediverse
27910 readers
1 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is no DoP left in the "P"RC. At best it's social democracy combined with one of the most brutally efficient capitalist systems of exploitation to date (which from a purely liberal economic pov is quite impressive, but so is Japan)
(following quotes are not meant as an appeal to authority, but rather me using wording which put it better than I ever could)
Mao Zedong also pointed out:
This was directly levelled at Deng Xiaoping, whom he assessed as follows:
Yes, I'm aware, Deng is absolutely a revisionist. I was explaining what most Marxists at least on Lemmy believe about China.
Personally, I understand why they went down that road after the fall of the USSR, but it remains to be seen if this will actually end up being the correct play. I think it would have been better had they taken a more hard-line stance in favor of Marxism than Revisionism, but we are now so far from that point that the entire last 35 years of global history would have been completely different.
yeah, alt-hist stuff isn't all that productive
the thing I meant was, that the ppl who defend China as well as China itself, have forsaken Marxism and should not be called that
it means a complete revision of the understanding of class struggle (being replaced with class collaborationism and often the CPC taking up the role of the bourgeoisie) and thus dialectical/historical materialism
which is why I am referring to them as "social democrats at best"
100% agreed on Alt-History, no questions from me on that.
However, I do want to flip this around just a bit, for the sake of a thought experiment. For critical supporters of the PRC, it seems that opposing US hedgemony and creating a multipolar world is the primary means by which Lenin's Imperialism can be fought in our present moment, even if we lack any hardline Marxist powers.
In your eyes, what should these Marxists instead be supporting? The US? It seems everyone is agreed on supporting the Global South, but when it comes to countries with any real influence on global geopolitics, are all of them bad and unworthy of even critical support, generally, or is there a force you believe is on somewhat of the right track, as a Marxist?
This isn't a gotcha, I am genuinely interested in this conversation.
I'd say that you don't have to support either side in an inter-imperialist conflict.
Just because China's ruling elites have virtually no military bases abroad (compared to the USA), doesn't mean that they aren't imperialist. Only that they are "smarter" in that regard.
To use Jimmy Carters words (about the "smarter"-part):
China might be a so called "social democracy". It is, however, - in contrast to the European model - in large parts funded internally: most prominently the coastal cities and their SEZs (special economic zones), which host abhorrent labour/environmental laws, red-tape-cutting corruption and whatever else international investment capital needs (or be it internal one, like the allowing 996 culture at Huawei or Chinas tech sector in general)
To quote Michael Parenti:
I'm not sure whether an integrated periphery constitutes imperialism., their export of financial capital, however, definitely does! (eg. their debt traps and following decade-long leases)
So yes, from my POV the Global South or rather the periphery in general, (unfortunately) have no strong advocate on the geopolitical stage
(Please bear in mind that I do not claim to have studied the addressed topics in proper detail and all this being my ad hoc take)
So it seems to me that we are in agreement that the PRC is certainly not full Socialism, and definitely has more internal than external funding. In this instance, in a contradiction between US and PRC hegemony, would the Global South be better off with the PRC or US as the global superpower? I understand that we do not fully support the PRC, as it is revisionist in many ways and does enact some level of Imperialism, but in contrast to the US it focuses on Peace and internal development, rather than forever wars.
I guess if we can both agree that neither are good that's a step forward, but I see the PRC as a lesser evil in the global context. It certainly isn't a strong ally for the Global South, but seems to present fewer challenges for the Global South to throw off the reigns of Imperialism themselves and transition to a Social Democracy, or even Socialism outright.
I really do think that's the point here with the PRC vs the US.
What are your thoughts on that?
Imo just bc the subjugation is financial instead of military in nature, does not mean that it's preferable, since it remains subjugation nonetheless.
Idk if that analogy makes sense, but whether you are beat till you collapse, or get the rug pulled from under you, you still end up on the ground.
I also think that it's important to keep in mind that social democracy is not a step towards socialism, but away from it. It is the temporary grant of concessions of the ruling elites towards the working classes. It is one of the defense mechanism of capital to keep the masses complacent, always at the cost of the exploitation of others. The other ones would be fascism or post-modern individualist neoliberalism (the latest stage of the US model which is essentially gaslighting the working population psychologically instead of using material means to keep them complacent. Ofc those are fluid and capital often combines various aspects of them).
But I digress...
I think it's similar to WW1 or Russia's invasion of Ukraine: internationally, Marxists shouldn't support either side of inter-imperialist conflict and domestically employ revolutionary defeatism where possible
Also I'd disagree that China has (so to say) "taken a detour from the socialist road", but entirely abandoned it. The only thing that is left is the hammer and sickle, and the red paint... (even the text of the Internationale is too radical for them, as they only seem to play the instrumental version at the CPC congresses)
tl;dr: I'd rather not pick between "the lesser" of two hegemonic evils, but reject any form of (neo)-imperialist/-colonialist subjugation.
(again this became more like a rant and I am not that well read in general)
also I welcome the change of having a good faith interaction with a more or less like minded Marxist on here :)
I want to start this off by reponding to your closer, I agree entirely, this is a good-faith convo I appreciate among fellow Marxist comrades, and I do enjoy it!
I ageee that it isn't ideal to pick between the lesser of two evils, but I believe one can support a lesser of two evils between 2 evils while supporting good revolutionary or corrective movements within.
As for the bit on Social Democracy within the periphery, I know it isn't Socialism and will never be Socialism, but third world Social Democracies do help focus on domestic nationalization and throw off Imperialism from the Global North. Those movements against Imperialism in my opinion are much better than going along with it, as they increase the revolutionary potential in their neighbors and former Imperialists.
It's like a multi-layered level of support, there are very few truly hard-line Marxist movements, so we have to work with what exists presently. We can advocate for better while also critically supporting movements that would better allow better movements later.
Kinda like supporting Palestine. Even if Hamas is reactionary, Palestine will never move forward socially until it throws off its oppressors, which is why supporting Palestinian Liberation is straightforward.
I appreciate your thoughts!
I must admit that I am not well informed enough about Hamas to form an opinion of them specifically. For that I would have to verify claims of genocidal tendencies. Though the Palestinian struggle against settler-colonialism is a most important one, it is a shame that it is not even led by a vaguely progressive force.
But as you said we should take what we can get. I also concur that social democracy in South America (or the pink tide as it is called sometimes) like in Bolivia, Venezuela or recently Brazil are a generally positive development in weakening the imperial core and might also improve the material situation of millions.
However, even more socialist movements like the Bolivar one have class collaborationist tendencies, which go faaar deper than e.g. the temporary Maoist compromise with the national bourgeoisie. IIrc even the CPV (of Venezuela) has broken with the PSUV in the era of Maduro, despite having staunchly supported it (and it's presecessors) in the Chavez era before. The PSUV even initiated a party coup recently through a Venezuelan court, reinstating a collaborationist CK in the CPV...
I am torn in the sense that reformism (read: so called "democratic socialism") has failed time and time again to make an honest switch to socialism. But that it either was never even genuine to begin with and thus converted back to social democracy or was destroyed by either internal reaction (through not having class struggle in favour of the working classes, allowing for reactionary ones to initiate an overthrow), international reaction (spearheaded by the likes of the CIA) or both. Tho "democratic socialism" never truly challenges the bourgeoisie in the first place. (only nationalizing key industries and somehow magically hoping the oppressors will give power up voluntarily.)
I fully understand that material conditions from massive economic and diplomatic pressure lead to shortages and shortcomings, leading to some kind of compromise. It would be "forgiven" imo (idk if that is the right wording, sounds weird tbh but I hope it makes sense) if they'd compromise from even an approximately Marxist position like Cuba, but they don't never truly overcoming capitalism.
But as I said, their struggle for sovereignty and against (us-)imperialism is commendable.
And often is a progressive step forward.
However, I simply can not hold China up to the same standard. Not with it's size and weight, it's former influence and dedication (despite a complete cut of soviet support and massive pressure, I might add. Under which it is "acceptable" for geopolitically "weaker" movements to deepen compromise).
After the counterrevolutionary coup of Hua (in favour of Deng) it has only been regression after regression. From a bastion of revolutionary Marxism to a bourgeois state of a new type.
Don't get me wrong, the CPC succeeded in what the CPSU failed to do: preserve the caste of party bureaucracy in the transition to capitalism, with them partially taking up the role of the bourgeoisie; although in a far more (sometimes also ruthlessly) efficient form. (I mean sometimes more ruthless than the South Korean, Singaporean or Japanese models from which they partially drew their inspiration. In terms of the treatment of the working classes regarding the "work ethic" for example)
Same to you! Constructive discussion with fellow Marxists helps improve ones pov. Unfortunately, thanks to the infestation of the likes of Hexbear and Lemmygrad, the occurrence of those is limited considerably...
I don't believe social democracy or democratic socialism are enough, but if they are baby steps against Imperialism then I think it's a good move, if only to later hope for a Marxist revolution. That's really my core point, I suppose.
Thanks for the discussion!