Translation:
My personal opinion, for those who are interested, is that these two instances (Hexbear and Lemmygrad) are filled with what we call here nazbols, tankies, or even left-wing fascists.
They are primarily authoritarians who like to call themselves leftist, but use the same tools, have the same political vision, the same organization, and politically and historically tend to ally with “official” fascists as soon as a truly revolutionary leftist movement emerges.
I found it tolerable to “do nothing” as long as they stayed in their corners, but I had somewhat forgotten that an authoritarian remains an authoritarian and that the only place they deserve is down a well, not forgetting to strike the hands that try to escape with a big stick.
Yes, after negotiating a split of Europe with them, because it was in their material interest to do so.
They were "biding their time" by sending german and austrians anti-fascists and communists to the Nazi regime, spreading in baltic territories and western europe, until they were themselves the target of the nazi regime.
They had material interests in their alliance with the nazis, and they only broke that alliance because they were fucked over, not because of ideology, "biding their time", or wanting to liberate people.
The "biding their time" excuse is also only used anymore by tankies due to the abundant proofs that the NKVD ignored all warnings about the Nazis maybe being bad people that were going to betray them, the most famous case being the one of Richard Sorge. This excuse was even said to be false by Gorbachev during the glasnost period, and the initial document made public.
They did it because they didn't really have the option of doing nothing anymore, else they'd have both fascists and capitalist going against them. They allied by material interest.
I mean this is kind of the consequence of Stalin's death, nobody in the party really wanting to be associated with Stalinism and what he did anymore, Khrushchev openly admitting that capitalist countries had better standards of living and promising to reach parity, while slowly having the communist sphere of influence reducing due to the cold war efforts to undermine communist regimes.
You cannot compete against a globalizing capitalist economy when you're not self sufficient and are losing allies, especially when your plan is to pretty much to build a modern country from the bottom.
Alienating China was pretty much the last domino that lead to the USSR having to implode sooner or later. Their "liberalization" was the last breath of their agony.
State owned, yes, not sure what is your underlying question.
If you're asking why they are not a liberal capitalist country, I'd add "yet" to the question.
The economical rise of China is pretty recent, and they're starting to produce billionaires that might still not have had the time to corrupt the whole political system like they did in western economies centuries ago.
Also, saying "reintroducing foreign capital" is a pretty dishonest way to present it.
The recent rise in economic power of China is born from the foreign capital of greedy western capitalists that saw China as an infinite source of cheap labor.
I'd like for China to not become another imperialist capitalistic parasite but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in a few generations.
Mostly because they represent nothing as far as geopolitics are concerned, that they are an island that make them more able to isolate themselves from international interference compared to large coutries like the USSR or China, and also using the military to keep the current power structure intact.
There is pretty much no will since the fall of the USSR to fuck even more with Cuba from the west, and no possibility to "leave" socialism if they ever wanted to, that's why. I'll also make clear that I'm not implying that Cubans want to change their government, just to defuse the incoming strawman, just that the material reality is that they can't.
Sure, not sure why you're then citing unrelated shit after that but you do you.
For someone that is proud to be knowledgeable about Marxism theory, I'm a bit surprised by that statement.
The whole point of Marx's analysis is that socialism is a natural consequence of the power struggle linked to capitalist production, which will irremediably lead to a proletarian revolution.
Marxists that want to accelerate this phenomenon absolutely do it for moral reason. Because they consider that capitalists exploit the proletariat, and that a change is required for more justice.
Marxists see the use of socialism, as in the broader marxist definition, as a way to replace the capitalists in the control of these "monopolist syndicates", yes. Not because they just happen to be there, but to repair a social injustice.
Yes, and I never even implied that?
Indeed, which is why I specifically wrote "Democratic Centralism in practice in your MLs countries irremediably end up as a farce", which I though was pretty clear in saying that there is a stark difference between actual Democratic Centralism, and what ends up with this name.
Yes, and again, I never even implied the contrary.
I could also point out that it strangely took Staline's death for that to happen, and that the differences between his early writings and what he actually did once in power are pretty stark.
Guess what happened to actual internationalists from Trotsky or Lenine's school of thought when Staline got into power.
Once again, seems that you think tankies are actual marxists, and that you'd rather take writing as material facts than actual material facts.
Sure bud.
Theses:
These phrases have been current for more than 2,000 years. What is missing is (alpha) an understanding of the causes of exploitation; (beta) an understanding of the development of society, which leads to socialism; (gamma) an understanding of the class struggle as the creative force for the realisation of socialism.
Anarchism is bourgeois individualism in reverse. Individualism as the basis of the entire anarchist world outlook.
{ Defence of petty property and petty economy on the land. Keine Majorität.[1] Negation of the unifying and organising power of the authority.}
(Anarchism is a product of despair. The psychology of the unsettled intellectual or the vagabond and not of the proletarian.)
Absurd negation of politics in bourgeois society.
Failure to understand the role of the organisation and the education of the workers.
Panaceas consisting of one-sided, disconnected means.
– No doctrine, revolutionary teaching, or theory.
– Fragmentation of the working-class movement.
– Complete fiasco in the experiments of the revolutionary movement (Proudhonism, 1871; Bakuninism, 1873).
– Subordination of the working class to bourgeois politics in the guise of negation of politics.
How is me answering each of your points directly "gish-galloping?" How is me citing sources for my argument the same as your lack of citing evidence? I'm not talking about quoting me, but evidence.
It is not a strawman to say that you used this section to decry China. A strawman is making up an argument, not a disagreement in the implications of severity.
Claiming that China is assimilationist culturally makes no analysis of power structures, nor is this "Historical Materialism." Historical Materialism makes analysis of the mode of production and the class relations guiding society. Saying that China was assimilationist in the past, before Communist revolution and proletarian restructuring of society and claiming this assimilationism has economic ties to modern day China is wrong.
You were against China taking Hong Kong back, that implies you wished it remained with England. If you have a different stance, then make it.
What is a nation?
Yes, and there was and still is a pro-PRC movement in Hong Kong. See what people actually want before immediately siding with the Global North over the Global South.
I have been careful, and hyper-skeptical. Only you have been oversimplifying.
You call it a fact and support it with nothing. You claim it's because the spooky Chinese are assimilationists and genocidal ethnically, and use that to support your narrative.
Good thing I don't accept everything good and everything bad about China!
To be clear, you dismissed China as ethnically assimilationist and never once praised anything about China, so it's not hard to see you as anti-China, period. I answered the points you raised, of course I didn't answer whatever occupies your mind-palace alone.
Let's see how you defend the foundational errors you made with Marxism!
Why? Israel is a settler-colonial ethno-state built on stolen land, the PRC is just China. Seems your own bias is showing.
What would count as a source you trust?
I don't dismiss the question of self-determination. I question your determination for the residents of Xinjiang, rather than theirs. For Palestine we see daily slaughter, we just don't for Xinjiang, nor do we see large popular independence movements.
The Trotskyists allied with German and Francoist forces to kick off the May Day revolts, and the USSR stepped in. This has been documented via archival evidence. This is not a cut and dry case of the Communists siding against Anarchists with fascists, but a complicated instance of infighting. Why would the Soviets "switch sides?"
Yes, the anti-Communists often worked against the USSR. This was counter-productive for the Spanish civil war.
Probably would take a lot longer.
All "Democratic Centralism" means is that the whole is beholden to democratic decisions.
Marx predicted how it would function based on how Capitalism functioned and what it was leading towards, ie decentralized markets into central planning and public ownership. This is the entire point of Scientific Socialism, rather than Utopian. Socialism as a stage in evolution in mode of production, not as an ideal to implement. See Socialism: Utopian and Scientitic. Additionally, Marx did not soften his views in Critique of the Gotha Programme, rather, after the Paris Commune Marx learned that the previous state must be entirely dismantled and replaced.
Cont.
This is exactly why you have no idea what you're talking about. The State, in Marx's terms, is the structure that supports class oppression. It isn't the same as a government. Marx, Lenin, and so forth all operated on the same understanding of a state. From Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientitic:
It is frustratingly evident that you have mere cursory knowledge of Marxism, and haven't even read the basics. You should also read The State and Revolution.
The USSR supported other revolutionary movements. It was a Socialist state upt until its dissolution, the idea that a centrally planned, democratically operated, publicly owned economy would be Capitalist beyond the NEP is perfect evidence of just how little you understand about Marxism.
Do you doubt that Communists organize? That's core to Communist belief.
You have demonstrated fundental and critical misunderstandings of Marxism, which I have carefully and thoroughly pointed out, and yet you sit on a high horse believing yourself to know better. This is absurd. Pray tell, what do you believe a Marxist is, if not a supporter of Marxist movements and an applicant of Marxist theory and practice?
We have explained to you that Marxists side with oppressed groups, as is in line with the Marxist theory of National Liberation and self-determination. Your claim is that we are contratians, and that is the sole factor, but yet have nothing to say when we point you to what we actually believe and why.
It's performative because we use Marxist analysis and are consistent with our views? Nonsense.
You, again, have no idea what the people of Xinjiang want. Independence and national liberation are not as simple as creating as many states as there are ethnic groups.
You have failed to demonstrate why we are not Marxists and Communists, and in fact showed that you have critical misunderstandings of Marxist theory.
Same remark as above.
For the, what, fourth time now? Read Blackshirts and Reds, if you aren't going to read Marx, at least read a short history book on how Communism and fascism were diametrically opposed since the beginning. The Nazis started attacking the Communists both inside and outside Germany, and the Soviets attacked the Nazis and tried to get thr Western Powers to notice the threat. During WWII, the Soviets were the largest anti-Nazi force, with 4/5ths of the total Nazi deaths at their hands.
It's famously known that Kruschev lied, confirmed with the opening of the Soviet Archives.
This is actually more correct analysis than anything else, though the USSR was not doomed, it was murdered from the top down in the final years.
I'm asking you to analyze the PRC from a Marxist lens.
The economic rise of China started under Mao. It stabilized under Deng. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.
Is it? That's what they did.
Partially, yes. This was the strategy employed by Deng, while the PRC had favorable agreements and a birdcage model over Capital. Read The Long Game and its Contradictions.
Why not? It's trending towards more public ownership and control. All this shows is that you aren't in touch with how China operates or where it is trending.
It couldn't be the high government approval rates and democratization, could it?
Cuba absolutely could pivot to a free market economy if they wanted. The US has continued to brutally sanction them to this very day.
All of what I said is related.
Shocker, the one who doesn't understand Marxism is surprised when encountering a Marxist that takes theory seriously.
Cont.
Bzzzzt WRONG. Marx's analysis is that Capitalism naturally forms monopolist syndicates over time, removing competition and replacing with association, prepping the capabilities of public ownership and central planning after revolution. From Marx himself:
Capitalism prepares the ground for Socialism.
I didn't say there were no moral reasons for wanting to move onto Socialism. I said Marxists believe Socialism to be the next step out of critical examination of Capitalism. This is Marxism 101.
More than a simple reparation of injustice, it is the only way to progress forwards. Economic structures follow the level of development of the Productive Forces. This is the basis of Historical Materialism! Socialism is necessary once these monopolist syndicates are formed to even consider progressing on.
You did, through the implication that introducing broader markets is a deviation away from Socialism.
There isn't, just gesturing and chauvanism on your part. Read Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?"
You did, in implying their democratic structures were farcical.
I could also point out how these movements did not depend on Stalin.
Trotsky was actively hostile to the USSR, Stalin largely upheld Lenin's legacy. Stalin didn't make a stark departure from Lenin.
I am a Marxist, you claim I am not, and in fact am a "tankie." You have no justification for this, only your own lack of understanding of Marxism, as I have time and time again explained and supported with writings. You have provided little in the way of material evidence, I have provided much.
Indeed. If you don't even know what Scientific Socialism means or what Historical Materialism is, how can you claim authority over someone who has read several dozen essays, books, and more? You're deeply unserious.
I love you Cowbee