anansi

Here's a hint: the Communists sided against the fascists committing the Holocaust and liberated Aushwitz, doing far more of the fighting than any Western nation that would have had the Nazis and Communists kill each other off.

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.

Remarkable, no actual analysis of Marxist history. The Soviets could have liberalized at any time, but did so later in their existence, why?

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.

The PRC is a mostly publicly owned economy with strong central planning despite reintroducing foreign Capital, why?

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.

Cuba is still Socialist despite brutal sanctions because of it, why?

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.

You have no analysis.

Sure, not sure why you're then citing unrelated shit after that but you do you.

Marxists don't advocate for Socialism because of any moral reason

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.

but because Capitalism itself forms large monopolist syndicates ripe for central planning and public ownership

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.

You cannot simply "will" these structures into existence, that's why Communists can't abolish Private Property outright

Yes, and I never even implied that?

Democratic Centralism is not a "farce."

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.

Socialist states have made great democratic strides, even if they haven't been perfect immediately.

Yes, and again, I never even implied the contrary.

You could read works like Marxism and the National Question or The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, or look at how the USSR supported national liberation movements in Palestine, Algeria, Cuba, Korea, and more.

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.

The fact is, I disagree with you because I've read academic literature, history books, and Marxist theory, and nothing you've said meaningfully challenges it.

Sure bud.

For starters, this is largely gish-gallop. You never back up any of your claims, and you strawman claims I have never made. These two logical fallicies make up the structure of your comment, gish-gallop a bunch of claims I never made and then "dunk" on them. I'll go section by section.

Yeah, projection again. Last time I've provided sources you told me that it was just gish galoping too lol

I'm also trying to cite all your comments I'm responding to, to avoid such claims but well...

This is the "China Bad" section.

No, this is China not perfect section. Starting with a straw-man.

You begin by making racist claims that "Chinese assimilation" is so core to Chinese identity that it is an inevitability.

Yes, because historical materialism is now racism.

It is also racist to consider that the history of power structures in a country/region will impact future power structures.

You also at one point side with the British Empire with respect to Hong Kong, and again provided no evidence that the majority wish to break away from the PRC in any case.

If you see me illustrating that this is still the way China handle other cultures/ethnicity by using the case of Hong-Kong as a support of english colonialism, you might need to also reflect again about straw-manning.

and again provided no evidence that the majority wish to break away from the PRC in any case.

There was and still is an HK independence movement, the "umbrella revolution" and the overall repression of dissent by mainland China during this time. Maybe they are a minority, but we'll never really know since there was no effort to ensure that the people of HK can actually decide for themselves.

Anansi, I need you to carefully consider any subject that leads you to side with the worst Empire in the world in a way that you materially benefit from. Be hyper-skeptical, don't just side with the West and accept its narrative whole cloth, because you have every material reason to.

See, I'd tell you to also carefully consider what you're willing to accept just because some country sides against another you don't like, to be hyper skeptical and not just side with China while accepting its narrative whole cloth, because you want to be right.

China as a whole could do better, and should do better as probably the last country not yet completely gangrened by capitalism. While the BRI is probably the best policy that ever came up for international development and cooperation, especially since it's the only thing that can actually challenge the hegemony of the west, it doesn't excuse the fact that part of it come from ethnic cleansing/forced assimilation/genocide/whatever term you like.

Taking this as an endorsement of western colonial and imperial politics is either fanaticism or bad faith.

You acting like China doesn't have propaganda that is used to serve its interest. Accepting all their declaration as gospel is as naive as believing any propaganda about China coming from the west.

You reducing this whole section as me dismissing all China did is on point for tankies, but missing the actual point.

This section is categorized by the running stream "Marxism bad." Anansi, you make it extremely clear that you have never read Marxist theory beyond perhaps the Manifesto, because you make numerous foundational errors in this section.

Sure bud.

Equating Xinjiang to Palestine when they are entirely different situations. Here's an idea: compare approval rates for the CPC and/or the PRC in Xinjiang and approval rates for Israel in Palestine.

I'm sure approval rates in one case or the other won't suffer from any kind of bias. I'd trust equally the measure of the approval rate taken by Israel in Palestine that I'll trust the one taken by the PRC in Xinjiang.

I'd be glad to get the numbers though, especially if it's coming from a source that can be trusted and take into account the difference between settler votes and "native" population.

What you're missing, is you completely dismissing the question of self determination when we're talking about Xinjiang, but not in the case of Palestine, which I again refer as performative due to the cognitive dissonance needed to have this standing.

The claim that Communists have sided with fascists against Anarchists is unsubstantiated

I mean, that could be my bad I guess for not providing sources, I thought this was part of history teaching everywhere. The purges in spain organized by the NKVD of anti-Stalinist factions and members, like Nin, Robles, Berneri or the overall POUM is not a secret nor was it ever even denied.

This covers a bit more in depth the infighting between the "non Stalinian" front and the USSR lead militia, if you're actually interested. The author can't also really be seen as a CIA agent.

I could also talk about the history of the spanish national front, the influence of the USSR lead comintern in its policies and alliances that created a climate of instability that was strong enough to make it possible for Franco to start shit, if you want, but that'll take quite a bit longer and is far more publicly documented.

The idea that the State "withering away" means that at some point the government needs to dissolve itself and "give itself back to the people," when Marx's idea of Communism is a fully centrally planned publicly owned economy and that the Marxist idea of a State is different from the Anarchist idea of a State

Yes, not sure we're disagreeing here? The democratic centralism comes not from Marx, but from Lenin in his own interpretation of Marx, though, unless you're equating socialism and democratic centralism, which is a bit far fetched.

Marx himself did not really give any "plan" for what "communism" was, did not even really differentiate between "communism" and "socialism", and was pretty tame in his late life when writing his critique of the program of the german worker's party about their view of what communism was.

The withering of the state is also nice and all, but was pretty much put into the backseat when Stalin adapted Lenin's work about Marx's work too, which he also did for anything related to auto-determination rights. This kinda started the split between classical/traditional marxism and state socialism, not sure why you're mixing up everything here, nor what point you're trying to make.

The claim that Anarchists are "more" left than Marxists, which is nonsense ideology measuring and has no materialist basis, both Marxism and Anarchism are left regardless

I'm not talking about "being more left", but about ruining other leftist revolutionary movements to cement yours as the only alternative, while at the same time destroying the core values of communism to end up an authoritarian state capitalist societies with as much exploitation as any other capitalist country, while in the meantime making "communism" a bad word.

The idea that we do not organize is false, many of us are members of Communist or Anarchist orgs and do good work on the ground

Sure.

You fully believe that Marxists support Marxism because they are power-level scalers?

That is not what you asked tho. "Who forms their political ideology around supporting use of authority, and not based on analysis of material conditions and who modern structures serve"

I was also talking about tankies.

You, indeed, tankies, support authoritarians regimes that lost what they could have of "communist" decades ago, while trying to paint any critic as propaganda or counter-revolutionaries.

Why then do they side with national liberation movements like in Palestine, Hawaii, the Sahel States, the Aztlan people, and more?

Tankies side with them because on the opposite side, it's the US, by contrarianism.

When it's not the US or its allies, then it doesn't matter, which is my point, and what I called performative earlier.

Actual marxists, trots, or even leninists would side with national liberation movements for what they are though, but would also side with the Xinjiang liberation movement. If I wanted to be funny, I'd say that even Staline was supporting Xinjiang independence, but we both know that was for control over the natural resources of the region, which is also why the PRC does not want it to secede.

See, that's not my stance. This is you, yet again, demonstrably failing to analyze Marxist positions.

This is you again thinking that tankies are actual marxists and not just cosplayers, and thinking I put both in the same bag.

If you just pretend Marxists purely side against the West

Same remark as above.

(putting the rest in another comment)

Finally, the idea that it is the Communists siding with fascists, and not the liberals and Social Democrats siding with the facsists against the Communists, is entirely absurd and historically revisionist. From the SPD siding against the KPD and with the NSDAP, to any major historical current, Communists have sided against the fascists.

I think that you're ignoring once again on purpose that my critic is not against communists, but against people like you, tankies, that are as communist as the nazis were socialist.

You tankies allied with the Nazis when you had an interest in doing so, saying the contrary is the actual revisionism. Ever heard of Ribbentrop-Molotov ?

You also indirectly sided with Franco in Spain by only sending resources to sabotage revolutionary efforts by the anarchist because it was a threat to the communist illusion that you made. That's also why you purged actual communists, anarchists and other -ist whenever you could. Saying the contrary is also revisionism.

Anansi, read Blackshirts and Reds. You fundamentally have no idea what Communism and Fascism are, who the Communists and Fascists serve, and their adversarial relationship. This clouds your entire worldview.

No, I do, and I think you realize that's the problem.

You just are not communists, you're cosplaying.

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.

Ending it with a call to violence against Communists, a time-honored tradition amongst fascists. In context, Anansi was projecting their own tendencies towards authoritarianism and fascism on the antifascist Communists. Shocker!

You'll find the explanation on this in the other comments, which you will chose to ignore or not believe because once again that shows your illiteracy and/or double standards.

Switching to an alt here since the thread was blocked in the other instance.

explain how what I said was projection

Sure, I'll just repeat myself here.

"Leftists" who never read theory and live in the Global North inevitably side with Empire and Colonialism

I think this is just projection because nothing in my history of posts defends empires and colonialism, and my whole point is that you actually do when you think it's the good guyses doing it.

My whole point on the Xinjiang topic was that you all chose to ignore chinese history that goes pretty much as far as we have written history of it, explaining the whole way of dealing with minorities by forced assimilation, coming from the clanic and dynastic organization of Chinese provinces for millenias.

You chose to ignore the continuation of such practices when it caused, amongst other issues, a big point of dissension in the sino-soviet wars.

You chose to ignore the continuation of such practices in thi modern context still in Xinjiang, now also in Hong-Kong.

You chose to ignore the whole area of study about sinicization, which is pretty much that subject, and you also chose to ignore how similar the situation is between the PRC and provinces that want to be independant, to what Israel is doing with Palestine, which stems from the same imperialistic logic.

You chose to ignore the material reasons leading to China wanting to keep control over the Xinjiang province, for both natural resources, arable land, and the location for the BRI.

You chose to ignore that the acceleration in the settlement and ethnic erasure of the Xinjiang province is strangely close to the acceleration of the BRI project.

And when I, or other people, call you out about your performative leftism, you conclude that this is coming from people that, for some reason, are aligned with the US point of view, without one second thinking that people can agree with the goal of a country/people while still being critical of it.

You are the one agreeing with colonization of provinces, settlements aimed at erasing whole cultures, accepting imperialist tactics when it comes from a country you like. You're projecting.

and see people pushing for national liberation and revolution as dangerous to them personally

No, I'm also pushing for the Xinjiang to reach the independence they're fighting for for almost a century now, the same way I push for Palestine to be free of the colonial power trying to erase them from the map and history.

Being a tankie and openly excusing political organization that purged independence movements, helped fascists fight against independence movements lead by anarchists that you feel were threatening to you is materialistically fighting against revolution and liberation efforts.

MLs and their children are far more responsible for the erasure of the revolutionary left from the international politic spectrum than any libshit or fascists.

There is far less need for propaganda to sully the left when you call yourself communists, purge anything more left or revolutionary than you, install some fat cats into power and slowly liberalize your economy while "forgetting" to actually give back power to the people.

Y'all are unable to see the obvious fact that there is no need for CIA plants when you do their job for free.

Meanwhile, while you're being armchair leftists just spreading your ignorance online, people like me, actual leftists, are outside forming people in popular education associations, working in unions and syndicates to actually change the political discourse.

Primarily "authoritarians?" Who forms their political ideology around supporting use of authority, and not based on analysis of material conditions and who modern structures serve?

Yes.

This claim is left unsupported as though it is natural and obvious, as though people decide to be "authoritarian" by siding against Imperialism and colonialism, seeking power from siding with the people with less power. It's nonsense.

You side against western imperialism and colonialism, while siding for anything else that goes against it, because you're just contrarians with no political backbones.

Also power is relative. By your logic you'd have sided with the nazis because they were fighting against most western countries while ignoring the fact that they were also kind of putting jews in ovens. Your stance is nonsense.

Secondly, there is a claim of using the "same tools," as fascists, which is false. Communists are revolutionary, fascists work with the establishment.

Communists yes, what you call communism no.

You are only revolutionary until you seize power, then it's business as usual until you built enough capital for you and your friends that you can liberalize the economy until your "communist" state gets destroyed, have an excuse to leave the country to capitalists while you live your life in Cancùn.

Communists support democracy via Democratic Centralism, fascists crush democracy.

Democratic Centralism in practice in your MLs countries irremediably end up as a farce because actual democracy would challenge power structures, so you only allow partial democracy after you literally purged anybody that would not agree with what you want to be the result of the vote.

Communists are internationalists, fascists are nationalists.

Ever heard of Stalin take on communism ? Or the CCP one ?

Your brand of communism is internationalist as long as it means colonizing and assimilating other countries lmao

Communists support violence against oppressors as a tool of liberation, fascists support violence against the oppressed as a tool of submission.

Sure, the nazis didn't justify their actions by saying they were fighting against a global elite that oppressed the poor german people.

Also it's true that your tankies regime never had any way of putting any dissenting people into submission using the state apparatus.

I can continue dunking on your ignorant asses all day if you want, but you should spend your time actually reading theory, but also academic literature so you can do your autocritic brother, because you're pretty cringe.