this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
1075 points (94.5% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

27143 readers
3700 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

And if something did maybe happen, it's the CIA's fault

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Malidak 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

https://queer-bolshevik.medium.com/the-aes-doctrine-wrong-then-wrong-now-a8666de371da

This is a good read. There is a pretty large socialist movement that seems to have the idea that to reach global socialism we need to defend every self proclaimed socialist state without asking any questions at all and hope they'll get better over time.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Ultraleftism, found in the author's Maoist leanings, is also dogmatic. I really like the articles Socalism Developed China, Not Capitalism as well as Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" as both help recontextualize AES from a materialist lens, specifically from the frame of Historical Materialism.

Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic book, but the other 2 articles are 20 minutes each and Blackshirts and Reds is a full book.

Also, for what it's worth, you have defended Zionism and believe Israel as a Settler-Colonial project should remain. Not exactly Marxist analysis, is this? Marxists hold firm that Israel cannot exist without its settler-colonialism, and isn't a "nation," hence the unwavering support for Palestinian National Liberation (especially the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't China advocate for a two state solution too? Even they aren't arguing for Israel to not exist.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Sort of. The PRC constantly takes the least confrontational stance possible. The correct Marxist take is the One State Solution, but the PRC will always take diplomacy over conflict.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Gotcha, so advocating for the same solution as AES countries do is bad, good to know.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Different AES countries have different stances, the DPRK has always recognized Palestine and never Israel as an example. There's a difference between just following AES and coming up with solutions to problems.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I love this article while also finding it frustrating. The author seems to be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, but also goes into detail about how all the ML states have devolved into capitalism. Maybe that should be taken as evidence that ML's vanguard party is a fatally flawed concept?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The idea that China was socialist under Mao but became capitalist under Deng is a common Maoist take and something that distinguishes them from Marxist-Leninists, it's kind of in the name.

Sometimes when people call China capitalist, I half-jokingly ask if they're a Maoist, or if they think the best policy is closer to Mao than what they're currently doing. Of course, usually, the answer (when I get an answer at all) is no: they opposed what China was doing when it was more state-controlled and they opposed what China was doing when it did reforms and opened up to private investment, if they make moves to hold billionaires accountable to the law or to move more of the economy to the public sector, they're bad, and if they did the opposite, that would also be bad, but if they stayed steady, that too would be bad.

Maoists and Capitalists are both at least coherent in what they think China should do, in opposite extremes: either undo the reforms and revert to how it was or take it further and become more capitalist. Marxist-Leninists tend to have more nuanced takes about adapting to changing conditions, in line with what they've done. But then you have this other category that's super prevalent on Lemmy that wants to criticize China's every move without ever offering any kind of coherent idea of what they actually want them to do, economically. I don't even know what to call that position because it makes no sense to me at all.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Maoists are ultraleftists, they generally deviate from Marxism to an idealist, rather than a materialist degree. I recommend checking out my comment responding to them.

The Vanguard concept isn't flawed, it has real basis in materialist understanding. The idea that AES states have "devolved into Capitalism" is wrong as well (except the USSR into the various post-Socialist states). I recommend reading both Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. The Dengist reforms were a reversion back towards Marxism, Mao had tried to achieve Communism through fiat without enough development of the productive forces and as such there were struggles and recessions.

Public Ownership and Central Planning works best on monopolist syndicates aquired by the State, that's the entire reason why Marxists say Capitalism creates Socialism and that the bourgeoisie produces its own gravediggers first and foremost, this monopolization into internally planned syndicates makes Socialism a natural evolution on Capitalism, not a "better society" to force into existence.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The idea that AES states have “devolved into Capitalism” is wrong as well (except the USSR into the various post-Socialist states).

TIL a country with 814 billionaires isn't capitalist.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It isn't, it has a Socialist Market Economy. Marx and Engels repeatedly stated that Private Property cannot be abolished all at once in lower-stage Communism (which modern Marxists call Socialism). The economy of China is over 50% publicly owned and centrally planned, and there is a cooperative sector as well, meaning the Private Sector is a minority. On top of this, the Private Sector is still centrally planned.

The PRC employs a "birdcage model," where competition in the markets eventually leads to monopolization into large syndicates, which the CPC then folds into the public sector steadily as it increases control by degree.

This is exactly why I linked you the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. If you aren't going to read Marx and Engels, and you aren't going to study Historical Materialism, surely you can read a 20 minute article, right?

I'll leave you with an excerpt from The Principles of Communism:

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

I bolded the section where Mao made an error in judgement and socialized the economy dramatically before the productive forces were developed enough.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Bruh, it's a losing battle in here. I got downvoted to hell for saying the same thing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Because the PRC is Socialist, and following Marxism.

It has a Socialist Market Economy. Marx and Engels repeatedly stated that Private Property cannot be abolished all at once in lower-stage Communism (which modern Marxists call Socialism). The economy of China is over 50% publicly owned and centrally planned, and there is a cooperative sector as well, meaning the Private Sector is a minority. On top of this, the Private Sector is still centrally planned.

The PRC employs a "birdcage model," where competition in the markets eventually leads to monopolization into large syndicates, which the CPC then folds into the public sector steadily as it increases control by degree.

This is exactly why I linked you the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. If you aren't going to read Marx and Engels, and you aren't going to study Historical Materialism, surely you can read a 20 minute article, right?

I'll leave you with an excerpt from The Principles of Communism:

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

I bolded the section where Mao made an error in judgement and socialized the economy dramatically before the productive forces were developed enough.