I think it's fair to say that Marxists agree with Marx, and so the best representation of Marx is Critique of the Gotha Programme. The state should be as minimal as can be based on the Material Conditions, ie a stronger state is necessary if you are constantly being attacked by Capitalist nations, and a weaker state is necessary if you aren't. I don't think people are advocating for a strong monoparty, but a unified front of Workers. At least, in my experience.
Stalin, Mao, Xi, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Sankara, Deng, whoever you want to pick, aren't so much worshipped as they are studied, for their mistakes and the good things they did. Some are obviously more mistake than others, some were a net negative, some were a net positive, what's important is to study what happened so we can learn from it.
Is anything I said wrong?
Yes. External factors are one thing entirely. And completely unrelated to crushing dissent. Dissent is an internal thing. And if you automatically classify all the dissent as a product of external factors there by making it something to fight and crush. You may have just perfectly encapsulated the issues with your ideology.
Also while I agree capitalists are not really good friends. They used to be Allied with the Russians during World War II for example. It's almost like something happened post World War II that was actually the problem. And not just that capitalists must be fought everywhere. Do you know what that might have been? It's something China is currently dealing with and failing in their own way. And I'm not going to say that it's not hypocritical for many Western countries to criticize this considering what they've done. But just because a criticism is hypocritical doesn't mean it's not valid.
I never said I was against dissent. I'd be in favor of trying to rehabilitate fascists and Capitalists, sure, but open discussion of ideas is important. You calling it "issues with my ideology" is a bit silly.
I am not sure I understand where you are going with your second paragraph.
When internal dissent was mentioned you automatically jumped to externalizing it and fighting it. Not addressing it. You say that you're not against it. But you just said that you were against it.
You can play ignorant if you like. We aren't obligated to believe such poor acting however. You know exactly what I'm referring to. They forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War II including the dividing up of germany. And more contemporary. China's failure upon absorbing Hong kong. And saber a rattling regarding Taiwan.
I don't believe fascists or Capitalists should be allowed to violently attack people and attempt to gain power, that's silly.
As for expansionism, I am not sure why you are expecting me to defend that or apologize for it, I am not in control of the 20th century USSR or modern PRC.
I agree. That's not what I was talking about and you know that.
I didn't ask you to apologize. I was simply explaining why a lot of countries are against Russia China Etc. That they much like the capitalist countries have given plenty of reason for people not to like or trust them. Which in many ways does a tie back directly to their mistreatment of their own citizens. Capitalists are no more anyone's friend than ML are.
It's almost like you're engaging in bad faith. Which if I had to go by our history of interactions I would say is the most likely explanation.
So if we both know what I am advocating for, and what most people are advocating for, then why are you trying to pretend I agree with punishing dissent?
I agree that people have reason not to trust China or Russia. As much is valid, of course it is. I disagree that Marxists are somehow more dangerous to people than Capitalists.
I have been engaging exclusively in good-faith, the fact that this entire convo has been you putting words in my mouth means you're more likely to be bad faith. I still engage because I value constructive conversation, but if you aren't interested and are trying to disengage then there's no point.
A few things here. You have consistently, in this conversation even, many times lumped together and conflated all capitalists as a monolithic group. Do you have a right to object when someone does similar back at you?
Second you aren't "Marxist" or representative of all marxists. You are on a domain specifically dedicated to leninism. A specific sub branch of Marxism not representative of the group as a whole. Which also includes other groups like Marxist Libertarians and communists etc. Hi! While defending ML against Marxist and adjacent critiques. What are we supposed to think?
If anyone has put words in your mouth. Consider the fact that you've repeatedly deflected and ignored what was said. Leaving everyone to assumed your answers. Nothing was stopping you from being direct.
If everywhere that's implemented capitalism largely becomes violently exploitative. (And they do) And everywhere that's implemented governments based off ML ideology has always become violently oppressive. (And they have) Then neither is a flaw of their respective ideology, or they both are. And if an ideology is flawed, our allegiance should be to outcomes. Not the ideology. Herein lies the rub. And where the similarities in capitalism and Marxist-Leninism shine. And why the rest of the left dislikes both. Both have been tried and found lacking. We need to move beyond both at this point.
I lump together classes with their class interests. Nuance exists among individuals, but not among the average. If a Capitalist violently attacks others, they should be rehabilitated.
Lemmy.ml is explicitly a FOSS and Privacy instance. I do not have a Lemmygrad.ml account, which is explicitly Marxist-Leninist. I am a Marxist. I defend Marxism.
What did I ignore? What did I deflect?
Either way, I would say without analyzing trajectories and whys behind movements, you're doomed to repeat their failures and cannot be counted on to replicate success. You ought to mechanically and logically explain systemic failures and systemic victories.
If we strictly go off of track record snapshots devoid of any context, then nothing is good, and nothing can be done to improve, as Anarchism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, all have failed to exist perfectly. If we can learn, however, then we can move on.
I think it's fair to say that Marxists agree with Marx, and so the best representation of Marx is Critique of the Gotha Programme. The state should be as minimal as can be based on the Material Conditions, ie a stronger state is necessary if you are constantly being attacked by Capitalist nations, and a weaker state is necessary if you aren't. I don't think people are advocating for a strong monoparty, but a unified front of Workers. At least, in my experience.
Stalin, Mao, Xi, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Trotsky, Che, Sankara, Deng, whoever you want to pick, aren't so much worshipped as they are studied, for their mistakes and the good things they did. Some are obviously more mistake than others, some were a net negative, some were a net positive, what's important is to study what happened so we can learn from it.
Is anything I said wrong?
Yes. External factors are one thing entirely. And completely unrelated to crushing dissent. Dissent is an internal thing. And if you automatically classify all the dissent as a product of external factors there by making it something to fight and crush. You may have just perfectly encapsulated the issues with your ideology.
Also while I agree capitalists are not really good friends. They used to be Allied with the Russians during World War II for example. It's almost like something happened post World War II that was actually the problem. And not just that capitalists must be fought everywhere. Do you know what that might have been? It's something China is currently dealing with and failing in their own way. And I'm not going to say that it's not hypocritical for many Western countries to criticize this considering what they've done. But just because a criticism is hypocritical doesn't mean it's not valid.
I never said I was against dissent. I'd be in favor of trying to rehabilitate fascists and Capitalists, sure, but open discussion of ideas is important. You calling it "issues with my ideology" is a bit silly.
I am not sure I understand where you are going with your second paragraph.
When internal dissent was mentioned you automatically jumped to externalizing it and fighting it. Not addressing it. You say that you're not against it. But you just said that you were against it.
You can play ignorant if you like. We aren't obligated to believe such poor acting however. You know exactly what I'm referring to. They forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War II including the dividing up of germany. And more contemporary. China's failure upon absorbing Hong kong. And saber a rattling regarding Taiwan.
I don't believe fascists or Capitalists should be allowed to violently attack people and attempt to gain power, that's silly.
As for expansionism, I am not sure why you are expecting me to defend that or apologize for it, I am not in control of the 20th century USSR or modern PRC.
I agree. That's not what I was talking about and you know that.
I didn't ask you to apologize. I was simply explaining why a lot of countries are against Russia China Etc. That they much like the capitalist countries have given plenty of reason for people not to like or trust them. Which in many ways does a tie back directly to their mistreatment of their own citizens. Capitalists are no more anyone's friend than ML are.
It's almost like you're engaging in bad faith. Which if I had to go by our history of interactions I would say is the most likely explanation.
So if we both know what I am advocating for, and what most people are advocating for, then why are you trying to pretend I agree with punishing dissent?
I agree that people have reason not to trust China or Russia. As much is valid, of course it is. I disagree that Marxists are somehow more dangerous to people than Capitalists.
I have been engaging exclusively in good-faith, the fact that this entire convo has been you putting words in my mouth means you're more likely to be bad faith. I still engage because I value constructive conversation, but if you aren't interested and are trying to disengage then there's no point.
A few things here. You have consistently, in this conversation even, many times lumped together and conflated all capitalists as a monolithic group. Do you have a right to object when someone does similar back at you?
Second you aren't "Marxist" or representative of all marxists. You are on a domain specifically dedicated to leninism. A specific sub branch of Marxism not representative of the group as a whole. Which also includes other groups like Marxist Libertarians and communists etc. Hi! While defending ML against Marxist and adjacent critiques. What are we supposed to think?
If anyone has put words in your mouth. Consider the fact that you've repeatedly deflected and ignored what was said. Leaving everyone to assumed your answers. Nothing was stopping you from being direct.
If everywhere that's implemented capitalism largely becomes violently exploitative. (And they do) And everywhere that's implemented governments based off ML ideology has always become violently oppressive. (And they have) Then neither is a flaw of their respective ideology, or they both are. And if an ideology is flawed, our allegiance should be to outcomes. Not the ideology. Herein lies the rub. And where the similarities in capitalism and Marxist-Leninism shine. And why the rest of the left dislikes both. Both have been tried and found lacking. We need to move beyond both at this point.
I lump together classes with their class interests. Nuance exists among individuals, but not among the average. If a Capitalist violently attacks others, they should be rehabilitated.
Lemmy.ml is explicitly a FOSS and Privacy instance. I do not have a Lemmygrad.ml account, which is explicitly Marxist-Leninist. I am a Marxist. I defend Marxism.
What did I ignore? What did I deflect?
Either way, I would say without analyzing trajectories and whys behind movements, you're doomed to repeat their failures and cannot be counted on to replicate success. You ought to mechanically and logically explain systemic failures and systemic victories.
If we strictly go off of track record snapshots devoid of any context, then nothing is good, and nothing can be done to improve, as Anarchism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, all have failed to exist perfectly. If we can learn, however, then we can move on.