Why can't we have a leftist instance that doesn't suck CCP dick?
Blåhaj is here! I don't recall seeing a tankie with a blåhaj account, and also we have personalities outside of politics.
If you check the Blahaj rules it explicitly states being tankie adjacent is a bannable offence, I love it.
Marxists generally support AES, so instances that are pro-Marxism tend to be supportive of the CPC. I don't think there are any Syndicalist instances or anything, so you'd have to go to an Anarchist server like dbzer0 or something. Lemmy.world tends to be right-wing, especially because it's defederated from Marxist instances and some of the mods have ridiculed Marxism in general.
AES?
Edit: Found it, "Actually existing socialism"
Yep! You got it. Cuba, PRC, the USSR (pre-dissolution), Vietnam, Laos, etc.
lemmy.world is basically that. You'll get the most concentrated socdem/socialist engagements without traipsing into hunny-cum-shot territory.
Lemmy.world absolutely isn't Leftist, it's overwhelmingly liberal and the mods are anti-Marxist, even defederating from Marxist instances. Lemmy.world is allowed to be a liberal instance, but pretending it's socialist is silly.
I mean, depends on the day. I see tons of very socialist/leftist memes and content posted to world. That being said, how many times do you need to circle jerk about socialism in the comments section on Lemmy? It's not like anyone is actually going to do a proletariat revolution. At this point, it would just be Marxists "ackshually"-ing each other. I'm super bored of the lack of progress made in the discussions.
I mean, depends on the day. I see tons of very socialist/leftist memes and content posted to world.
Leftist messaging is increasingly popular as Capitalism decays, but that doesn't mean everyone has read theory. Lemmy.world is largely populated by liberals sympathetic to an idealistic form of Socialism that is pure fantasy, and denounce AES as a betratal of Socialism. Blackshirts and Reds has an entire chapter dedicated to western "left" anticommunism.
That being said, how many times do you need to circle jerk about socialism in the comments section on Lemmy?
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I believe Marxism to be correct and try to get others to read theory. I get deep satisfaction whenever someone changes their mind or reads theory because of what I comment and post.
It's not like anyone is actually going to do a proletariat revolution
On what grounds do you say this? Revolution is happening all around the world every few years in different states, as Capitalism decays more people become sympathetic to leftism. It will likely happen latest in Imperialist countries like the US, where living standards are inflated by hyper-exploitation of the Global South, and happens all the time in the Global South. Trends exist, systems aren't static, Capitalism cannot last forever. That would be like believing water could be continuously heated and never boil.
At this point, it would just be Marxists "ackshually"-ing each other. I'm super bored of the lack of progress made in the discussions.
To be clear, most Marxists don't need to "ackshually" each other, just towards liberals. Liberals often have the same misconceptions, that doesn't mean they aren't changing their minds individually.
So those people calling it neoliberal are fucking liars
Yeah, basically. 'Neoliberal' and 'lib' are just snarl words many tankies use to mean "Anyone less fascist than Mao".
In general, .world is much less radical than many places on Lemmy. But they're far from neoliberals. The average poster is slightly left of a Berniecrat, probably; that is to say, either a very strong SocDem or a very weak DemSoc.
Listen all I'm saying is that if we were so far left that Bernie was center right on policy the country would be a much better place for everyone.
Wouldn't it be lovely? Unfortunately, we've got a lot of fighting on the ground to convince our fellow citizens to get their asses there instead of some weird 90s fantasy world.
Thanks for calling tankies what they are: fascist.
Read Blackshirts and Reds, Socialism and Fascism are entirely incompatible and serve entirely different classes.
I'm theory, yes. In practice the idea of socialism has been hijacked and subverted by the same ruling class to serve their nefarious needs time and time again. Y'all should focus instead on how socialism is incompatible with authoritarianism. "Power to the people" my ass.
No, it has not. Read Blackshirts and Reds, which I already linked. Communist movements served the Proletariat, not the Bourgeoisie. They also were by no means perfect "worker's paradises." Another good article is *Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" if you can only spare 20 minutes and not read a whole book.
Y'all should focus instead on how socialism is incompatible with authoritarianism
You should read On Authority, Marx and Engels were constantly hounded as "authoritarian" for advocating for central planning.
Thanks for linking the article. I like most of its points, but I don't agree with this materialistic outlook that the economic development is the be-all and end-all solution to implementing "true" socialism.
I believe that the root cause of all attempts of it failing so far is that humans are selfish assholes. Unless everyone bar none starts caring about their brethren and sistren at least as much as they care about themselves, the system can't work. It's simply too prone to being overtaken by bad faith actors who will inevitably abuse it for self serving purposes in the name of "socialism".
Marx and Engels were constantly hounded as “authoritarian” for advocating for central planning.
Well maybe these two guys were a product of their time and had some not-so-good ideas, so not every word of theirs should be taken as a gospel.
Thanks for linking the article. I like most of its points, but I don't agree with this materialistic outlook that the economic development is the be-all and end-all solution to implementing "true" socialism.
There's no such thing as "true socialism," that's part of the point of the article.
I believe that the root cause of all attempts of it failing so far is that humans are selfish assholes. Unless everyone bar none starts caring about their brethren and sistren at least as much as they care about themselves, the system can't work. It's simply too prone to being overtaken by bad faith actors who will inevitably abuse it for self serving purposes in the name of "socialism".
Why do you think Socialism cares about thinfs like self-serving people?
Well maybe these two guys were a product of their time and had some not-so-good ideas, so not every word of theirs should be taken as a gospel.
Not as gospel, sure, but they have been proven correct.
There’s no such thing as “true socialism,” that’s part of the point of the article.
Sure, but it provided a reason why the previous attempts of it failed, and in my opinion it's only a part of the equation.
Why do you think Socialism cares about thinfs like self-serving people?
Socialism can not care, as it's is not a conscious entity. Socialism can only "care" about whatever the people that are trying to implement it care about. And it failed every time in large part, IMO, because people didn't care about things like self-serving people.
Not as gospel, sure, but they have been proven correct.
Proven correct by whom? Soviet Union which fell apart? North Korea that haven't collapsed yet only because it's propped by China? China which had Mao starve tens of millions people to death and is currently successful only because it's full blown capitalist and "communist" in name only?
Eh, it's a mixed bag. There's a very high concentration of centrist, "vote blue, no matter who," liberals in Political Memes. They're not the whole instance, but they've made a nice little echo chamber that makes them a pretty loud minority.
The people who think .world is socialist also think socialism is when the government does things and that social democracy is a type of socialism and not a type of liberalism.
This is especially evident the way they get whipped into a froth any time actually existing (and former) socialist countries get brought up.
Socialism is when the CIA goes in and kills your leader right?
The CIA tried to kill Charles DeGaulle in 1961, but if the CIA isn't trying to kill your leader, you're not doing socialism.
This is especially evident the way they get whipped into a froth any time actually existing (and former) socialist countries get brought up.
It's funny that all the "AES" countries that are brought up are just authoritarian states, and sometimes, for that matter, authoritarian capitalist states. It's almost like the people championing these supposedly socialist countries are just fascists painted red.
I still don't get how the far leftists (the types who think soc dems are basically the same as any flavor of lib, including libertarian, neolib, etc) are so convinced that socialism is the answer when there hasn't been a country that even comes close to making it work. I guess China works for certain values of working, but it's pretty capitalist these days, and you've got an overbearing government that goes along with it.
Whereas countries like you see in Scandinavia, with strong soc dem policies under capitalism like high taxes on wealth and strong safety nets, seem to be doing pretty well. I get why socialism would be good in theory but implementing it is another story.
The Nordics still fucking suck, trust me.
Is there any country that doesn't suck?
not to my knowledge :(
every time Finland gets awarded the title of the happiest country I wonder how unhappy all the other countries must be
The short answer is that Socialism does work, and continues to work, and that SocDem countries like the Nordics depend on heavy exploitation of the Global South to fund their safety nets and still see shrinking worker power (a process Marxists call imperialism).
The longer answer is that Marxists don't believe Socialism is better than Capitalism for any moral reason, but because they are Dialectical and Historical Materialists. They track where Capitalism is necessarily heading, ie free competition gives way to monopolist syndicates with internal planning, socializing themselves and making them ripe for public ownership and central planning.
Similarly, the PRC is a Socialist Market Economy. The model is described as a birdcage, the CPC allows markets to naturally develop but only along their guidelines, and increases ownership as competition creates these new monopolist syndicates. Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism is a good article going over China's economic model. The CPC has the power it has as a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it needs that power to maintain supremacy over their bourgeoisie. Communism is achieved by degree, not decree.
db0 is pretty neutral while being intentionally left.
I wouldn't describe it as "neutral," it's definitely Anarchist dominant and the admins and users tend to be anti-Marxist. That's fine for its audience, but if someone wants a Marxist instance dbzer0 isn't really it.
That's fair. I find it comfortable, but I'm really weird politically.
That's fine, like I said! If someone wants an Anarchist server and doesn't really want Marxists, dbzer0 is probably pretty comfy. Marxists tend to be on Lemmygrad.ml, Lemmy.ml, or Hexbear.net, which is also good. If someone wants to avoid Marxists, it's better to be on a different instance, one that isn't federated with them.
I actually enjoy hexabearians but don't engage in political convos where I don't agree with them. Db0 works perfectly for that.
That's fine too!
I have this LINK to the Lefty Memes moderator on db0 advocating against Democracy, is an advocate for the CCP and for people in the USA to tear down the system and abandon NATO.
most communities on ml are fine tho, also I got banned on hexbear because I called the CPC (their official name) CCP
The admins are tankies. It's just better to avoid it. The smaller their communities the more of a joke it is getting banned for writing a fact.
I don’t have a problem with any of the communities but I regularly catch the instance ban hammer for asinine reasons.
yeah, I mean you're kinda right
Solarpunk is one. I guess my instance is leftist too, however it is very tiny.
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.
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).
Doesn't China advocate for a two state solution too? Even they aren't arguing for Israel to not exist.
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.
Gotcha, so advocating for the same solution as AES countries do is bad, good to know.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Bruh, it's a losing battle in here. I got downvoted to hell for saying the same thing.
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?
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.
We do. DB0 and Solarpunk.
Genuinely there are a lot of people that would like that. Maybe start with a community first before an entire instance.
Or ml. Or Hexbear.
Why can't we have a leftist instance that doesn't suck CCP dick?
Blåhaj is here! I don't recall seeing a tankie with a blåhaj account, and also we have personalities outside of politics.
If you check the Blahaj rules it explicitly states being tankie adjacent is a bannable offence, I love it.
Marxists generally support AES, so instances that are pro-Marxism tend to be supportive of the CPC. I don't think there are any Syndicalist instances or anything, so you'd have to go to an Anarchist server like dbzer0 or something. Lemmy.world tends to be right-wing, especially because it's defederated from Marxist instances and some of the mods have ridiculed Marxism in general.
AES?
Edit: Found it, "Actually existing socialism"
Yep! You got it. Cuba, PRC, the USSR (pre-dissolution), Vietnam, Laos, etc.
lemmy.world is basically that. You'll get the most concentrated socdem/socialist engagements without traipsing into hunny-cum-shot territory.
Lemmy.world absolutely isn't Leftist, it's overwhelmingly liberal and the mods are anti-Marxist, even defederating from Marxist instances. Lemmy.world is allowed to be a liberal instance, but pretending it's socialist is silly.
I mean, depends on the day. I see tons of very socialist/leftist memes and content posted to world. That being said, how many times do you need to circle jerk about socialism in the comments section on Lemmy? It's not like anyone is actually going to do a proletariat revolution. At this point, it would just be Marxists "ackshually"-ing each other. I'm super bored of the lack of progress made in the discussions.
Leftist messaging is increasingly popular as Capitalism decays, but that doesn't mean everyone has read theory. Lemmy.world is largely populated by liberals sympathetic to an idealistic form of Socialism that is pure fantasy, and denounce AES as a betratal of Socialism. Blackshirts and Reds has an entire chapter dedicated to western "left" anticommunism.
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I believe Marxism to be correct and try to get others to read theory. I get deep satisfaction whenever someone changes their mind or reads theory because of what I comment and post.
On what grounds do you say this? Revolution is happening all around the world every few years in different states, as Capitalism decays more people become sympathetic to leftism. It will likely happen latest in Imperialist countries like the US, where living standards are inflated by hyper-exploitation of the Global South, and happens all the time in the Global South. Trends exist, systems aren't static, Capitalism cannot last forever. That would be like believing water could be continuously heated and never boil.
To be clear, most Marxists don't need to "ackshually" each other, just towards liberals. Liberals often have the same misconceptions, that doesn't mean they aren't changing their minds individually.
So those people calling it neoliberal are fucking liars
Yeah, basically. 'Neoliberal' and 'lib' are just snarl words many tankies use to mean "Anyone less fascist than Mao".
In general, .world is much less radical than many places on Lemmy. But they're far from neoliberals. The average poster is slightly left of a Berniecrat, probably; that is to say, either a very strong SocDem or a very weak DemSoc.
Listen all I'm saying is that if we were so far left that Bernie was center right on policy the country would be a much better place for everyone.
Wouldn't it be lovely? Unfortunately, we've got a lot of fighting on the ground to convince our fellow citizens to get their asses there instead of some weird 90s fantasy world.
Thanks for calling tankies what they are: fascist.
Read Blackshirts and Reds, Socialism and Fascism are entirely incompatible and serve entirely different classes.
I'm theory, yes. In practice the idea of socialism has been hijacked and subverted by the same ruling class to serve their nefarious needs time and time again. Y'all should focus instead on how socialism is incompatible with authoritarianism. "Power to the people" my ass.
No, it has not. Read Blackshirts and Reds, which I already linked. Communist movements served the Proletariat, not the Bourgeoisie. They also were by no means perfect "worker's paradises." Another good article is *Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" if you can only spare 20 minutes and not read a whole book.
You should read On Authority, Marx and Engels were constantly hounded as "authoritarian" for advocating for central planning.
Thanks for linking the article. I like most of its points, but I don't agree with this materialistic outlook that the economic development is the be-all and end-all solution to implementing "true" socialism.
I believe that the root cause of all attempts of it failing so far is that humans are selfish assholes. Unless everyone bar none starts caring about their brethren and sistren at least as much as they care about themselves, the system can't work. It's simply too prone to being overtaken by bad faith actors who will inevitably abuse it for self serving purposes in the name of "socialism".
Well maybe these two guys were a product of their time and had some not-so-good ideas, so not every word of theirs should be taken as a gospel.
There's no such thing as "true socialism," that's part of the point of the article.
Why do you think Socialism cares about thinfs like self-serving people?
Not as gospel, sure, but they have been proven correct.
Sure, but it provided a reason why the previous attempts of it failed, and in my opinion it's only a part of the equation.
Socialism can not care, as it's is not a conscious entity. Socialism can only "care" about whatever the people that are trying to implement it care about. And it failed every time in large part, IMO, because people didn't care about things like self-serving people.
Proven correct by whom? Soviet Union which fell apart? North Korea that haven't collapsed yet only because it's propped by China? China which had Mao starve tens of millions people to death and is currently successful only because it's full blown capitalist and "communist" in name only?
Eh, it's a mixed bag. There's a very high concentration of centrist, "vote blue, no matter who," liberals in Political Memes. They're not the whole instance, but they've made a nice little echo chamber that makes them a pretty loud minority.
The people who think .world is socialist also think socialism is when the government does things and that social democracy is a type of socialism and not a type of liberalism.
This is especially evident the way they get whipped into a froth any time actually existing (and former) socialist countries get brought up.
Socialism is when the CIA goes in and kills your leader right?
The CIA tried to kill Charles DeGaulle in 1961, but if the CIA isn't trying to kill your leader, you're not doing socialism.
It's funny that all the "AES" countries that are brought up are just authoritarian states, and sometimes, for that matter, authoritarian capitalist states. It's almost like the people championing these supposedly socialist countries are just fascists painted red.
I still don't get how the far leftists (the types who think soc dems are basically the same as any flavor of lib, including libertarian, neolib, etc) are so convinced that socialism is the answer when there hasn't been a country that even comes close to making it work. I guess China works for certain values of working, but it's pretty capitalist these days, and you've got an overbearing government that goes along with it.
Whereas countries like you see in Scandinavia, with strong soc dem policies under capitalism like high taxes on wealth and strong safety nets, seem to be doing pretty well. I get why socialism would be good in theory but implementing it is another story.
The Nordics still fucking suck, trust me.
Is there any country that doesn't suck?
not to my knowledge :(
every time Finland gets awarded the title of the happiest country I wonder how unhappy all the other countries must be
The short answer is that Socialism does work, and continues to work, and that SocDem countries like the Nordics depend on heavy exploitation of the Global South to fund their safety nets and still see shrinking worker power (a process Marxists call imperialism).
The longer answer is that Marxists don't believe Socialism is better than Capitalism for any moral reason, but because they are Dialectical and Historical Materialists. They track where Capitalism is necessarily heading, ie free competition gives way to monopolist syndicates with internal planning, socializing themselves and making them ripe for public ownership and central planning.
Similarly, the PRC is a Socialist Market Economy. The model is described as a birdcage, the CPC allows markets to naturally develop but only along their guidelines, and increases ownership as competition creates these new monopolist syndicates. Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism is a good article going over China's economic model. The CPC has the power it has as a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it needs that power to maintain supremacy over their bourgeoisie. Communism is achieved by degree, not decree.
A good primer is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" an excellent article that goes over materialist examinations of AES states vs idealist examinations. Another good reference is Blackshirts and Reds. AES is by no means perfect, but it does and did work.
db0 is pretty neutral while being intentionally left.
I wouldn't describe it as "neutral," it's definitely Anarchist dominant and the admins and users tend to be anti-Marxist. That's fine for its audience, but if someone wants a Marxist instance dbzer0 isn't really it.
That's fair. I find it comfortable, but I'm really weird politically.
That's fine, like I said! If someone wants an Anarchist server and doesn't really want Marxists, dbzer0 is probably pretty comfy. Marxists tend to be on Lemmygrad.ml, Lemmy.ml, or Hexbear.net, which is also good. If someone wants to avoid Marxists, it's better to be on a different instance, one that isn't federated with them.
I actually enjoy hexabearians but don't engage in political convos where I don't agree with them. Db0 works perfectly for that.
That's fine too!
I have this LINK to the Lefty Memes moderator on db0 advocating against Democracy, is an advocate for the CCP and for people in the USA to tear down the system and abandon NATO.
most communities on ml are fine tho, also I got banned on hexbear because I called the CPC (their official name) CCP
The admins are tankies. It's just better to avoid it. The smaller their communities the more of a joke it is getting banned for writing a fact.
I don’t have a problem with any of the communities but I regularly catch the instance ban hammer for asinine reasons.
yeah, I mean you're kinda right
Solarpunk is one. I guess my instance is leftist too, however it is very tiny.
dbzer0 is another one. It's an anarchist instance to be precise. @AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
From what I know, dbzer0 is libertarian left and therefore not tankie
If I had to choose between a libertarian and a tankie I'd shoot myself with a rusty spork.
Maybe I should have said "anarchist left". The term "Libertarian" is overtaken by the Right by now
Libertarian left is very different from "libertarian"
but dbzer0 is anarchist?
Yes
dbzer0 is anarchist, definitely not libertarian
A lot of bad actors on Slrpnk but overall the community is anarchist leaning, anti-dictatorship.
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.
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).
Doesn't China advocate for a two state solution too? Even they aren't arguing for Israel to not exist.
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.
Gotcha, so advocating for the same solution as AES countries do is bad, good to know.
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.
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?
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.
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.
TIL a country with 814 billionaires isn't capitalist.
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:
I bolded the section where Mao made an error in judgement and socialized the economy dramatically before the productive forces were developed enough.
Bruh, it's a losing battle in here. I got downvoted to hell for saying the same thing.
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:
I bolded the section where Mao made an error in judgement and socialized the economy dramatically before the productive forces were developed enough.
We do. DB0 and Solarpunk.
Genuinely there are a lot of people that would like that. Maybe start with a community first before an entire instance.