• umbrella
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    i think whats missing from most anti-ml takes here is colonialism and the overbearing influence of the west everywhere else.

    china wouldnt be able to break away from the washington consensus like it does if they didnt have enough force to show and use whenever necessary to keep it at bay.

    likewise with pretty much every long lasting, large scale socialist experiment so far. people forget what happens to the likes of allende when they try funny business and can’t back it up with actual force.

    i also have a problem with using ‘tankie’ for serious discussion because its a meaningless word at this point.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      If things were perfect they would be perfect. However that’s circular reasoning/tautology. Everyone struggles with factors internal and external. And ultimately it’s not someone else’s responsibility what they do. So bringing up the West in a critique of marxist leninism he’s largely pointless and at best only a crutch. Because yes we can absolutely critique the west or similar things. The fact that they do them doesn’t make Marxist leninism better by comparison.

      And let’s be clear. China and the Chinese government needed no help exploiting their proletariat for the benefit of the ascendant bourgeoisie. The West did not force that or cause it.

      My critique of marxist leninism is not a defense of capitalism or the west. I see them as largely equal and opposed. Yes the West has been shitty to countries that have adopted Anti-Capitalist Stances. And I absolutely believe it is largely unwarranted and counterproductive.

      Where it is warranted ironically one only has to look to Vladimir Lenin to understand why. The forceful annexation of much of Eastern Europe post World War ii. The division of Germany. No one from the West forced that. Remind me. Former Soviet block countries, what were their General feelings about the Soviet Union and Lenin / Stalin after it dissolved? I remember even until recently A lot of them tearing down statues of those men. Was it because they love them so much and wanted to have pieces of them in their house to worship? It wasn’t because they failed to deliver on their promises, and were largely hated and despised by survivors and family of people marched off to Siberia to die was it?

      • umbrella
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        quite the contrary.

        force is needed because things arent perfect, hence why i say the analysis misses neocolonialism.

        • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Why, after that force is used to successfully establish themselves, those countries never actually empower the lower classes?

          China has been secure on the world stage for decades, yet their people still work as wage slaves for the benefit of the western bourgeoise interests.

          • umbrella
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            take a look at how quality of life, health, education and most aspects of society improves vastly under socialism.

            also take a look at the time scale at which such things happen.

            we also have capitalism.

            • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              The Foxconn building had to put up nets around their building because so many employees were committing suicide due to their extremely poor working conditions.

              You’re suggesting that is simply a necessary evil on the long road to real socialism? Marx said there needs to be 100 years of capitalist industrialization before a communist revolution can succeed (which I disagree with, but let’s roll with it). China was able to enact a successful revolution without waiting 100 years of wage slavery, only to then become a wage slave accepting nation? To what end is this benefitting the proletariat? China doesn’t have free higher education, and they don’t have fully free healthcare.

              Meanwhile, Anarchists in Spain were able to liberate the working class and eliminate money mid-revolution. They lost the war due to lack of access to weapons/logistics, but nothing about enacting those social revolutions seemed to be terribly detrimental to their efforts.

              China seems to have willfully become capitalist itself (pretty lame of them), so, at least from the average worker’s standpoint, it seems relatively inconsequential whether they are a wage slave in mainland china, or in any other capitalist country.

              • umbrella
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                some say dengism was a necessary evil, yes. i personally disagree, they should have been able to do better like others before. the results came for the next generation though, and it didn’t need all those 100 years.

                setbacks are part of history everywhere else too, and don’t paint the entire picture.

                • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  the results came for the next generation though, and it didn’t need all those 100 years.

                  I assume you mean the current generation in China? If so, the results seem to be less than ideal, to put it mildly. I would posit that the Nordic countries (and possibly most of the EU) offer better living and working conditions to the working class, even under their neoliberal welfare state. I certainly don’t see where China is excelling in that regard.

                  setbacks are part of history everywhere else too, and don’t paint the entire picture.

                  The question is; now that China is a wealthy world power, what exactly is stopping them from enacting more radical social changes to make it actually look like a socialist country? How long do they have to wait before power is given freely to the proletariat and the state withers away? From my perspective, there does not appear to be any light at the end of the tunnel.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          To the contrary of your contrary. The French revolution. One of the most influential formative revolutions that helped influence and shape Karl Marx’s philosophy and much of marxist thought. Showed otherwise.

          Sure sometimes Force can be needed to break free. But if you need Force to govern you are doing it wrong.

          • umbrella
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            the french revolution didnt have a previous, but strong empire trying to stop it at all costs. you are subestimating neocolonialism. my country has a history of being interfered with by the empire at the hint of wanting free. and that won’t narrow it down.

            there is a reason one country in the planet spends almost as much as everyone else combined on their military