• aws0me [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    First of all, why do you think there was discontent among the working class in Eastern Bloc states? Why is it that a country literally ruled by the working class(allegedly) would have working class people striking in it and getting arrested for it?

    The fall of ""communism"" in Poland is not something I lose sleep over, as it was just state capitalism. It has no relation whatsoever to the actual socialist project, and in the future, the same opportunism of "nationalization is socialism bro trust me", will once again come up and will have to be fought against.

    • Redlibrary1917 [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      Ok idealist.

      I don't even know where to begin, so I suggest you read a book. The idea that protests are inherently good or that a proper Socialist government would somehow be immune to discontent are pure idealist nonsense.

      I don't care about whatever ludicrous purist idea of Socialism that has never existed you subscribe to, it's utterly irrelevant to history and the International Proletarian Movement. It seems like you're trying to position yourself as some Leftcom when you're very obviously just a RadLib who still believes all the bullshit you were fed as a Liberal.

      • aws0me [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        The idea that protests are inherently good

        Never said this.

        proper Socialist government would somehow be immune to discontent are pure idealist nonsense.

        What is proper socialist here? You call me idealist, but you have no material analysis of what makes a government "socialist". Is it enough to call itself socialist and have red flags? Is it enough to provide social services to everyone and guarantee employment? Is it that they nationalized everything while maintaining the capitalist mode of production?

        I don’t care about whatever ludicrous purist idea of Socialism that has never existed you subscribe to,

        Literally a right wing argument. Socialism hasnt existed yet so it is ludicrous.

        it’s utterly irrelevant to history

        What does this mean lol

        and the International Proletarian Movement

        Where can I contact this movement, I would like to join it. On a more serious note, there is no international movement.

        It seems like you’re trying to position yourself as some Leftcom when you’re very obviously just a RadLib who still believes all the bullshit you were fed as a Liberal.

        I used to be an ML actually. I used to believe eveything you believe until like 2 years ago.

          • aws0me [none/use name]
            ·
            4 years ago

            No need to be sectarian. We are just having a disagreement of theory. After all, left unity is important, and we all have the same goal.

              • aws0me [none/use name]
                ·
                4 years ago

                What is sectarian about having views that oppose yours? Sectarianism is when you let your disagreements get in the way of action. Whatever you or I think of China or Vietnam, it has very little relevance in your actual praxis or mine.

                • Redlibrary1917 [he/him]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  "China red fash state capitalism" is sectarian. Don't start a fight and then cry when you get punched.

                  • aws0me [none/use name]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    China red fash state capitalism” is sectarian.

                    I didnt say red fash anywhere. That China is state capitalist is also the standard Maoist position. Do you think criticizing literally anything about China is sectarian?

                    • Redlibrary1917 [he/him]
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      4 years ago

                      Something being the standard Maoist position does not make it not sectarian lmao

                      I'm sure that from your point of view, "China fake socialist state capitalist" is an objective statement of fact. "Leftcoms are pathetic losers who have never affected anything in any way" is also, from my perspective, a statement of objective fact. Both, however, are sectarian.

                      • aws0me [none/use name]
                        ·
                        edit-2
                        4 years ago

                        OK can you define sectarian? I'm asking because it can be very easy to have a policy where anything that disagrees with the popular opinion becomes sectarian and banned. You just admitted that China being capitalist is the proper position for Maoists, now you are calling the same position sectarian. I never worded my views in the dishonest way you are portraying like "China fake red fash" etc. I'm having a nuanced discussion.

                        • Redlibrary1917 [he/him]
                          ·
                          4 years ago

                          Maoists are known for being extremely fucking sectarian, lmao.

                          It's not about popular opinion. In my community, "Leftcoms are useless idiots who get off to the idea of their own intellectual superiority" would be extremely popular. It is, nevertheless, sectarian.

                          It's not about truth, either. Saying that Anarchists have never brought about meaningful change is true and it's also sectarian. Saying that Maoists are paradoxically obsessed with violence and being the underdog is true and also sectarian.

                          • aws0me [none/use name]
                            ·
                            4 years ago

                            What is sectarianism exactly? I still don't get it. Like disagreements actually exists in the real world. Why do you think people talk about left unity all the time? I would define sectarianism as letting disagreements get in the way of real world action. So sectarianism is a real life problem. In the online world, I don't get what uncriticial left unity, and silence for the sake of unity, would achieve.

                            Saying that Anarchists have never brought about meaningful change is true and it’s also sectarian. Saying that Maoists are paradoxically obsessed with violence and being the underdog is true and also sectarian.

                            Why would saying true things be sectarian? If something is true, why shouldnt it be said? Is it that these things hurt their feelings? By this logic, claiming that USSR is socialist is sectarian, because it hurts my feelings, regardless of whether it is true or not.