Translation:

My personal opinion, for those who are interested, is that these two instances (Hexbear and Lemmygrad) are filled with what we call here nazbols, tankies, or even left-wing fascists.

They are primarily authoritarians who like to call themselves leftist, but use the same tools, have the same political vision, the same organization, and politically and historically tend to ally with “official” fascists as soon as a truly revolutionary leftist movement emerges.

I found it tolerable to “do nothing” as long as they stayed in their corners, but I had somewhat forgotten that an authoritarian remains an authoritarian and that the only place they deserve is down a well, not forgetting to strike the hands that try to escape with a big stick.

Source

  • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah, projection again. Last time I've provided sources you told me that it was just gish galoping too lol. I'm also trying to cite all your comments I'm responding to, to avoid such claims but well...

    How is me answering each of your points directly "gish-galloping?" How is me citing sources for my argument the same as your lack of citing evidence? I'm not talking about quoting me, but evidence.

    No, this is China not perfect section. Starting with a straw-man.

    It is not a strawman to say that you used this section to decry China. A strawman is making up an argument, not a disagreement in the implications of severity.

    Yes, because historical materialism is now racism. It is also racist to consider that the history of power structures in a country/region will impact future power structures.

    Claiming that China is assimilationist culturally makes no analysis of power structures, nor is this "Historical Materialism." Historical Materialism makes analysis of the mode of production and the class relations guiding society. Saying that China was assimilationist in the past, before Communist revolution and proletarian restructuring of society and claiming this assimilationism has economic ties to modern day China is wrong.

    If you see me illustrating that this is still the way China handle other cultures/ethnicity by using the case of Hong-Kong as a support of english colonialism, you might need to also reflect again about straw-manning.

    You were against China taking Hong Kong back, that implies you wished it remained with England. If you have a different stance, then make it.

    What is a nation?

    There was and still is an HK independence movement, the "umbrella revolution" and the overall repression of dissent by mainland China during this time. Maybe they are a minority, but we'll never really know since there was no effort to ensure that the people of HK can actually decide for themselves.

    Yes, and there was and still is a pro-PRC movement in Hong Kong. See what people actually want before immediately siding with the Global North over the Global South.

    See, I'd tell you to also carefully consider what you're willing to accept just because some country sides against another you don't like, to be hyper skeptical and not just side with China while accepting its narrative whole cloth, because you want to be right.

    I have been careful, and hyper-skeptical. Only you have been oversimplifying.

    China as a whole could do better, and should do better as probably the last country not yet completely gangrened by capitalism. While the BRI is probably the best policy that ever came up for international development and cooperation, especially since it's the only thing that can actually challenge the hegemony of the west, it doesn't excuse the fact that part of it come from ethnic cleansing/forced assimilation/genocide/whatever term you like.

    You call it a fact and support it with nothing. You claim it's because the spooky Chinese are assimilationists and genocidal ethnically, and use that to support your narrative.

    Taking this as an endorsement of western colonial and imperial politics is either fanaticism or bad faith. You acting like China doesn't have propaganda that is used to serve its interest. Accepting all their declaration as gospel is as naive as believing any propaganda about China coming from the west.

    Good thing I don't accept everything good and everything bad about China!

    You reducing this whole section as me dismissing all China did is on point for tankies, but missing the actual point.

    To be clear, you dismissed China as ethnically assimilationist and never once praised anything about China, so it's not hard to see you as anti-China, period. I answered the points you raised, of course I didn't answer whatever occupies your mind-palace alone.

    Sure bud.

    Let's see how you defend the foundational errors you made with Marxism!

    I'm sure approval rates in one case or the other won't suffer from any kind of bias. I'd trust equally the measure of the approval rate taken by Israel in Palestine that I'll trust the one taken by the PRC in Xinjiang.

    Why? Israel is a settler-colonial ethno-state built on stolen land, the PRC is just China. Seems your own bias is showing.

    I'd be glad to get the numbers though, especially if it's coming from a source that can be trusted and take into account the difference between settler votes and "native" population.

    What would count as a source you trust?

    What you're missing, is you completely dismissing the question of self determination when we're talking about Xinjiang, but not in the case of Palestine, which I again refer as performative due to the cognitive dissonance needed to have this standing.

    I don't dismiss the question of self-determination. I question your determination for the residents of Xinjiang, rather than theirs. For Palestine we see daily slaughter, we just don't for Xinjiang, nor do we see large popular independence movements.

    I mean, that could be my bad I guess for not providing sources, I thought this was part of history teaching everywhere. The purges in spain organized by the NKVD of anti-Stalinist factions and members, like Nin, Robles, Berneri or the overall POUM is not a secret nor was it ever even denied.

    The Trotskyists allied with German and Francoist forces to kick off the May Day revolts, and the USSR stepped in. This has been documented via archival evidence. This is not a cut and dry case of the Communists siding against Anarchists with fascists, but a complicated instance of infighting. Why would the Soviets "switch sides?"

    This covers a bit more in depth the infighting between the "non Stalinian" front and the USSR lead militia, if you're actually interested. The author can't also really be seen as a CIA agent.

    Yes, the anti-Communists often worked against the USSR. This was counter-productive for the Spanish civil war.

    I could also talk about the history of the spanish national front, the influence of the USSR lead comintern in its policies and alliances that created a climate of instability that was strong enough to make it possible for Franco to start shit, if you want, but that'll take quite a bit longer and is far more publicly documented.

    Probably would take a lot longer.

    Yes, not sure we're disagreeing here? The democratic centralism comes not from Marx, but from Lenin in his own interpretation of Marx, though, unless you're equating socialism and democratic centralism, which is a bit far fetched.

    All "Democratic Centralism" means is that the whole is beholden to democratic decisions.

    Marx himself did not really give any "plan" for what "communism" was, did not even really differentiate between "communism" and "socialism", and was pretty tame in his late life when writing his critique of the program of the german worker's party about their view of what communism was.

    Marx predicted how it would function based on how Capitalism functioned and what it was leading towards, ie decentralized markets into central planning and public ownership. This is the entire point of Scientific Socialism, rather than Utopian. Socialism as a stage in evolution in mode of production, not as an ideal to implement. See Socialism: Utopian and Scientitic. Additionally, Marx did not soften his views in Critique of the Gotha Programme, rather, after the Paris Commune Marx learned that the previous state must be entirely dismantled and replaced.

    Cont.

    • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      2 months ago

      The withering of the state is also nice and all, but was pretty much put into the backseat when Stalin adapted Lenin's work about Marx's work too, which he also did for anything related to auto-determination rights. This kinda started the split between classical/traditional marxism and state socialism, not sure why you're mixing up everything here, nor what point you're trying to make.

      This is exactly why you have no idea what you're talking about. The State, in Marx's terms, is the structure that supports class oppression. It isn't the same as a government. Marx, Lenin, and so forth all operated on the same understanding of a state. From Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientitic:

      When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

      It is frustratingly evident that you have mere cursory knowledge of Marxism, and haven't even read the basics. You should also read The State and Revolution.

      I'm not talking about "being more left", but about ruining other leftist revolutionary movements to cement yours as the only alternative, while at the same time destroying the core values of communism to end up an authoritarian state capitalist societies with as much exploitation as any other capitalist country, while in the meantime making "communism" a bad word.

      The USSR supported other revolutionary movements. It was a Socialist state upt until its dissolution, the idea that a centrally planned, democratically operated, publicly owned economy would be Capitalist beyond the NEP is perfect evidence of just how little you understand about Marxism.

      Sure.

      Do you doubt that Communists organize? That's core to Communist belief.

      That is not what you asked tho. "Who forms their political ideology around supporting use of authority, and not based on analysis of material conditions and who modern structures serve"

      I was also talking about tankies.

      You, indeed, tankies, support authoritarians regimes that lost what they could have of "communist" decades ago, while trying to paint any critic as propaganda or counter-revolutionaries.

      You have demonstrated fundental and critical misunderstandings of Marxism, which I have carefully and thoroughly pointed out, and yet you sit on a high horse believing yourself to know better. This is absurd. Pray tell, what do you believe a Marxist is, if not a supporter of Marxist movements and an applicant of Marxist theory and practice?

      Tankies side with them because on the opposite side, it's the US, by contrarianism.

      We have explained to you that Marxists side with oppressed groups, as is in line with the Marxist theory of National Liberation and self-determination. Your claim is that we are contratians, and that is the sole factor, but yet have nothing to say when we point you to what we actually believe and why.

      When it's not the US or its allies, then it doesn't matter, which is my point, and what I called performative earlier.

      It's performative because we use Marxist analysis and are consistent with our views? Nonsense.

      Actual marxists, trots, or even leninists would side with national liberation movements for what they are though, but would also side with the Xinjiang liberation movement. If I wanted to be funny, I'd say that even Staline was supporting Xinjiang independence, but we both know that was for control over the natural resources of the region, which is also why the PRC does not want it to secede.

      You, again, have no idea what the people of Xinjiang want. Independence and national liberation are not as simple as creating as many states as there are ethnic groups.

      This is you again thinking that tankies are actual marxists and not just cosplayers, and thinking I put both in the same bag.

      You have failed to demonstrate why we are not Marxists and Communists, and in fact showed that you have critical misunderstandings of Marxist theory.

      Same remark as above.

      Same remark as above.

      Yes, after negotiating a split of Europe with them, because it was in their material interest to do so ... They did it because they didn't really have the option of doing nothing anymore, else they'd have both fascists and capitalist going against them. They allied by material interest.

      For the, what, fourth time now? Read Blackshirts and Reds, if you aren't going to read Marx, at least read a short history book on how Communism and fascism were diametrically opposed since the beginning. The Nazis started attacking the Communists both inside and outside Germany, and the Soviets attacked the Nazis and tried to get thr Western Powers to notice the threat. During WWII, the Soviets were the largest anti-Nazi force, with 4/5ths of the total Nazi deaths at their hands.

      I mean this is kind of the consequence of Stalin's death, nobody in the party really wanting to be associated with Stalinism and what he did anymore, Khrushchev openly admitting that capitalist countries had better standards of living and promising to reach parity, while slowly having the communist sphere of influence reducing due to the cold war efforts to undermine communist regimes.

      It's famously known that Kruschev lied, confirmed with the opening of the Soviet Archives.

      You cannot compete against a globalizing capitalist economy when you're not self sufficient and are losing allies, especially when your plan is to pretty much to build a modern country from the bottom.

      Alienating China was pretty much the last domino that lead to the USSR having to implode sooner or later. Their "liberalization" was the last breath of their agony.

      This is actually more correct analysis than anything else, though the USSR was not doomed, it was murdered from the top down in the final years.

      State owned, yes, not sure what is your underlying question. If you're asking why they are not a liberal capitalist country, I'd add "yet" to the question.

      I'm asking you to analyze the PRC from a Marxist lens.

      The economical rise of China is pretty recent, and they're starting to produce billionaires that might still not have had the time to corrupt the whole political system like they did in western economies centuries ago.

      The economic rise of China started under Mao. It stabilized under Deng. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.

      Also, saying "reintroducing foreign capital" is a pretty dishonest way to present it.

      Is it? That's what they did.

      The recent rise in economic power of China is born from the foreign capital of greedy western capitalists that saw China as an infinite source of cheap labor.

      Partially, yes. This was the strategy employed by Deng, while the PRC had favorable agreements and a birdcage model over Capital. Read The Long Game and its Contradictions.

      I'd like for China to not become another imperialist capitalistic parasite but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in a few generations.

      Why not? It's trending towards more public ownership and control. All this shows is that you aren't in touch with how China operates or where it is trending.

      Mostly because they represent nothing as far as geopolitics are concerned, that they are an island that make them more able to isolate themselves from international interference compared to large coutries like the USSR or China, and also using the military to keep the current power structure intact.

      It couldn't be the high government approval rates and democratization, could it?

      There is pretty much no will since the fall of the USSR to fuck even more with Cuba from the west, and no possibility to "leave" socialism if they ever wanted to, that's why. I'll also make clear that I'm not implying that Cubans want to change their government, just to defuse the incoming strawman, just that the material reality is that they can't.

      Cuba absolutely could pivot to a free market economy if they wanted. The US has continued to brutally sanction them to this very day.

      Sure, not sure why you're then citing unrelated shit after that but you do you.

      All of what I said is related.

      For someone that is proud to be knowledgeable about Marxism theory, I'm a bit surprised by that statement.

      Shocker, the one who doesn't understand Marxism is surprised when encountering a Marxist that takes theory seriously.

      Cont.

      • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        2 months ago

        The whole point of Marx's analysis is that socialism is a natural consequence of the power struggle linked to capitalist production, which will irremediably lead to a proletarian revolution.

        Bzzzzt WRONG. Marx's analysis is that Capitalism naturally forms monopolist syndicates over time, removing competition and replacing with association, prepping the capabilities of public ownership and central planning after revolution. From Marx himself:

        The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

        Capitalism prepares the ground for Socialism.

        Marxists that want to accelerate this phenomenon absolutely do it for moral reason. Because they consider that capitalists exploit the proletariat, and that a change is required for more justice.

        I didn't say there were no moral reasons for wanting to move onto Socialism. I said Marxists believe Socialism to be the next step out of critical examination of Capitalism. This is Marxism 101.

        Marxists see the use of socialism, as in the broader marxist definition, as a way to replace the capitalists in the control of these "monopolist syndicates", yes. Not because they just happen to be there, but to repair a social injustice.

        More than a simple reparation of injustice, it is the only way to progress forwards. Economic structures follow the level of development of the Productive Forces. This is the basis of Historical Materialism! Socialism is necessary once these monopolist syndicates are formed to even consider progressing on.

        Yes, and I never even implied that?

        You did, through the implication that introducing broader markets is a deviation away from Socialism.

        Indeed, which is why I specifically wrote "Democratic Centralism in practice in your MLs countries irremediably end up as a farce", which I though was pretty clear in saying that there is a stark difference between actual Democratic Centralism, and what ends up with this name.

        There isn't, just gesturing and chauvanism on your part. Read Why Do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?"

        Yes, and again, I never even implied the contrary.

        You did, in implying their democratic structures were farcical.

        I could also point out that it strangely took Staline's death for that to happen, and that the differences between his early writings and what he actually did once in power are pretty stark.

        I could also point out how these movements did not depend on Stalin.

        Guess what happened to actual internationalists from Trotsky or Lenine's school of thought when Staline got into power.

        Trotsky was actively hostile to the USSR, Stalin largely upheld Lenin's legacy. Stalin didn't make a stark departure from Lenin.

        Once again, seems that you think tankies are actual marxists, and that you'd rather take writing as material facts than actual material facts.

        I am a Marxist, you claim I am not, and in fact am a "tankie." You have no justification for this, only your own lack of understanding of Marxism, as I have time and time again explained and supported with writings. You have provided little in the way of material evidence, I have provided much.

        Sure bud.

        Indeed. If you don't even know what Scientific Socialism means or what Historical Materialism is, how can you claim authority over someone who has read several dozen essays, books, and more? You're deeply unserious.

      • BeamBrain [he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        It's famously known that Kruschev lied, confirmed with the opening of the Soviet Archives.

        Can you provide details/sources for this? It'd be useful for dealing with a Khrushchev stan I know.

        • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          2 months ago

          I have not read this book, fair warning, but Kruschev Lied is hosted over on Prolewiki.

          While less directly related to Kruschev himself, Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend is another book hosted on Prolewiki, though again I have not yet read it.

          From seeing individual debunks of Kruschev over time, I was confident enough to say he lied, but for sources I would like to see a specific claim about Kruschev that can be debunked. I have not seen significant debunkings of either book I listed either, just political disagreement with the authors.

          I would also read the ProleWiki article on Kruschev himself, even ignoring the wrecking he did in the party, even if he was 100% honest about Stalin, he still made opportunist reforms that helped spell the beginning of the end of the USSR.

          Let me know if that helps and answers your question!

            • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]
              ·
              2 months ago

              Great! Want to stress that I am comfortable with dogging on Kruschev, but haven't yet investigated the books I linked. I have seen them spoken favorably about, but this is the whole "no investigation, no right to speak" bit. I am not endorsing those books here, just saying that they seem to be a good place to start.

              Take care!

              • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                ·
                2 months ago

                I can jump in and say the Furr book is good, @BeamBrain@hexbear.net . The critiques I've seen mainly focus on his credentials rather than what he says. Those who do talk about what he says misinterpret the claims and try to brand him as an apologist.

                From my recollection, he doesn't really 'praise' Stalin, except where the evidence does that of it's own accord. Instead, he's more discrediting Khrushchev and saying that for most topics, we need to do more research because we basically don't know much at all. In most cases, we now know that the accepted story is wrong.

                It's a step to setting the record straight. You'd have thought that historians would love the invitation to re-do a whole field. Unfortunately, you know how it goes—generally they won't touch it because they like the fairy tale version.

                The first half of the book is his analysis and interpretation of the speech. The second half is a compilation of the primary sources. If you're pushed for time and want to see some evidence that Khrushchev lied, pick and skim a claim, then flick to the corresponding section at the back to see what actually happened.