The problem is not critique itself, which can be very useful for a movement, but criticism from the outside that has almost no understanding of the dialectic internal to it, of the actual material conditions. Criticism of China, specifically, from U.S. outlets is particularly trash, and obviously has nothing to do with China as an actual place, or people¹. In order to make a useful critique, you must understand a place, it's inertia and trajectory, the difference between where it is and where it ought to be, and how to alter its trajectory. These things are hugely specific, even down to the individual communities and neighbourhoods.
This also applies, largely, to praise of China, which is often detached and irrelevant, not coming from an understanding of the actual on-the-ground forces at work that produce certain results, and with no attempt to connect these to local conditions.
You're correct that materialist analysis has to be grounded in conditions as they concretely and actually exist, sure.
But when the stick is bent too far in the other direction, you get this basically anti-Marxist meme of "criticism from the outside," as if the world working class is not an international class within a global capitalist system. The idea that "western" socialists are somehow outside of the international working class is itself a rejection of proletarian internationalism, which is a bedrock principle of Marxism.
I think you may have misread me. I didn't make the statement "Criticism from the outside has no understanding of material conditions", but "Criticism from the outside that has no understanding of material conditions isn't useful or relevant."
The problem is not critique itself, which can be very useful for a movement, but criticism from the outside that has almost no understanding of the dialectic internal to it, of the actual material conditions. Criticism of China, specifically, from U.S. outlets is particularly trash, and obviously has nothing to do with China as an actual place, or people¹. In order to make a useful critique, you must understand a place, it's inertia and trajectory, the difference between where it is and where it ought to be, and how to alter its trajectory. These things are hugely specific, even down to the individual communities and neighbourhoods.
You're correct that materialist analysis has to be grounded in conditions as they concretely and actually exist, sure.
But when the stick is bent too far in the other direction, you get this basically anti-Marxist meme of "criticism from the outside," as if the world working class is not an international class within a global capitalist system. The idea that "western" socialists are somehow outside of the international working class is itself a rejection of proletarian internationalism, which is a bedrock principle of Marxism.
"The emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists"
"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country."
"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality "
I think you may have misread me. I didn't make the statement "Criticism from the outside has no understanding of material conditions", but "Criticism from the outside that has no understanding of material conditions isn't useful or relevant."
Agreed