I would say no. Patriotic Socialism is more like the movement that inspired the Nazis to add "socialism" to their name. The CCP has a nationalistic quality, like you have to be born in China to hold positions in the party, but for example there is proportional representation, they really make sure their minority populations are properly represented in the government and party. Patsocs try to use the contradictions that arise as a result of trying to reform a nation, and movements that push for progressive reforms for all, to make it into progressive reforms for some, if not completely derailing any progressive agenda. Sometimes patsocs will make appeals to the nationalist character of China or Cuba to argue for patriotic socialism, but I've never seen it argued for in good faith. People are either confused or lying, regardless of what anyone thinks about the CCP, they helped the Chinese people organize and defend themselves. No patsoc movement has ever come within 1000 miles of relevance, let alone victory (unless you count Nazis which wouldn't be a victory for progress!)
That's a really interesting way of looking at it! I think that the reason they get equated is that the material effect had been historically the same. Patsocs advocate for socialist policies, but ideologically restrict who does and doesn't get the benefit. Class reductionists advocate for socialist policies for all, but when the time comes to redistribute wealth, geez you know we really tried. So like the american socialist movements of the early 20th century, moved popular support for socialism all the way to a New deal. But Black workers were excluded from union membership or any of the benefits of the new deal, until the UAW started admitting black workers in Detroit decades later. So even though the messaging was completely different, the historical effect was the same. If workers have the power to demand truly transformative reforms, like new deal policies, then we have to actually push beyond that because the ruling class is never going to let it go down the way we know it has to. They will always fight back with extreme violence. Anything we win has to be defended and we can only defend it if everyone is on board to defend it, and not everyone will be on board if it leaves most people out. Maybe it wins temporary concessions for some, but we are communists, dammit! It's all or we fighting. Its not enough for the workers to be united. We have to be united in struggle, or we will never get there. At least that's what I think.
I mean that's the challenge, to turn our correct principles into political reality. The left needs people to take the lead, to think differently about old dusty problems, and communicate and discuss and educate. Nothing is easy or straightforward, but its good to have comrades and work for the people
I would say no. Patriotic Socialism is more like the movement that inspired the Nazis to add "socialism" to their name. The CCP has a nationalistic quality, like you have to be born in China to hold positions in the party, but for example there is proportional representation, they really make sure their minority populations are properly represented in the government and party. Patsocs try to use the contradictions that arise as a result of trying to reform a nation, and movements that push for progressive reforms for all, to make it into progressive reforms for some, if not completely derailing any progressive agenda. Sometimes patsocs will make appeals to the nationalist character of China or Cuba to argue for patriotic socialism, but I've never seen it argued for in good faith. People are either confused or lying, regardless of what anyone thinks about the CCP, they helped the Chinese people organize and defend themselves. No patsoc movement has ever come within 1000 miles of relevance, let alone victory (unless you count Nazis which wouldn't be a victory for progress!)
deleted by creator
That's a really interesting way of looking at it! I think that the reason they get equated is that the material effect had been historically the same. Patsocs advocate for socialist policies, but ideologically restrict who does and doesn't get the benefit. Class reductionists advocate for socialist policies for all, but when the time comes to redistribute wealth, geez you know we really tried. So like the american socialist movements of the early 20th century, moved popular support for socialism all the way to a New deal. But Black workers were excluded from union membership or any of the benefits of the new deal, until the UAW started admitting black workers in Detroit decades later. So even though the messaging was completely different, the historical effect was the same. If workers have the power to demand truly transformative reforms, like new deal policies, then we have to actually push beyond that because the ruling class is never going to let it go down the way we know it has to. They will always fight back with extreme violence. Anything we win has to be defended and we can only defend it if everyone is on board to defend it, and not everyone will be on board if it leaves most people out. Maybe it wins temporary concessions for some, but we are communists, dammit! It's all or we fighting. Its not enough for the workers to be united. We have to be united in struggle, or we will never get there. At least that's what I think.
deleted by creator
I mean that's the challenge, to turn our correct principles into political reality. The left needs people to take the lead, to think differently about old dusty problems, and communicate and discuss and educate. Nothing is easy or straightforward, but its good to have comrades and work for the people
deleted by creator