I agree, our arguments cannot end at "MLs are the only ones who have experienced success"
But that is an argument we have to make, because many of our detractors refuse to believe that we have any, and we can only move on to debating why it worked when both parties acknowledge that it had even the slightest degree of success
To me, it's an argument of why, in spite of all their shortcomings (either in my privileged lib western eyes, or overall shortcomings) we still need to study historical movements instead of rejecting then based on their imperfections.
It's definitely not saying "it worked there, so let's do that stuff again here"
And that's fair - but at that point we would want to argue what constitutes a success - for example, the way I see it, the biggest impediment to socialism is the US, not the existence of a state or a vanguard party. Therefore, anything that impedes the US, or holds its attention away from other nations attempting to shift left, deserves critical support, and anything that cannot do so cannot be called a success
Which is why it once had a stranglehold on South America in the past but now can't even coup Bolivia or Venezuela properly? When I say taking away its attention, I don't mean like tapping America on the shoulder and having some revolution in the global south comically tiptoe in the other direction. I mean that America has only a limited amount of resources (even if it feels infinite) and most of those resources (especially those talented at manufacturing consent) are tied up in the Middle East and in Asia, which has caused the stranglehold on South America and Africa to loosen up a little.
America is a disgustingly powerful nation, no doubt. But to say that it is so powerful that any action taken against it is worthless is nothing but pointless doomerism.
I agree, our arguments cannot end at "MLs are the only ones who have experienced success"
But that is an argument we have to make, because many of our detractors refuse to believe that we have any, and we can only move on to debating why it worked when both parties acknowledge that it had even the slightest degree of success
To me, it's an argument of why, in spite of all their shortcomings (either in my privileged lib western eyes, or overall shortcomings) we still need to study historical movements instead of rejecting then based on their imperfections.
It's definitely not saying "it worked there, so let's do that stuff again here"
Does it make someone a centrist if they stan both Thomas Sankara and Rojava? ...Asking for a friend.
the good kind lol
Marxism-Grillism
deleted by creator
And that's fair - but at that point we would want to argue what constitutes a success - for example, the way I see it, the biggest impediment to socialism is the US, not the existence of a state or a vanguard party. Therefore, anything that impedes the US, or holds its attention away from other nations attempting to shift left, deserves critical support, and anything that cannot do so cannot be called a success
deleted by creator
Which is why it once had a stranglehold on South America in the past but now can't even coup Bolivia or Venezuela properly? When I say taking away its attention, I don't mean like tapping America on the shoulder and having some revolution in the global south comically tiptoe in the other direction. I mean that America has only a limited amount of resources (even if it feels infinite) and most of those resources (especially those talented at manufacturing consent) are tied up in the Middle East and in Asia, which has caused the stranglehold on South America and Africa to loosen up a little.
America is a disgustingly powerful nation, no doubt. But to say that it is so powerful that any action taken against it is worthless is nothing but pointless doomerism.
deleted by creator
I guess when something loosens up a little its just irrevocably gone now and forever