MLs are really big on circling the wagons and never criticizing a country that’s the current target of imperialism. But for anarchists “this country is bad” is the default mode because fuck the state. So we get fights like; Of course China is bad, it’s a state, why are we suddenly defending a state? No why are you pro-imperialist?
This is it, right here. MLs and anarchists, when you get to the bottom of their nuanced takes on 'China', have basically similar conclusions, they just communicate them differently.
A lot of MLs can't hear the phrase 'China is kinda fucked' without assuming it's some CIA propaganda, because they tend to focus on the overall 'effects' of criticizing China, and on who tends to criticize China, rather than who is in this particular moment, and for what reason. It's a very utilitarian perspective on what a 'truth statement' is, whereas anarchist have no problem just telling it like it is. And, really, again, MLs and anarchists tend to actually agree on the specifics of those criticisms.
In a very similar vein, MLs often say things like 'China isn't bad', and what they really mean is 'China is the lesser of two evils when compared to the u.s.'. But to anarchists, it's like 'why would you apologize on behalf of China because they're vaguely closer to what you want than the states'.
It's just a lot of mixed communication, though I agree anarchists have to be a fair bit more careful here than MLs, just cuz the numbers. FWIW, I do see a fair few MLs say things like 'China's not great, but the best chance at a socialist superpower' or Dengist lines like 'they're just doing state capitalism to prepare for the transition', etc.
But I'm dogmatically tendency-agnostic, so I would never say something like 'it might do the MLs here some good to focus less on the idealism of what China could be/claims to be, and more on the materialism of what it is' hahaha ;) 👀
Ultimately, I'm just happy how well everyone gets along here, even if I throw the odd idea out about how we could do that even better :heart-sickle:
This is it, right here. MLs and anarchists, when you get to the bottom of their nuanced takes on 'China', have basically similar conclusions, they just communicate them differently.
A lot of MLs can't hear the phrase 'China is kinda fucked' without assuming it's some CIA propaganda, because they tend to focus on the overall 'effects' of criticizing China, and on who tends to criticize China, rather than who is in this particular moment, and for what reason. It's a very utilitarian perspective on what a 'truth statement' is, whereas anarchist have no problem just telling it like it is. And, really, again, MLs and anarchists tend to actually agree on the specifics of those criticisms.
In a very similar vein, MLs often say things like 'China isn't bad', and what they really mean is 'China is the lesser of two evils when compared to the u.s.'. But to anarchists, it's like 'why would you apologize on behalf of China because they're vaguely closer to what you want than the states'.
It's just a lot of mixed communication, though I agree anarchists have to be a fair bit more careful here than MLs, just cuz the numbers. FWIW, I do see a fair few MLs say things like 'China's not great, but the best chance at a socialist superpower' or Dengist lines like 'they're just doing state capitalism to prepare for the transition', etc.
But I'm dogmatically tendency-agnostic, so I would never say something like 'it might do the MLs here some good to focus less on the idealism of what China could be/claims to be, and more on the materialism of what it is' hahaha ;) 👀
Ultimately, I'm just happy how well everyone gets along here, even if I throw the odd idea out about how we could do that even better :heart-sickle: