I just had a realization about how tankies view "Socialist" countries

As we know, there are those among us who will state that such countries as Venezuela, China, Syria, the former USSR, Vietnam, DPRK, etc. are Socialist countries. Since Socialism is a state of affairs where the MoP are democratically controlled, where the workplace is democratized, where people have control over the surplus value they create, I always wondered why it was that people could argue that the aforementioned countries were Socialist. Heck, many of those countries were less Socialist than countries in Western Europe today! I assumed tankies were doing mental gymnastics, arguing that "well, the state bureaucracy represent the will of the people, so a state planned economy is run by the people" when it was obvious that the average person had virtually no control over their workplace. However, having read an article that quotes Marx as well as Lenin's definitions of Socialism, I see now that it was Lenin who did mental gymnastics to force Marxism to fit within his ideology, and tankies are just following in his footsteps. From "The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It", Lenin wrote that: "Socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the whole people". Here I realized that the tankie redefining of Socialism is actually rooted in ML tradition. Damn. Lenin really was an opportunist, wasn't he? I guess you Leftcoms were right.

Other urls found in this thread:


No one here claims venezuela is socialist
No one here claims china is socialist
No one here claims that Syria is socialist
No one here claims that vietnam is socialist
I support a country for anti imperialistic reason even if it's a sharia fascist dictatorship.
That said all the other countries had and currently have control over the means of production.

Yeah they do, Maoist China definitely.
Yeah they do.
They're cancer but they do exist.
Also OP mentioned the former USSR and DPRK, I'm sure you're aware of people claiming they are Socialist.
That's a million times less retarded than claiming they are socialist, but people are never explicit about this and muddy discourse.

What you actually just revealed is that Anarchists don't read or understand Marx and interpret socialism as democratically managed libertarian capitalism.
No they are not, there a few, rare threads here where well-read MLs absolutely demolished Leftcoms, the reason you think that is because this is an echo chamber and you've never been exposed to a different view.

Also this. Venezuela has less of a state quota than fucking Norway. A country having a socialist government =/= a country entertaining a socialist mode of production. I don't know what's so fucking hard to understand that.

Unfortunately, yes, we were right all along and people just buried their heads in their sands and retreated to their MaoistRebelNews and TheFinnish'GroverFurrFag'Bolshevik safe spaces.

Still waiting for someone to refute points make by grover furr btw. Should be easy if it's not the truth

The strawman is strong with this one.

There is a huge fucking difference between Maoist China and China 2017, what level of mental gymnastics are you on?
All you did in this thread was to muddy the discourse. You clearly haven't read or heard enough about what you are talking about and make retarded "gotcha!!" arguments

List the points made by Grover Furr you feel to be valid.

The problem is democratic centralism or centralization of power to the communist party. We need worker democracy not party plutocracy.

Just to confirm, you think that Maoist China, Syria, the former USSR, Vietnam, DPRK etc. are socialist in the Marxist sense? Or some but not all of those? Be clear here

Good to see that Tankies are just openly embracing their hidden reaction

friendly reminder that central planning existed in elitist palace economies long before it was used by any ML state.

speak for yourself, if you don't support Venezuela you are nothing but a liberal


You can't have read enough Marx if you think that Centrally Planning an economy is enough to call it socialism.
Read the first few lines and tell me that Stalin was not a huge fucking revisionist.

Nono. List the points YOU and other ultraleft faggots like you feel that needs to be validated. Because everything he says feels pretty valid to me

Yes I do think all them were socialist in the Marxist sense. "Socialism" also isn't a fucking label that has hardcoded conditions, Marx never wanted to give out a step-step guide on how to find out whether or not something is socialist. We can ask questions to get closer to the truth: Is there private property? Is production regulated by profit? Does the law of value determine production? What are the material conditions that restrict socialist development, what is possible and what not? Then, we come into a historical analysis, but most ultraleft critiques end here.

Yugoslavia wasn't socialist because it had private property, production for profit and then obviously the law of value dictating production. The USSR up until the Kosgyn reforms clearly didn't.

Like I said in that post, one thing is to support one thing is to think is socialist

Stop being so undialectical. History doesn't move in dramatic shifts, you get a little bit forward, then a push back, then the push back to that, interacting with all the other pushes and pulls, there was a huge amount of overlap between the feudal and capitalist modes of production, to the point where some tail end feudal relations still cling on today, we even have primitive tribal relations still, thousands of years later. The new mode grows inside the old, and mixes with it, and eventually supersedes it, this means that the real movement, like any other movement in history, will exist in part, in half form, in nearly complete form, operating within and working with capitalism, until it has superseded even after 70% of the globe has revolted and overthrown their masters, even if this happened tomorrow, it would still take at least 50 years before all of that 70% of the globe was fully communist, really, the process would not be completed until the whole globe and all its resources could be subsumed into a totality. Until that happens, there will be intermediary modes of production in existence, to denounce them as useless is ludicrously ahistorical.

On top of this, differentiating material conditions in variously industrialised or not parts of the globe will effect how the real movement develops there, and so we will have further variation in modes of production brought about by this.

One mass movement is not going to happen.

A black flag with actual integrity, I'm glad you exist. It is clear that Veneuzuela's government is trying to work in the interests of the proletariat, and there is an actual grassroot movement supporting the Bolivarian Revolution.

There are anarchists (not liberals pretending to be anarchists) who support Venezuela? Because they need a serious ass kicking.

I actually agree but when you have capitalist relations dictating your development your path isn't towards socialism. I agree that worker-owned capitalism is better than liberal capitalism but it is going to deteriorate, economically, that it requires either collectivization or liberalization.

Liberals don't support venezuela


So are you admitting that the USSR was "worker-owned" Capitalism then?

This is why Antifa is a joke and a neoliberal tool. Gladly, actual anarchists IRL can sometimes be decent, I've met plenty of anarchists who showed solidarity with Veneuzuela.

the media lies should be enough to tell you that you should be in 100% support of them

(I have been here for three years, I started getting trash about 6 months ago when somebody took up the black flag and started saying heinous shit all the time)

Why are you being a faggot about this? Why is you listing the specific points rather than me listing all POSSIBLE points that you could want me to refute unreasonable?



You've got it fucking backwards. If you are liberal you support US imperialism in venezuela because of muh freedoms.

If you are a commie you critically support the state capitalist venezuela because of its popular support from the proletariat, and its opposition to the global hegemony. Throw in how much aid is given out between Venezuela and Cuba, they are pretty much all that is stopping south/central america from being a full blown porky play ground. Also with the level of subversion that Latin america has undergone, it doesn't surprise me one bit anarchism wasn't very big there and they like strongman states

No. Law of value didn't dictate production in the USSR. There was no profit motive.

Sidestory: When I was reading "Capitalist Realism" which is clearly sympathetic to ultraleftists/leftcoms, I saw this chapter called "Market Stalinism". In that, the author was rejecting actual-existing socialism by describing an anecdote how a dam was built under Stalin, and how capitalist roaders were trying to convince Stalin not to build it because it wasn't appearing profitable. Stalin didn't give a fuck and built it anyway. So there is an interesting phenomenon: Ultralefts claim that law of value did determine production in the USSR, but when they stumble over examples where it clearly doesn't, they somehow still find it unacceptable, as this is somewhat proof of authoritarianism or whatever. Very telling.

So is Venezuela or China socialist?

Answer, now.

From Economic Problems of the USSR by Joseph Stalin (marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm):

3. The Law of Value Under Socialism

It is sometimes asked whether the law of value exists and operates in our country, under the socialist system.

Yes, it does exist and does operate. Wherever commodities and commodity production exist, there the law of value must also exist.

Mao china was. Today china is not.
Venezuela is not socialist. I support it anyway because of antimperialist reasons and revolutionary potential

They are both socialised capitalism, one with a fairly shaky democracy and the other with no pretence to democracy. Of all the countries in the world, it is china that could go full commie the easiest

You need to read more than the CotGP. This paper is not supposed to be a fucking checklist whether or not something is socialism. It's a vague outline on how socialism would work, a response to a SPD manifesto. Try to actually understand Marxist critique instead of treating it like the Qu'ran or something.

Neither of them have currently a socialist mode of production.

He clearly says later on that it doesn't determine production. Read the whole text and not just this part.

Just generally: Don't you agree with Stalin here? What's the issue?

Opposing the US =/= supporting its opponents.
Not supporting opponents of the US =/= supporting the US.

Venezuela is too dependent on the oil market and is not socialist. Opposing US imperialism in general doesn't require anybody to support Venezuela specifically, which is hardly a leftist toehold anyway.


Do you think their government isn't socialist in its intention as well? Because once you agree your argument is a non-sequitur: According to that we can never support anything if it doesn't directly move to socialism within a nanosecond

Why the heck do we support Venezuela again?

We have literal starving people there.

Even the imperalists would be an improvement.


this doesn't address what I said, which was that we should support the proletarian movement in the country regardless of its nuance, the Bolivarian government are supported by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie

Fuck off neocon


I hope this is just trolling or Holla Forums.

That seems awfully well-produced for being a hidden camera footage, and can someone explain shit like the disappearing zoo animals?

Imperalism isn't the worst thing in the world, bub. It brings civilization, technology and money into the country.

But why?

Read pic related

Literally white man's burden. And no, it doesn't. Surplus, profits and resources are extracted out of the country and can't get reinvested by the national bourgeoisie. Modern imperialism inhibits development.
The "imperialists" would be nothing but a Pinochet style regime

Literally every countries that have been "imperalist" prospered under western funding, Vietnam, Laos, even Cambodia. Heck now Bangladesh market is booming.
Like in Vietnam? Vietnam's current gov is neoliberal.

I don't think it works that way - the government having intention. The intent of the people in government may be to have a socialist direction, but that intent is curtailed by the way the government works.

I can support the proles without agreeing with them that the government should be supported. Putting support/opposition/indiffernce toward the government in imperialist context leaves out the way that a state by design supports capitalism. And as for the government opposing the bourgeoisie, that can only work in a limited capacity (i.e. social democracy) and its structure ultimately depends on capitalism. It's playing with fire, and maybe I'm wrong but I don't see why supporting the Venezuelan government is necessary to supporting the proles against the US, when the CIA will fuck it up when they decide regardless of what it looks like. The issue I take here so strongly is the way people engage in splitting and treat a government like our guys when they're really not, just because the US is targeting them and calling them commies.

Nah fuck off.

I'm actually sure an "imperalist"'d Venezuela wouldn't have disappearing zoo animals like they have now.

What is Socialism then?

Vietnam and Laos are one of the fastest growing economies on the planet right now. Yes, they've been introducing capitalism but unter their terms, so they can actually develop. Colonial infrastructure is also not the same as modern imperialism, which is way more extractive.

Bangladesh has horrible working conditions. The economic growth doesn't benefit the people.

Vietnam has been fully capitalism since the 80s and they fully embrace it.

In fact, they are the whores of Asia (being exploited by everyone) until Bangladesh comes in.

someone remove che he is totally our guy

No bullshit, you are an imperialist dupe and you get your info clearly from liberal media
"when the jews came here, we like, made it flourish"
you fucking disgust me, this is you.

Kill yourself Niall Fergusson

Calm down.

Elaborate. They are currently drafting a new constitution with better government access and more direct democracy. I think you are too ideological here. You are an anarchist, so every government is structurally bad for you. I think imperialism is way greater as a cause for Venezuelas struggles than simply the structure of the Venezuelan government.

No you really can't, because they support that govermnet. This is your imperial mentality, "i can support the proles by wanting them to do something that is contrary to their aims, because I, the educated first world socialist knows better than the people actually living there"

no I won't fucking calm down

It hurts nobody, and you get increased living standards.

China, Russia and India would disagree, or the rest of the world for that matter.

They opened up on their terms. Where are the sweatshops in Venezuela? Come on Holla Forums, you are not fooling anyone

I meant Vietnam

China and Russia and India all get increased living standards after they open up to western firms.

Their terms mean anyone who give them money, foreign firms, various foreign governments, World Bank, IMF…

Shit, Vietnam is fucked but the vietnamese enjoy better living standards and everyone got a smartphone.



this bait at this point

…these happens before imperalist-times too, bub.



That's called self-interest nigga. As opposed to you, you know, have foreign sweatshop owners exploiting them or extracting their fucking resources.

India has increased living standards compared to before though.

Famine is common in India, imperalist or not.

But that's exactly what Vietnam is doing, and it's the reason why their economy is shooting up and everyone can buy iphone 7.

End yourself seriously

Except they didn't have the means to construct buildings like we do today. Just go back to Holla Forums or /liberty/, please. You completely derailed the thread with your neoliberal talking points. Why does Holla Forums hate Hillary again? I don't see the difference.

You mean India has increased its living standards since the turn of the 19th century? Well wooeee, meanwhile EVEN IN THE HEART OF THE WEST living standards are dropping and have been since the 70's as productivity and hours worked rises but renumeration stays the same

(the turn of the 19th century after it was robbed and pillaged for centuries)

So what's your points? It's fucking hilarious how you want to use examples like Vietnam that imperialism is good, when they have one of the fastest growing economy after national liberation. I've never seen anybody shooting himself in the foot like that

Pretty sure India and China open up by themselves, so does Vietnam.

Wait, wut?

also of the three regions I gave you, india, latin america, and the middle east, you utterly failed to tell me how Latin America and the middle east have benefitted from imperialism. Ill also throw in Indonesia, how was imperialism good for 20 million Indonesians?

My point is imperalist is good exactly because of Vietnam.

Vietnam's economy shoots up the roof after the 80s where they implement Doi Moi, not "national liberation".

Ask any vietnamese and nobody would miss the communist/cooperative times.

Seen how it's the highest stage of capitalism, it's the worst thing in the world.
If it's not imperialism than what's the worst thing in the world in your opinion?

I was told only communism has famines

being forced to open up because you allies are systematically stamped out is not choosing to open up

Vietnam isn't suffering from imperialism because of Doi Moi lmao

It's the exact opposite of imperialism. They opened up on their own terms. So you don't actually know what any of the words mean you use?

Latin america now has decent living standards, except Venezuela and Brazil, who were having self-styled socialist governments.
The middle east is developing as well, goddamn Iraq army gets its shit together after being invaded and exploited by the US.

Perhaps fascism or genocidial ideology like Pol Pot?

That would make it an exception to the rule that in any other nation pretty much that lived under communism, most inhabitants preferred communism to capitalism

Uh, they open up to be exploited by foreign powers, and their resources were sold away with dingy prices while their national companies get outcompeted by foreign companies.

I'm pretty sure they are suffering from imperalism.

Also, this . The reason countries are forced to upon up is because they are forced to. USSR had one of the highest HDI in the world, because it was big enough to sustain itself and half the globe was allied with them. Then, when they turn capitalist, it goes to shit. Smaller countries obviously struggle more because they can't sustain themselves.

That's incrementally better, but the fundamental problem is that a state and capitalism are symbiotic. If you can show me how the state exists without presupposing and supporting capitalism, then great, but as long as the government enforces private property and runs on taxes it's dependent on capitalism structurally. It may have limited use to the proletariat but they have to ditch it eventually or it's going to take more power and backslide. Regardless of what the people do, support belongs with them and not the government they're trying to wrangle into their control.

Just because a lot of the people support something doesn't mean it's in their interests to support them. Just because people are foreign to me doesn't mean I can't disagree with them. I'm not trying to stop them, just not supporting that method they're employing. I agree with organizing outside of the government, which can be and is being done at the same time. It's up to them to struggle how they see fit and up to me to support or engage with what I agree with. The notion that I should just support whatever enough proles from another land decide is best is counter to the notion of self-determination and promotes a hierarchy as well. Not just in the sense of foreign peoples over me (and others like me), but in the sense of the apparent majority of the foreign people over the rest of that people (and by extension that majority of those people over the worldwide leftist population, among whom they are a minority).

Well, I dunno, maybe the eastern commies were better, but the chinks aren't missing Mao times either.

They now watch cartoon and play vidya like everybody else.


China opens up before the USSR is doomed, so does Vietnam.

Then the USSR opens by dismantling itself too.

Show me the sweatshops and the surplus/resource/labor extraction by foreign powers. Selling goods on the international market under value isn't imperialism.

No, it doesn't. You have provided no proof for any of your claims.Nicaragua was winning awards from the world health Organisation before Reagans war against them.
you realise Cuba has one of the highest living standards in the whole of Latin america. Venezuela has been under constant seige, and yet has still made living standards much better for it people than they were at the start of the bolivarian revolution. Brazil is just nowhere near socialist.
Imperialism in Latin America is entirely responsible for the cocaine trade we see today and the devastation it causes the region, starting with the destabilisation of Columbia with murder of Jorge Gaitan, which allowed the gangs to thrive and prosper.

I didn't know western kids were playing vidya in the fucking 50s. You realize that technology progresses over time, right?

The worst aspect of fascism is imperialism
Literally a product of imperialism

The Chinese and the Russians were barely allies. Socialist countries and therefore good trading partners were systematically stamped out all over the world.

You have still failed to tell me how imperialism has been good for the middle east, and you have said nothing convincing (or shown any actual statistical proof) for any of your other points, meanwhile everything you have said about india has been rebutted in that Michael Parenti article I linked. Bulllshit about Venezuela in those previously linked videos.

you mean, the CIA rigged a bunch of elections against the wishes of the people of eastern europe and used the IMF to put them to their knees, causes the rise of ultranationalism and ultimate the genocides of the break up of Yugoslavia

Here you go.

The fact is their labor cost is darn cheap, they are pretty much paid penny for their work.

I'm sure those poor chinese peasants hate Mao and wish to go back to having 90% illiteracy and medieval life expectancy

I thought the worst aspect of fascism is its genocidal tendency.
It was a reaction against imperalism.

If you aren't supporting what they want to do, you are in its way.

Vidya used to be banned in China, ya know? Not anymore.

Nowadays chinese citizen want to go watch Hollywood movies and play PS4 like everybody else.

not factually correct

Any poll of younger chinks missing Mao time?

Genocidal tendency is an excuse for imperialism you fucking liberal
Pol Pot was funded by the CIA

wew lad
Take off that flag.

Pray tell, what socialist countries did China trade the most, if not the USSR?

Uh, it's not an inherent feature of imperalism.
To kill americans and restore agrarianism society? Nice.

And how does that develop the country again? None of that surplus goes back into the Vietnamese economy. The reason why Vietnam developed was because it was in control over the terms it was opening up under. Unlike, you know, the entire continent of Africa.

Mao built the industrial base for China to develop. China was one of the poorest countries in the world when he took over, because of imperialism.

It enlarges their GDP, brings job that pays better than the local jobs and infrastructure brought by foreign investment and firms.

And nah, China, you can say, that does care about who it opens to, but Vietnam? Vietnam just flashes ass at anyone who gives money, be it China, USA, Europe, India or even Israel.

China was plagued by a huge civil war before Mao took over.

Taiwan and Hong Kong were both richer than China until Deng opens up.

but why?

how is that in any way related? You think George Bush is pro Chavismo?

I'd hardly call net extraction of value part "enlarging the GDP" in the classical sense. It sure increases their economic output, but it doesn't go back into the economy.
Neither Vietnam or China had unemployment before they become capitalist.
All the infrastructure these countries have was built under socialism. Hell, every fucking Marxist-Leninist government has made it top priority to build infrastructure. You don't need investments to build stuff, when you have an economy that doesn't produce for profit.

Both Hongkong and Taiwan, same with South Korea, were propped up by foreign capital as a showcase against socialism.

In Hongkong people live in cages and South Korea has slums.

Yes it is. The whole slavs are subhuman thing it was just an excuse to invade them countries. Fucking liberal
To kill vietnamese communist

It literally increases their GDP.
And their "jobs" pay jackshit, that's why they are all lining up to foreign jobs that pay more.
Not true in Vietnam and China, you only have these nice highway roads after they open up to western investment.

And? They are still richer than China.
The air is actually more healthy in HK and S. Korea.

In China, you are riddled by pollution, or outright barbarism if you go past the big cities.

You used the exact same logic of "you're either with us or you're against us" except even more explicit than Bush was.

Lie. South korea air is polluted as fuck.
Maybe less then china. That's not the point. SK sucks. Hard. Really hard.

OK, user.

Everybody here would prefer to live in SK than in China.

China fucks up bad with their pollution.

Means nothing. None of that goes back into their economy.
By what standard? You can't really calculate the currency of a socialist country into dollars because it's not traded on the international market. What's important is the purchasing power.
The built-up of infrastructure was always higher than under capitalism. A few shiny highway roads don't change that. In any case, just proves my old argument that state capitalism like in Vietnam is better than outright imperialism, what's the incentive for foreign investors to build highways in Africa?

Yeah and if I give you 10k dollars you might be richer than your cowworkers doesn't mean you are actually a better at what you are doing.

you either are or you are not in support of the proletarian movement, its that simple, George Bush isn't the only person to have ever made such a claim, its a pretty self evident claim in fact

you on the other hand are far, far more like bush, because you think invading socialised capitalism to turn into unsocialised imperial capitalism is a good thing

Probably. But it's wrong to think people put pollution above everything.

But their economy is developing along with the GDP.
By vietnamese standard, even now viets like to work in foreign firms because they pay per foreign currencies, which are much valuable than Vietnam dong.
Yeah, but all those factories, highways and shiny tall buildings only exist after China and Vietnam open up, I mean, you can actually visit the Mao times/commie time buildings standing up next to the modern imperalist buildings and compare.
Highways are meant to transport goods. If you can buy factories in Africa, then people are gonna build highways to transport them.

The pollution in China and India literally fucking kill you.

No need for starvation, the air is deadly.

Cut all the delusions, I would rather live in HK, Taiwan, Singapore, or even Vietnam as opposed to China.

Why would you ever support Venezuela?

Fuck off.

This is a complete misrepresentation of my position, which I clearly stated you lying sack of shit.

thats capitalism

False correlation. Romania has a growing GDP but people are doing really bad and their economy is not diversified. It's funny, capitalists like to look at things and see correlations everywhere, instead of trying to figure out why something is happening.
Because they are capitalist now. I was talking about socialist Vietnam.
Architecture and technology changes over time. In the 60s, "commieblocks" were pretty fucking popular in capitalist countries too. USSR built neoclassicist skyscrapers under Stalin and the DPRK has futuristic skyscrapers.
They are not actual highways for the people. I dare you to try to get from one city to another one in Namibia

Fuck off ain't a refutation

You say being pro Venezuela is like George bush and then accuse me of misrepresentation… K.

This is as embarrassing as those reactionaries who glorify Pinochet because "le helicopter man".

This is not a definition of socialism, this is a way to explain what it will look like.


Why has this thread been anchored?