How do we save the left from consuming itself via undiluted ideology and revisionism, Holla Forums?

How do we save the left from consuming itself via undiluted ideology and revisionism, Holla Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

Read Lenin.

Wow, a chance to take some criticism and vet your viewpoint and you parrot "Read Lenin."

What are you talking about? Lenin is anti-revisionist.

"china is socialist" ☭TANKIE☭s are the dumbest creatures on the planet

Yes, I'm sure your thread is our one and only opportunity to do that.

Those who completely handwave China away despite it being the most interesting socio-economic societies in the 21st century are no less ignorant. If you want to criticize China that's your thing, but to not even engage with it properly is poor.

What a disgusting article, making excuses for kleptocratic Angolan princelings. The Angolan economy ballooned because of the rising oil prices, nothing else, and then the national elite, revolutionaries turned apparatchiks, lined their pockets with that oil wealth. As the oil price has gone down, so have the prospects for Angola. There is nothing salutary about the Angolan experience; the wealth generated by the oil boom has not been used to better people's lives, only to expand extractive infrastructure, prestige projects, and a building boom for the national bourgeoisie.

A klepocratic petrostate does not become a paragon of socialism just because they sell to the Chinese in stead of Exon. Thinking of this as a victory only happens when you see the world through the most vulgar anti imperialist glasses. "Socialist" billionaires are anything but, and their wealth is always ill gotten.

Oxymoron. There is no such thing as a socialist billionaire. All billionaires are capitalist pigs.

by "socialism" they obviously mean the socdem/Nordic model.

i.e. bourgeois bootlickers larping at socialism. Succdems are the worst.

Your mistake is assuming there's anything worth saving.

lol anyone with a clue about China who has read Minqi Li, Mobo Gao or William Hinton knows it isn't socialist.
China defenders rely on narrow face value statements by the CPC leadership and Xinhua articles to justify their support.

could you not technically be willing to hand over your wealth and abandon your 'ownership' and simply not think it's worth it to do so yet as all you have will simply end up in the hands of some ancap prick or something

If they're so great just shut up about them. We aren't just ruled by them in allegedly socialist societies, we have to like them too.

Yeah this. For a board so hell bent against any sort of morality, I don't see how you can justify this without some sort of "should", which may stem logically from material, but I haven't seen anything from Holla Forums (other than some retarded idealists) so I really don't know where this attitude is coming from. I know if I was a porky, I'd shit post on here and maybe donate/join an organization, but I wouldn't give up my money just so someone else could be rich.

there's loads of M-Ls who defend modern China
even Phil Greaves

Wow it's like you're retarded or something. Everyone read Marx. The fucking end.s

No more like anyone who has read Marx or Lenin knows that China is socialist.

Funny how leftcoms rage against Stalin day in and day out then turn around and say only Stalin mode economies are socialist! Give it a break chump.

Best part about this is that even if the CPC was out to oppress workers they have already done the most out of any movement ever in their 'revisionist period' in liberating the proletariat. Then when you look at the fact that they still refer to themselves as communists you begin to realize something a little else is going on in the minds of white leftists.

Million times better than having their wealth taken by the West. If you agree with that then there is reason to celebrate.

Also kill yourself.

Awesome socialism. Great equality. Look thick. Solid. Tight. Keep us all posted on your continued progress with any new progress pics or vid clips. Show us what you got man. Wanna see how freakin' red, left, planned and Marxist you can get. Thanks for the motivation.

"anyone who hates China is an infantile leftcom", squeals the Dengist capitalist roader


Saved for future use, assblasted red fashies inbound.

bitcoin is socialist

actually china banned bitcoin, which is one of the few good things about the modern prc

I got a feeling you're going to be banned on grounds of anti-imperialism. Rip you


Revisionism claims another.

i'm a huge ☭TANKIE☭
i just don't get why people bother to defend china
it just reeks of riding on the coattails of power and brown nosing

you are a revisionist

At least we didn't introduce market reform.


A temporary measure that still caused problems and wealth inequality but was dealt with.

just like Stalin did to every socialist left in the Bolsheviks

Market liberalization is right-wing socialism.

tanks actually think of politics on the left/right dichotomy wow-ee

None of that matters.

Marx states that distribution is of no concern to the revolution and that during the dictatorship of the proletariat we're still in the era of 'bourgeois right'.

The policy in China doesn't differ from the NEP. It's also extremely effective in raising the nations wealth. The first precondition on communism is advanced productive forces:

Then there are the 'ten planks' of communism which China meets for the most part.

Don't you realize you imbeciles are just parroting the bourgeoisie? That's literally all you're doing, might there be a problem with that you reckon?

The difference between western leftists and Chinese leftists is that the CPC actually read Marx, Engels and Lenin.

no rulers, no gods bitch, its that simple

Go away utopian.

The NEP is nothing like China. The NEP lasted a mere 7 years and was replaced by a socialist planned economy that totally eliminated private relations. China, on the other hand, already went through its NEP stage in the early 1950s and had a planned economy when Deng's economic reforms were implemented. So it literally went backwards. It's been going on for 40 years now and the ever expanding role of the private sector and worsening inequality, meaning exploitation, has no end in sight. The USSR and China both achieved rapid growth under a planned economy, and the argument about developing productive forces only works if you think development can only be done via bending to capitalism, which was basically the Menshevik/Bukharin argument, proven definitively wrong by the Five Year Plans. The USSR's collaboration with capitalism ended by the early 1930s. Another thing is that China insists it is socialist, but the NEP defined itself as state capitalist, so the comparison doesn't work. For China to be right, either the CPC is wrong and China is actually state capitalist, or the NEP was actually socialist, and thus Lenin was wrong. But you can't defend both the NEP and post-Mao China.

Distribution certainly does matter. To say otherwise is to allow for exploitation to occur, which is what socialism must abolish. Nobody is saying perfect equality will exist, but socialism certainly does mean a general levelling of income and wealth. There are no billionaires in Cuba or the DPRK, and there were none in the USSR or any Warsaw Pact state. Anyone saying otherwise basically just holds secret fantasies of being a billionaire, lording it over the masses while soaking up the radical chic of communism.

The planks in the manifesto were called obsolete by Marx in 1872.

lel, I love this line. The bourgeoisie don't have a problem with China whatsoever, hence why the US and China have been buddies since the early 70s and why manufacturing jobs have been shipped off to China for decades. China is helping prop up world capitalism at this point and has been for at least 20 years. It's also far richer and more powerful than the USSR was in the 1920s/1930s, yet it does almost nothing to support socialist revolution abroad. Compare that to the relentless hostility the USSR was treated with from its inception until about 1989.

I didn't say that China was socialist. My entire point is that they have a DOTP and can advance to socialism when they need to.

Further than this though it's not a question of terminology but which policy is right. What is your explanation for the failure of the Soviet Union?

It's quite clear that if you read Marx and Lenin justifying China is a triviality. Both Marx and Lenin recognize that history is materially determined and so both emphasize the purpose of the DOTP is to build up the productive forces.

The Soviet Union tried its way and it had its dangers. The CPC is trying its way and it has its dangers. None of this is an argument against it, revolution is dangerous you see.

Is a transition period necessary or not? Marx says so, so does Lenin. I don't care what you think about this, I'm only going to argue about what the marxist perspective is.


Right, explain the pivot to Asia then. Actually the US got duped because they never expected China to rise so fast and be so independent. They thought China was what you thought China is, your opinion is their ideology. The bourgeoisie in the US expected China's opening up to be a capitulation and they expected a comprador state that would give up all its wealth and never be able to challenge them, actually China did the opposite which is why we're even talking about it frankly.

The US bourgeoisie don't have a problem with the EU bourgeoisie but they certainly have a problem with the proletarian dictatorship in China and the Russian bourgeoisie. See the latest national security strategy that directly outlines the threat China is.

Not on the surface but the surely supplied the DPRK nuclear technology. Someone recently posted an article showing they are building weapons factories for Indian maoists. They provide logistics and support to Syria. They are investing in the development of Angola (did you see OP?). They are supporting every single nation being attacked by imperialism, it would be too much to list. They are also undertaking a Marshal Plan for the global south.

If you want to know why people defend China you don't need to look further. Think about it this way, there are microcosms in the west of students with immaculate revolutionary theory but they won't feed you - in fact you feed them. There is on the other hand the worlds biggest communist party investing in development in your homeland so that you can have consistent work and not have to sell your kids. I hope it occurs to you why you're so out of touch with the ruthless ☭TANKIE☭s. What is it that Engels said?

So kindly kys for the global proletariat.

Well the CPC thinks it is. The "Primary Stage" of socialism, whatever that means. And any society that allows billionaires to exist and in ever increasing numbers coupled with deepening market/private ownership isn't a DOTP.
Revisionism, and the process of capitalist restoration that began in 1956. Not to mention continued sabotage against it, which China doesn't really experience for obvious reasons.
And the way to do that is a planned economy, which China had and laid the basis for its current success. Despite what Dengists would have you believe, China's success is not due to the privatisation process that has been going on for 40 years, but the socialist basis developed under Mao.
The transition period is necessary, but what China is doing is not really a transition towards communism.
Something that's over, straight from the horse's mouth.
The US is more focused on combating Russia.
Why wouldn't they expect that? The US was hostile to the PRC from 1949, but that ended in the 1970s. China isn't interested in challenging global US hegemony or fomenting socialist revolution (they backed Pinochet and UNITA and currently support Duterte by selling him weapons that he uses to fight the CPP). The US didn't get duped whatsoever, they used China to split the socialist bloc and turned China against Vietnam, so much so that the fought a war with them "to teach Vietnam a lesson", in Deng's own words.
The US is only opposed to China in the sense that it might rope states in Eurasia into its financial orbit via the New Silk Road and AIIB, same for Russia. That's pretty much it. But even then, countries like the UK, France, Canada, Israel and Germany are part of the AIIB, so it's hardly some amazing anti-imperialist venture.
I've not seen any proof that China supports the Naxals other than Indian tabloid scaremongering. The DPRK came up with its nuclear tech on its own (China doesn't particularly want them getting nukes), and China (and Russia) just complied with sanctions on the DPRK again. Investment in Angola isn't something special, nor is their support for Syria. And the Marshal Plan isn't something to imitate. It just made Western Europe tied to America.
You just sound like a dull reactionary here ("wahhh western commies are all spoiled students"). Being the world's biggest communist party means fuck all if your leaders are revisionists with zero interest in attaining communism that preside over increasing numbers of strikes by workers, suicide nets for proles at Foxconn factories and throw anyone who tries to move the country left like Bo Xilai in jail.
I'm sure Freddy would just love modern China.

So do accelerationists like Nick Land, so what?

China is a planned economy you retard, so is every developed economy today. Can't even be bothered to respond to the rest of this mess.

And yes Engels would love modern China. You likely haven't read a single thing he has written, Engels invented ☭TANKIE☭ -ism.

Most of accelerationism in the west is centrism with sci-fi aesthetic.

The fact that you can literally say this while people are starving is why I'm happy to dismiss you as just being white. It is simply to be expected since racism and opportunism are material phenomena. Marxism is literally nothing for you other than aesthetics.

You can't rely on traitors. They have already proven to be unreliable by betraying their side.


You talk like a fag and your shit is all retarded.

National capitalism is not simply better than colonialism for the population but also a step forward in the proletarian struggle. You can't refute this and you're going to try to pretend it's id-pol when in actuality your own unwillingness to accept this perfectly correct analysis is due to your own id-pol; white chauvinism or what's equivalent first-worldism.


Honestly, I think he’s a retarded shitposter but it’s not like you did anything to refute his point in that post.

Colonial capitalism isn’t really “globalism” it’s more like being subsumed into someone else’s national capitalism and when THEY chose to be internationalist towards other capitalist nations they do it on your back, using your labor and resources.

Marx and Engels said multiple times that the fact a nation has no sovereignty (they used Ireland as an example) actually is of massive consequence for the proletariat.

What doesn’t follow is that even if having anti-colonial movements and moves towards national sovereignty are a major step forward there is no reason to stop at handing power over to the national bourgeoisie. The anti-colonialist Revolution is supposed to be a move towards socialism and not just a means to an end.


what does this even mean

Just a reminder that Lenin is one of the most important theoreticians and practitioners of the last century.

Globalism is bourgeois as fuck dude.

Class doesn't stop at the bprder you fuckwit

Grow up.

What mechanisms does anarchy have to fight imperialism? That's what I thought bitch.


the Condition of the Working Class in China would be very enlightening
presumably the striking proles are just western puppets

Rejection of philosophical pluralism and incoherence

The neoliberal corporate playground you're complaining about is better termed transnationalism, rather than globalism.


Read Zak Cope

Why would you call me retarded if you agree with me and how am I shitposting?

"Globalism" isn't a marxist category, thanks for outing yourself as a crypto-fascist. As expected from an anarchist.

I'll just make my points:

1.National Liberation is a good and necessary thing–agreed.

2. the national bourgeoisie, may have an important play during the start of an anti-colonial/anti-imperialist–I agree.

But I don't think being exploited by China is "a million times better than being exploited by the West" and the struggle for socialism shouldn't stop at national liberation. Eventually, the colonial proletariat must overthrow the national bourgeoisie.

Sorry, it's my 90s-kid-ness showing:

I just don't think "internationalism" is an accurate description of our motives, as we seek the eventual irrelevance of nations.

Kinda strange how the left used to be anti-globalization but right wingers coopted the term "globalists" to essentially mean da joos

The way I prefer to think of it is that real globalization means harmonizing the economies, regulatory environments, and standards of living around the world at the highest common denominator, to the point where political unification becomes overwhelmingly favorable.

The bad thing commonly referred to as globalization is more accurately termed transnationalism, as it seeks to use barriers that are impermeable to normal people, but completely porous to porky, allowing them to ruthlessly exploit arbitrage between nations, forcing everywhere down to the lowest common denominator, and eventually slicing us into neofeudal corporate fiefdoms.

It always has been, in economic terms. Neoliberals are not the left, they simply appropriate leftist rhetoric as a propaganda tool to see sympathetic.

Yeah, and they froze in place once the step was taken. In the case of Angola, the national bourgeoisie is co-opted into a global system, and they end up simply extracting the resources and investing in foreign financial products. The development of national forces of production stalls. Unless the national bourgeoisie get their wealth from the productive sector back home, and reinvest in that same productive sector, you're stuck. That's why historically, there is little point in allying with national bourgeoisie except in situations of outright war and physical occupation and colonialism. You have to aggravate the class struggle and destroy the national bourgeoisie as soon as the last foreign administrator is evicted, which has obviously not happened. You can stop sucking their dick any time.
Again Hoxaposter proves to be the best poster.

I know exactly what you mean. I think that you misinterpreted my position which is why you feel the need to clarify your stance but ours don't differ, except for the status of China but that's neither here nor there.

What I want to know is in the context of what I said, and exactly what I said, seeing as we didn't disagree why did you call me a retarded shitposter? It's this latter point that I want you to expand on. It's nothing to quibble about but I'd like you to humor me here and try being honest.

Even if that were the case I don't know where you get the idea that 'the irrelevance of nations' means not opposing colonialism in all its forms. If anything national oppressions of that kind are what introduce the relevance of nations.

You're confused and you need better theory.

Social democrats are anti-globalization.

The actual left beginning with Marx and Engels are all for globalization.

It amazes me what people read into things. I never said or even implied this so there was no reason to point it out.

Seeings as the rate of profit is higher where capital concentration is lower there is no reason for a genuine national bourgeoisie to do this. What you're talking about are compradors or neo-colonial administrators. Those should be banished as well and a national bourgeoisie is vastly superior to them.

What I said was a fact, that they're better than colonialism. Why does this trigger opportunists so much?

funny, for someone who constantly tells others to kys you should neck yourself the most out of anyone I've seen post here, including stock-standard Holla Forums reactionaries.



A bit heated?


You do know Maupin is now a christfag who denies DiaMat, right?

Holla Forums identified