• beleza pura@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    i wanna touch on one of the points the article makes: every successful marxist revolution happened outside the core of capitalism. i honestly believe we’re never going to see a successful revolution in the 1st world and i don’t understand why so many people used to believe a socialist revolution would only be possible in developed countries

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 days ago

      To make things short, Marx never observed imperialism being used to bribe the proletariat out of revolution in developed countries. Imperialism is what caused revolution outside of the global north (generally). Imperialism, like capitalism, is a decaying system, though, and has merely bought the bourgeois imperialists more time before revolution. That’s why we will see revolution in the global north, imperialism is in its death throes and the working class within the global north is becoming more radicalized as the bribes run dry.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 days ago

      The Gang of Four were ultraleft dogmatists that ultimately broke the mass line. You cannot command communism into existence, you have to build it, and what is built must come from what is already ready-made. The Dengist reforms did come with struggles and unique problems, but ultimately stablized and increased economic development, and prevented the bourgeoisie or imperialists from coming to power via retaining state control over the large firms and key industries.

      You’re correct in saying that little of Maoism remains. Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought (now also Xi Jinping Thought) is what remains, not the Gonzaloist ultraleft Marxism-Leninism-Maoism nor the Gang of Four’s ultraleftism. The PRC is a Socialist Market Economy, and is steadily developing towards higher rates of socialization of the economy without falling into the pitfalls of dogmatist idealism like they did earlier.

      • coso@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        @Cowbee Having a state-dominated economy doesn’t mean you’re socialist. China now uses socialism only as a facade. For example, Nordic countries also have a similar economy and much more welfare, but they’ve aligned themselves with capitalists. And we must remember that China is also using neo-imperialism. We must have a pragmatic view of the world. At the moment, there are no truly good states (aside from smaller communities like Zapatista Mexico)

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          No, Nordic countries do not have a similar economy. The Nordics rely on imperialism, and the large firms and key industries are privately owned and run. Just because the Nordics have welfare, does not mean they are in any way similar to the heavily centrally planned and state run PRC. China is not using “neo-imperialism” either, as a heavily industrialized economy without the dominance of private financial capital, they are more focused on multilateralism and building up trade routes. You left this claim (like your point on the Nordics) as though it were a fact without a need for justification. We do need a pragmatic view of the world, but your analysis is not.

          • coso@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 days ago

            @Cowbee China does not have a planned economy anymore with the special economic zones it is pure capitalism and China is “helping” African and Asian countries to have a sphere of influence not for charity now more than a socialist planned economy it is a state capitalism a bit like in the USSR where the bureaucratization of the party has created a new elite

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              This is utter idealism.

              The PRC regularly implements Five Year Plans, the largest industries are state owned and run. The state doesn’t need to operate in the capitalist circuit of M-C…P…C’-M’. The way to transition from an economy dominated by private property to a fully collectivized and planned, centralized economy, is through gradual sublimation of property under the direction of a socialist state. You cannot simply will communism into existence like you imply.

              The USSR similarly was socialist, not “state capitalist.” State capitalism is a better descriptor for economies like Bismark’s Germany, the Republic of Korea, or Singapore, not the PRC nor USSR.

              And no, socialism is not “charity.” The fact that the PRC is not imperialist isn’t becausd they are nice, but because they lack the dominance of financial capital that results in imperialism. This is the basic Leninist analysis of imperialism, of course the PRC is going to serve its own interests, but that doesn’t mean every interaction between more and less developed countries is necessarily imperialist.

              Again, you never back up any of your claims, they are mired in vibes and idealism.

              • coso@mastodon.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 days ago

                @Cowbee China exploits its workers, it is not a paradise and Marx never spoke of censorship and statism, he was in favor of models like that of the Paris Commune, that is, a popular government not made up of elites as happened with the Soviet or Chinese bureaucrats. Being exploited by a capitalist or by a state, for me is the same thing. Making five-year plans does not mean being socialist and in fact China also has capitalists who act on behalf of the state but live off the income

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  I never said the PRC was a paradise. It’s in the early, developing stages of socialism, and has a long way to go. Further, Marx did speak of censorship and state control, measure 6 listed in the Communist Manifesto states that “Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State” is one of the key aspects of a new proletarian state destined to wither away.

                  Marx supported the Paris Commune, but not because of its model. He supported it as a true dictatorship of the proletariat, but found that it was utterly ineffective as a model, because the communards never smashed and replaced the state, merely took hold of it, which is why it faded while socialism in the PRC is alive and well.

                  You have far more in common with anarchists if your analysis of the state involves equating the M-C…P…C’-M’ circuit of capitalist production with state-run production. Making a Five Year Plan alone is not socialism, the Republic of Korea copied the soviet five year plan models in a thorougly state capitalist dictatorship, but it is representative of how much control the state has in an economy.

                  In an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect, this is a sign of socialization of the economy, in an economy where private ownership is principle like the ROK, this is an example of state capitalism. Reading Capital is necessary, or at least Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price, and Profit. And yes, the PRC does have a bourgeoisie, and it will until it reaches communism. You cannot get rid of the bourgeoisie with a stroke of a pen, but through economic compulsuon.

                  I am being harsh with you because I hold Marxists to higher standards, I want to make this clear. You’re already on the right track, but you have a long way to go, chiefly in understanding the concepts of Scientific Socialism, the Marxist theory of the state, and Dialectical Materialism. If you want, I can make some good recommendations for reading to help. When a Marxist relies on idealist analysis to attack Marxists while taking on the mantle of Marxism, they ultimately prove an effective weapon for the imperialist bourgeoisie.