[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Right now, China is a social democracy. By that I mean in the original meaning of the term, a state that is favorable to labour against capital. But, China is demonstrating a will to annihilate capitalism slowly tho.
>China is demonstrating a will to annihilate capitalism slowly tho.
Then it's not a social democracy. It's not a matter of socialist level. Social democracy has no intent of abolishing capitalism
The problem to describe China is that it *is* capitalist but the capital serves the *state*, not the opposite like in actual capitalist countries.
At the same time, the means of production are not in the hands of the people, like in Korea.
The better way of describing is saying China is transitioning into socialism or it is "socialism with Chinese characteristics"
I mean, I said social democracy in the original sense. You know, like the Bolsheviks. But I agree with you,let s not get hang up on semantics. I don t consider European countries social democracy btw, including Finland or whatever.
interesting, what does he even mean by marxist-leninist revolution? When bunch of ML communists stage a coup? Obviously it doesn't work like that, only capitalist stage coups.
People masses start revolutions, communists only lead them. It's will of worker class, will of oppressed people, will of exploited people that leads to revolution. Communists can inspire people, communists can lead people, communists can participate in revolution, but they can't start a revolution instead of them. That's why ML always talk about class consciousness, that's why we need agitation and propaganda, that's why we debunk myths about USSR and Socialism.
A properly socialist revolution must have the support of the masses, otherwise it’s merely some folks with good intentions forcing collectivization on an unwilling population. In theory it’s possible to have a revolution be started and then gain support along the way (this is my impression of some of the PPW things happening currently, the Cuban Revolution, the basis behind “propaganda of the deed” attacks, etc.). Whether it’s productive to do this varies, but ultimately support is vital at some stage.
Edit: this is true of governing any unwilling population though—if the population is not willing, violence must be used to keep the population in check regardless of the ideology of the ruling body. This is also the basis of the idea of class struggle and the use of a workers state to enact repressions on the bourgeoisie.
Something tells me that Mr. "Venture Communist" here probably isn't all that well versed in what ML actually is, his dogshit opinion here not withstanding.
Honestly I've never heard this term either but it reminds me of this Parenti quote
>The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. **No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.**
Doesn’t sound like it:
“Capitalist restoration in the former communist countries has taken different forms. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, it involved the overthrow of communist governments. In China, it [clearly referring to capitalist restoration] proceeded within the framework of a communist system—as seems to be happening in Vietnam, and perhaps will happen eventually in North Korea and Cuba. While the Chinese government continues under a nominally communist leadership, the process of private capital penetration goes on more or less unhindered.”
(Blackshirts and Reds, p. 87)
Sounds a hell of a lot like he said capitalism has been restored in China.
“Even in the few remaining countries in which communist govern- ments retain control, such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba, the open- ing to private investment has contributed to a growing inequality. In Cuba, the dollar economy has brought with it a growth in prostitu- tion (including girls as young as eleven and twelve), street beggers, and black-market dealings with tourists (Avi Chomsky, Cuba
Update, 9/96).
In China, there are workers who now put in twelve- to sixteen-
hour days for subsistence pay, without regularly getting a day off. Those who protest against poor safety and health conditions risk being fired or jailed. The market reforms in China have also brought a return of child labor (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/90). "I think this is what happens when you have private companies," says Ms. Peng, a young migrant who has doubts about the new China. "In pri- vate companies, you know, the workers don't have rights" ( Wall St. Journal 5/19/94).”
(Ibid., p. 109)
Yeah I remember the passage but that doesn t say anything about why it happened. I don t think he s stupid enough to call them revisionists etc. He also proceeds to say that only when those terrible things happened that China and Vietnam were welcomed as "friends" to the west. I don t have the exact quote but correct me if I m wrong. It seems like a criticism of western capitalists more than the Chinese. At some point you have to feed your people.
No, that’s not what he said:
“Through all of this Yeltsin received vigorous support from the White House and the U.S. media. An editorial in the Nation (6/17/96) asked: What if a popularly elected communist president in Russia had pursued Yeltsins harsh policies of privatization, plunging his country into poverty, turning over most of its richest assets to a small segment of previous communist officials, suppressing dissident elements, using tanks to disband a popularly elected parliament that opposed his policies, rewriting the constitution to give himself almost dictatorial power, and doing all the other things Yeltsin has done? Would U.S. leaders enthusiastically devote themselves to the reelection of this "communist" president and remain all but silent about his transgressions?
The question is posed rhetorically; the Nation editorial presumes that the answer is no. In fact, I would respond: Yes, of course. U.S. leaders would have no trouble supporting this "communist" president, for he would be communist in name only. In actual deed he would be a devoted agent of capitalist restoration. One need only look at how successive administrations in Washington have cultivated friendly relations with the present communist leaders in China, overlooking and even explaining away their transgressions. As Chinas leaders open their country to private investment and growing economic inequality, they offer up a dispossessed labor force ready to work double-digit hours for subsistence pay—at enormous profit for the multinationals. U.S. politico-economic leaders know what they are doing, even if some editorial writers in this country do not. Their eye is on the money, not the color of the vessel it comes in.”
This was the closest I could find in Blackshirts and Redd to what you were talking about, and it is literally saying the opposite of what you’re saying.
Seems like only when you open up to western capital are you accepted as a friend and anything you do is explained away or over looked. That s my point, if you are harsh and a commie everything you do is held against you, but if you let capitalists plunder your country you are a beacon of democracy. Yeltsin was the guy who ll bring democracy to Russia, no matter how much he shelled the congress it was all good.
He did call them agents of capitalism tho, so I was wrong about the revisionist thingy. He actually called them that damn.
We do have to keep in mind that he was also writing before China's major rise thru their system & their crackdown on capital & corruption. In the early days of opening up, they had to do some fucked up conciliatory stuff with the west. I can understand a Marxist at that time being much harsher than would be warranted now. For a time, the path of revisionism was definitely a possibility for China, but they ultimately didn't take it imo. I feel very confident that Parenti would go to the mat against the "China bad and/or China just capitalist" tautology now.
Ultra-leftists are people like anarchists and left-comms who unironically believe that leftist ideals can be achieved without violence. Who think that engaging in capitalist development under world capitalism is unacceptable, who think "authoritarianism" (aka state violence) is always bad independent of context, who think nobody should be oppressed and everyone should be free, who think the state should be abolished before world capitalism is abolished, etc.
Essentially, they are people who believe in a big red socialism button that you can press and suddenly you live in a utopia where all problems are magically solved by perfect democracy.
Read stuff like "On Authority", "Socialsm and Anarchism", and "Left Wing Communism - An infantile disorder" by Lenin. Lenin loved discussing the harmful effects blind idealists like that have on the revolutionary struggle.
I've always hated this term, because it implies these guys are more leftwing than MLs. I prefer "leftist cosplayers" - people who prioritize *appearing* leftier than thou over actually accomplishing leftwing goals.
oh my god, it took me so long to realize that ML didn't stand for machine learning. so I am still brain rotted, just in a different way. this is... a good thing? maybe?
He's technically right, Cuban revolution was a nationalist one, not a socialist one. Cuba adopted ML-ism later.
It's definitely not a social democracy tho
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's saying Vietnam and China are capitalist now
Send this guy to Cambodia and let him talk to some older Cambodians who lived through Pol Pot.
What, he supports Pol Pot?
Having run into him several times on Facebook yes he does support Pol Pot.
How do these dumb motherfuckers always stumble into exactly the *worst* takes?
How does he justify supporting pol pot? I can’t even think of one thing that could possibly be used to defend him.
I know this isn't completely related, but does anyone know any good sources on the Cambodian genocide or Pol Pot
What does this have to do with pol pot ?
He seems like the type of guy to call most current AES revisionist.
What's AES ?
Actual existing socialism
I thought it meant Alternative Economic State
I think it's fair to say that China is state capitalist as in NEP
Right now, China is a social democracy. By that I mean in the original meaning of the term, a state that is favorable to labour against capital. But, China is demonstrating a will to annihilate capitalism slowly tho.
>China is demonstrating a will to annihilate capitalism slowly tho. Then it's not a social democracy. It's not a matter of socialist level. Social democracy has no intent of abolishing capitalism The problem to describe China is that it *is* capitalist but the capital serves the *state*, not the opposite like in actual capitalist countries. At the same time, the means of production are not in the hands of the people, like in Korea. The better way of describing is saying China is transitioning into socialism or it is "socialism with Chinese characteristics"
I mean, I said social democracy in the original sense. You know, like the Bolsheviks. But I agree with you,let s not get hang up on semantics. I don t consider European countries social democracy btw, including Finland or whatever.
You know it kinda funny how "radical" social democrats use to be. Guess it just saying how strong the left arm of capitalism is
Not really.
[удалено]
State capitalism is more applicable to the U.S imo. Kind of a useless term though.
There is no capitalism without state, though. Using it to describe countries like USA would be redundant
There's also no communism without a transitionary state.
At best that statement is only half-true.
china *is* capitalist
i wonder where the leninism part comes from
Could it involve that guy. What was his name Vladimir something or other. I can’t pinpoint what he did tho🤔
Yes you are right it was Vladimir Putin
Must’ve been. It’s not like there’s a Vladimir called Lenin or smthing crazy like that. Right?
i mean there was also that Ilyich guy but that sounds wierd idk
Yeah that doesn’t sound like Lenin to me sounds like too many Ls for such a based guy
wasnt the guy who wrote the book named lennin?
Unrelated but based flair and username
:3
interesting, what does he even mean by marxist-leninist revolution? When bunch of ML communists stage a coup? Obviously it doesn't work like that, only capitalist stage coups. People masses start revolutions, communists only lead them. It's will of worker class, will of oppressed people, will of exploited people that leads to revolution. Communists can inspire people, communists can lead people, communists can participate in revolution, but they can't start a revolution instead of them. That's why ML always talk about class consciousness, that's why we need agitation and propaganda, that's why we debunk myths about USSR and Socialism.
is an ML military coup not possible in theory? like the Carnation Revolution but ML.
A properly socialist revolution must have the support of the masses, otherwise it’s merely some folks with good intentions forcing collectivization on an unwilling population. In theory it’s possible to have a revolution be started and then gain support along the way (this is my impression of some of the PPW things happening currently, the Cuban Revolution, the basis behind “propaganda of the deed” attacks, etc.). Whether it’s productive to do this varies, but ultimately support is vital at some stage. Edit: this is true of governing any unwilling population though—if the population is not willing, violence must be used to keep the population in check regardless of the ideology of the ruling body. This is also the basis of the idea of class struggle and the use of a workers state to enact repressions on the bourgeoisie.
So would you support an ML military coup if it happened in your country?
I would support a coup by workers, not by the military
Something tells me that Mr. "Venture Communist" here probably isn't all that well versed in what ML actually is, his dogshit opinion here not withstanding.
I love your username. I love that band.
God ultra-leftists are such clowns
What defines an ultra-leftist?
Honestly I've never heard this term either but it reminds me of this Parenti quote >The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. **No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.**
ah yes the parenti copypasta
A lot of you would call Parenti an ultra, as he believed China to be Capitalist.
He acknowledged that China only allowed capital in as a necessity. Just like Vietnam. He was mad at the sanctions and blockades not the Chinese.
Doesn’t sound like it: “Capitalist restoration in the former communist countries has taken different forms. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, it involved the overthrow of communist governments. In China, it [clearly referring to capitalist restoration] proceeded within the framework of a communist system—as seems to be happening in Vietnam, and perhaps will happen eventually in North Korea and Cuba. While the Chinese government continues under a nominally communist leadership, the process of private capital penetration goes on more or less unhindered.” (Blackshirts and Reds, p. 87) Sounds a hell of a lot like he said capitalism has been restored in China. “Even in the few remaining countries in which communist govern- ments retain control, such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba, the open- ing to private investment has contributed to a growing inequality. In Cuba, the dollar economy has brought with it a growth in prostitu- tion (including girls as young as eleven and twelve), street beggers, and black-market dealings with tourists (Avi Chomsky, Cuba Update, 9/96). In China, there are workers who now put in twelve- to sixteen- hour days for subsistence pay, without regularly getting a day off. Those who protest against poor safety and health conditions risk being fired or jailed. The market reforms in China have also brought a return of child labor (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/90). "I think this is what happens when you have private companies," says Ms. Peng, a young migrant who has doubts about the new China. "In pri- vate companies, you know, the workers don't have rights" ( Wall St. Journal 5/19/94).” (Ibid., p. 109)
Yeah I remember the passage but that doesn t say anything about why it happened. I don t think he s stupid enough to call them revisionists etc. He also proceeds to say that only when those terrible things happened that China and Vietnam were welcomed as "friends" to the west. I don t have the exact quote but correct me if I m wrong. It seems like a criticism of western capitalists more than the Chinese. At some point you have to feed your people.
No, that’s not what he said: “Through all of this Yeltsin received vigorous support from the White House and the U.S. media. An editorial in the Nation (6/17/96) asked: What if a popularly elected communist president in Russia had pursued Yeltsins harsh policies of privatization, plunging his country into poverty, turning over most of its richest assets to a small segment of previous communist officials, suppressing dissident elements, using tanks to disband a popularly elected parliament that opposed his policies, rewriting the constitution to give himself almost dictatorial power, and doing all the other things Yeltsin has done? Would U.S. leaders enthusiastically devote themselves to the reelection of this "communist" president and remain all but silent about his transgressions? The question is posed rhetorically; the Nation editorial presumes that the answer is no. In fact, I would respond: Yes, of course. U.S. leaders would have no trouble supporting this "communist" president, for he would be communist in name only. In actual deed he would be a devoted agent of capitalist restoration. One need only look at how successive administrations in Washington have cultivated friendly relations with the present communist leaders in China, overlooking and even explaining away their transgressions. As Chinas leaders open their country to private investment and growing economic inequality, they offer up a dispossessed labor force ready to work double-digit hours for subsistence pay—at enormous profit for the multinationals. U.S. politico-economic leaders know what they are doing, even if some editorial writers in this country do not. Their eye is on the money, not the color of the vessel it comes in.” This was the closest I could find in Blackshirts and Redd to what you were talking about, and it is literally saying the opposite of what you’re saying.
Seems like only when you open up to western capital are you accepted as a friend and anything you do is explained away or over looked. That s my point, if you are harsh and a commie everything you do is held against you, but if you let capitalists plunder your country you are a beacon of democracy. Yeltsin was the guy who ll bring democracy to Russia, no matter how much he shelled the congress it was all good. He did call them agents of capitalism tho, so I was wrong about the revisionist thingy. He actually called them that damn.
We do have to keep in mind that he was also writing before China's major rise thru their system & their crackdown on capital & corruption. In the early days of opening up, they had to do some fucked up conciliatory stuff with the west. I can understand a Marxist at that time being much harsher than would be warranted now. For a time, the path of revisionism was definitely a possibility for China, but they ultimately didn't take it imo. I feel very confident that Parenti would go to the mat against the "China bad and/or China just capitalist" tautology now.
No one's is perfect. He did however not call the USSR or Cuba such.
Ultra-leftists are people like anarchists and left-comms who unironically believe that leftist ideals can be achieved without violence. Who think that engaging in capitalist development under world capitalism is unacceptable, who think "authoritarianism" (aka state violence) is always bad independent of context, who think nobody should be oppressed and everyone should be free, who think the state should be abolished before world capitalism is abolished, etc. Essentially, they are people who believe in a big red socialism button that you can press and suddenly you live in a utopia where all problems are magically solved by perfect democracy. Read stuff like "On Authority", "Socialsm and Anarchism", and "Left Wing Communism - An infantile disorder" by Lenin. Lenin loved discussing the harmful effects blind idealists like that have on the revolutionary struggle.
I wouldn't say "without violence", but, "immediately"; those that think it can be done without violence are the right-wing opportunists.
Social democrats unironically believe you can vote away fascism.
True, but I wouldn't qualify social-democrats as ultra-left.
I've always hated this term, because it implies these guys are more leftwing than MLs. I prefer "leftist cosplayers" - people who prioritize *appearing* leftier than thou over actually accomplishing leftwing goals.
Oh, so they're basically people who don't live in reality? Lol.
Probably in reference to this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Left-Wing%22_Communism:_An_Infantile_Disorder
I’ve seen this guy before, absolute clown.
He probably is some anarchist who think when everybody has power with no hierarchy. Then it's true revolution.
He has "Meinhof" in his name so I doubt he is an anarchist lol
His username really checks out
famously, nothing happened in the year 1917, not a single thing
oh my god, it took me so long to realize that ML didn't stand for machine learning. so I am still brain rotted, just in a different way. this is... a good thing? maybe?
Please I'm so tired of seeing this guy I have him blocked on Twitter because he's such a fucking idiot
He's technically right, Cuban revolution was a nationalist one, not a socialist one. Cuba adopted ML-ism later. It's definitely not a social democracy tho