it’s not about purity, if workers don’t control their workplace they still need mechanisms to assert themselves against their employer collectively. even if there’s no formal structure you can’t completely prevent wildcat strikes, spontaneous walkouts etc. the siege isn’t an excuse to not provide PPE or something that the government might not act quickly enough on.

You’re going to have to convey you at least understand the counter-perspective otherwise you just come across as a chauvinist bigot.

Why the white-mans-burden perpsective? You can’t help yourself? Even if what you say is true (it’s not), it’s a worker’s state and therefore it’s their contradiction to resolve; you’re giving the impression of larping while conveniently dovetailing western hegemonic narratives. Plenty of NGOs that fit this mould crying crocodile tears.

Think what the logical end point of what you are implying; you feel workers’ rights have not been sufficiently addressed and they ultimately do not have an outlet to address this… in a worker’s state. Which means you really don’t think it is one.

Westernism is a disease.

Scandinavian countries have trade unions; Norway in particular has labour unions that have enough leverage (for now) to help maintain the largest per capita pension fund in the world with one of the highest HDIs in the world. It could be argued amongst the west it has an extensive welfare state. Does all of that make Norway a socialist country or is it still a capitalist country (tip: it’s still a capitalist country)? Would having pro-social projects negate its overall dictatorship by capital?

On the counterside, would elements of capital negate the socialist state? If so, what is your scientific theory of liberation for the global south that supercedes marxism-leninism?

See, here, socialism is scientific. We went with presumptions of your westernism (you are not alone in thinking like this and a lot of us on these threads were liberals before we were MLs) to see where it took us. Armchair socialism never has to truly consider the realities of how to survive the siege by the west; it only needs to romanticise revolution.

Allowing capital mechanisms under the dictatorship of the proleteriat will bring its own contradictions; it does not mean “carte blanche” and those contradictions will have to be resolved but China does not have to stand up against Western “purity” tests.

Further reading, if you are interested:

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/8707769/6781575

Marxism is a science.

The Soviet Union is not a dogmatic blueprint of what is to be done; we learn the lessons from it - good and bad - along with socialism of how it is practised along the ages globally (including Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam, and attempts at pro-social projects such as Venuzuela, Kerala and Naxalites, and pro-social projects in the Sahel (especially Ibrahim Traore). There are many other historical attempts including Sankara, Cabral, and in Indonesia before the Jakharta Method to name a few.), and then apply it to local material conditions.

We have to consider (1) the USSR fell (2) socialism did not stop at its borders (3) and therefore socialism endured globally including learning from its errors.

One has to understand dialectics, one of the tenets of which is that elements of what is before will be in the synthesis of the new.

If we consider universal healthcare such as the NHS in the UK could be considered a pro-social project under a capitalist country, then in China the “inverse” could be considered where capital is under the power of the proleteriat state.

Like I said Marxism is a science. It is, however, really difficult to do randomised controlled trials for political economies but fortunately we have an almost equivalent in this timeline; India. Compare, what a dictatorship for capital (India) and a dictatorship against capital (China) looks like.

Consider if China is “capitalist” why can’t other capitalist countries replicate the speed of progression and development?

How do you explain 800 million people lifted out of poverty? Because if this is not socialism - and you think this is capitalism - then you have to then concede that capitalism is the best system out there. The system that feeds the poor wins.

Assuming one has the intellectual curiousity to want to understand the counter viewpoint from the “enemy’s” perspective (for you here it appears to be “Dengism”) - ie to be able to make their arguments convincingly - then here is further reading:

(1) Tricontinental Institute: Serve the People - the eradication of extreme poverty

https://thetricontinental.org/studies-1-socialist-construction/

(2) Explaining high external efficacy in authoritarian countries: a comparison of China and Taiwan (a study by liberals doing mental gymnastics when they discover China is more democratic than liberal democracies):

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2016.1183196

(3) Redsails - Why Marxism

https://redsails.org/why-marxism/

(4) Why the World Needs China by Kyle Ferrana

There are further resources such as critiques on Western Marxism by the likes of Rockhill, Losurdo and Prashad, and lots more articles such as the Why China has Billionaires by Redsails but the above is a good starting point for those lurking and interested.

(Yes this is not a point by point rebuttal debate-bro style, this is an attempt to consider the deeper question on whether China is socialist)

1. the “scandal” is a hoax
2. capitalists are priests but at the altar of capital

Thanks for sharing this article.

The Trump-Russian “scandal” was clearly bourgoisie political theatre but the article was sometimes challenging to read due to the Proudhonist sentiment running through it. And one would be more upset by Clintons’ numerous transgressions against humanity than their attempts here to maintain political power.

Given the USAmerican political system I don’t know by their standards this could even be considered corruption. If NAFTA/prison industry complex with effective imprisonment and purposeful underdevelopment of the descendants of chattel slavery/concentration camps for migrants/multiple mass murders abroad/multiple governments overthrown and countries destablised don’t register as corruption I am not sure if this fits on that scale. And this is not the litmus test for the destruction for various three letter agencies; again they have countless countless crimes against humanity that surpass this.

He is part of a vanguard with a governing system that is a dictatorship against capital.

Marxism is a science. It shouldn’t matter what you call yourself when it is practised.

Please keep posting if you can

Ideological purity is not helpful.

If marxism is a science then may be the ideology needs updating. I think we all have our purity filters or litmus tests of what is acceptable. The question here is does our filter allow for revolutionary pragmatism, as you have rightly pointed out.

And for me it hinges on measurable objective development; the development of China with 800 million lifted out of poverty with ongoing rapid progress - and using the bird-in-cage model to be able to do this for their material conditions, and in sharp contrast to India - is a shining example of this.

What are the strategic consequences of decisively rejecting the tripartite social theory advanced by Orwell, and adopting Marx’s all-encompassing one instead? The basic call to action looks something like this:

Stop accusing the masses of being “brainwashed.” Stop treating them as cattle, stop attempting to rouse them into action by scolding them with exposure to “unpleasant truths.”

Accept instead that they have been avoiding those truths for a reason. You were able to break through the propaganda barrier, and so could they if they really wanted to. Many of these people see you as the fool, and in many cases not without reason.

Understanding people as intelligent beings, craft a political strategy that convincingly makes the case for why they and their lot are very likely to benefit from joining your political project. Not in some utopian infinite timescale, but soon.

If you cannot make this case, then forget about convincing the person in question. Focus instead on finding other people to whom such a case can be made. This will lead you directly to class analysis.

https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/

You think this party is a nothingburguer because Corbin made quite bad mistakes in the past as a political leader?

It is to do with the masses/electorate; that is how you sublate Great Man Theory. (And it is “Corbyn”) If there are meaningful successes it will be despite his present politics.

He was a leader where party members were fired in the name of fighting “anti-semitism” while there was ethnic cleansing ongoing. At the height of his career in Labour he staffed it with liberal zionists. He was a longstanding member of a party over the past century responsible for various war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And despite the above people want to rally around him; what does that then say about those masses that they are privileged enough to ignore those mistakes? That at best they give the impression that they are happy to have the loot of imperialism shared more equitably? That this is a vehicle to blunt the edge of what could be achieved by still acquiescing to bourgoisie electoralism?

Is being better than a majority of other Western politicians the low bar that one wants to hold as a high standard?

Revolutionary potential will be despite all of the above, not because of it.

To dismiss the lessons of the global south is a bigoted lens only Westernism can permit. Instead, learn from their organising under much more challenging circumstances with significantly less resources.

For those lurking please read broadly, educate yourself and open your mind of what could be possible.

Every time this happens it is further proof that Marxism-leninism is a winning formula and why it is needed to defeat western supremacism and exploitation. And it is ridiculously racist when westernism hold socdems as shining beacons of hope effectively dismissing the lessons learned from the Global South.

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/8664906/6765809

So what is Corbyn’s scientific theory of political change that supercedes marxism? What about his new party’s? What are they going to differently this time given decades of failure? Do you know why CommieJones brought up Kautsky? Why is your winning theory socdem tailism?

What material conditions did you identify in Batista’s Cuba that were similar to neo-imperialist Britain that you felt were significant enough to be compelled to make that comparison? What characteristics of the electorate have you identified with more revolutionary potential than those before them for the past century especially post October revolution when there were actual marxist led movements?

Do you understand marxism is a science?

Further reading for those lurking:

(1) https://redsails.org/why-marxism/

(2) How Gene Sharp’s Neoliberal Nonviolence Shaped the Left (2020): https://redsails.org/marcie-smith-gene-sharp/

(3) Imperialism and the Split in Socialism: https://redsails.org/imperialism-and-the-split-in-socialism/

Its the first time the working class is taking a step…

I’m afraid the sentiment is not correct.

https://redsails.org/concessions/

One is really going to have to explain the theory of political change here that bests what is explained in that article; namely workers in the west used the leverage of the USSR to gain concessions (by threatening domestic revolution) that created the “welfare state” of the West but ultimately they were not good enough as it left the exploitation of the global south to fester and still led to present conditions as capital is clawing back (since at least the 1980s) the concessions it gave. Back then you had communist and marxist organisations leading the fray. We don’t even have that here.

Good critique against socdem politics but ultimately they need to lay down a solution ie maybe find who is most revolutionary potential within the UK population and build a socialist mass movement from that with an understanding of scientific socialism.

Having said that, “at least they are trying” is not a valid rebuttal against criticism of socdem politics when what they have been “trying” has failed for decades. There is no theory of political change here outside of bourgoisie electoral politics and not once have they outlined what they are going to do meaningfully different this time. “Creating space” is also further idealist nonsense.

Western marxism is a disease. We are in an ML space and there is still a significant amount of reaction in lemmygrad (“Kautskism”, “ludditism” and orientalism just to name a few, and more the comments than the posts). There are capitalist countries where people have a lot less resources and they do a way better job of organising; the difference is they are in the Global South so maybe that tells us something here.

Maybe the material conditions still have not reached critical mass here. One will need to do a statistical deep dive and derive revolutionary pragmatism from that data. I’m so disillusioned by westerners that I am not sure I care at this stage (the latter of which I realise really isn’t a marxist attitude).

Interesting; thank you for sharing!

It would require deep statistical analysis of the population to see who would benefit from the downfall of USAmerican imperialism and from there a pool of who may have most revolutionary potential (maybe those who are propertyless, which is why the proleteriat are considered the most revolutionary). It is material interests that drives the focus; if your target audience is not going to benefit in the short to medium term from your offer then you’re not going to have a sustainable strategy. You may have those in the vanguard who engage class betrayal but the masses need to know they are going to benefit.

It is not about messaging or finding masses to sacrifice the little they have or brainwashing or any other idealist nonsense. It comes down to what can be offered in the short to medium term that aligns with socialist goals.

Maybe there is a sizable population in the US/West that reflects the above characteristics. Maybe there isn’t as the conditions aren’t there yet. I’m not sure at this point if I care. Maybe one day I will.

No worries. I also forgot a glaring omission: Frantz Fanon.

I have read Cope as well but it was only much later I actually started questioning the dialectics of it; how is the framework useful for transformative change? Which parts do we take? Which ones do we leave etc etc

Still learning here but authors from top of my head include:

1. Walter Rodney
2. Arghiri Emmanuel
3. Samir Amin
4. Ruy Marini
5. Vijay Prashad
6. Silvia Federici
7. Vivek Chibber
8. Immanuel Wallerstein
9. Michael Clouscard
10. Andre Frank

Some of these aren’t marxist (like wallerstein) and some of these have critiques on dependancy theory (like Chibber) to help get a more well rounded overview. The latter two (and number 4) I have not read at all (yet).

Rather than spend a lot of money on books, i would consider library (or elsewhere) ebooks, read the intro chapters, and then look at the contents to see which chapters interest you, and go from there.

Also redsails.org

Addendum - sometimes a framework of purposeful underdevelopment by capital can give better insight than using an unequal exchange lens.

The pride in quazi-fealty is humerous.

There are no gods here.

Western marxism is not the same as eurocommunists, there are “western marxists” all over the world. As westerners, we have to understand unequal exchange /dependancy theory / labour arisotcracy in its totality; from Wallerstein to Amin and beyond (I, too, am still learning).

Furthermore, marxism is a science and the scientists’ individual flaws does not necessarily mean we do not learn the lessons the science may give us; even failures of theories.

With regards to Zak Cope; imperialism hinges on the breakdown of a “just commerce” rather than Marx’s emphasis on the fundamental exploitation of the production itself which led to Lenin’s conjecture on imperialism (this doesn’t necessarily invalidate the unequal exchange, just highlights the limits of his work. I could for, for example, make a similar case for Michael Hudson’s false division of finance and industrial capital). There is no real framework within Cope’s work for vanguardism and overthrowing this dynamic.

In terms of Cope’s later more rabid turn to zionism I can only speculate; maybe with this “just world” sensibility he concluded there are some humans that are then beyond reproach - he may now believe in a hierachy of humans which would make sense why disavowing his earlier work; maybe he was a liberal zionist all along.

To quote elsewhere the pride in these “armchair marxists” is that the never have to worry about revolutionary pragmatism, and they can congratulate themselves looking down their nose on the Global South. I would say that they are very much afflicted with Western Marxism.

Tangents for those lurking:

1. https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
2. marxism =/ trade unionism, marxism =/ workerism

It’s not that difficult to appreciate that in a capitalist country capital holds sway but in a socialist country its sway is eroded; in fact one could measure how “unadvanced” the dictatorship of the proleteriat is by considering how much capital of individuals they are forced to make a public show of seizing it because it may be a threat to their own democracy (yes even China could be considered in the early stages of socialism). Consider the flip-side; would high taxes against the wealthy in a capitalist country make that country socialist? If not, then consider why not? The true measure of socialism before communism, from this perspective, maybe then how that surplus value is used for the proleteriat, and with a dialectical approach how capitalists could be made useful for the proleteriat state.