It was really annoying back when I was a rightist but it’s even more frustrating now that I am a Marxist-Leninist that so-called “leftists” denounce pretty much every single successful socialist experience in history.
Dislikes already coming I see. The libs must have spotted this post already.
it seems like this community ends up on “All” fairly frequently, we might need some new mods @felipeforte@lemmygrad.ml
What could mods do?
Of course, they can only issue community-local bans and remove comments, but that may be enough for those who stumble upon posts in communities like these without knowing it’s on Lemmygrad, or what Lemmygrad is. Otherwise, all the work will be left to the admins
My guess is that its mostly a result of them not yet realising how much western red scare propaganda influences their opinion on things.
Its one thing to realise or mode of production is deeply flawed another to put capitalism as a whole at fault and yet another to start questioning ones every assumption.
Honestly I feel like there is a bit of a gap when it comes to easily approachable information. A lot of the youtube content which talks about the Soviet Union from a ML perspective expects the viewer to have some understanding of ML ideals. I think content which serves to not prove to the viewer ML ideas but to show what Marxist Leninist believe.
As an example the CPR. Red scare actions are still active thus the status quo opinion is that anything but an uncritical aggression towards the CPR is an extremist position.
TL;DR: while red scare actions by western media and institutions definetly has an impact, approachability for non MLs definetly could be improved.
I think you’re missing the Dem Soc perspective; arguing that AES isn’t “true” Socialism/Communism let’s them ignore the imperfections of reality in favor of the ideals/positives which is an easier sell to an electorate. Its also a lot easier for political hopefuls to go along with the red scare rather than fight it.
I agree with you. They annoy me more than any other argument I hear. I tend to just ask people who say this: what gives them a right to make chauvinistic judgements against states and people that are increasing the material rights of the people while they sit in their western country benefiting off of the aggressive actions against said states.
They’re right, if it had been real communism they would have been gulaged and reeducated.
I can’t remember seeing anybody unjokingly saying ‘that wasn’t real socialism/communism’. That is not nearly as common as anticommunists make it out to be. If you mean the pedants rejecting the people’s republics as socialist or communist, then yes, I occasionally see that and I do find it tiresome.
I’ve said this before, but attempting to review my comment results in an error page, so I’ll repeat myself: it isn’t that I completely disagree. I am unaware of any people’s republic that has completely abolished capital, the law of value, and generalized commodity production, so I do consider the people’s republics merely presocialist…but the same could be same about the Paris Commune. Waving off the people’s republics because they failed to meet all of socialism’s criteria is an uninteresting, pedantic counterargument that gets us nowhere.
Instead, integrate the people’s republics into the broader continuity of class struggle, like the strikers who prioritize better working conditions over the long‐term goal of capitalism’s abolition. When we disempower capitalists and empower ourselves, we can make substantial progress in spite of the capitalists relegated to the background. For example, when the DPRK severely weakened landlords, the communists rapidly improved agriculture now that their opponents were out of the way. Such progress would have been impossible in an economy that prioritized profit over need. In effect, the communists diminished the phenomena of capital, the law of value, and generalized commodity production.
That is why I rarely mention my own classification of the people’s republics as presocialist. The achievements that the working masses made are far more important and interesting to me than their imperfections.
I’ll bite. What successful socialist experiences are being denounced?
Primarily China. Some western leftists can’t understand that having markets doesn’t mean a country isn’t socialist.
deleted by creator
Western leftists often denounce all of them (Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, and the historical experiments), as well as the non-Marxist attempts at socialism like in Venezuela, despite never having achieved anything remotely close to socialism in their own countries
I see that Russia isn’t on your list, is it a socialist state or something else?
Depends on what you mean by Russia. If you mean the Soviet Union, then yes, they were most definitely socialist, even though revisionists would later take over and steer it towards the path of complete capitalist restoration.
If you mean modern Russia, then no, they are not socialist, they are capitalist. They have more state-owned industries than normal capitalist societies and oppose the West, but that’s like saying Iran is socialist because the exact same description I just mentioned fits them as well. Just because the Russian government sometimes says good things about the Soviet Union doesn’t make them socialist or wannabe socialist either, they are just trying to win over the many Russians who are nostalgic for the Soviet era. The Russian government is very much anti-socialist.
Thank you for the explanation. I’ve seen a lot of support for Russia, so I thought you guys thought they were socialists. I’m still learning about all this, I’m quite new to being on the left.
The RF (Russian Federation) is capitalist through and through and openly opposes communism, being the direct descendant of the coup and violent overthrow of the Soviet Union, and being capitalist they will eventually enter their imperialist phase but they’re not here yet.
You see the RF forces in Syria defending the legitimate government against NATO attempts at regime change, and you see them also getting closer to China which ultimately strengthens them both as well as the Global South (imperialised countries). Russia is essentially active at the side of the imperialised.
It’s all skilful ploys for their own survival, but fact of the matter is there is no way the RF will be able to enter their imperialist phase as long as the US and their vassals own most of the world’s resources. So the first order of business for the RF is to position themselves against the current imperialist bloc (much like how WW1 was a war to redistribute the world’s resources between colonial powers), and then after that they hope their capitalism will have developed enough by that point to, combined with diminishing US imperialism, become an imperial power of their own.
The RF is in a certain unique position where they’re neither imperialists or being imperialised, which are the two positions most of the world falls into. They decided to join the side of the imperialised, I think because they learned very soon from Yeltsin that Russia was not going to be joining the ranks of Western Europe as beneficiaries of imperialism, but as victims of it. There’s actually videos of Putin meeting with heads of state like Clinton and Tony Blair before his election or shortly after (and there’s also a video where Yeltsin says Putin didn’t return his phone call when he won the election lol), they really thought they could get him to become a comprador and sell off more of Russia’s resources – what little had not been sold by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. I think the fact that Putin said no to becoming a comprador and has been improving the quality of life in Russia (which was abysmal under Yeltsin, one of the worst humanitarian crisis in history) shows some vision, for lack of a better word. But capitalism enters an imperial phase sooner or later, whether Putin wants it or not.
But here you might see a contradiction – if Russia is able to help the imperialised world throw off the chains of NATO (being used as a shorthand here for the imperial core), how will they ensure that they get to pilfer those resources for themselves? If you help countries defend themselves, how can you then invade them and pillage them for yourself?
I don’t have an answer, and I don’t think Russia has an answer either – as capitalists, they probably don’t even realise it works like that. Although, like Marx said, the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. In other words, the socialist past Russia experienced informs them to this day whether they realize it or not, and you can still see some of those remnants in Putin, the way he talks about certain geopolitical developments. So maybe they do have some idea of how they would achieve that.
But honestly Russia’s imperialist phase is still quite far in the future and most communists agree that the biggest contradiction (and challenge) today is NATO imperialism, chiefly the United States. It’s a more pressing matter than Russia maybe possibly becoming imperialist in whoever knows how long.
Hey btw if you don’t understand any of the terms here I highly recommend you look them up on https://en.prolewiki.org!
Thank you for this, very interesting. I think I’m going to have to read more of prolewiki.
The reason for that is many of us feel the primary roadblock to socialism is American Hegemony so states which actively resist America receive critical support. Other common examples are Al-Assad’s Syria and Ghadaffi’s Libya.
Due to the tendency of the circlejerk the critical part tends to be silent, also as no other state has the same global influence as America, their flaws frankly matter less.
Realpolitik/critical support. Russia balkanizes and now the US has several new vassal states on China’s border. Russia will also continue being punished for having been the USSR until the end of time, which makes them act in anti-imperialistic ways, not by choice like the Soviets, but outta necessity. Putin did wanna be NAFO afterall, but again, critical support. The enemy of my enemy and so on and so on
It’s repeated constantly but definitely do read theory and take notes. Otherwise you’ll continue debates settled 100+ years ago and just in general be led around by the nose
so I thought you guys thought they were socialists. I’m still learning about all this, I’m quite new to being on the left.
I encourage you to read about the concept of critical support; you can have fundamental disagreements with somebody that you support in a particular aspect. Things do not have to binary 100% support/oppose.
Most of us understand a lot of the underlying reasons Russia is in the conflict that they are in. We also recognize that we have a mutual enemy in NATO. While at a glance that may look like we really support Russia right now, that is mostly because we don’t have the same kneejerk reaction against them in the current political climate. It does not mean we support Russia blindly or that we think they are socialist nation. They aren’t even a particular ally to socialism, but we can still support them when our interests align.
There are some people who think that because the USSR was socialist (true) that so is modern Russia, but that is generally a liberal point of view.
Do you mean modern Russian Federation? It’s not socialist in the slightest
I’d argue that for several of the “experiences” on this list that success really depends on who you are and they aren’t or weren’t so great for everyone. And, certainly they all have socialist policies, but similar how it would be inaccurate to define the US as entirely capitalist, socialism isn’t the only defining characteristic. China, for instance, is more strongly characterized by its fascism.
And the DPRK? By what measurement is this considered successful?
That said, I’m certainly not intimately familiar with all of them, and if socialism didn’t have positive successes in the world I wouldn’t support it.
And the DPRK? By what measurement is this considered successful?
Idk, I’m pretty sure something pretty major happened ~70 years ago? I can’t really remember though…
Just kidding I’m not a liberal who forgets history if the media isn’t shoveling its interpretation of it into my mouth, the DPRK was bombed into the fucking stone age, and didn’t have the United States to pump billions and billions of dollars to rebuild itself, just some help from the USSR and China who couldn’t afford to pump anywhere near the amount of capital into their economy like the US could into Japan and SK, so considering all that I think they’ve been quite successful for their material conditions
I haven’t been since the pandemic, and I know it hit them pretty hard, but it was a much nicer place than a lot of liberals think it is. They are always opening new housing projects that are actually REALLY nice. Wide variety of food and services, as long as you don’t care about having specific brand names on everything you consume. The best part was definitely that people actually had time to live.
I lived in SK (about one year) and the DPRK (aobut three months) thanks to my grad school research, and I can say that I would much prefer to live in the DPRK than SK again. SK is an absolute unchecked exploitative capitalist hellscape, I am not sure there is a country on earth with worse work-life balance. I live in Japan and SK makes us look like a workers paradise.
Wow that’s pretty cool! I’d love to visit the DPRK one day but it’s literally illegal for me as an American :/
Maybe it will be possible again, it wasn’t too long ago Americans could still go. Would be happy to answer any questions you had then, though my trip wasn’t the normal tourism one so probably a bit different.
Oh I’d love to hear about your experience! I imagine since you had such an extended stay, you didn’t have any kind of chaperone with you?
The North was also had better conditions than the South before the 90s when like idk probably nothing important happened in the 90s
Yes exactly
You have brainworms. Worms for brains. I say this in the most heartfelt way possible. You probaby think you’ve figured the world out, but all you’re doing is getting further away from any reasonable assessment. You’re veering into mysticism and you think you understand stuff, but the more you think about it the less you understand.
I know because all of us here on Lemmygrad have had that happen to us.
It comes from the media mostly because where else would you get the idea that China is fascist if you didn’t hear about it in the media?
It’s not that complicated.
You can get rid of those brainworms if you actually read marxist theory.
Again, I know because it happened to all of us here on Lemmygrad when we opened a book.
it would be inaccurate to define the US as entirely capitalist
You’re right, the US is also defined by its fascism. I have no idea where you pulled that out from regarding China. Like you look at the US, you look at China, and you decide China is the fascist? You realize you’re giving arguments for a mounting war against China when you say idiotic stuff like that, right?
If you don’t realize it, then you need to do more reading.
it would be inaccurate to define the US as entirely capitalist
How would you define it then?
China, for instance, is more strongly characterized by its fascism.
I would also like to know your definition of fascism
According to those people, China is fascist because of the made-up genocide, as well as the liberals’ misconception of authority. That’s enough to call China fascist in their view. I hope this person answers you because I want to ask wtf they think is the motivation for this bizarre genocide. I always wanted to question a liberal about this but I never had the opportunity.
I knew right when they said that China was fascist that we had a liberal on our hands.
Obvious before that I think
America is pretty much a shadow government run by oil corporations, weapons manufacturers and finance capital where Amazon warehouse workers are not able to form unions because the government lets Amazon wield their trillion dollar union busting might with no repercussions but please tell us how it is not entirely capitalist.
Please give some examples of Chinese fascism (with some kind of evidence, not just baseless allegations by bourgeois media), and your definition of fascism
Like Cuba, the DPRK is extremely successful considering the genocidal sanctions imposed upon it by the imperial core. The level of convenience certainly varies between cities like Pyongyang and rural areas, but they’ve been severely restricted by the aforementioned sanctions as well as the destruction caused by the US during the invasion of Korea (destroying most large buildings and killing 20% of the population)
Please give some examples of Chinese fascism
Okay.
Am I doing this right?
What evidence do you have to suggest China is fascist? They don’t follow any of the characteristics of fascism. And the DPRK has liften a huge amount of its population out of extreme poverty, defended national sovereignty and ended the (prior to its formation) extremely common famines. They’ve also caused the industrialization of the country which has created a more stable nation. They also helped stop the growth of US imperialism in the Korean peninsula.
Did you really just call China fascist? 🫢
The Soviet Union, China, Korea, GDR, Yugoslavia, basically every single Marxist-Leninist nation. I’m not really referring to Maoists and Hoxhaists (though they can be annoying as well but are more tolerable to me), I’m referring to the majority of the “not real socialism” gang which most rightists like to mock, which are democratic socialists, pseudo-Marxists, and anarchists.
