I’m so fucking tired of all of this, they literally attempted to hit Kremlin with drone before a week and Russia still didn’t curb stomp them for some reason. Hundreds are dying in Donbas still, this has been going on since 2014, Donbas is still not free, soldiers are dying, I don’t even know at this point. What’s the problem in just evaporating Kiev, clown and his neo nazi regime and be done with it? I don’t even know how their army is still functionally operating after all the weapons and infrastructure destroyed and crippled, hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed and hundreds dying daily.
Hordes of nazis on the internet and news don’t show signs of stopping of talking about Ukraine 24/7 even after more than a year of this madness.
I literally can’t take it anymore, when will this end?
deleted by creator
Helping the working class is important, but it depends on how we are helping each other. The aliments inflicted upon us from capitalism require surgery not a bandaid. The bandaid simply promotes the future existence of another bandaid when the wound fails to heal, and another, and another. The misery accumulates. Giving the masses food, shelter, water, etc…is just as important as giving them education, guidance, solidarity, etc…One without the other and we’re just helping the capitalists by being social democrats. Our goal isn’t to lube the system, make it less agonizing so workers enjoy being exploited, it’s to aid in our liberation from capitalism, towards controlling the means of production. This requires praxis, not simply helping the needy. To be a communist is not to be an NGO. This is my point.
deleted by creator
You’re getting there, however you contradicted yourself by stating reforms as a solution among normal solutions. Reforms to ease the suffering is simply reinforcing the system. We can ease the suffering while building revolution, it’s a tactic called dual power. Constant protests simply tire people out and dilute the message with inaction. In the long term and in principle we do not support bourgeois Russia, however in their anti-imperialist struggle against imperial capital we must support Russia. The US global hegemony must be shattered for the liberation of the global south from the yoke of US capital. Yes Russia will be a problem in the future, but that does not mean we do not support the death of the US empire today at the hands of them. They are not ideal but they are what the world has right now. Another reason for us to build faster. Besides these points I believe we agree.
deleted by creator
This conclusion is very much in tune with Western leftism and is indeed the dominant position of the western left (from anarchists through ‘progressive’ liberals and ‘Marxists’ to Mao-Zedong-ists). It is only principled Marxist-Leninists, Third Worldists, and global south Marxists who argue that China really is socialist.
You should read more about this topic and look at it from yet further angles. But you will have to be careful with your sources. Roland Boer’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners could be a good place to start. He talks about the book in this video: https://youtu.be/mgcyqkEOhQc
Alternatively, you could watch the conference papers from the People’s Forum:
Here’s the whole conference: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlpc6eFEd8ot2Nm89KxgYYmduHvdhmhli
Marxists cannot allow themselves to be duped by narratives and frameworks that are created and pushed by Western imperialists.
Grover Furr is renowned for criticising the anti-Soviet / anti-Stalin paradigm. He explains how ‘Soviet studies’, etc, is really ‘anti-Soviet propaganda studies’. It is impossible to get an accurate picture of the Soviet Union by relying mainly on Western sources, even (especially?) academic sources.
See one of Furr’s talks, here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccmj2Lj5jB0&pp=ygULR3JvdmVyIGZ1cnI%3D
Likewise, it is impossible to get an accurate picture of China by reading Western sources. Most of what passes for journalism and academic literature is merely propaganda, written by people who haven’t visited China, don’t read Chinese, and don’t understand Marxism. It’s possible to write good stuff with just one of these traits, but it’s impossible without any of them. And most westerners tick none of these boxes.
As Furr argues, ‘evidence’ is the most radical word in the English language. Anyone who looks honestly for and at the evidence will become a communist. And in this instance, I propose that if you look for the evidence, you will come to a different conclusion on China.
You might also enjoy Carlos L Garrido’s new book, The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism.
deleted by creator
We might be talking past one another a bit, here.
There is indeed a lot of support for China on Lemmygrad, but this is (a) unusual in the west and/because (b) there are lots of mainly MLs (among other critical traditions), here, many of whom are from outside the west.
I agree that the Western left tends to call China socialist and agrees that it is run by a communist party. Even the right wing media call China socialist. E.g. the South China Morning Post – brought to you by the owners of Elle and Cosmopolitan – agree that China is socialist. The question is, what do they mean by that?
The phrase ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’ is fairly universal. And the fact of the CPC (racists call it the CCP and don’t realise the difference) is universally acknowledged, too.
The difference is in what people mean by socialism or communism and how these apply. I don’t mean the theoretical difference between the two. I mean e.g. the western right call China socialist in a derogatory way; the western left often suggest that China’s socialism is really a cynical way of hiding that it is a ‘bourgeois state capitalist nation’, also in a derogatory way.
Bourgeois refers to commodity production, which China is clearly involved in. Transitional states will often have to continue to produce commodities. The USSR did.
China also has a bourgeoisie. The difference is that it is subject to the power of the state. Unlike in the west, where the state is subject to the power of bourgeoisie. You might want to check out Richard Woolf’s videos on China for info on this.
China is not a nation. There are over 50 nations within China. Hence why it’s the Communist Party of China, and cannot be the Chinese Communist Party. Unfortunately, racism is ubiquitous in the west, so it’s difficult to learn the difference from reading western sources. Western media and literature struggle to understand this because the ruling idea in the west, and a central practice of it’s ruling class, is of ethno-states. The eradication of everyone but the ruling ethnicity, i.e. genocide, is of course the foundation of many western states.
(Of course, ‘Chinese’ could refer to something being ‘of or related to China’, rather than to an ethnicity but that doesn’t seem to be what those who say or write ‘CCP’ mean.)
This leads me to your questions. I can’t unpick all these here. There are too many. But I can make a few general comments and suggest that the sources I provided will answer almost all your questions.
You claim that you actively avoid western sources, but almost all your questions are based on narratives created and perpetuated by westerners. All those questions presuppose that the western critics are right.
I’ll reverse the question: if a western source is the only source on a topic about China, why or how do they know something that people in China itself don’t know or talk about?
I could see how a good investigative journalist would uncover information that the person involved tried to hide. But in the scale of ‘things said about China’, there are two problems with this. First, it assumes that Chinese people are as deceptive and disingenuous as western capitalists (this is, unfortunately, a common racist trope).
Second, it assumes that people in China are somehow too subservient or ill-educated to challenge their own government. Both assumptions are racist/Orientalist.
Further: how do westerners purport to do investigative journalism in a country they haven’t visited and where they don’t speak the language?
One of the main problems, here, is discussed in Boer’s book – trying to understand China with western categories. This will only lead to confusion and error. Not because China is somehow too exotic for westerners to understand (please don’t take that from what I said). But because western categories are not Marxist.
To answer your questions, you must either seek alternative sources (try CGTN or Granma to start) or challenge the western sources with dialectical materialism.
(Please could you use shorter paragraphs? It’s hard to read such long blocks of text.)
deleted by creator
You might want to find a copy of Lenin, ‘The Dual Power’. It’s from Pravda, 9 April 2917, if that helps narrow down the search.
His ‘April Theses’ may be easier to find, if not.
deleted by creator