-27
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2024
-27 points (34.1% liked)
Memes
45965 readers
1519 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The guards are looking for Marxists to kill
Why do you believe that? The vast majority of Marxists globally see the PRC as Socialist. The PRC’s economy is dominated by Public Property and Central Planning, the fact that it has a Private Sector does not alone mean it isn’t Socialist, to the contrary it's dependence on the Public Sector as the dominant and driving sector of the economy means it is Socialist.
Source?
Even ignoring the hundreds of millions of Chinese Marxists, Marxist-Leninist consensus is that the PRC is Socialist, and Marxism-Leninism is by far the most common subset of Marxism globally. In the West, Trots and Maoists are more common due to their anti-AES stance and thus lack of material threat to the status quo, but Marxism-Leninism is still the most common subset!
What I want to ask is what you believe Socialism to be, because there's a clear Marxist answer to that question.
Source for that Marxist-Leninist consensus? Is there a poll or something?
Check the party lines of Marxist-Leninist parties. Even if you take the (fairly chauvanistic) stance that we can't trust Chinese Marxist-Leninists, FRSO, PSL, the CPUSA, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, all consider the PRC to be Socialist. I would be surprised if you could find an ML party that goes against that consensus.
So the majority of party lines explicitly accept China as socialist? There's a big difference between that and saying the majority of individual Marxists accept it, which is what you originally claimed.
There are plenty of geopolitical reasons to flatter China outside of actually thinking they're socialist.
Most Marxists are members of parties, if they aren't then they aren't really Marxists. Marxism isn't an intellectual fascination, but a means to change the world, if you abandon the crucial element of it then you abandon its purpose.
But individual Marxists don't need to conform to the party line. And do the party lines explicitly call out China as socialist, or is that your interpretation from other tenants? Could you link a section?
"Individual Marxists" is a bit of an error. Marxism is a social theory, and posits that in order to truly know something you must put it to practice. The opinion of a Marxist that does not organize is generally inferior to one who does, because organizing informs truths about application of theory to practice. Either way, here is FRSO celebrating the PRC as a quick example.
That sounds like you're taking about the vast majority of individual Marxists, not the majority of Marxist parties. If you meant that, I would recommend rephrasing to say
Parties are made up of people, so yes, the vast majority of individual Marxists hold that opinion, indicated by party lines. This is semantics.
Are the party lines decided democratically? The. I'd agree with you.
I can't speak for every party adhering to this perfectly, but Marxist-Leninists are Democratic Centralists, ie diversity of discussion, Unity in Action. In most cases, the Party Lines are decided either through direct democracy or through elected Cadre discussing it openly and the party adopting it as such. The concept of an unaccountable leadership is antithetical to Marxism-Leninism, ergo it is reasonable to assume that party members side with the party line, otherwise they wouldn't be a part of the org.
The article you linked as a demonstration of the party line looks like it was only one person's editorial, Mick Kelly. Could you link something that was democracy decided?
Here's the Party Program. At this point, though, you appear to be trying to find semantical holes, rather than acknowledging that official statements by the party are agreed upon by the party.
To me it's fascinating seeing people in the US try to act like 'democracy' is their highest value when the US and liberal manifestations of 'democracy' are often manifestly antidemocratic. I can see a line of argument from an anarchist angle about the lack of total consensus and tyranny of the majority, but in practice some of the most oppressed groups in China are going to be newly wealthy businesses owners who are unable to translate their wealth into political power -something which would be ultimately antidemocratic, but normal under liberal 'democracy'.
Exactly! Excellent point. Honestly, Xi Jinping's Democracy is Not an Ornament is genuinely a great read on the subject. What matters is if a system is achieving positive results for the people in a manner they support, regardless of whether or not each individual policy was voted on by the masses.