Hello,
Why is every “anti-revisionist” marxist an ultra? “Anti-revisionism” is so amogus because they claim to be the opposite of who they are
…Why is anti-China marxism so big?..
If you were a CIA operative, working out the details of, say, COINTELPRO, and knowing there is a substantial amount of Marxists and communist-leaning people out there… AND one of your goals was to demonize the AES states… Wouldn’t you want to tear off a chunk of potential revolutionaries and defang them, turning them into armchair communists who never achieved anything and who always criticize everyone who did?
Bear in mind that a lot of those are in the West. Parenti spoke ostensibly about leftcoms/ultras (and left-anticommunism). This gets a few people off your mind, making the situation safer for the capitalist state machine at home.
“Neither Washington nor
MoscowBeijing” shitI have found a really simple reframing that can work on a lot of those types of people is “my enemies arent in (insert foreign capitol city) they are in washington”
A lot of them even if they dont get out of that anti-americas enemies mindset recognize the bigger threat to them is domestic politicians.
Parenti’s quote about “supporting every revolution but the ones that succeed” really hit home with me. See also the broader concept of critical support, and viewing states as X% good and Y% bad instead of simply good or bad.
Western leftists do the work of the CIA for free
As a westerner who is not suckling at the teet of the 3 letter agencies its honestly so isolating. Its really hard to make and maintain friendships when even the leftists i meet will randomly start spouting sinophobia.
I feel ya comrade. The isolation feels real.
There are more wreckers trying to take leftism in an American direction than people trying to take it in a Chinese/Vietnamese/Cuban direction
It’s generally an Ultraleft position that is convenient to take for Western “Leftists.” The Dengist reforms were a return to Marxism as opposed to the later end of the Maoist era, where they tried to implement Communism more by decree than degree. Establishing Communism based on fiat goes against Historical Materialism.
The reason it’s convenient for Western “Leftists” is because it supports US Imperial Hegemony, so these views aren’t as heavily combatted by Western media. It’s idealist, not materialist. It’s what happens when you remove Historical Materialism from Marxism and re-insert idealism and utopianism. A good article on the concept is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” They think, through chauvanist analysis, that any AES state that isn’t the immediate pinnacle of civilization is a betrayal of Socialism, not realizing their own betrayal of the Global South in defending Imperialism side by side with neocons.
hey comrade, what do you mean by ‘decree than degree’?
The productive forces largely move independent of individual ideas, but by real, physical mechanisms. Marx believed Socialism to succeed Capitalism not because of an inherent idea of moral superiority, but because Capitalism naturally forms monopolist syndicates, centralizing and socializing itself, making itself ripe for public ownership and management. This is why Marx and Engels repeatedly stated that Private Property could not be abolished overnight. The role of the DotP is to wrest from the bourgeoisie its Capital as it has socialized, steadily increasing and socializing the productive forces.
This is why Marx says the bourgeoisie produces, above all else, its own gravediggers. I recommend reading the article I linked, the author also has another article called Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. Mao was able to develop the productive forces, but due to socializing too early there were recessions and struggles. This was a left-deviation, Maoism as Marxism-Leninism applied to China’s conditions had reached a less useful stage, where Deng moved rightward, back as Marxism-Leninism applied to China’s conditions of the late 20th century, and now Xi is a reversion to a leftward point now that China is socializing more and more and exerting more control over their markets, in a sort of birdcage model where Capital can only move with their consent in plans and lines directed by the CPC. Deng’s analysis using Marxism-Leninism served its purpose, as did Mao’s, both served critical points in the PRC’s history before being succeeded by new analysis for new material conditions.
I’m sure a more well-read comrade will be able to offer better explanations, however. I’m still a baby ML
I’m still a baby ML
A baby ML that imho understands DiaMat and ML better than many ultras. Keep it up, comrade
Thanks, comrade!
This, its an ultraleft position.
because whites think they know best. it’s laughable, you don’t even need to entertain their arguments. tell them to shut up and point at what china has accomplished for its people in the last 30 years then ask them to pick those accomplishments apart. watch them fail. firstly, they’re going to expose themselves as the reactionaries they are, completely disregarding any sort of marxist analysis if they’re even capable of making it in the first place, and they’ll say everything good in china is thanks to capitalism (false), and secondly they’ll show that they’re nothing but baby brained libs and start talking about some theoretical utopian socialism that should exist and would be the only legitimate form of government that china could have if they want to call themselves socialist, meanwhile they will likely make the “um you hate socialism?? guess u dont like the military” argument to chuds or they’ll act like social democracy in scandinavia is “the type of socialism ‘’‘‘we’’‘’’ want”. scandinavian social democracy of course being european extraction capitalism in africa and the middle east and asia.
The compatible left in Amerika is why I don’t organize with mixed organizations unless I see Black and brown bodies running the show (and no, I don’t care that we’re only 10% of the population; the crackers won’t liberate us so ig we gotta do it ourselves). Crackers who think they know better about AES are the most prone to simultaneously holding to one or more facets of white supremacy at the same time-- if they’re compatible, you can pretty much count on a dozen other comorbid reactionary brainworms.
I think it is mostly because of heavily ingrained western chauvinism and white supremacy. If you are normal, decent human being in the imperial core and if you have a sober view of the collective atrocities committed by the colonial, settler and imperial powers, I find it hard to see how you are not so consumed by tangible disdain of the foundation of your civilisation that you have the time and energy to stand shoulder to shoulder with neocons in criticising global south countries for their perceived flaws. I think it’s because of racism more often than not.
I think it is mostly because of heavily ingrained western chauvinism and white supremacy.
sums up so much of why people in the West think the way they doI think it’s because of racism more often than not.
I think this plays a large factor. One can see this in the Philipines and India too (for the general populatuon rather than marxists alone). I think the propaganda often ends up being an advertisement for a license of bigotry rather a tool of “mind-control”.
Anticommunist sentiment still lingering.
Often referred to as the “Compatible Left”, like others have described, the ruling class in the west cannot simply suppress Marxist thought outright, that would pierce the veil to some degree and cause a much harsher backlash. Instead, the goal is to remove the fangs of Marxist thought by demonizing AES countries, and silencing true radicals and revolutionaries. Leaving only what the CIA calls the “Compatible Left” behind.
This could either be a designed outcome, or it simply is how Marxism has developed under the harsh pressures of the Red Scare and the Cold War. Most of the revolutionary voices within America have either been assassinated or run out of the country, leaving only the more “compatible” thinkers within the country.
Another problem that likely contributes to this is literacy rates. 54% of adults in America have a literacy below a 6th-grade level, with 20% being below a 5th-grade level. The US ranks 36th in the world for literacy rates. I think many people might subscribe to the ideas of Marxism, without actually having read much if anything from the vast trove of Marxist literature. The Manifesto might be the only thing they’ve read, and it’s hard to say they really understood its ideas. This leads to misconceptions and false conclusions by those who are under educated on the topic.
There is a reason why one of the first things that happens in almost any socialist revolution is the institution of reading programs, attempting to make the population more literate. Not only does higher literacy increase productive output, but it also ensures that people have the opportunity to read theory and become more educated on the ideas that the revolution was built on.
I just found a short video about the compatible left (poopy audio)
Ohh, Ben Norton, solid choice. I listen to his news stories as a podcast, usually the same day they drop. He does great western narrative debunking and does not pull any punches. He’ll censor himself from saying genocide outright just to avoid the algorithm censorship but otherwise is as plain as can be.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
“anti-revisionist” marxists are the most revisionist mf’ers out there. Can’t revision any harder than by throwing materialism out of the window.
Well… If by “anti-revisionist” one means “anti-Gorbachev” - I’m all in.
I find that labeling one-self as an anti-revisionist is kind of a misnomer. Practically all well-read communists are anti-Gorbachev and anti-revisionist. But anti-revisionism shouldn’t be treating communism akin to a religious dogma, it should be recognizing that it is a constantly-evolving science, not a holy book, which is the mistake that most who call themselves “anti-revisionist” seem to make.
I think this is why I find Leftist people hard to follow. So many grey areas, so much to learn not to fall a category that would do more harm than good.
As someone who used to be one of those people, there is an emotional appeal to thinking that Deng betrayed socialism.
For us in the west who have little hope for socialism succeeding here, we have to look outwards for positive examples. As it turns out, all examples of actually existing bolshievism are dead, even if you aknowledge that dengist reforms were necessary to modernise china and survive in a post-soviet world. This is a bitter pill to swallow.
What it took for me to get out of thinking was to understand that Chinese socialism does not exist to satisfy my dreams of utopia. Once the emotional aspect faded away, I could analyse the situation in china properly. Learning materialism by actually reading Engels and listening to lectures from a Chinese professor allowed me to finally have a sensible base level understanding of China.
As it turns out, all examples of actually existing bolshievism are dead
Except north korea, which is propagandised to hell and back
The DPRK does have some market reforms though, just not to the same extent as China.
First of all, even Dengists agree to there being a lot of revisionism in the Soviet Union for the majority of its existence, so we can hardly throw the “anti-revisionist” title out just like that. Second, there were and are a lot of Marxists who believed in some approximation of what Mao was doing even towards the end of his life, who see Deng being reinstated from the exile Mao put him in, and seizing power by banishing all the Maoists as being essentially a coup. This was followed by a massive reversal of many different policies, seizing collectively owned land from the people and selling it off, re-establishing the bourgeoisie, and ostensibly abandoning class struggle which you can hopefully forgive them for perceiving as being not very Marxist.
Even if you end up supporting what he did, most SWCC-ers do not deny that he was a right-deviationist, which is a subcategory of revisionism, they just also accuse Mao of being a revisionist to the left in equal measure. How they can both be “70% good” when they were so fundamentally opposed to each other is, uh, difficult math to swing.
For the record, I do think China remains a historically progressive force and should be completely supported over the US, so I guess I haven’t explained what would be the literal meaning of “Anti-China marxism”, but a lot of people use that phrase to ask about Maoists rather than Trots (people who totally oppose China, usually), so I chose that interpretation.
I explain it as that modern China would be nothing without Mao, but also may not have gotten as far as it has without Deng.
Western propaganda is really really good at what it does
It’s a way for people in the west to maintain their defense of the status quo and western chauvinism while still pretending to oppose capitalism.
deleted by creator
it isn’t. “anti-China” everything is only big in the Anglophone world because the Anglosphere is is made up of colonial powers.
