Sorry if this question seems inflammatory or uninformed, it comes from a place of simple curiosity.
While getting into socialist theory, partly through breadtube content, I often stumbled upon creators/commentators/writers who absolutely crucify the US (rightfully so in many regards), but either justify wrongdoings of the CCP/Russian regime or outright support them.
To me it seems absolutely incongruous to claim socialist ideals for oneself but to champion authoritarian regimes that have ties to Socialism merely semantically or through some spurious historical traditions.
Can you enlighten me about this? Thank you.
Dude most leftist I meet in real life can’t even agree on how to eat hotdogs. I love em in my mouth
People will believe some preposterous things to keep their beliefs intact. Capitalists somehow still believe that markets efficiently allocate resources, and any evidence they don’t is chalked up to government interference or whatever. Christians believe that saying “God works in mysterious ways” and/or “that’s the price of free will” accounts for how fucked up the world is. And communists believe that, when a communist does it, it’s not an atrocity.
… either justify wrongdoings of the CCP/Russian regime or outright support them.
Can you give some examples?
absolutely incongruous to claim socialist ideals for oneself but to champion authoritarian regimes that have ties to Socialism merely semantically or through some spurious historical traditions.
Can you be more specific here, too? Who is getting support merely for their traditions? What ‘authoritarian’ regimes are getting support? And what do you mean by authoritarian?
What do you mean by having ‘ties to Socialism merely semantically’?
These are not rhetorical questions. You don’t have to answer them all, but I’ll follow up on the ones that you do answer.
Nostalgia in part and desperation for some form of win. In 1991, the Soviet experiment dismantled itself, no thanks to the tireless efforts of its enemies, but what was once the world’s second superpower became little more than another colony of the West. Its wealth and gains for its peoples sold off to the highest bidder. Liberal academics called it the end of history for a reason.
But there is more to the issue. The Cold War proved there was no lie too great for the West to peddle to destroy its enemy. No boundary it would not cross. I’ve even read Gorbachev once cried in his car because Reagan would not shut up about the Star Wars project at a nuclear disarmament conference. A project we now know was little more than science fiction. Nazis in Ukraine? Read about Operation Bloodstone. They were present in the country way before 2014 and anyone with geopolitical knowledge knew it.
So with Russia it is because Russia, while not the Soviet Union, still occasionally stands up to the United States like the good ole days. This is amusingly a poor reading of Lenin, who made it very clear what his stance was on inter-capitalist conflict. There is nothing wrong with rooting for NATO lose though. Putin himself despises the Soviet legacy. He pulled pensions from the half a million red army women who served, describes Bolshevism as a stab in the back (not-so-subtle dog-whistle there) and only pays it lip services when he remembers most of his country wants it back.
China, on the other hand, is a harder one to explain. Much of what we learn about China in the West is just straight made up. And I mean it. The great firewall isn’t just a pejorative. It protects the sensitive ears of the West from China as much as it protects them from the West. This has been exacerbated by the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” which has the express goal of containing China.
Let me ask what wrongdoings of China are being defended? How far back you want to rewind decades of propaganda with the explicit goal of demonizing the country? Or are we speaking of more recent claims like Uyghurs? However, your question was why defend it. I’ll answer that one. Because China still considers itself on the path to Socialism. This isn’t a Russia situation. China still keeps its private sector locked in special economic zones and monitors them heavily. It still prioritizes common prosperity and has provided many third world countries an alternative to the IMF.
China’s road to socialism was always going to be different since it was … on the other side of the world, from where the theories of socialism were written. But Lenin himself described socialism as ascending a high mountain. It might take many tries. Even restarts to get it right but is better China handles its path its way than trying to conform to some stringent imagined idea of what socialism should be. Therefore it is worthy of defense.
I dont have an answer on how this happens but it is also frustrating to me. Russian government is straight up fascist and yet you see people coping hard justifying their actions.
Maybe they are unaware that Mao and Lennin are dead and their current leaders are a whole galaxy away from continuing their legacy. (I dont even justify Mao since he was a cruel strongman who killed way too many innocent people once in power).
How are you defining fascism? Is it broad enough to include NATO members? Is it broad enough to include neo-nazis?
You seem to have a positive view of Lenin. Is that right? If so, what do you think of Lenin?
Bro look at the writings about fascism by Umberto Eco to have an idea about how I do define Fascism.
The US is 100% fascist. Many NATO members too. Who the fuck wouldnt think Neo nazis are fascist? That is the most obvious place to look at.
I dont wanna write an essay about Lenin so Ill just say he was BASED.
Thank you for the reference.
I wasn’t asking because I don’t know what fascism is. I was asking so that I knew where you stood. I don’t want to challenge what you’re saying on the basis of faulty assumptions or a misunderstanding.
Given the context of the thread, I’m assuming you’re taking about the war in Ukraine? I think so, but I realise you could be talking about quite a few subjects, such as homophobia.
You say Lenin is based, which suggests you understand dialectical and historical materialism and that you are familiar with Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. And you wrote:
Russian government is straight up fascist and yet you see people coping hard justifying their actions.
In the context of the thread it sounds like you are saying that socialists who ‘support Russia’ are the ones who are ‘justifying Russian actions’. Have I read that correctly?
If so, is it true? The only people I see getting stick for ‘supporting Russia’ or ‘justifying it’s actions’ are Marxist-Leninists, who seem to be the only people challenging the bourgeois narrative about the war in Ukraine. Are these the people you’re referring to?
Are the people you’re criticising ‘justifying’ Russia’s actions or are they happy to see fascists (by your definition it is fascists who are supplying Ukraine) being challenged?
I think Putin (and by extension, the current Russian Government) is a far right wing ultranationalist, who operates in fascist ways, some straight out of 1984.
I do not agree with the war on Ukrane, not on the basis of defender the Ukranian Government, but on the basis that this war seems to be part of a bigger plan to extent the Russian current “empire” into Europe by force. And by doing this they are targeting civilian institutions, cities, hospitals, etc, among commuting many war crimes.
Im upset with some socialists people who defend Russia because they are falling for Russian propaganda and actively refuse to see the bigger picture of the conflict.
A turning point of me was seeing some self described “socialist” supporting Russia by telling conspiracy theories agaisnt Ukraine that were too close to “The Jewish Question” and talking about Hunter Biden for some God damn reason. And this was not a casual talk, this was someone talking at a conference, a left wing conference in my country.
And no, me opposing Russia does not mean I support American Imperialism. Some people cant believe that 2 things can be bad at the same time.
Thanks for your responses. I can address some of your concerns now. This is quite long. Not all of it is directed at you. Some is to address the wider question in the OP so please don’t think that I am putting words in your mouth and criticising you for them.
… Putin (and … the … Russian Government) is a far right wing ultranationalist, who operates in fascist ways, some straight out of 1984.
I understand the reference but be wary of relying on frameworks made by George Orwell. He was an anti-communist who snitched on marginalised people.
I do not agree with the war on Ukrane, not on the basis of defender the Ukranian Government, but on the basis that this war seems to be part of a bigger plan to extent the Russian current “empire” into Europe by force. And by doing this they are targeting civilian institutions, cities, hospitals, etc, among commuting many war crimes.
I won’t try to excuse any war crimes.
Russia is already in Europe. And although it seems as though Russia may have invaded merely to expand its landholdings, I’m less sure that the facts support that conclusion.
Following Lenin, every process must be considered in its historical context. This means looking wider than and before February 2022.
I’ll explain why that is problematic by referring to Lenin’s ‘The three sources and three component parts of Marxism’ (bold emphasis added), followed by short paragraphs to apply the theory to the current situation.
Marx[’s]… main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides use with a reflection of eternally developing matter.
The Ukraine war did not start in 2022. At the least, it began in 2014. Neither is it possible to isolate the Ukraine war from the development of capitalism (more on that, below).
Marx deepened and developed philosophical materialism to the full, and extended the cognition of nature to include the cognition of human society. His historical materialism was a great achievement in scientific thinking. The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics were replaced by a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops—how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.
Part of the reason that Marxism ‘harmonious[ly]’ explains so much is that it insists that all processes are internally related and contradictory. Everything is a process, including the Ukraine war.
While there are some remnants of feudal social relations, feudalist concepts don’t map well onto the modern world. This includes a concept of empire based on pre-capitalist empires or on pre-imperialist empires (because capitalism has developed into imperialism).
By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labor and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Production itself becomes more and more social—hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism—but the product of this collective labor is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified.
This ‘monopoly position’ is a brief way of describing Lenin’s concept of imperialism. Any move to annex parts of Ukraine cannot simply be ‘empire building’ but must (also) be imperialism.
If the Ukraine war is about the appropriation of Ukrainian resources by a handful of Russian capitalists, it is a mistake to characterise the invasion as Putin’s or the Russian government’s. It must be the expression of Russian capitalists as a class. If this is the claim, then it means Russian capitalists are ‘furious[ly] chas[ing] after’ Ukrainian markets. To this we can add (from Imperialism) Ukrainian resources and labour.
This aim must be considered in light of the history of Ukraine and of other strands of imperialism. All three are internally related processes. One does not make sense without the other(s). To separate these factors would be anti-dialectical and return us to the ‘chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics’. (The Soviet/Cold War history is also deeply entwined in all this, but let’s park that for now.)
When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people.
Lenin called that system imperialism, after it reached a certain stage of development around the turn of the twentieth century. Michael Hudson continued this work, e.g. in Super Imperialism. Hudson shows how the US dominates world markets through ‘dollar hegemony’ – not Russia. As Russia and the US are ‘bound together in a regular economic organism’ (to quote Lenin), any Russian action can only be understood in light of the fact that the US was already involved (long before 2014, at least since the Berlin Wall fell). That US involvement was in the form of imperialism.
Any Russian moves towards ‘empire’ must be seen not only as annexing Ukraine, but annexing land, resources, labour, and markets away from the US or before the US completes it’s plan to that end. Even if Russia succeeds, it would not affect the US’s monopoly over the global reserve currency, and therefore Russia could not be(come) imperialist (this claim is contentious but I’ll stand by it for now).
Im upset with some socialists people who defend Russia because they are falling for Russian propaganda and actively refuse to see the bigger picture of the conflict.
Three points. First, this depends on one’s definition of socialism. I can only give you one ML-socialist perspective: there is no question of falling for Russian propaganda but only of the ‘ruthless criticism of all that exists’ and the ‘concrete analysis of concrete conditions’. Failing to put the war into its historical and political economic context fails at these tasks and is likely to lead to accepting US-imperialist propaganda (I’m not saying this is you, btw) or to mischaracterise those who put the Russian war into that context as ‘pro-Russian’ or ‘pro-Putin’.
Second, Russian imperialism could only be one factor, if it is a factor. It is hard to see how two states could have a monopoly in the same realm. The US maintains its monopoly over the dollar. US sanctions have led parts of the world to pivot away from the US dollar, undermining its hegemony.
This result may seem to create space for Russia to be imperialist but this shock to US dollar hegemony was not because Russia has imposed the ruble on the world – it cannot, because the US still controls the relevant institutions, on behalf of western capital in general. This latter fact suggests that Russia could not become imperialist through a war in Ukraine.
Third, there are local events to consider between 2014 and the invasion. The UN reported on the horrors. Whatever Russia’s imperialist plans (Russian capitalists might have hoped it possible), this conflict is at the heart of the matter. The refusal of Ukraine to comply with Minsk. The shelling of ethnic Russian Ukrainians. Even if Russia was solely motivated by ‘empire’, the result is an intervention in that conflict. See: [my reply to a criticism of a Hudson article](https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/651663].
German and French officials have admitted that they never intended to use Minsk to end the conflict. It was only to buy time to prepare Ukraine for greater conflict. That fact, understandably to Russians who saw through the ploy, would make them feel as if Ukraine was going to become much more aggressive (compounded by the stated intent to join NATO).
A turning point of me was seeing some self described “socialist” supporting Russia by telling conspiracy theories agaisnt Ukraine that were too close to “The Jewish Question” and talking about Hunter Biden for some God damn reason. And this was not a casual talk, this was someone talking at a conference, a left wing conference in my country.
Needless to say but I’ll say it to be clear: fuck antisemites. If someone is antisemitic, they can call themselves socialist all they like but it doesn’t make it true. Unfortunately, this is and other shit-takes (liberal-aligned and ‘Western-Marxist) are commonplace. What kind of conference were you at? (Don’t dox yourself!)
And no, me opposing Russia does not mean I support American Imperialism. Some people cant believe that 2 things can be bad at the same time.
I hope my explanation above addresses this issue. Two things can be bad at the same time, I agree. In the Ukrainian context, the two bad things (US imperialism and the Russian invasion) and a third (neo-nazi militias1, 2, 3, 4, 5), however, are not separate. They are part of the same equation.
BTW yes I know 1984 was partially based on Stalin’s government and has anti communist messages. But I really like 1984. Orwell was also inspired by Franco’s regime in Spain. He was also very well surprised by the Democratic socialist society of Barcelona at the time.
Finally. Some real Marxist analysis. Haven’t seen one of these in a while.
Ill take time to digest your nice response.
To answer your question, I work at a public company in Venezuela and we had to attend a conference by a government official about the Russian war on Ukraine. This was barely like 2 or 3 weeks after the war started.
This guy started getting closer and closer to the Jewish Question, and ended up naming “The Jews” at the center of this conspiracy theories to justify why Russia had to invade Ukraine. I had to text everybody I personally knew at the conference to tell them “dont let him bullshit you, this is straight up Nazi talking points” and we discussed it after everything ended.
Feel free to come back if you disagree. I’m happy to talk these ideas through.
Have you spent much time on Lemmygrad? There’s quite a bit of Marxist analysis over there.
I would not have expected the conference to be in Venezuela! This is why I don’t like to make assumptions. I thought you were going to say you had attended an academic conference somewhere in the west.
Could you link me to any websites that will give me a better picture of Venezuela (or Latin America in general)? I started reading Telesur and found one resource – the Simón Bolívar institute – from this video (at 1:27:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iapefs8EXCc&list=PLQFBO6UUfDCQoIxtdxX5dVRwl1kS9IhnV&index=7. If you know of any other good resources, I would be grateful. It could be blogs, local news websites, ‘independent’ publishing. I would prefer websites written in Spanish, as I can then improve my Spanish as I’m learning. Even better if they’re Marxists.
Also I dont like Russia in other aspects like surveilance, censorship, homophobia, lack of religious freedom (im an atheist but come on, Russia way is no good) and so on.
Can’t disagree with that. But this is no different to the west. Raising these issues without unpacking the presence of the same features of liberal democracies means fuelling the pro-US imperialism narrative. It does the job of three-letter agencies for them. Socialists living in the west should spend their time challenging their own bourgeois and their own governments, the prime forces behind (US) imperialism. Only when they have achieved that, where their action might actually achieve something, should they turn their gaze elsewhere. The Soviet Union was making plenty progress before the US toppled it; it’s a bit rich for westerners to now decry the consequences of that toppling (even if these are things that shouldn’t happen).
EDIT: Now I know you’re not in the west, I come across as a bit of an arse in this comment – sorry! I’ll leave it up in case any western readers are thinking about criticising other countries before they criticise their own.
I believe, all socialist movements are flawed to some extent. But history can teach us to be better. What we need is a new and improved version of socialism, that isn’t anchored around authoritarianism or simply collapses when opposition is strong. After all the previous socialism experiments did have some flaws that would not be an issue with current technology and social awerness. Like management and planning for example. Or supressing of freedom to believe. We don’t need to fall into the same trap as china or russia.
Strongly agree that all socialist movements are flawed. Have you read The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism by Carlos L Garrido? Makes some good points along the lines of the one your comment starts with. [Edit: ebook or paperback and ebook.]
I must challenge your characterisation of China and Russia, though. Heaven forbid we help to end colonialism (USSR), lift hundreds of millions out of poverty (China), or develop from backwards feudalism to advanced society in one generation (both).
And if there’s one thing that socialist governments can’t be knocked for trying, it’s management and planning! The USSR was so proficient, we can thank them for defeating the Nazis, launching satellites, the concept of a welfare state, and a host of other tech. China has gone from having a huge gap between the relations and the forces of production to rivalling the west with the most advanced tech: https://www.aisuperpowers.com.
There’s also the attempt by Allende in Chile to introduce Project Cybersyn well before the modern internet took off. The aim was to use technology to improve planning.
I’m unsure what you mean by authoritarianism? Have you read ‘On Authority’ by Engels. One might say that State and Revolution is an extension of Engels’ argument. Part of Lenin’s view on the dictatorship of the proletariat is summarised here: https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/blogs/news/3228-lenin-s-three-theoretical-arguments-about-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat.
Thanks for the good links and resources, I ll check it out. I am just starting in reading up on these topics. I do know about the project in chile though, it looked very promising before getting screwed by the US. We sadly did not get to see more results. When I was referring to planning being an issue, i just meant they didn’t have super good computers and internet back in the day, and a planned economy would be way easier to manage with current technology. Not to undermine their achievements.
You’re welcome.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I know what you mean. Imagine if society implemented planning with modern tech in the same way as Amazon does. The future is here, the people just need to control it.
We critically support Russian anti-imperialist action (forced upon the liberal and anti-communist national leaders by the strong communist party and anti-imperialist political bloc), and we critically support Socialism with Chinese Characteristics (as led by and carried out by the CPC). We don’t “champion authoritarian regimes,” whatever it is you actually mean by that.
What’s incongruous to what Marxism-Leninism teaches us is any analysis of current material conditions that does not lead to the conclusion that the primary contradiction in the world today is imperialism. What’s incongruous to Marxism-Leninism is opportunist idealism.
You’re making a lot of sense.
Just to clarify, are you saying that the communist party of Russia wanted to intervene in Ukraine?
I’ll have to look again at sources but a lot of people have been talking about that on the grad over the last year or so.
IIRC Russian communists wanted to intervene in 2014 already, as they knew the conditions in Donbas would only worsen as the fascist Ukrainian regime only got stronger. These Russian internal political tensions finally boiled over and forced Putin to make a move in February 2022 when all even nominally oppositional media was banned in Ukraine. It was then that Putin and the rest of the liberals at the top of the Russian government were finally convinced that the situation in Ukraine for whoever the government determined to be non-Ukranians could only get worse without outside help. It also looked like an all out attack against the residents of Donbas was imminent.
“America bad.”
I really don’t know as I can only speculate. While China and Russia are authoritarian society, this criticism could be leveled at Amurica as well. Look at policing in the US and how it is paramilitary. Look at the way we very arbitrarily define what free speech is; largely depending on the amount of money you have. The more money you have, the freer you are. I don’t have praise for China and Russia because their proletariat are suffering too. China is really communist in ideals only. It’s really single-party plutocracy. China could nominally be considered economically capitalist.
Isn’t the idea behind communism and socialist that everyone leads a better quality of life and that we all participate to help each other? My impression is that it should be a very egalitarian and horizontal society versus an authoritative hierarchy. Let’s face it, there’s no such thing as benevolent dictator.
Isn’t the idea behind communism and socialist that everyone leads a better quality of life and that we all participate to help each other?
The CPC has lifted 800 million people out of poverty: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience.
You can say whatever else you like but it sounds like hundreds of millions of people in China are leading better lives while half the west is homeless (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-20/queensland-homelessness-up-22-per-cent/102113366), becoming increasingly reliant on food banks (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/60-rise-use-of-food-banks-programs-canada-2023-1.6711094) and developing nineteenth century diseases due to malnutrition (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/victorian-disease-gout-rickets-vitamin-d-mumps-scurvy-measles-malnutrition-nhs-hospital-admitted-a8795686.html). Meanwhile, the main group whose living standards have dropped in China are the bourgeoisie, the feudal lords, and Western and Japanese colonisers.
There are over 90 million members of the CPC: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1227455.shtml. Sounds like millions of people are participating in helping each other alleviate the fuck out of poverty.
Is China perfect? Of course not. Are there discontents? Very probably. Does this pale in comparison to the fact of hundreds of millions of people now have housing, healthcare, and education? Absolutely.
Edit: typo.
There’s no denying that life for the everyday Chinese citizen is fairly decent. I’m thinking of the unfortunate people in work and re-education camps. I’m no fan of authoritarianism of any kind.
I assume you’re talking about Xinjiang? How are you defining ‘work camp’ or ‘education camp’? How would you propose that China put a stop to US-backed terrorism in the region? Would this have been more or less effective than the CPC’s response (considering that there is more-or-less no more terrorism in the region and living standards have shot up)?
Could the CPC have alleviated the poverty of 800 million people without exercising class power through state authority?
Firstly, because some leftists are authoritarians (or, to be more precise, authoritarian followers). Authoritarian followers like strong leaders and strict rules and have absolutely no problem with the violent enforcement of those rules. As with all authoritarians, freedom is for people like them.
There’s also what I think of as liberals stumbling left. They might work it out eventually but liberals have no analysis of power, so they end up doing politics by keyword. Mainstream centrists do exactly the same (Putin’s communist oligarchy and all that).
