“indisputable democratic source of knowledge wikipedia (feel free to edit the page if you it can be improved):”
spoiler
commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
- 0 Posts
- 22 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: January 17th, 2022
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Fair enough on the framing, just meant that I ignored it for the first half, otherwise the reply was not engaging with you up to that point, but I wrote sloppily.
But you did not originally say “bigger and smaller IMPERIALIST” you said capitalist empire. It’s a totally different discussion which is where we started speaking past on another. I still don’t think that’s correct, because I don’t think a new analysis like Lenin made of imperialism would find Russia as materially equivalent in form or content of imperialism at all (maybe requiring a new word for the type of imperialism done by the US/NATO like super-imperialism or so. That’s why I still hold the point that it’s not just “bigger v smaller” that matters, but the Qualitative difference that then arose from the quantity of Imperialism performed/exported capital and coerced labour. They should be understood as 2 phenomenon at this point, not a big and small
Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now, but it’s in no way a defining feature. Sure, I’m absolutely fine with that detail being described so, because it’s true. But you minimized the analysis to that. “Framing” is ambiguous and I’m ignoring that, I guess you could call it framing, but your framing is irrelevant to my analysis
No. Both are bourgeois states and yes I prefer the weaker one winning in this case, but the framing of “big vs small” is very ignorant of any reason to support something critically
I would avoid saying “lesser evil” for critical support cases, because revolutionary defeatism exists for lesser evil situations where nothing is progressing against the primary contradiction. It’s more a recognition that a shitty thing can be progressive/forward moving relative to its opposition. Russia winning/getting a peace deal with Donbas and Crimea out of Ukraine gets us much closer to ending global imperialism than Ukraine getting it’s land back or worse.
Sorry may seem like I avoided a lot for what you said, but i more just didn’t actually disagree and realized our only real disagreement was one of the first things I said days ago lol
Ok so I think we just started at different reasons for beginning the analyses, because I’m not in disagreement with anything you said basically anywhere. My point from the beginning (that China has determined that it must strategically act as it is) begins already at the assumption that our Chinese comrades are making the analyses that are needed to reach that conclusion. This assumption is not based in any sort of unpenetrable philosophical claim, as you pointed out well. But I think there is enough evidence for it to be worth assuming for strategic purposes. Going into a deep discussion about whether they are correct at the most basic level of analysis is maybe too far for me to try at the moment as a learner of mandarin also, but reading works of Chinese comrades, I have trust that their analysis of their own conditions is better than mine. I don’t disagree about how we should assess that for our own movements, and honestly think we should be skeptical of the support of Israel for exactly those reasons, I just don’t find it fruitful to use it as a “GOTCHA” to China about universal values, because that is most often based in having a distrust which I find as unfounded as blind trust (the distrust that China is off of the socialist path because it trades with reactionaries/settler colonists).
I was speaking muchhhh more colloquially everywhere than I think you realized, which seems to have added to difficulties. Should do better at that
My point at the beginning about the interests being represented is a sort of philosophical underpinning, though, where we might disagree. I do see the trend of interests of proletarians overtime aligning within a set of conditions and aligning towards socialism. When mistakes are made among the masses, we can be critical, but even those mistakes will be overtaken by advances and fixed by the same process as long as the class’s interests are represented. Here I am making a more philosophical stake in the ground, and I do think that, if the Chinese proles are wanting to trade with everyone and not go to war with anyone, that it might not be the fastest path to communism but it will eventually reach there faster than doing the bidding of the capitalists. (Here I am making an anti-accelerationist claim for places which have already seen a revolution that’s been upheld). Here we may disagree still and I’d enjoy reading your thoughts.
“for hours” lol fuck off loser it’s the fucking internet, where interactions take a while.
And “gaslight” and “abuse”? Jesus Christ kid, that’s some shit. I’m not replying anymore, so goodbye, you are being ridiculous and pathetic.
Also they seem to have 7 likes on a lot of comments, or just above it. Get the feeling there’s some real bot/alt account stuff going on because I cannot imagine anyone liking it lol, let alone a consistent number as you go down the chain.
What more do you want than “I was exaggerating”? Once that was said, this whole BS could’ve just stopped. You then say “ok, now that we’re clear that you were exaggerating, how different are these articles?” But we never got there, because you derailed.
Request an edit if you really think it’s so misleading, I’m sure @meth_dragon@hexbear.net would’ve initially just edited if you were so concerned that this “lie” would mislead others. Now I doubt it, because you’ve proven to be acting in bad faith by not just accepting the explanation and continuing the initial discussion, but you had that chance.
We all understand how exaggeration works. @meth_dragon@hexbear.net linked the article, clearly indicating it’s not the same article with the same word as the exaggeration. After that, @meth_dragon@hexbear.net was willing to be clearer, but you had already removed the thread from being about the topic of whether or not this bias indicator has any value. Now it never returned to the point being obviously initially made
Were getting a bit long here, comrade lol. I can’t reply to all that at the moment, I just threw up in a train and realized I was sick at the same time. (I actually just realized I replied to you in a different threads moments before throwing up lol) About out of posting power for the day. Will respond later better though.
My claim in the first part is not a philosophical claim about the possibility of separate questions interacting, it’s that a judgement of existing socialism based on the dividing of some necessary or sufficient conditions as opposed to how these are intended to maximize the democratic process as a whole while integrated over time (meaning that these processes continually allow for the better development of all aspects of democracy. With the most portant being that the interests of the working class and desired results of the people are achieved. Any further division is unnecessary at this stage. Improvements are another, but the way you philosophically divide it is not something that hasn’t already been discussed as infinitum and understood by our Chinese comrades. This is what I intended at the beginning, though I did sloppily present that, including a use of “democratic centralism” without being clear that I meant “it’s against the principles and plans which have been determined best by democratic centralism incorporating the interests of about 18% of the world population.”
The fact that it’s not yet communist and/or fully worker owned is just unfortunately not yet relevant at all. It’s not philosophically incorrect, just divisive and not necessary, because the plan to arrive there has been clearly laid out. Is your critique on that plan then, or just the current state? The plan, unfortunately, currently includes being so protectionist that they can’t intervene against Israel and must include them in the global trading powerhouse they are developing. I say unfortunately, but know that I mean that I wish it could be otherwise but the scientific approach has led to that conclusion based on the failure of other approaches. I find it a conservative (here meaning not radical) approach, but conflict avoidance does currently entail trade with all States which are not currently threatening China, especially those in hotspots of western imperialism to drag them away from american-centric policies. China will eventually hopefully be able to utilize this dominance to push radically, and I will most definitely critique the approach if this doesn’t change once war with america is no longer a giant possibility.
I use immediacy to describe the time-aspect, and I don’t think I made that clear based on your response, so here my response may seem tangential but I think we are just not using the terms the same so I’m going off of my intended meaning and ignoring what I think was a response to something I didn’t mean. We have geographic and time variables at play (which affect each other in pretty obvious ways i think). Russia was presented with both immediacy and directness of the fascists at their border (and the USSR before them, of course). China with Israel has determined that both are not at play, that Israel is not a “becoming” problem for them as a possible war actor and is geographically not direct. “The omnipresence of mediation” how you use it here seems to be an almost trotsky-like position where all issues must be tackled simultaneously, which I can’t see concluding anything except for for the immediate attempt at the overthrow of all capitalist nations by every communist. I’d love it, but Stalin was, i think, proven correct that socialism in one country was necessary in those conditions (pre WW2, though I think we all usually agree he shouldn’t have stopped at Berlin lol) and therefore the omnipresent mediation does not supersede the immediacy or directness aspect.
Good Convo though, even though we’re talking a bit last one another. You seem more knowledgeable about the philosophical terms, and I appreciate your fairly clear usage. Still haven’t read grundrisse lol
Just replying to your splitting it into 3 questions: this is in direct opposition to democratic centralism and is a liberal absurdity to think that these should be considered separately. It doesn’t really impact the rest of your comment though, so that’s below.
Also Marxism is a universalism based in a scientific approach, not based in a set of principles i think. Unless you mean by principles here: dialectical approach and materialist basis.
By direct and indirect, I mean primarily that its immediate. I should use that word, and that’s a good critique of my phrasing for sure. But it’s immediacy does not negate the eventual interest, a direct but not immediate interest, in revolution in Israel. I mean I can forgive eventuality for immediacy if this is part of the scientific learning process of world transition. Why I justify it for China is that I believe there is a clear communist party interested in the highest levels of focus and learning for the sake of communism doing this. I think their track record is clear in this sense despite mistakes.
No, a good understanding of fascism and imperialism includes understanding that countries at the periphery either find a way to do the imperialism to their east/south (geographically right now) or to their ethnic others within or be the ones consumed by it.
Poland got to join the imperialists, though with significant disadvantage of being at the behest of exploitation, in exchange for becoming the people who perform (at least partially) the expropriation towards he east at Russia/Belorussia/Ukraine. The ruling class of capitalists always takes this bargain as long as they continue to benefit
I think that in 30 years you’ll be considered the anti-Semite of this age, honestly. Sartre once famously claimed something like “if the Nazi didn’t have the jew, they would have created him.”
Sartre, for all his faults, understood that fascism always needed the external and periphery, whether defined geographically or ethnically, in order to sustain itself through expropriation. Who this was doesn’t matter as much as that this group is defined as having more than it deserves for bad reasons and is therefore justifiable as a victim of violent expropriation. The values represented have become more progressive™ in that you believe China owns American representatives in order to mistreat Muslims or something. But materially it’s identical to “Judeo-Bolshevik” antisemitism
Here’s a bite-sized analysis from a guy who’s pretty good at this:
https://twitter.com/RodericDay/status/1495054681579692035?t=gmJyzLx5go9hZWcFJkt5fw&s=19
Imagine for a split second that the strongest government in the world is constantly attempting to cause the overthrow of your legitimately popular government, despite it being popular and significantly beloved by almost all people there. This external, most powerful government in the world tried to cause unrest in every possible way, including funding all opposition groups and organizations regardless of their violent/genocidal intent (e.g. Falun Gong, Islamic terror groups) and cause unrest on your borders (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Korea).
What do you do? When good faith polling shows that you’re popular and fulfilling the needs and desires of your country’s working class but a foreign press tries to speak about the terribleness and need for overthrow, do you just let that happen with more money and propoganda than you can possibly provide to support yourself? Or do you censor the BS and report to your population that these images/ideas/orgs are actually subversive and attempting to change the government they legitimately love.
In this hypothetical situation, what do you propose? Allowing the propaganda but claiming it’s wrong has failed in many projects, and resulted in massacres once fascism won (Chile, Indonesia). Just trying to set up a wall of no information works for a bit, but info can cross anyways (USSR). Allowing limited access if you search for it but not allowing it’s widespread propagation is the method of china. A VPN allows you to see it all, but it can’t be spread too widely before it is stopped from being viral.
Do you have a better solution? Because this is how China presents itself and how the Chinese population sees it
No but it does clearly show prioritization when the 2 conflict, which is the point of contention (as well as using coal at all, if you give a shit about our planetary environment)