Neocolonialism is a very well-studied phenomenon that absolutely exists, and is why the Alliance of Sahel States are kicking France out of Africa.
Communism, at least in the Marxist understanding, is essentially a fully collectivized mode of production and distribution. It will necessarily have administration as is required for mass production, and this entails hierarchy and centralization. Socialism is "authoritarian" in that the working classes use the state against capitalists and fascists, but this is a requirement for building communism, which is stateless, classless, and moneyless. It's no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of communists support the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba, and former USSR, as these are all states where socialism has been established.
It's less that the US Empire has successfully overthrown 100% of legitimate attempts, and more that it has tried to overthrow every attempt and has succeeded in some cases and failed in others. Communists are not "morons" for supporting the success stories of socialism.
Which part is bullshit? Neocolonialism, or Europe's atrophied millitary might?
Just a formatting tip, you need a double newline in between quotes and comments you mean to have in your own voice, not just a single newline.
Either way, your comment is a continued lack of evidence, and doubling down on misinformation. For example, the Budapest Memorandum was nullified by the US first, Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation after the 2014 Banderite coup, and Donetsk and Luhansk have been at war with Kiev since they seceded in 2014 and requested aid from the Russian Federation in 2022. Russia isn't trying to turn everyone Russian, this is clear misinformation on what is far more complex than "Russia is evil definitionally."
Nazi bars are evil and bad, commie bars are good and cool.
Thanks, comrade! 🫡
Russia is capitalist right now, as are social democracies. Either way, you're missing 3 critical problems:
The nordics are not socialist in any capacity, nor are they nearer to it than existing socialist countries like China.
So is authoritarianism the presence of having a state, even in a temporary form, in your eyes?
Back when we last discussed slurs, you had said that opposing their usage itself was idealist, and that we give words power by caring about it. I still disagree with using slurs no matter the context, but this is an advancement on your prior position, or at minimum an advancement in your communication as such.
As for what you've read, pretty good start! I mean that genuinely. The State and Revolution, The Tax in Kind, and of course Capital are all good places to go next. The Tax in Kind is directly related to the background of the 1930s famine, so it's helpful immediately, though do keep in mind terminology has advanced since it was written to be clearer.
Returning to the 1930s famine, as I showed above the Central Committee was kept in the dark by the Ukrainian communists as to the famine. They tried to save face by telling the Central Committee that everything was fine and under control, but this was not the case. Drought, flooding, and kulaks burning their crops and killing their livestock as protest against collectivization had destroyed output, and the soviets were still exporting grain in order to trade for industrial equipment with the west (which is what the west wanted in exchange for industrial equipment).
Upon learning the truth of how bad it was getting, the Central Committee was furious. The officials responsible in Ukraine were held accountable, hundreds of tractors and other farming equipment was directed to Ukraine, as well as 17 million poods (14ish kg/pood) of grain were redirected towards Ukraine. The Central Committee had been deciding policy based on the reports they were recieving, and these reports were falsified to protect the Ukrainian communist party leadership.
Had famine been the goal, no aid would have been given at all, or perhaps token aid. Sending hundreds of millions of kg of grain to Ukraine is no petty tribute, and punishing Ukrainian party leaders that lied and facilitated famine was the correct course of action for such treason. Counter-revolutionary is correct! They had put their own skin above the peasantry.
In all of this, there was absolutely no reason to have intentionally created a famine. The USSR needed grain for industrial equipment and to feed its people, it would not have sabotaged output deliberately. On top of this, there was existing accusations of the soviets overly supporting Ukrainian national identity, Lenin had given them the Donbass region and in an effort to overturn the Tsar's oppression the soviets highly valued national identity and self-determination.
There is no real evidence of deliberate starvation or creation of famine. All that exists is evidence of tragedy, weather adversity, class conflict between kulaks and the peasantry, and mismanagement in part by the Ukrainian communists and in part caused by disinformation fed to the Central Committee, which changed how they treated Ukraine. Again, they needed grain for industrialization, which they saw as necessary for defense (and this was proven correct as the rapid industrialization in the 20s and 30s is what enabled soviet victory over the Nazis in the 40s).
Indeed!
I'm on Lemmy.ml, I have never seen anyone that fits your description. Further, Lemmy.ml isn't astroturfed by Russia or China. Regarding Ukraine, you were banned for misinformation, such as the idea that Russia is trying to "force everyone to become Russian," with a temp ban at that.
If you could give an example of people "standing up for the most brutal of regimes," for example, that would help. The simple fact is that socialist states have not been "the most brutal regimes," western countries have been.
I know you consider yourself a Marxist, but when you push ideas like "opposing slur usage is idealist," you completely betray any comprehension of what you've read. I'm curious what you consider to be "most of the foundational texts," but either way, simple input does not make one an actual Marxist. That's why theory and practice have to be unified. I don't know if you've moved beyond that particular position, but it's just an example.
The famine was not a genocide. This theory is pushed by liberals and by fascists, but as I already showed, there was no targeting of Ukrainians or any ethnicity, and archival evidence from opening the soviet archives proved definitively that the soviets did all they could to alleviate famine. You haven't actually addressed my claims. Facts are facts.
Neither the political compass nor horseshoe theory are accurate. The political compass erases class analysis, and as such equates the presence of the state with an absence of freedom in a linear fashion, when an accurate reading is in differentiating what class controls authority and thus has freedom, the working classes or capitalists. Horseshoe theory equates working class states with capitalist states, overly focusing on the presence of the state and again drawing a blind eye towards class.
A few notes:
What you're describing isn't a real person or ideology, but a caricature in the form of a strawman that can be wielded to delegitimize communists. You aren't describing a real group, but instead a real perception of a real group that is projected onto said real group.
The PRC is a socialist state, not a state capitalist state like the Republic of Korea, US Empire, or Singapore. China being socialist has nothing to do with the name of the party in control, and everything to do with the mode of production and distribution in China. Rather than a neoliberal paradise, it’s closer to a nightmare for neoliberals. This editorial from The Guardian explains it quite well, actually:
But Xi’s support for mixing private and public ownership structures was purely pragmatic. It had value, he said in another forum, because it would “improve the socialist market economic structure.” Xi’s assessment is echoed by Michael Collins, one of the CIA’s most senior officials for Asia. “The fundamental end of the Communist party of China under Xi Jinping is all the more to control that society politically and economically,” Collins argued earlier this year. “The economy is being viewed, affected and controlled to achieve a political end.”
...
The party’s overarching aim, though, has remained consistent: to ensure that the private sector, and individual entrepreneurs, do not become rival players in the political system. The party wants economic growth, but not at the expense of tolerating any organised alternative centres of power.
…
“[Capitalists] act as if they are being chased by a bear,” wrote Zhang Lin, a Beijing political commentator, in response to these comments. “They are powerless to control the bear, so they are competing to outrun each other to escape the animal.”
How then, does China’s economy work? Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy. This means that public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, and is what is rising in China, as private ownership is kept to small and medium non-essential industries. No system is static, meaning identifying the nature of a system depends on identifying what is rising and what is dying away. Cpitalists are held on a tight leash, and are prevented from gaining political power as a class. The reason private ownership is allowed at all is because China has very uneven development due to their rapid industrialization, and private ownership does help with filling in gaps left by the primary aspects of the economy like SOEs.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
To call China “imperialist” or “capitalist” is to either invent a fantasy of China or to not understand imperialism, capitalism, or socialism. China isn’t a utopia, it’s a real socialist country.
How is the communist position that capitalism is failing a lie? The US Empire, for example, is lashing out violently in order to try to save its hegemonic power. European countries are caught between their dying neocolonial rule and a lack of hard power to enforce it. Meanwhile, socialist countries like China are steadily progressing, and the global south is developing out of the underdevelopment trap the west had caught it in.
Kinda? That's like saying there are many types of feudalism. Feudalism, capitalism, and socialism all describe currently or historically existing modes of production and distribution, but each society itself has its own characteristics based on level of development, the environment, etc. Communism is a post-socialist, global society, so we won't bother with discussing it at present. Within socialism itself, there are clear differences between how it works in China, vs. how it works in Cuba, as an example.
What's common to capitalism is that it's unsustainable over the very long term, and its contradictions become more apparent and fragile the more centralized it becomes, and it necessarily is always working towards this centralization. Socialism solves the problems with capitalism, and is a marked step forward onto the next mode of production and distribution. This is true in general, but each case in particular will have its own unique characteristics to be considered.
And all of this at present relies on imperialism and neocolonialism, with a bourgeois state and private ownership as principal. It's farther away from socialism than socialist countries.