612
9/10 times, there's your problem right there... (media.piefed.ca)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
803 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Remembering to look for and ignore folks with that telltale indicator has made the fediverse so much more enjoyable.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 8 months ago (17 children)

Marxism-Leninism posits that we should create a working class party, study the given conditions of the country we are in (history, contradictions, class struggle) in order to correctly identify the key issues to organize around. In doing so, the working class needs to gradually choose the vanguard party, meaning a vanguard party that fails to do so is no vanguard.

This. This right here. What is the vanguard party? Oh, it's the party the workers rally behind! We'll know it because the workers will rally behind it!

Marxism is a useful analytical framework to use when looking at capitalism and alternate systems

Ml is a belief system full of holes plastered over by no true Scottman logic. No part of it is effective in the current day and age as political guidebook, we live in an entirely different era

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (16 children)

    Marxism-Leninism is Marxism but with Lenin's analysis of imperialism and organizational theory, and is still applicable today as it guides some of the largest and most successful economies. It sounds like you aren't actually sure what it is, in which case I made an intro ML reading list.

    The vanguard is just the organized segment of the advanced of the revolutionary class, essentially a popularly supported communist party.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (15 children)

    Lmao, I deleted that part of my response, but real political movement don't have reading lists

    Throw out the imperial analysis. It's not useful. It's not some bold lens that sees through capitalism - it's just the observations of a guy. Not an insightful guy like Marx, like... Just like a normal, average academic

    You don't need a fresh analytical lens to look through imperialism. It's just history. It just happened. You can just study it, it's not subtle or special

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (14 children)

    This is incredibly ignorant. Analysis of imperialism is crucial because it explains why the global south has largely remained underdeveloped while western countries prosper, why workers in the west are more likely to not support revolution, and how we solve both of those problems. Without analyzing the mechanics of imperialism, and instead just pretend its a thing purely of the past, any org will be helpless to stop it.

    Same with decrying the utility of theory. Correct practice is informed by correct theory, and affirms or denies what we think of as correct theory. It's a cycle driven by practice that helps us more accurately tackle the struggles we face.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    I bet I can describe the mechanisms of imperialism better than you, because I'm not weighed down by a weird religion

    I just witnessed something strange while doing a job in the "global south", and started reading. And kept reading. There was no analytical lens required. It's all pretty naked and unapologetic

    After WW2 the US came in with warships and made deals at gunpoint, but while also "offering" industrialization. Today, the IMF and the world Bank keep nations on debt treadmills to force austerity under threat of being removed from the global trade network, as their natural resources are drained away under those deals

    It's not complex. No further reading required to understand, further reading will just expand on that short paragraph I just wrote. No special analytical lens required to view it, it's just the uncomfortable truth. It just gets worse as you dig into it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (12 children)

    There's no religion in analyzing imperialism, nor is there any advantage to refusing to analyze it, its causes, and how we can stop it as I already explained. You keep comparing social science to religion, as though trying to reach a deeper understanding of anything is useless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    No, I'm saying your glasses are broken. They're not helping you see more clearly, they're blurring reality

    That's why I called it a weird religion.

    Imperialism isn't some shadowy force. It's just a bad thing being done to others out in the open. On its face, it's unfair. You don't have to prepare people to understand why it's unfair, they just have to believe you when you point at it

    Do you think China doesn't do imperialism? Do you think the USSR was being benevolent when it did the same thing, just a little more fairly and a better message?

    If you can understand these examples of imperialism, I'm willing to take back my claim that your glasses are broken

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (10 children)

    If you reduce imperialism to "bad vibes" like you're doing, then you fail to explain the concrete reality of the situation. No, the USSR and PRC aren't imperialist, they don't expropriate vast sums of wealth from the global south, and instead trade with both countries results in the global south breaking the chains of imperialism and escaping the underdevelopment trap.

    You're illustrating exactly why refusing to analyze imperialism is a mistake, it isn't because China is "benevolent," but because they don't have the same forces that drive imperialism, namely dominance of finance capital in the economy and the formation of colonies or neocolonies.

    It's not that I don't "understand" so-called soviet or Chinese imperialism, it's that I understand that these do not exist. I personally don't need your approval, especially when you call social science and analysis "religion" and are arguing against study.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    No, imperialism isn't bad vibes. It's when you build a factory in Africa, but the owners of the company are a Chinese investment group. It's where the value doesn't flow around the community, it's where it gets sucked up and extracted

    And it's good for a while - the workers are making bank... Until their economy starts to catch up

    Then you have an industrialized country, but half of the profits go to China, or pays the interest on debts to China

    Belts and roads is China first. It's Chinese economic imperialism. It's the same forces, they want to offshore manufacturing and create beneficial trading partners. And they're not trying to lose money doing it, they're trying to hand out loans and make investments

    It's the same forces. It's just a kinder approach to the process, but then everyone does it that way now

    Your glasses are broken. Your analytical lens is making you fail to see the world clearly

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    See, you would be correct if that was actually what's happening, but it isn't. Your glasses are broken, and your refusal to analyze and understand is why you insert fan-theories in place of analysis.

    BRI is not imperialism, and value does circulate in countries that trade with China. It is absolutely not the ssme forces, China isn't under the control of a financial oligarchy and doesn't expropriate wealth. Trade is not imperialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (7 children)

    And that sounds like religion to me

    How many billionaires does China have? The answer would be zero if what you say is true

    But it's not.

    I see China clearly. I don't like their authoritarianism, but at least they're nation building. They're a very big county, with lots of problems, but they are at least attempting to address them

    I can see both what they do well and what they do poorly. My number one take away from them is how important and achievable it is to reign in corporations

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    How is social science religion? You never explain this, you just equate any attempt to study a given phenomenon to religion. As for China having billionaires, that's true, but doesn't at all contradict what I said. I suggest reading China Has Billionaires. China does have areas for improvement, but it isn't imperialist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (5 children)

    I'm saying it's religion because how in the world can there be billionaires in the system you're describing??? To hold those concepts together requires nothing short of belief

    I don't need to read your book list. Smart people can trick themselves into the most wild of mental gymnastics, there is no possible justification for billionaires. At best your book is an explanation of how China has failed to live up to their stated beliefs

    Wise people recognize the truth when they see it. Billionaires come from mass exploitation, and only from mass exploitation. There's simply no other way.

    Now, we could talk about the explotation, what China does better than the West and such, but only if you can set down your beliefs about China

    I could very easily have that conversation, because I haven't put China, the US, or any country on a pedestal

    They are real places with real people and real problems to me. I can look at them clearly and with minimal bias, because I know I will find humans there if I zoom in, with all the same human problems, but maybe better or worse solutions that I could learn from

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (4 children)

    Billionaires exist in China because China participates in markets and has some degree of private property. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and China isn't imperialist. These are all true, and requires simply looking at the facts at hand to recognize. China has not failed to live up to their stated beliefs, you simply don't actually know what their stated beliefs are because you're arguing against learning.

    China is indeed a real place with real problems. These problems are not the ones you think they are, because you focus on your own imagination to fill in the gaps in your knowledge rather than studying the real systems. This is why leftists advocate study, investigation, and learning over simply relying on instinct and vulgar empiricism alone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    If not imperialist, why imperialism shaped? I don't care if their ideology is different, they're doing exactly the same thing! Belts and roads are literally loans and investments, there is nothing you can say that changes that fact

    Private ownership? That doesn't explain away anything!

    There are no billionaires without mass explotation. Period.

    You're just describing a flavor of capitalism. China has a system of controlled capitalism. It's a different flavor, it seems like it's a better flavor that I'd like to try, but it's still capitalism

    You're jumping through some crazy hoops there when it's just not that complicated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (2 children)

    It isn't imperialism shaped. There's no unequal exchange going on, no underdevelopment, no forced hegemony. The ideology being different helps, but the reason it isn't imperialism is because there's no imperialism. Loans and investments are not inherently imperialism.

    Yes, there are no billionaires without mass exploitation, correct. This doesn't mean China isn't socialist or that it's imperialist. China isn't capitalist because public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes are in charge of the state, over what capitalists there are in China.

    I'm not jumping through hoops, you just don't know what China's system is, what imperialism is, nor what socialism is, because you're arguing that studying any of these is a waste of time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I think you just don't know the difference between what imperialism was like post WW2 and what it looks like today

    It is imperialism when you economically colonize other states. It's not necessarily evil, but you can't deny the power dynamics that are at play

    And public ownership is absolutely something that can and does exist under capitalism. In fact, the US would barely have to make any legal changes at all to do what they do... We're just allergic to actually doing it

    You can stop jumping through hoops if you just look at their system instead of trying to reconcile their word with direct observation

    Why would you ever listen to politicians? The CCP lies constantly, obviously, they're a government

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Oh I'm well-aware of how imperialism functions today, because I study it. That's how I know that China isn't economically colonizing other states.

    Public ownership exists under capitalism, yes, but in capitalism private ownership is the principle aspect. The principle aspect of the economy determines the mode of production, ie controls at a minimum the large firms and key industries with a given class in charge of the state. In the US, private ownership is principle while in the PRC public ownership is principle. Capitalism and socialism aren't determined by their purity.

    I'm not jumping through any hoops, nor do I only listen to politicians, I study the systems and listen to researchers, academics, and working class organizations more than anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent