43
The bloody Trots are bloody everywhere! (thelemmy.club)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/chat@hexbear.net
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I talked to them and they were pretty nice. Tried to sell me a newspaper though! But I expected them to do that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

First off everyone who is anticapitalist in public is in danger.

This sentence doesn't contradict my comment at all.

Were the Trotskyists doing "anticapitalism in public" when they supported the Hong Kong separatist movement in 2019-2020? The Hong Kong separatist movement which was sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy.

Beyond that, RCI has a Taiwan branch with active chapters in at least 6 cities. They oppose Chinese re-unification. They oppose Mao. They oppose Xi Jinping. They oppose the CPC. Open the article below that RCI published and translate it. RCI says that "Taiwan is already a fully independent country".

https://archive.is/dmIT7

This is just one example. RCI holds many ideas that most hexbear users would not agree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    You said that you doubt they are in danger, that is where the contradiction between us is.

    I read the article and want to give more context after reading it.

    They are anti Taiwanese nationalism in the capitalist sense that the DPP puts forward, you cxan read that at the bottom slogan or this excerpt:

    spoilerAs the Sino-US conflict in Asia intensifies, the manifestations of the ethnic issue will become more acute. In this case, the Marxist task is not to follow behind a reactionary camp, but to expose the class interests behind the different camps. The DPP demanded that the people of the country unite against China. They said, ‘You’re not going to sell.’ In fact, the DPP and its to-party, such as Taiwan’s radical, have elevated this hysterical logic to the extreme, and stigmatized anyone who opposes the government for any reason, especially the workers in the struggle, as “the common passers-by.” But this is a wrong dichotomy, and Marxists are firmly opposed to it. There can be no unity between the working class and the capitalists, that is, between the exploited and the exploiter, regardless of nationality. The problems faced by Taiwan’s workers and the poor have nothing to do with Taiwan’s independence. The pressure of living standards, the increase in the intensity of work, the austerity and corruption imposed by the Taiwan government, are not imposed by China, but by the Taiwanese capitalists, and the main representative of this class is the current DPP. In other words, what the DPP demands is that the working class should subordinate its interests to the interests of the ruling class. If the workers want to get rid of this endless decline, their only way out is to overthrow the bourgeois class in Taiwan and start social change in socialism. This is not “national unity” but a revolutionary class struggle. Therefore, in response to a series of hysterical "anti-China" remarks, we are going to say: "The main enemy is at home!" The main enemy of Taiwan’s working class is the Taiwanese bourgeoisie, which is currently led by the DPP. The struggle against Taiwan’s capitalism cannot be separated from the struggle against Taiwan’s nationalism, which no longer plays any progressive role for the Taiwanese masses and is a stop to the liberation of Taiwan’s proletariat. In order to combat Taiwan’s ruling class, Taiwan’s Marxists and revolutionaries must engage in uncompromising struggle to expose the reactionary nature of Taiwan’s nationalism.

    I don't see anywhere that they oppose Mao. They characterise the Maoist communists as a peasant army which I think is not entirely wrong but a little unfair. The Maoists did draw much support from urban areas as well.

    They do oppose Xi Jinping and the current CPC which they characterise as bureaucracy, that is true. Trots love that word. They are promoting an international worker-first stance that I would say borders on naive. I'm not as negative as they are, but I think there are fair criticisms to make of the CPC.

    As for Taiwan being independent , you've cherry picked a quote. Here is the whole passage.

    spoiler

    The only difference between the status quo and the state of Taiwan’s declaration of formal independence is that the country will be included in Western-controlled international organizations such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. It also means that Taiwan can establish formal diplomatic relations with other countries – that is, with countries that are not within the scope of China’s influence. But this development will not bring little improvement to the lives of ordinary Taiwanese workers and young people.

    Therefore, when Taiwan's liberals take a position of resistance against China or support Taiwan independence, they really mean pro-American and pro-Western. This does not mean the independence of Taiwan. It would mean that the masses of Taiwan will be more in favor of the banks and big monopolies of the United States and other Western powers.

    U.S. imperialism is the enemy of the masses in Taiwan and around the world, and it is the duty of Marxists to warn the working class against any illusions about it. Our task is to expose the true class interests behind the rhetoric of the liberals and the imperialists.

    So the stance is not just "Taiwan independent now!". Reading on , they do not oppose reunification per se. They understand that popular Taiwanese opinion for whatever reason is not necessarily pro CPC especially if it requires a war. They instead put forth that a socialist, international unification of all workers is preferable, especially with the Chinese workers.

    You can call that naive and wrong and be in disagreement ,but to paint them say they're dox worthy is unfair. Nothing in the linked article warrants it.

    They are Trots and this is a ML dominated website, of course many will disagree. I personally don't agree with many of their stances, and I think they couldn't thread the needle with their neither Beijing nor Washington stance.

    If the photo was anarchists, who have even less in common with MLs than Trots, would that be fair? Or are we supposed to have an anti sectarian stance here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent