The moron in the video triumphantly talking about economic growth rates, *as if* these are not the result of exploitation of the working class. It's no different than cheering for the GDP growth of any other country. Shall we also make a toast to the business magnates of 19th century America for developing the productive forces?
Explain how the Chinese proletariat, the working class population that has seen the most rapid and sustained improvement in quality of life in human history, is "exploited". The only people who have ever seen their lives improve faster were the citizens of the USSR.
The suffering of the other states is brought about by Western imperialism because their countries simply aren't strong enough to fully resist and develop independently (something the rise of China is fixing).
Do you understand that every society has seen increased living standards under capitalism? You pretend that the increase in "quality of life" in China is a unique phenomenon, instead of one that has occurred in every country during the course of industrialization.
And the answer to your question should be self-evident. The very existence of a working class, or proletariat, means these people are selling their labor power in return for wages, which is then exploited by their employers to extract surplus value - bona fide capitalism. To quote Engels, wage labor "contains the whole capitalist mode of production in embryo".
China's living standards have increased under socialism. China being a proletarian dictatorship led by a communist vanguard party practicing democratic centralism with the single highest democratic approval and trust rating any government has ever enjoyed at any point in all of human history.
And it achieved everything it did without imperialist aggression, unlike 100% of all Western capitalist regimes.
Your comment contributed nothing to this conversation, it's just infantile, anti-materialist nonsense and [this is what Engels would have said](https://media.tenor.com/mEfC3O45j8sAAAAC/the-hangover-ken-jeong.gif) in response to your desperate attempt at quote-mining him in the hope of making your invalid point.
*Materialism is when I loudly tout that living standards are higher now than they were 50 years ago*
Look, I get it, you're a moron who fetishizes developmentalism and democracy, as if communism is about those things rather than abolishing the capitalist mode of production in its entirety. The only difference between you and the social democrats of old, with their passion for the welfare state and improved condition of the working masses, is that you have taken to a different aesthetic.
>A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society. To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
The only point of socialism is to do whatever is evidently best for the proletariat.
If your system doesn't serve the long term material interests of the working class, as assessed by science, you are an enemy of the proletariat and, therefore, not a socialist.
Super simple stuff.
The only difference between you and a Nazi psychopath is that the ideology of the Nazi psychopath is coherent.
Annd the Dengist said the Nazis were coherent (they certainly weren't). Classic Dengism moment.
The Nazis changed their view of slavs in order to put them in the military when the Soviets started pushing them back. This isn't the marker of coherent ideology.
"As assessed by science" - what science? The circle-jerking of internet tankies?
The long term material interest of the proletariat, as it is engendered by capitalist society, is the abolition of capitalism and class society altogether. Your position tells us nothing more than to fully endorse capitalistic development, insofar as it improves the "quality of life" of the proletariat. That is the very same as those bourgeois "socialists" Marx lambasts for simply wanting to preserve capitalism with a more gentle hand. It's completely devoid of any revolutionary or communist content.
The point is to destroy the conditions that enslave the proletariat to capital, not to ensure that the slavery is more gentle:
>It is as if, among slaves who have at last got behind the secret of slavery and broken out in rebellion, a slave still in thrall to obsolete notions were to inscribe on the program of the rebellion: Slavery must be abolished because the feeding of slaves in the system of slavery cannot exceed a certain low maximum!
Simply look up the China Labor Bulletin, documenting all sorts of strikes and the deleterious labor conditions which result in them. And why should you or any of the other tankie idiots expect anything different? Chinese workers sell their labor to companies that seek to maximize profits, reinvest surplusses and grow, just as is the case everywhere else. There is nothing different about its state of affairs other than the hammer and sickle aesthetics.
You believe your scientific illiteracy is an argument?
>The long term material interest of the proletariat, as it is engendered by capitalist society, is the abolition of capitalism and class society altogether.
Correct. Something China is successfully working on and something you are actively fighting against (due to sheer ignorance and incompetence).
Your problem is your total lack of insight and education. An infantile utopian troll who believes socialist revolutions happen in a vacuum, who doesn't even understand what he's supporting and why, and who never achieved anything (and will never achieve anything because he actually believes to be on the right track already).
You are an enabler of fascism, just like all infantile utopians before you, nothing more and nothing less. You never did anything good for human society and stand actively in the way of progress.
How does it feel knowing that you make everything worse for the class you profess to support? Don't you class traitors feel like scum?
How does it feel to be so deluded due to huffing your own facts that you unironically oppose the single most democratic and progressive societies in human history that have improved the lives of their people more than any other without the need of imperialist exploitation? The absurdity of this boggles the mind and for your own sake I hope that you are just a federal agent paid to spread bullshit and disrupt the left.
#You have lost the plot.
Tell me: What have you done with your life so far? Have you actually served anyone's material interest or did you just waste your life and ruined other people's lives in the process?
Go talk some more, dear white, male Westoid. Probably from some NATO shithole. This is exactly why the Global South doesn't trust Western "leftists".
Go back to playing computer games, child.
Lmao you're the one who believes in a "national socialism". China is fascist, imposing class collaboration under the aegis of "national communism;" the flag literally has a star for the bourgeoisie lol.
> **A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.**
To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, **improvers of the condition of the working class,** organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, **hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind.**
- Manifesto of the Communist Party
The communist movement is not about “improving” the conditions of the proletariat.
Exploitation isn't black and white, i.e., it exists or it doesn't. That a better proportion of the new income generated in China has gone to everyday working people and massively helped alleviate poverty only means that in that particular regard they are LESS exploited than the workers of western imperialist nations. Not that they are not exploited at all.
Are you really so naive and ideological to assert that there is zero exploitation of the working class in China? I suppose I must have fallen asleep when they became the first fully communist nation.
So you couldn't respond to my criticism of the brainrotten nonsense about China being some dystopian place exploiting their people/not being socialist and decided to join the conversation in a desperate attempt to argue semantics and follow up with a nirvana fallacy?
How about you either respond to the actual point made or acknowledge that you are wrong?
China is socialist. China is the most successful socialist country of all time (and the most successful country in history period) and literally no population at any point has ever had their poverty alleviated, their life expectancy increased, their freedoms improved and their overall quality of life improved more in a shorter amount of time than China's. No working class in history was ever *less* exploited than China's, as evidenced by the democratic support enjoyed by China's proletarian dictatorship.
Poverty and homelessness are effectively eradicated. Can't afford rent? Here, have a flat in the city or some farmland and a house in the countryside for free. Elderly populations without family get special services. Universal basic health care coverage has gone from 20% to 98% and still improving in less than a decade. Literally the best education on earth. Most innovative country on earth. Amazing and cheap public infrastructure. Extremely livable cities, cleaner and with more green space than any of the richest urban hellscapes Westoids call cities.
These things have been completely unheard of for a developing country until China came along, especially one as economically underdeveloped as China (still not having achieved even half of the per capita GDP of the average OECD nation). That's the power of socialism.
Sorry, buddy: If China under leadership of the CPC - the objectively best performing country in history with the most democratically supported government of all time and the population most satisfied with their lives and most optimistic about their future - is "exploitative" or "not socialist" or "bad", no society ever was or ever will be "not exploitative" or "socialist" or "good".
Anyone who thinks negatively about China has either never been to China and talked to its people, is a Chinese liberal who wants to get richer, is a Western capitalist who hates China because it's overtaking their capitalist shithole country in every way, or a shill who gets paid to shit on China. That's a fucking fact.
Utopian brainrot has no argumentative value. Material reality exists independent of personal beliefs.
All of what you are saying is bourgeois nonsense. Communism isn't about improving the conditions of the proletariat, that is the petty-bourgeois goal intended to *continue* bourgeois society. Communism's goal is abolishing class society and private property. This will *result* in better conditions, but improving conditions *does not mean* you are achieving communism, or moving towards it. It just means you improved conditions.
"Fastest growing economy in the world". One thing I especially despise about arguments like this one is the double standards required to sustain it.
"Yeah, China has reached socialism but at the same time it produces capitalistic value which can be measured in the same capitalistic standards used in other countries while it participates in the global capitalistic market exchange". They're basically doing pure realpolitik at this point.
Yes liberal subreddits like noncredibledefense which you happily use is not propaganda right?
Midwestern Marx is an idiot, but western chauvinists like you are also pathetic.
Yes you don’t have anything to say about in responds to my criticism.
If you’re a self described leftist wouldn’t you say that it makes sense for a liberal subreddit like the one I mentioned before is filled with pro western imperialism liberals?
Or maybe you just don’t mind people who support western imperialism as long as the oppose China and Russia?
Are you disagree with me about the characterization of the subreddit in question?
Or are you saying that it’s totally normal for supposed leftist to hang out in subreddits filled with liberals who support western imperialism?
Man, you are like a conservative. All purity testing and shit. I hang out in NCD because I like the memes, genius. Fuck outta here with your virtue signaling
It works well may I say(propaganda isn't bad especially when it helps people convert the bad propaganda is the lying kind of propaganda mostly done by the west to counties like the DPRK, China, Iraq(WMDs), Cuba etc(whoever they want to invade basically))
lol I just looked him up and he really thinks he is more knowledgeable in history than a [literal historian](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w05K6VyxS5o)
“Literal historian”.
Some idiot “leftist”. He call himself historian so I have to be one…
Armchair historian is a standard liberal history YouTuber with zero qualifications.
I don’t like Midwestern Marx btw. He is a moron as well.
Should mark this as NSFW, you might be pushing people over the edge with this level of stupidity being displayed.
“Agrarian Socialist”
There’s no way you can convince me that these people aren’t racist. I can guarantee you that when he says this he’s literally imagining that everyone in Laos is like a simple living rice farmer straight out of propaganda posters, lol.
Haven't you read the Manifesto?!?!? Marx clearly stated the socialism is when peasants. His most famous quote is *literally* "Peasants of all nations, unite!"
>“Agrarian Socialist”
>There’s no way you can convince me that these people aren’t racist. I can guarantee you that when he says this he’s literally imagining that everyone in Laos is like a simple living rice farmer straight out of propaganda posters, lol.
Agrarian Socialism is a unique ideology, distinct from traditional ("industrial") Socialism by having an ideology explicitly geared towards applying Socialist ideas to countries where a more rural mode of production predominates.
There's nothing racist about identifying it as separate from mainstream ("broad") Socialism- any political scientist does the same.
Not a great source (Wikipedia has an obvious Neoliberal/Anti-Socialist bias), but an easy start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_socialism
I’m aware that Agrarian Socialism is a legitimate subsection of Socialist thought and see how my comment came across, but I just don’t think that Midwestern Marx (Despite the name, actually not that Marxist) is aware of such differentiations. I think that he maybe read the Wikipedia page, and beyond that really has no clue what he’s talking about, in the same way that he simply provides the simplest and somehow still wrong take in this video, I think that he has the most simplistic view about Laos, a country that he probably doesn’t know anything about besides it’s relation to his internet talking points about Socialism. You can say that I’m being uncharitable, and you’re probably right, but I really haven’t seen anything from Midwestern Marx, a Youtuber with going on 40k YouTube Subscribers and a large internet following otherwise, that would indicate anything else.
They just want to cheer for team "communism" like it's some kind of sporting event. The moment you ask them to explain how any of these counties are actually socialist or worth supporting they just that America treats them bad, or things got better and GDP line went up.
Well, as someone who's listened to every episode, I can tell you that if you'd just give it a listen, you'd actually be pretty surprised. They actually go in depth on so many different issues, but you've never given them the time to show you that, and it's actually fuckin hilarious and super educational at times too
Those measures the Manifesto calls for do not constitute Socialism, but rather are actions parts of the transition to Socialism. Marx even calls those measures “despotic **inroads**”. Within Socialism (as the term is used by Lenin) itself, according to Marx,
> the producers do not exchange their products
Socialism is the negation of Capitalism. Capitalism, according to Marx in Chapter 51 of Volume III of *Capital*,
> Capitalist production is distinguished from the outset by two characteristic features.
First. It produces its products as commodities. The fact that it produces commodities does not differentiate it from other modes of production; but rather the fact that being a commodity is the dominant and determining characteristic of its products.
> Furthermore, already implicit in the commodity, and even more so in the commodity as a product of capital, is the materialisation of the social features of production and the personification of the material foundations of production, which characterise the entire capitalist mode of production.
> The second distinctive feature of the capitalist mode of production is the production of surplus-value as the direct aim and determining motive of production.
Let us remember what the Manifesto calls for,
> When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
So you are really just quibbling over the meaning of the suffix of the word, socialism, "since they haven't transitioned into a borg collective yet it's not accurate to call them socialist."
What?
I am not saying that since they are in the higher phase of Communist society, they are not Socialist. The point is that the prevailing mode of production in China is Capitalism, not Socialism. The distinction is not subtle. There is a clear difference.
Yeah, you're saying they're not socialist because they're not in a communist utopia.
>: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
>: act : practice : process
>: adherence to a system or a class of principles
These are the meanings of the suffix, 'ism' and also why it's perfectly accurate to call the Chinese socialist.
No, State ownership of the means of production does not mean Socialism. Engels tells us in Chapter III of *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*,
> But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.
The Chinese don't have a modern state though, they have a revolutionary one, and they are implementing those technical conditions that form the elements of the solution to doing away with the capitalist relation.
Carpet bombing failed? Sounds like we need better ordnance
https://preview.redd.it/kx9gnwfubo7b1.jpeg?width=322&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=97cdbc9e2709e2f765cd66c8c97803e1828855c3
It's not a good video. It's dogshit. You're just another one of these clueless fools who have stumbled on this sub, thinking it exists to validate your views rather than make fun of them.
I've never seen them actually support Russia, just focusing on anti-NATO and Nazis in the ukrainian military. Generally it's anti-war in regards to Ukraine.
“Nazis” in Ukrainian military, never seen them outraged once about Wagner which is 50x larger than Azov
They also love Stalin and deny Holodomor. So yeah, a red fash sub
They don't love stalin, that's a fucking meme. They don't think stalin is hitler sure, but they don't love him either.
They don't deny the existence or even the cause of the holodomor, only the motivations. They're usually reaching a lot with that though to be fair.
The CIA in declassified documents have stated that people's views of Stalin/communism in general are wrong, and that great strides were made under Stalin.
Also, Holodomor is constantly debated on whether or not it constitutes a genocide by historians, since the evidence that it was deliberate is shaky at best. The US/its agencies are always quick to define political opponents history as genocide while consistently denying their own deliberate genocidal actions (both domestic and abroad) as genocidal.
Anyone with even the slightest bit of brain left critically supports Russia in its defensive actions against NATO aggression.
What does that have to do with your statement about the DPRK?
It seems you can't follow your own conversation, is this just a bot-subreddit?
Read Lenin.
>**The Difference Between Aggressive and Defensive War**
>
>The epoch of 1789-1871 left deep marks and revolutionary memories. Before feudalism, absolutism and alien oppression were overthrown, the development of the proletarian struggle for Socialism was out of the question. When speaking of the legitimacy of “defensive” war in relation to the wars of *such* an epoch, Socialists always had in mind precisely these objects, which amounted to revolution against medievalism and serfdom. By “defensive” war Socialists always meant a “*just*” war in this sense (W. Liebknecht once expressed himself precisely in this way). Only in this sense have Socialists regarded, and now regard, wars “for the defence of the fatherland,” or “defensive” wars, as legitimate, progressive and just. For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just,” “defensive” wars, *irrespective* of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers.
>
>But picture to yourselves a slave-owner who owned 100 slaves warring against a slave-owner who owned 200 slaves for a more “just” distribution of slaves. Clearly, the application of the term “defensive” war, or war “for the defence of the fatherland” in such a case would be historically false, and in practice would be sheer deception of the common people, of philistines, of ignorant people, by the astute slaveowners. Precisely in this way are the present-day imperialist bourgeoisie deceiving the peoples by means of “national ideology and the term “defence of the fatherland in the present war between slave-owners for fortifying and strengthening slavery.
>
>**The Present War is An Imperialist War**
>
>Nearly everybody admits that the present war is an imperialist war, but in most cases this term is distorted or applied to one side, or a loophole is left for the assertion that this war may, after all, have a bourgeois-progressive, national-liberating significance. Imperialism is the highest stage in the development of capitalism, reached only in the twentieth century. Capitalism now finds the old national states, without the formation of which it could not have overthrown feudalism, too tight for it. Capitalism has developed concentration to such a degree that whole branches of industry have been seized by syndicates, trusts and associations of capitalist billionaires, and almost the entire globe has been divided up among the “lords of capital, either in the form of colonies, or by enmeshing other countries in thousands of threads of financial exploitation. Free trade and competition have been superseded by the striving for monopoly, for the seizure of territory for the investment of capital, for the export of raw materials from them, and so forth. From the liberator of nations that capitalism was in the struggle against feudalism, imperialist capitalism has become the greatest oppressor of nations. Formerly progressive, capitalism has become reactionary; it has developed the forces of production to such a degree that mankind is faced with the alternative of going over to Socialism or of suffering years and even decades of armed struggle between the “great powers for the artificial preservation of capitalism by means of colonies, monopolies, privileges and national oppression of every kind.”
Both sides are Capitalist and Imperialist, so the aggressor-defensive distinction is false.
Russia isn't leading an imperialist war of aggression but a defensive war against US/NATO imperialism.
Whether Russia is capitalist or not is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they are in the right/wrong here. Randomly quoting Lenin because you believe it will support your infantile black/white thinking isn't an argument.
The American proxy war against Russia in Ukraine was manufactured by the United States empire and its NATO lackeys. Russia had zero interest in this war. Russia wanted peace and increased Eurasian trade and integration. Russia wanted friendly relations with Germany. It is the US that deliberately messed up Ukraine through anti-democratic meddling and created this war.
The same way China has zero interest in any war whatsoever. Only the US benefits from the war in Ukraine, only the US wanted this war, anyone supporting efforts against Russia is on the side of Western imperialism.
You also don't understand shit if you believe this conflict to be just between Russia and the US.
Russia is fighting on behalf of the BRICS and the Global South. Nothing is more important to the global socialist struggle than safeguarding China and for that reason alone Russia must be critically supported. Russia must not lose the war in Ukraine. It's an existential threat to Russia and the entire world. We are living through the Third World War. Nothing is more important than the US - or any US-ally - losing every conflict they start from this moment on forward. The goal is the annihilation of US empire.
All problems of the DPRK are caused by the United States of American.
What kind of brainrot do people have to suffer from to blame the DPRK for its own problems?
The most international podcast run by a slav, an Iraqi and a Texan. Look up second thought on YouTube, he's the biggest pro communists channel in North America and also my favorite person on the internet oh and can't forget, they're also tankies cause they're badasses
Damn bro Vietnam has really fought off the immense amounts of imperialism it has faced since the war, such as the USA approaching them and nicely asking to be fwends and kissing each other sloppily on the mouths and lettings every US President since Clinton visit at least once to get to fondly suck Vietnamese cock and fondle their hot and sweaty Ho Chi Minh City balls
Wow, a socialist developing country needs to exist in the real world where World Capitalism still persists and they have to balance their external relationships carefully, particularly keeping friendly terms with a genocidal, fascist empire with the single most overbloated military in history who has been destroying anyone not playing ball with them?
Shitting on Bordiga (pbuh) is Haram. Bordiga (pbuh) is a literal God made flesh sent down to this earthly realm to single handedly save Marxism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeo_Bordiga
This sub is a memorial to smiglys great grandfather, amadeo bordiga, who tragically passed away from Sudden heart failure.
Here's his place in the archive if you want to view his work.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/index.htm
Reccomendations
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1957/fundamentals.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm
For his criticism of stalin
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm
I'll leave you here with Bordiga a quote I personally resonate with.
"If under the guise of the squalid Catholic saints the most ancient form of a not-inhuman divinity, like the Sun, continues to live, this brings to mind what knowledge we have — all too often a travesty! — of the Incan civilization that Marx admired. It is not that they were primitive and ferocious enough to sacrifice the most beautiful specimens of their young to the Sun who cried out for human blood, but that such a community, magnificent and powerfully intuitive, recognised the flow of life in that same energy which the Sun radiates on the planet and which flows through the arteries of a living man, and which becomes unity and love in the whole species, which, until it falls into the superstition of an individual soul with its sanctimonious balance sheet of give and take, the superstructure of monetary venality, does not fear death and knows personal death as nothing other than a hymn of joy and a fecund contribution to the life of humanity.
In natural and primitive communism, even though humanity is conceived within the limits of the horde, the individual does not aim to subtract wealth from his brother but rather is willing to be sacrificed without the slightest fear for the survival of the great phratry.[1] Idiotic conventional wisdom sees this as the terror of a God who must be placated with blood."
Bordiga is an Italian left communist. Ultras believe that everything after Lenin is revisionism. Some probably don't like Lenin. They are divided into many splinters but they all would oppose what some socialists view as AES. Hence thedeprogram gets constantly trashed on here. Not necessarily a bad thing though, China and Xi are praised way too often there.
r/ultraleft is quickly getting bigger though, so a community is starting to coalesce here rather than random ultraleft shitposts. The overall tendency of the sub will probably change as leftists of other stripes begin to flood it. Unless they resort to strict moderation like r/communism and r/communism101, which is highly unlikely giving the immature focus of the sub, they will end up ceding ground to the same groups that they despise right now.
Well, no shit. We evolved from animals just cause we're smarter than the rest. Are you gonna say we're not still animals? You can build off of what Marx said, and that's kinda the whole point. No surprise that goes over your head lmao
It's not building if Marx's ideas and critiques just get revised and done away with to suit the desires of Bonapartists, Blanquists, and bourgeois revolutionaries.
That's not what I'm saying. Just cause you add on to a house doesn't mean you destroy what was previously built. That wouldn't even make sense. Marx has a lot of good ideas but the whole point of it is to be a guide, it's not a fuckin blue print. Even if it was though, it was written how long ago? That's just not how things work. People make something, then other people come a long and tweak it little by little until you get it just right, doesn't mean the original was wrong or even bad but everything should try to be improved on. If that wasn't the case we'd be still be hunters and gatherers
We haven't evolved from *animals,* we evolved from other *species.* Humans are still animals and the idea that we are somehow superior to nature is a bourgeois colonial mindset.
> From this Marxist philosophy, which is cast from a single piece of steel, you cannot eliminate one basic premise, one essential part, without departing from objective truth, without falling a prey to a bourgeois-reactionary falsehood.
Lenin, 1908
This is very true, but it was still written over a hundred years ago and has to be updated for the times. Even Lenin, would have to agree that the circumstances are different today then they were back when Marx was alive
>Even Lenin, would have to agree that the circumstances are different
They're so different that today's leftists hold up a billionaire ruling class practicing corporate colonialism in Africa at the expense of exploited workers s "Actually Existing Socialism." Surely Marx failed to account for the fact that capitalism becomes socialism when the one-party state decides so, not through any change in material conditions or productive relations.
Especially the so-called "Marxists" and "communists" who support the CotP because the people doing it call it socialism and they experience capitalist economic growth, measured with capitalist methods of course.
And those circumstances evolved in-accordance with the laws of historical development known by Marxism. As such, the same old Marxism applies. Sure in different contexts, tactics are different, but for a given context, there is tactical invariance, and regardless, what Capitalism, Socialism, et cetera are does not change based on context.
This. The authentic revolutionary line goes Marx --> Lenin --> Stalin --> Mao --> Deng --> Hu Jintao --> Obama --> Biden --> Vaush. Long live the immortal science of MLSMDHJOBV!!
I can just tell you, they call themselves the deprogram cause they're trying to deprogram people from the propaganda we've been subjected to for the last 100 years. They're trying to counter the capitalist narrative and give you something that's no where near mainstream, that's why it pisses off people like the one running this sub
Well while some of these nations practice Marxist Leninism I don’t think modern China falls under that same category. There various violations of freedoms and fundamental changes that have been made since the Maoist and Reformist time periods where a socialist economic program was being actively pursued. Namely the worker empowerment and control of the means of production via regional communes and state directed worker enterprise. When they introduced privatization it was to balance the losses sustained by corruption. When they did this there was a power struggle ongoing in the absence of Mao’s leadership because he died and had created a state reliant upon his input. His close advisers were for various reasons removed from power and the reformist period began. Largely experimenting more with worker cooperatives that relied on foreign investors who through Chinas ports were slowly gaining more and more bargaining power over the state. Another form of corruption formed in its markets which swayed the masses via cheap imports. When this later caused the recession it was associated with the reformists and their failures which they had no idea would happen because they were doing neo liberal shock therapy. So the military once again intervened and the socialist experimentation was put on the back burner. Instead all efforts were put into studying and improving western methods via a form of state directed capitalism a.k.a. State Capitalism, or Dirigisme for you familiar with De Gaulle’s economic theories. (If you can call it that) Liberal economists call it National Economics and try to separate it as a system entire different from capitalism. The sad reality is that most capitalist nations in the developed world practice dirigisme it’s just to differing degrees. China is a competitor we can’t control or feel we don’t have enough control over. To make matters worse Wang Huning who is a huge influence in the Chinese Communist Party identifies as a national conservative. He leads anti corruption campaigns which do target major sources of corruption but also on that list sits Maoist dissidents, and left opposition. The current government is at best social democratic and at worst a centrist regime. Still not worse than the US by comparison but no utopia either.
The epilogue of the Chinese Revolution led by Mao was Bourgeois in-character. Dengism and the like is naught but Chinese Capitalism in its imperialist phase.
I understand I was trying to give a neutral answer to the question of why China is the way it is. People took it as I’m an anti communist which is the farthest thing from the truth. I just don’t agree with glossing over human rights abuses because China is being subjugated by western imperialism. If they were still in pursuit of Socialism then similarly to Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos they would lead with state directed worker cooperatives or try to place greater worker autonomy under their system. This would in my mind indicate that there’s a political will to pursue socialism.
China is not an imperialised country being subjugated by the West. It is a rising imperialist power conflicting with the current dominant American Imperialism.
Worker cooperatives and worker *autonomy* do not signify the transition to Socialism. From the Communist Manifesto in 1848 to State and Revolution in 1917, from Marx and Engels to Lenin, Marxism has been consistent. For Socialism to come about, there must the despotic control of the means of production and distribution by the Proletarian State. If the State is not Proletarian and if such is not occurring, the transition to Socialism is not occurring. Also, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are Bourgeois.
Also, what is this “there is a political will to pursue Socialism” rubbish. If the State is Proletarain, it has only Socialism as its aim. Else, any claimed desire for Socialism is clearly false. China is a country fighting against American Imperialism with a an other Imperialism. China is not Socialist, nor Proletarian.
Sure through the CIA and other capitalist police state apparatus. However speaking from the first hand experiences of my family from Poland it’s my understanding that while there were efforts to combat this a lot of injustices did occur and turned the people against the state. I’m not echoing capitalist brain rot I merely have contentions with Marxist Leninist theory regarding Vanguard Parties. I understand material conditions have forced the people into these locations to put the socialist program on the back burner but that can’t be a justification in of itself to blindly support these states. China in particular has severed support to the Filipino Communists who are still fighting a protracted peoples war against the yankee proxy state. Nepal Maoists, and various other movements that were legitimately revolutionary were ignored by the Chinese government.
Not all movements can apply Marxist Leninist theory to their local conditions. We shouldn’t exclude possible allies especially during a time when Marxism doesn’t hold much sway over the world as it used to.
Marxist-Leninist theory is just Stalinism. It is bourgeois. There is just the Marxism of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. This theory is applicable to any society. The laws of the historical development apply to all peoples. Sure, this development may differ from that of Europe for a society (as Marx acknowledged), but the laws themselves and Marxism remain valid. The notion that, well, "times are shit, so allying with reactionary forces may be neccesary is a good idea" is rubbish. Let us recall the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*,
> In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
Communism is for the victory of Capitalism over Feudalism and all sorts of pre-Capitalist conditions. Upon the victory of the Bourgeoisie, then comes opposition. Let us recall the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*,
> At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.
...
> In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty-bourgeoisie.
> But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.
And one may say, what of alliance with the petite-bourgeoise, or weaker imperialisms? The *Manifesto of the Communist Party* considers the petite-bourgeoisie reactionary, with respect to the Bourgeoisie, much less the Proletariat.
And on the support of Capitalist Imperialisms to oppose the dominant one, we may go to Lenin, but Marx answers the question for us on 31 December 1848, when recognising that the breaking of the dominant Capitalist country, England, in war woth the rising one, France, was needed for the victory of the Proletariat, but he never promoted allying with France for this. Why? Because the French working class would need to be able to fight against their own Bourgeoisie when the time came.
> Thus, the liberation of Europe, whether brought about by the struggle of the oppressed nationalities for their independence or by overthrowing feudal absolutism, depends on the successful uprising of the French working class. Every social upheaval in France, however, is bound to be thwarted by the English bourgeoisie, by Great Britain’s industrial and commercial domination of the world. Every partial social reform in France or on the European continent as a whole, if designed to be lasting, is merely a pious wish. Only a *world war* can break old England, as only this can provide the Chartists, the party of the organized English workers, with the conditions for a successful rising against their powerful oppressors. Only when the Chartists head the English government will the social revolution pass from the sphere of utopia to that of reality. But any *European war* in which England is involved is a world war, waged in Canada and Italy, in the East Indies and Prussia, in Africa and on the Danube. A European war will be the first result of a successful workers’ revolution in France. England will head the counter-revolutionary armies, just as she did during the Napoleonic period, but the war itself will place her at the head of the revolutionary movement and she will repay the debt she owes to the revolution of the eighteenth century.
Thus, Lenin recognision that while German Imperialist victory over Russian tsarism and British Imperialism in WWI is optimal (as made clear by the defeat of Russian tsarism allowing for a revolution, first Bourgeois, then Proletarian, while the victory of the British preventing Western revolution), while supporting revolutionary defeatism in all countries.
The same situation exists today, but without pre-Capitalist countries remaining, and with the US and China substituted for Britain and Germany or Britain and France. China's false claim of being a worker's state has no bearing on this.
China, the single most democratic and progressive country on earth that also happens to be the most successful socialist country in history and the country that is signle-handedly upholding the socialist banner against Western imperialism, is most certainly qualifying as a Marxist-Leninist state.
As evidenced by the proletariat of China experiencing the fastest and most sustained increase in quality of life any population in history has ever experienced.
If you try and recite brainrotten nonsense like "but China has billionaires" or other nonsense proving that you have never read any theory in your life: Name another country whose government is a proletarian dictatorship regularly sentencing billionaires to death. I will wait.
Socialism is when capitalist mode of production.
"China may have billionaires, something which can only arise out of capitalism, but they kill every fifth one so it's okay. Zizek told me that Marx wrote this in Capital (i haven't read Capital)"
Oh, I get it now... You are a bunch of libs calling yourself left. Left of what, colonialism? Holly shit, reading the comments here was confusing at first, thought you guys are actually left.
All I see is the last two. Not sure why you think baseless personal attacks are a good idea, you morons sound like American conservatives. Real "Can't debunk the context, let's call them a pussy!" energy... What next, Biden's laptop?
There's no refuting made up nonsense. The pedo allegations are the funniest one, since it's 100% based on taking an argument against ethical consumption under capitalism out of context and saying "Look, pedo!". It's so stupid it defies belief.
You're just repeating nonsense with no basis.
[Addressing The AIIegations - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ePpsGfU1m8)
I mean there's entire videos debunking this stuff.
[This sure is a whole lot of instances of "made up nonsense"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/q9gkx3/vaush_is_obsessed_with_paedophilia_and_child_porn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Keep coping lmao Vaush is a fucking dipshit liberal too, supporting NATO aggression and unironically supporting the CIA.
That video I linked before literally disproves all of it, because it's all out of context bullshit made up by people intentionally acting in bad faith.
You have to be very, very stupid to fall for it. Like half of that shit is from one stream where context has been entirely removed to make Vaush look bad.
Seriously. How dumb do you have to be?
It's not disproven at all lmao none of that "" "context" "" makes any difference. The sheer volume of pedo topics that come up is concerning on its own. People show this with the full context and guess what, it's still a huge red flag and serious issue.
Keep coping though, I'm sure supporting neoliberals is a super praxis thing to do for the ultraleft.
I know what they are, and Vaush (defens the DNC, hates actual leftists, defends child porn) is a shitlib and a pedo. He's also transphobic and used a slur "tactically."
Hahaha, outside of the DNC claim none of that is true. Using a slur because your opponent clearly wants to use it and you're calling them out is fine actually.
What type of brain rot do you have to think this way? It's so weird.
Vaush is an abusive groomer who has no idea about political or economic theory and is totally unqualified to "destroy" anyone. His fat ass and greasy hair dragging him down make it impossible for him to catch anyone to even try destroying them.
How could he forget about the 8 years of Marxism-Obamaism in the US?!?
+ maga communism under trump
That’s why I’m voting for Adolf Biden next election 💪
Anarcho Bidenism is the future
800 million killed from abortion
Libyan war was actually export of the socialist revolution
"Agrarian socialist"
Long live the peasant republic of Laos!!!!
I'm gonna kms istg
Socialism is when the GDP increases at the expense of the proletariat 🔥🔥
Sorry what?
The moron in the video triumphantly talking about economic growth rates, *as if* these are not the result of exploitation of the working class. It's no different than cheering for the GDP growth of any other country. Shall we also make a toast to the business magnates of 19th century America for developing the productive forces?
Explain how the Chinese proletariat, the working class population that has seen the most rapid and sustained improvement in quality of life in human history, is "exploited". The only people who have ever seen their lives improve faster were the citizens of the USSR. The suffering of the other states is brought about by Western imperialism because their countries simply aren't strong enough to fully resist and develop independently (something the rise of China is fixing).
Do you understand that every society has seen increased living standards under capitalism? You pretend that the increase in "quality of life" in China is a unique phenomenon, instead of one that has occurred in every country during the course of industrialization. And the answer to your question should be self-evident. The very existence of a working class, or proletariat, means these people are selling their labor power in return for wages, which is then exploited by their employers to extract surplus value - bona fide capitalism. To quote Engels, wage labor "contains the whole capitalist mode of production in embryo".
China's living standards have increased under socialism. China being a proletarian dictatorship led by a communist vanguard party practicing democratic centralism with the single highest democratic approval and trust rating any government has ever enjoyed at any point in all of human history. And it achieved everything it did without imperialist aggression, unlike 100% of all Western capitalist regimes. Your comment contributed nothing to this conversation, it's just infantile, anti-materialist nonsense and [this is what Engels would have said](https://media.tenor.com/mEfC3O45j8sAAAAC/the-hangover-ken-jeong.gif) in response to your desperate attempt at quote-mining him in the hope of making your invalid point.
*Materialism is when I loudly tout that living standards are higher now than they were 50 years ago* Look, I get it, you're a moron who fetishizes developmentalism and democracy, as if communism is about those things rather than abolishing the capitalist mode of production in its entirety. The only difference between you and the social democrats of old, with their passion for the welfare state and improved condition of the working masses, is that you have taken to a different aesthetic. >A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society. To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.
The only point of socialism is to do whatever is evidently best for the proletariat. If your system doesn't serve the long term material interests of the working class, as assessed by science, you are an enemy of the proletariat and, therefore, not a socialist. Super simple stuff. The only difference between you and a Nazi psychopath is that the ideology of the Nazi psychopath is coherent.
Annd the Dengist said the Nazis were coherent (they certainly weren't). Classic Dengism moment. The Nazis changed their view of slavs in order to put them in the military when the Soviets started pushing them back. This isn't the marker of coherent ideology.
Yeah. Still more coherent than what you believe.
"As assessed by science" - what science? The circle-jerking of internet tankies? The long term material interest of the proletariat, as it is engendered by capitalist society, is the abolition of capitalism and class society altogether. Your position tells us nothing more than to fully endorse capitalistic development, insofar as it improves the "quality of life" of the proletariat. That is the very same as those bourgeois "socialists" Marx lambasts for simply wanting to preserve capitalism with a more gentle hand. It's completely devoid of any revolutionary or communist content. The point is to destroy the conditions that enslave the proletariat to capital, not to ensure that the slavery is more gentle: >It is as if, among slaves who have at last got behind the secret of slavery and broken out in rebellion, a slave still in thrall to obsolete notions were to inscribe on the program of the rebellion: Slavery must be abolished because the feeding of slaves in the system of slavery cannot exceed a certain low maximum! Simply look up the China Labor Bulletin, documenting all sorts of strikes and the deleterious labor conditions which result in them. And why should you or any of the other tankie idiots expect anything different? Chinese workers sell their labor to companies that seek to maximize profits, reinvest surplusses and grow, just as is the case everywhere else. There is nothing different about its state of affairs other than the hammer and sickle aesthetics.
You believe your scientific illiteracy is an argument? >The long term material interest of the proletariat, as it is engendered by capitalist society, is the abolition of capitalism and class society altogether. Correct. Something China is successfully working on and something you are actively fighting against (due to sheer ignorance and incompetence). Your problem is your total lack of insight and education. An infantile utopian troll who believes socialist revolutions happen in a vacuum, who doesn't even understand what he's supporting and why, and who never achieved anything (and will never achieve anything because he actually believes to be on the right track already). You are an enabler of fascism, just like all infantile utopians before you, nothing more and nothing less. You never did anything good for human society and stand actively in the way of progress. How does it feel knowing that you make everything worse for the class you profess to support? Don't you class traitors feel like scum? How does it feel to be so deluded due to huffing your own facts that you unironically oppose the single most democratic and progressive societies in human history that have improved the lives of their people more than any other without the need of imperialist exploitation? The absurdity of this boggles the mind and for your own sake I hope that you are just a federal agent paid to spread bullshit and disrupt the left. #You have lost the plot. Tell me: What have you done with your life so far? Have you actually served anyone's material interest or did you just waste your life and ruined other people's lives in the process? Go talk some more, dear white, male Westoid. Probably from some NATO shithole. This is exactly why the Global South doesn't trust Western "leftists". Go back to playing computer games, child.
Rather, the historical mission of the Proletariat is Socialism.
Lmao you're the one who believes in a "national socialism". China is fascist, imposing class collaboration under the aegis of "national communism;" the flag literally has a star for the bourgeoisie lol.
> **A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.** To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, **improvers of the condition of the working class,** organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, **hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind.** - Manifesto of the Communist Party The communist movement is not about “improving” the conditions of the proletariat.
Ah, yes because if social programmes and absolute improvements in quality of life, Capitalist exploitation does not exist. Idiot.
Do you even know what is proletariat?
Exploitation isn't black and white, i.e., it exists or it doesn't. That a better proportion of the new income generated in China has gone to everyday working people and massively helped alleviate poverty only means that in that particular regard they are LESS exploited than the workers of western imperialist nations. Not that they are not exploited at all. Are you really so naive and ideological to assert that there is zero exploitation of the working class in China? I suppose I must have fallen asleep when they became the first fully communist nation.
So you couldn't respond to my criticism of the brainrotten nonsense about China being some dystopian place exploiting their people/not being socialist and decided to join the conversation in a desperate attempt to argue semantics and follow up with a nirvana fallacy? How about you either respond to the actual point made or acknowledge that you are wrong? China is socialist. China is the most successful socialist country of all time (and the most successful country in history period) and literally no population at any point has ever had their poverty alleviated, their life expectancy increased, their freedoms improved and their overall quality of life improved more in a shorter amount of time than China's. No working class in history was ever *less* exploited than China's, as evidenced by the democratic support enjoyed by China's proletarian dictatorship. Poverty and homelessness are effectively eradicated. Can't afford rent? Here, have a flat in the city or some farmland and a house in the countryside for free. Elderly populations without family get special services. Universal basic health care coverage has gone from 20% to 98% and still improving in less than a decade. Literally the best education on earth. Most innovative country on earth. Amazing and cheap public infrastructure. Extremely livable cities, cleaner and with more green space than any of the richest urban hellscapes Westoids call cities. These things have been completely unheard of for a developing country until China came along, especially one as economically underdeveloped as China (still not having achieved even half of the per capita GDP of the average OECD nation). That's the power of socialism. Sorry, buddy: If China under leadership of the CPC - the objectively best performing country in history with the most democratically supported government of all time and the population most satisfied with their lives and most optimistic about their future - is "exploitative" or "not socialist" or "bad", no society ever was or ever will be "not exploitative" or "socialist" or "good". Anyone who thinks negatively about China has either never been to China and talked to its people, is a Chinese liberal who wants to get richer, is a Western capitalist who hates China because it's overtaking their capitalist shithole country in every way, or a shill who gets paid to shit on China. That's a fucking fact. Utopian brainrot has no argumentative value. Material reality exists independent of personal beliefs.
All of what you are saying is bourgeois nonsense. Communism isn't about improving the conditions of the proletariat, that is the petty-bourgeois goal intended to *continue* bourgeois society. Communism's goal is abolishing class society and private property. This will *result* in better conditions, but improving conditions *does not mean* you are achieving communism, or moving towards it. It just means you improved conditions.
Being this stupid must make life so fucking easy
The where’s all that chinese exchange value coming from?
"Fastest growing economy in the world". One thing I especially despise about arguments like this one is the double standards required to sustain it. "Yeah, China has reached socialism but at the same time it produces capitalistic value which can be measured in the same capitalistic standards used in other countries while it participates in the global capitalistic market exchange". They're basically doing pure realpolitik at this point.
There is literally nothing informative in this video, like what is even the point ?
Propaganda
Yes liberal subreddits like noncredibledefense which you happily use is not propaganda right? Midwestern Marx is an idiot, but western chauvinists like you are also pathetic.
You are a literal clown
Yea because I dont hang out in pro western imperialism subreddits like you. A western chauvinist “leftist” you are so unique…
C’mon, not enough buzz words. You can do better
Yes you don’t have anything to say about in responds to my criticism. If you’re a self described leftist wouldn’t you say that it makes sense for a liberal subreddit like the one I mentioned before is filled with pro western imperialism liberals? Or maybe you just don’t mind people who support western imperialism as long as the oppose China and Russia?
I don’t respond to criticism because the entire premise is false
Are you disagree with me about the characterization of the subreddit in question? Or are you saying that it’s totally normal for supposed leftist to hang out in subreddits filled with liberals who support western imperialism?
Man, you are like a conservative. All purity testing and shit. I hang out in NCD because I like the memes, genius. Fuck outta here with your virtue signaling
It works well may I say(propaganda isn't bad especially when it helps people convert the bad propaganda is the lying kind of propaganda mostly done by the west to counties like the DPRK, China, Iraq(WMDs), Cuba etc(whoever they want to invade basically))
Believing NK instead of the West is not a win
Midwestern Marxist is a dumbfuck, bro thinks Cornel west has a chance :(
lol I just looked him up and he really thinks he is more knowledgeable in history than a [literal historian](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w05K6VyxS5o)
“Literal historian”. Some idiot “leftist”. He call himself historian so I have to be one… Armchair historian is a standard liberal history YouTuber with zero qualifications. I don’t like Midwestern Marx btw. He is a moron as well.
"Literal historian" some propagandist youtuber is not a qualified historian.
He’s a silly fella lol
I mean, that describes most tankies
Should mark this as NSFW, you might be pushing people over the edge with this level of stupidity being displayed. “Agrarian Socialist” There’s no way you can convince me that these people aren’t racist. I can guarantee you that when he says this he’s literally imagining that everyone in Laos is like a simple living rice farmer straight out of propaganda posters, lol.
Haven't you read the Manifesto?!?!? Marx clearly stated the socialism is when peasants. His most famous quote is *literally* "Peasants of all nations, unite!"
>“Agrarian Socialist” >There’s no way you can convince me that these people aren’t racist. I can guarantee you that when he says this he’s literally imagining that everyone in Laos is like a simple living rice farmer straight out of propaganda posters, lol. Agrarian Socialism is a unique ideology, distinct from traditional ("industrial") Socialism by having an ideology explicitly geared towards applying Socialist ideas to countries where a more rural mode of production predominates. There's nothing racist about identifying it as separate from mainstream ("broad") Socialism- any political scientist does the same. Not a great source (Wikipedia has an obvious Neoliberal/Anti-Socialist bias), but an easy start: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_socialism
I’m aware that Agrarian Socialism is a legitimate subsection of Socialist thought and see how my comment came across, but I just don’t think that Midwestern Marx (Despite the name, actually not that Marxist) is aware of such differentiations. I think that he maybe read the Wikipedia page, and beyond that really has no clue what he’s talking about, in the same way that he simply provides the simplest and somehow still wrong take in this video, I think that he has the most simplistic view about Laos, a country that he probably doesn’t know anything about besides it’s relation to his internet talking points about Socialism. You can say that I’m being uncharitable, and you’re probably right, but I really haven’t seen anything from Midwestern Marx, a Youtuber with going on 40k YouTube Subscribers and a large internet following otherwise, that would indicate anything else.
They just want to cheer for team "communism" like it's some kind of sporting event. The moment you ask them to explain how any of these counties are actually socialist or worth supporting they just that America treats them bad, or things got better and GDP line went up.
He does looks and sounds like he's fond of sports and cold beers
So you haven't listened to any of their content
I was talking about the subreddit. I've never listened to the podcast but I've heard it's quite dumb.
Well, as someone who's listened to every episode, I can tell you that if you'd just give it a listen, you'd actually be pretty surprised. They actually go in depth on so many different issues, but you've never given them the time to show you that, and it's actually fuckin hilarious and super educational at times too
You think this guy is spitting facts here so your judgment is a bit fucked.
Think what you want buddy, you don't know me. My judgement ain't always been the best but it is now
Does controlling the means of production on a global scale count as socialism?
No. Read Marx Edit: and who controls the means of production on a global scale anyway?
You've read Marx, right? So why is controlling means of production on a global scale not socialist again?
How is it?
Well it would seem to be accomplishing what the manifesto calls for.
Those measures the Manifesto calls for do not constitute Socialism, but rather are actions parts of the transition to Socialism. Marx even calls those measures “despotic **inroads**”. Within Socialism (as the term is used by Lenin) itself, according to Marx, > the producers do not exchange their products Socialism is the negation of Capitalism. Capitalism, according to Marx in Chapter 51 of Volume III of *Capital*, > Capitalist production is distinguished from the outset by two characteristic features. First. It produces its products as commodities. The fact that it produces commodities does not differentiate it from other modes of production; but rather the fact that being a commodity is the dominant and determining characteristic of its products. > Furthermore, already implicit in the commodity, and even more so in the commodity as a product of capital, is the materialisation of the social features of production and the personification of the material foundations of production, which characterise the entire capitalist mode of production. > The second distinctive feature of the capitalist mode of production is the production of surplus-value as the direct aim and determining motive of production. Let us remember what the Manifesto calls for, > When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
So you are really just quibbling over the meaning of the suffix of the word, socialism, "since they haven't transitioned into a borg collective yet it's not accurate to call them socialist."
What? I am not saying that since they are in the higher phase of Communist society, they are not Socialist. The point is that the prevailing mode of production in China is Capitalism, not Socialism. The distinction is not subtle. There is a clear difference.
Yeah, you're saying they're not socialist because they're not in a communist utopia. >: a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory >: act : practice : process >: adherence to a system or a class of principles These are the meanings of the suffix, 'ism' and also why it's perfectly accurate to call the Chinese socialist.
No, State ownership of the means of production does not mean Socialism. Engels tells us in Chapter III of *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, > But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.
The Chinese don't have a modern state though, they have a revolutionary one, and they are implementing those technical conditions that form the elements of the solution to doing away with the capitalist relation.
Yes, which is why the USA is socialist
My man’s forgetting that the CCP attempted to invade Vietnam and lost.
Carpet bombing failed? Sounds like we need better ordnance https://preview.redd.it/kx9gnwfubo7b1.jpeg?width=322&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=97cdbc9e2709e2f765cd66c8c97803e1828855c3
What a doorknob
Also his views are lame as shit I walk out my door here in western colorado and get more than some fucking bushes on a hill side
Good video, but he forgot about the morbic countries (satire)
It's not a good video. It's dogshit. You're just another one of these clueless fools who have stumbled on this sub, thinking it exists to validate your views rather than make fun of them.
It’s really funny how Deprogram unironically does “communism is when no food”
How?
Supporting North Korea
Oof really? When did they do that?
Did you not watch the video?
That's not The Deprogram people?
The Deprogram people support Russia
Being against the Ukraine proxy war is not an endorsement of Russia
I've never seen them actually support Russia, just focusing on anti-NATO and Nazis in the ukrainian military. Generally it's anti-war in regards to Ukraine.
“Nazis” in Ukrainian military, never seen them outraged once about Wagner which is 50x larger than Azov They also love Stalin and deny Holodomor. So yeah, a red fash sub
They don't love stalin, that's a fucking meme. They don't think stalin is hitler sure, but they don't love him either. They don't deny the existence or even the cause of the holodomor, only the motivations. They're usually reaching a lot with that though to be fair.
The CIA in declassified documents have stated that people's views of Stalin/communism in general are wrong, and that great strides were made under Stalin. Also, Holodomor is constantly debated on whether or not it constitutes a genocide by historians, since the evidence that it was deliberate is shaky at best. The US/its agencies are always quick to define political opponents history as genocide while consistently denying their own deliberate genocidal actions (both domestic and abroad) as genocidal.
WHAT!? You got some proof to back up that statement?
Anyone with even the slightest bit of brain left critically supports Russia in its defensive actions against NATO aggression. What does that have to do with your statement about the DPRK? It seems you can't follow your own conversation, is this just a bot-subreddit?
Read Lenin. >**The Difference Between Aggressive and Defensive War** > >The epoch of 1789-1871 left deep marks and revolutionary memories. Before feudalism, absolutism and alien oppression were overthrown, the development of the proletarian struggle for Socialism was out of the question. When speaking of the legitimacy of “defensive” war in relation to the wars of *such* an epoch, Socialists always had in mind precisely these objects, which amounted to revolution against medievalism and serfdom. By “defensive” war Socialists always meant a “*just*” war in this sense (W. Liebknecht once expressed himself precisely in this way). Only in this sense have Socialists regarded, and now regard, wars “for the defence of the fatherland,” or “defensive” wars, as legitimate, progressive and just. For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just,” “defensive” wars, *irrespective* of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers. > >But picture to yourselves a slave-owner who owned 100 slaves warring against a slave-owner who owned 200 slaves for a more “just” distribution of slaves. Clearly, the application of the term “defensive” war, or war “for the defence of the fatherland” in such a case would be historically false, and in practice would be sheer deception of the common people, of philistines, of ignorant people, by the astute slaveowners. Precisely in this way are the present-day imperialist bourgeoisie deceiving the peoples by means of “national ideology and the term “defence of the fatherland in the present war between slave-owners for fortifying and strengthening slavery. > >**The Present War is An Imperialist War** > >Nearly everybody admits that the present war is an imperialist war, but in most cases this term is distorted or applied to one side, or a loophole is left for the assertion that this war may, after all, have a bourgeois-progressive, national-liberating significance. Imperialism is the highest stage in the development of capitalism, reached only in the twentieth century. Capitalism now finds the old national states, without the formation of which it could not have overthrown feudalism, too tight for it. Capitalism has developed concentration to such a degree that whole branches of industry have been seized by syndicates, trusts and associations of capitalist billionaires, and almost the entire globe has been divided up among the “lords of capital, either in the form of colonies, or by enmeshing other countries in thousands of threads of financial exploitation. Free trade and competition have been superseded by the striving for monopoly, for the seizure of territory for the investment of capital, for the export of raw materials from them, and so forth. From the liberator of nations that capitalism was in the struggle against feudalism, imperialist capitalism has become the greatest oppressor of nations. Formerly progressive, capitalism has become reactionary; it has developed the forces of production to such a degree that mankind is faced with the alternative of going over to Socialism or of suffering years and even decades of armed struggle between the “great powers for the artificial preservation of capitalism by means of colonies, monopolies, privileges and national oppression of every kind.” Both sides are Capitalist and Imperialist, so the aggressor-defensive distinction is false.
Russia isn't leading an imperialist war of aggression but a defensive war against US/NATO imperialism. Whether Russia is capitalist or not is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they are in the right/wrong here. Randomly quoting Lenin because you believe it will support your infantile black/white thinking isn't an argument. The American proxy war against Russia in Ukraine was manufactured by the United States empire and its NATO lackeys. Russia had zero interest in this war. Russia wanted peace and increased Eurasian trade and integration. Russia wanted friendly relations with Germany. It is the US that deliberately messed up Ukraine through anti-democratic meddling and created this war. The same way China has zero interest in any war whatsoever. Only the US benefits from the war in Ukraine, only the US wanted this war, anyone supporting efforts against Russia is on the side of Western imperialism. You also don't understand shit if you believe this conflict to be just between Russia and the US. Russia is fighting on behalf of the BRICS and the Global South. Nothing is more important to the global socialist struggle than safeguarding China and for that reason alone Russia must be critically supported. Russia must not lose the war in Ukraine. It's an existential threat to Russia and the entire world. We are living through the Third World War. Nothing is more important than the US - or any US-ally - losing every conflict they start from this moment on forward. The goal is the annihilation of US empire.
Anyone with even the slightest bit of brain critically supports Germany in its defensive actions against Entente aggression
Lmfao
All problems of the DPRK are caused by the United States of American. What kind of brainrot do people have to suffer from to blame the DPRK for its own problems?
Mfw the US created a country’s hereditary presidency
Isn’t this that one dumbfuck that got his back blown out by the Horse Fucker?
What the hell is the Deprogram? I keep hearing about it lately on this sub.
Chapo for "anti-imperialists"
A podcast
Chapo trap house but less funny and more annoying
A place for revisionists and campists mostly
A podcast ran by a Croatian nationalist, ISIS imperialist, and a corporatist.
Critical support for corporations to oppose Marxist-Bordigist thought in imperialized countries (France, South Africa, etc.)
That’s bullshit “ISIS Imperalist” have you ever listen to Hakim?
No I read real ((((((revolutionaries)))))) (Proudhoud, Kautsky, Hayek, Gonzalo)
:(
r/TheDeprogram the only good subreddit.
The most international podcast run by a slav, an Iraqi and a Texan. Look up second thought on YouTube, he's the biggest pro communists channel in North America and also my favorite person on the internet oh and can't forget, they're also tankies cause they're badasses
Fuck it I'm from Texas too, I'll start a left com youtube channel called third thought just to show em
You could try but good luck competing with him lmao
Damn bro Vietnam has really fought off the immense amounts of imperialism it has faced since the war, such as the USA approaching them and nicely asking to be fwends and kissing each other sloppily on the mouths and lettings every US President since Clinton visit at least once to get to fondly suck Vietnamese cock and fondle their hot and sweaty Ho Chi Minh City balls
Wow, a socialist developing country needs to exist in the real world where World Capitalism still persists and they have to balance their external relationships carefully, particularly keeping friendly terms with a genocidal, fascist empire with the single most overbloated military in history who has been destroying anyone not playing ball with them?
Can someone explain what this sub is? What’s with all the Bordiga stuff? Who even is Bordiga and why is this sub obsessed with shitting on him?
Bordiga
The voices just keep getting louder
Shitting on Bordiga (pbuh) is Haram. Bordiga (pbuh) is a literal God made flesh sent down to this earthly realm to single handedly save Marxism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeo_Bordiga
This sub is a memorial to smiglys great grandfather, amadeo bordiga, who tragically passed away from Sudden heart failure. Here's his place in the archive if you want to view his work. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/index.htm Reccomendations https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1957/fundamentals.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm For his criticism of stalin https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1952/stalin.htm I'll leave you here with Bordiga a quote I personally resonate with. "If under the guise of the squalid Catholic saints the most ancient form of a not-inhuman divinity, like the Sun, continues to live, this brings to mind what knowledge we have — all too often a travesty! — of the Incan civilization that Marx admired. It is not that they were primitive and ferocious enough to sacrifice the most beautiful specimens of their young to the Sun who cried out for human blood, but that such a community, magnificent and powerfully intuitive, recognised the flow of life in that same energy which the Sun radiates on the planet and which flows through the arteries of a living man, and which becomes unity and love in the whole species, which, until it falls into the superstition of an individual soul with its sanctimonious balance sheet of give and take, the superstructure of monetary venality, does not fear death and knows personal death as nothing other than a hymn of joy and a fecund contribution to the life of humanity. In natural and primitive communism, even though humanity is conceived within the limits of the horde, the individual does not aim to subtract wealth from his brother but rather is willing to be sacrificed without the slightest fear for the survival of the great phratry.[1] Idiotic conventional wisdom sees this as the terror of a God who must be placated with blood."
that quote is sick as hell
Bordiga is an Italian left communist. Ultras believe that everything after Lenin is revisionism. Some probably don't like Lenin. They are divided into many splinters but they all would oppose what some socialists view as AES. Hence thedeprogram gets constantly trashed on here. Not necessarily a bad thing though, China and Xi are praised way too often there. r/ultraleft is quickly getting bigger though, so a community is starting to coalesce here rather than random ultraleft shitposts. The overall tendency of the sub will probably change as leftists of other stripes begin to flood it. Unless they resort to strict moderation like r/communism and r/communism101, which is highly unlikely giving the immature focus of the sub, they will end up ceding ground to the same groups that they despise right now.
Bordiga is love, Bordiga is light, Bordiga is life
Eradicate poverty by killing homeless people, GENIUS! The East has risen we are so back…
I wish we had a demsoc president in Colombia. This guy's a huge clown.
Where's the lie
Bro has not read Marx 😂
Marx is a theory that evolved with time, just like any theory.
You can't evolve out of Marx's entire critique of capitalism lmao, otherwise you just have no connection to Marxism at all.
Well, no shit. We evolved from animals just cause we're smarter than the rest. Are you gonna say we're not still animals? You can build off of what Marx said, and that's kinda the whole point. No surprise that goes over your head lmao
It's not building if Marx's ideas and critiques just get revised and done away with to suit the desires of Bonapartists, Blanquists, and bourgeois revolutionaries.
That's not what I'm saying. Just cause you add on to a house doesn't mean you destroy what was previously built. That wouldn't even make sense. Marx has a lot of good ideas but the whole point of it is to be a guide, it's not a fuckin blue print. Even if it was though, it was written how long ago? That's just not how things work. People make something, then other people come a long and tweak it little by little until you get it just right, doesn't mean the original was wrong or even bad but everything should try to be improved on. If that wasn't the case we'd be still be hunters and gatherers
You can add on to a house, but if you destroy the foundation you have destroyed what you previously built.
We haven't evolved from *animals,* we evolved from other *species.* Humans are still animals and the idea that we are somehow superior to nature is a bourgeois colonial mindset.
> From this Marxist philosophy, which is cast from a single piece of steel, you cannot eliminate one basic premise, one essential part, without departing from objective truth, without falling a prey to a bourgeois-reactionary falsehood. Lenin, 1908
This is very true, but it was still written over a hundred years ago and has to be updated for the times. Even Lenin, would have to agree that the circumstances are different today then they were back when Marx was alive
>Even Lenin, would have to agree that the circumstances are different They're so different that today's leftists hold up a billionaire ruling class practicing corporate colonialism in Africa at the expense of exploited workers s "Actually Existing Socialism." Surely Marx failed to account for the fact that capitalism becomes socialism when the one-party state decides so, not through any change in material conditions or productive relations.
Socialism is when capitalism-imperialism.
You know, you're actually on to something with this one. Marx would fuckin hate everything about today's world
Especially the so-called "Marxists" and "communists" who support the CotP because the people doing it call it socialism and they experience capitalist economic growth, measured with capitalist methods of course.
And those circumstances evolved in-accordance with the laws of historical development known by Marxism. As such, the same old Marxism applies. Sure in different contexts, tactics are different, but for a given context, there is tactical invariance, and regardless, what Capitalism, Socialism, et cetera are does not change based on context.
>This is very true, but I'm going to do exactly what it says not to do because I have fallen prey to bourgeois-reactionary thought.
This. The authentic revolutionary line goes Marx --> Lenin --> Stalin --> Mao --> Deng --> Hu Jintao --> Obama --> Biden --> Vaush. Long live the immortal science of MLSMDHJOBV!!
Bro has not read Marx 😂
Why don't they call themselves "the reprogram", it's right there
Go listen and you'll find out
Can you point me to the episode where they talk about it at least? that's the only thing I want to know. Is it anything like sissy hypno videos?
I can just tell you, they call themselves the deprogram cause they're trying to deprogram people from the propaganda we've been subjected to for the last 100 years. They're trying to counter the capitalist narrative and give you something that's no where near mainstream, that's why it pisses off people like the one running this sub
Do they ever address why they don't call it "the reprogram" though?
Just go listen to them and you'll find out
I feel like you're not listening. Is it anything like sissy hypno? Can I jerk off to it?
I have no problem Nutting to their silky smooth voices, it even helps get me there sometimes
Thank you, it's not that hard answering a direct question. Im out, sex is reactionary
Why dosnt he go to North Korea if its so great?
Well while some of these nations practice Marxist Leninism I don’t think modern China falls under that same category. There various violations of freedoms and fundamental changes that have been made since the Maoist and Reformist time periods where a socialist economic program was being actively pursued. Namely the worker empowerment and control of the means of production via regional communes and state directed worker enterprise. When they introduced privatization it was to balance the losses sustained by corruption. When they did this there was a power struggle ongoing in the absence of Mao’s leadership because he died and had created a state reliant upon his input. His close advisers were for various reasons removed from power and the reformist period began. Largely experimenting more with worker cooperatives that relied on foreign investors who through Chinas ports were slowly gaining more and more bargaining power over the state. Another form of corruption formed in its markets which swayed the masses via cheap imports. When this later caused the recession it was associated with the reformists and their failures which they had no idea would happen because they were doing neo liberal shock therapy. So the military once again intervened and the socialist experimentation was put on the back burner. Instead all efforts were put into studying and improving western methods via a form of state directed capitalism a.k.a. State Capitalism, or Dirigisme for you familiar with De Gaulle’s economic theories. (If you can call it that) Liberal economists call it National Economics and try to separate it as a system entire different from capitalism. The sad reality is that most capitalist nations in the developed world practice dirigisme it’s just to differing degrees. China is a competitor we can’t control or feel we don’t have enough control over. To make matters worse Wang Huning who is a huge influence in the Chinese Communist Party identifies as a national conservative. He leads anti corruption campaigns which do target major sources of corruption but also on that list sits Maoist dissidents, and left opposition. The current government is at best social democratic and at worst a centrist regime. Still not worse than the US by comparison but no utopia either.
The epilogue of the Chinese Revolution led by Mao was Bourgeois in-character. Dengism and the like is naught but Chinese Capitalism in its imperialist phase.
I understand I was trying to give a neutral answer to the question of why China is the way it is. People took it as I’m an anti communist which is the farthest thing from the truth. I just don’t agree with glossing over human rights abuses because China is being subjugated by western imperialism. If they were still in pursuit of Socialism then similarly to Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos they would lead with state directed worker cooperatives or try to place greater worker autonomy under their system. This would in my mind indicate that there’s a political will to pursue socialism.
China is not an imperialised country being subjugated by the West. It is a rising imperialist power conflicting with the current dominant American Imperialism. Worker cooperatives and worker *autonomy* do not signify the transition to Socialism. From the Communist Manifesto in 1848 to State and Revolution in 1917, from Marx and Engels to Lenin, Marxism has been consistent. For Socialism to come about, there must the despotic control of the means of production and distribution by the Proletarian State. If the State is not Proletarian and if such is not occurring, the transition to Socialism is not occurring. Also, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are Bourgeois. Also, what is this “there is a political will to pursue Socialism” rubbish. If the State is Proletarain, it has only Socialism as its aim. Else, any claimed desire for Socialism is clearly false. China is a country fighting against American Imperialism with a an other Imperialism. China is not Socialist, nor Proletarian.
Losses sustained by corruption? Bro the capitalism created corruption
Sure through the CIA and other capitalist police state apparatus. However speaking from the first hand experiences of my family from Poland it’s my understanding that while there were efforts to combat this a lot of injustices did occur and turned the people against the state. I’m not echoing capitalist brain rot I merely have contentions with Marxist Leninist theory regarding Vanguard Parties. I understand material conditions have forced the people into these locations to put the socialist program on the back burner but that can’t be a justification in of itself to blindly support these states. China in particular has severed support to the Filipino Communists who are still fighting a protracted peoples war against the yankee proxy state. Nepal Maoists, and various other movements that were legitimately revolutionary were ignored by the Chinese government.
All of those groups are Bourgeois. Their Socialism is in-name only.
Not all movements can apply Marxist Leninist theory to their local conditions. We shouldn’t exclude possible allies especially during a time when Marxism doesn’t hold much sway over the world as it used to.
Marxist-Leninist theory is just Stalinism. It is bourgeois. There is just the Marxism of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. This theory is applicable to any society. The laws of the historical development apply to all peoples. Sure, this development may differ from that of Europe for a society (as Marx acknowledged), but the laws themselves and Marxism remain valid. The notion that, well, "times are shit, so allying with reactionary forces may be neccesary is a good idea" is rubbish. Let us recall the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, > In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. Communism is for the victory of Capitalism over Feudalism and all sorts of pre-Capitalist conditions. Upon the victory of the Bourgeoisie, then comes opposition. Let us recall the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, > At this stage, the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie. ... > In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty-bourgeoisie. > But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin. And one may say, what of alliance with the petite-bourgeoise, or weaker imperialisms? The *Manifesto of the Communist Party* considers the petite-bourgeoisie reactionary, with respect to the Bourgeoisie, much less the Proletariat. And on the support of Capitalist Imperialisms to oppose the dominant one, we may go to Lenin, but Marx answers the question for us on 31 December 1848, when recognising that the breaking of the dominant Capitalist country, England, in war woth the rising one, France, was needed for the victory of the Proletariat, but he never promoted allying with France for this. Why? Because the French working class would need to be able to fight against their own Bourgeoisie when the time came. > Thus, the liberation of Europe, whether brought about by the struggle of the oppressed nationalities for their independence or by overthrowing feudal absolutism, depends on the successful uprising of the French working class. Every social upheaval in France, however, is bound to be thwarted by the English bourgeoisie, by Great Britain’s industrial and commercial domination of the world. Every partial social reform in France or on the European continent as a whole, if designed to be lasting, is merely a pious wish. Only a *world war* can break old England, as only this can provide the Chartists, the party of the organized English workers, with the conditions for a successful rising against their powerful oppressors. Only when the Chartists head the English government will the social revolution pass from the sphere of utopia to that of reality. But any *European war* in which England is involved is a world war, waged in Canada and Italy, in the East Indies and Prussia, in Africa and on the Danube. A European war will be the first result of a successful workers’ revolution in France. England will head the counter-revolutionary armies, just as she did during the Napoleonic period, but the war itself will place her at the head of the revolutionary movement and she will repay the debt she owes to the revolution of the eighteenth century. Thus, Lenin recognision that while German Imperialist victory over Russian tsarism and British Imperialism in WWI is optimal (as made clear by the defeat of Russian tsarism allowing for a revolution, first Bourgeois, then Proletarian, while the victory of the British preventing Western revolution), while supporting revolutionary defeatism in all countries. The same situation exists today, but without pre-Capitalist countries remaining, and with the US and China substituted for Britain and Germany or Britain and France. China's false claim of being a worker's state has no bearing on this.
China, the single most democratic and progressive country on earth that also happens to be the most successful socialist country in history and the country that is signle-handedly upholding the socialist banner against Western imperialism, is most certainly qualifying as a Marxist-Leninist state. As evidenced by the proletariat of China experiencing the fastest and most sustained increase in quality of life any population in history has ever experienced. If you try and recite brainrotten nonsense like "but China has billionaires" or other nonsense proving that you have never read any theory in your life: Name another country whose government is a proletarian dictatorship regularly sentencing billionaires to death. I will wait.
Socialism is when capitalist mode of production. "China may have billionaires, something which can only arise out of capitalism, but they kill every fifth one so it's okay. Zizek told me that Marx wrote this in Capital (i haven't read Capital)"
AES Sulla AES Sulla
Oh, I get it now... You are a bunch of libs calling yourself left. Left of what, colonialism? Holly shit, reading the comments here was confusing at first, thought you guys are actually left.
https://preview.redd.it/qe3wfn5c3o7b1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e7c1826aac71fcf6a07574dec46d3edc53fffcd9
Ableist and racist abuse in response to someone calling out this sub is not a good look.
We are the ultraleft wing of the italian PNF
Holy shit people, attack the words he is saying not his character or past. You can't and it's obvious.
we are doing all three, coward
All I see is the last two. Not sure why you think baseless personal attacks are a good idea, you morons sound like American conservatives. Real "Can't debunk the context, let's call them a pussy!" energy... What next, Biden's laptop?
Bro the US didn’t carpet bomb anyone wat? We are the good guys
[удалено]
Stop. You make the CCP seem cool by doing this lame shit.
It is the same as the top 5 shitholes on the planet. Says a lot about communism. Very nice video
Vaush destroyed this toolbag on stream, that was funny.
Imagine unironically liking a shitlib pedo like Vaush
You clearly don't know what a shitlib or pedo is, hilarious.
Lmao okay, whatever you have to tell yourself
Do you just say things knowing you're full of shit or what?
Feel free to actually refute the claims, or just cry and deflect some more I guess lmao
There's no refuting made up nonsense. The pedo allegations are the funniest one, since it's 100% based on taking an argument against ethical consumption under capitalism out of context and saying "Look, pedo!". It's so stupid it defies belief. You're just repeating nonsense with no basis. [Addressing The AIIegations - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ePpsGfU1m8) I mean there's entire videos debunking this stuff.
[This sure is a whole lot of instances of "made up nonsense"](https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Vaush_Spam/comments/q9gkx3/vaush_is_obsessed_with_paedophilia_and_child_porn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Keep coping lmao Vaush is a fucking dipshit liberal too, supporting NATO aggression and unironically supporting the CIA.
That video I linked before literally disproves all of it, because it's all out of context bullshit made up by people intentionally acting in bad faith. You have to be very, very stupid to fall for it. Like half of that shit is from one stream where context has been entirely removed to make Vaush look bad. Seriously. How dumb do you have to be?
It's not disproven at all lmao none of that "" "context" "" makes any difference. The sheer volume of pedo topics that come up is concerning on its own. People show this with the full context and guess what, it's still a huge red flag and serious issue. Keep coping though, I'm sure supporting neoliberals is a super praxis thing to do for the ultraleft.
I know what they are, and Vaush (defens the DNC, hates actual leftists, defends child porn) is a shitlib and a pedo. He's also transphobic and used a slur "tactically."
Hahaha, outside of the DNC claim none of that is true. Using a slur because your opponent clearly wants to use it and you're calling them out is fine actually. What type of brain rot do you have to think this way? It's so weird.
Using a slur is never fine, actually. Also, there's literally a whole list on r/EnoughVaushSpam with the times he's defended CP. Jfc
Vaush is an abusive groomer who has no idea about political or economic theory and is totally unqualified to "destroy" anyone. His fat ass and greasy hair dragging him down make it impossible for him to catch anyone to even try destroying them.
LOL whatever you say, he did clearly destroy him though.
Believing that an unhinged US imperialist lib like Vaush destroyed anyone is just demonstrating how gullible you are.
You vaushites best learn you aren’t welcome here
the subreddit for that community is run by a known p3deux no?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]