Feed_el_Castro [he/him, comrade/them]Had a 1v9 argument about China and Cuba being socialist at my org
Awoo [she/her]I always default to “capitalism requires the capitalists to be the ones in charge, if they’re not in charge and the working class party is repressing them then it’s clearly a socialist transitionary state, whatever measures they are taking to succeed and survive during that transition are a product of the conditions that exist”.
Socialism begins at the revolution creating a dotp and does not end until that dotp ends. Everything from the moment of its creation is transitionary socialism, whether they’re implementing markets or other measures is all part of surviving the existing global conditions during that transition.
If they won’t even accept Cuba is socialist then to these people there is literally no socialism anywhere in the world. It is the easiest socialist state to support.
If they won’t even accept Cuba is socialist then to these people there is literally no socialism anywhere in the world
This is exactly European Marxism: the only real socialist in the world is my tiny organization without the slightest political power.
Damarcusart [he/him, comrade/them]Which always raises a question for me: If they think that, why are they even socialists? If every real world example of socialism is either completely impotent or collapses into “revisionism” then Marxism demonstrably doesn’t work and is an incorrect theory. But they aren’t scientific socialists, they’re either weekend communists just cosplaying for fun, or ideologues who treat Marxism like a religion, not a science. I have to deal with this same sort of thing in my local orgs too.
ComradeRat [he/him, they/them]Some people are fine with fighting for communism, even if we havent succeeded so far. Not everyone falls to despair and defeatism if they arent currently winning. Starting from the premise “i’d feel sad if there were no socialist projects” and reasoning backwards from there to declare that XYZ country must be socialist or “there would be no socialist countries [and this would make me sad and defeatist]” is dogshit reasoning, regardless of one’s opinion on past and present socialist projects. Marxism is a science, and that means rigorous definitions and analysis, not changing definitions to make ourselves feel better.
queermunist she/her“Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”
Some people are fine with pointless philosophizing and not actually changing the world, but that’s not scientific, and that’s not Marxist. If Marxism can’t actually build any real socialist projects, if every revolution ends in failure and there’s literally no socialism anywhere in the world, then it’s pointless. If we analyze past and present socialist projects and conclude they are all failures, then scientifically, why be a Marxist? When every experiment ends in failure a good scientist must conclude that Marxism demonstrably doesn’t work and is an incorrect theory.
Some people are fine with being dogmatic martyrs for ideology, but again: that’s not scientific, and that’s not Marxist.
A project failing means you figure out what went wrong and try again, not give up and go home. Marx didnt give up in '49 when the streets of paris ran with workers blood. He didnt shrug his shoulders and give up when the commune was crushed in '71. He analysed those failures for lessons to use in the future. Lenin read those analyses. He didnt surrender when the revolution of 1905 was stamped out. Mao didn’t cry it was impossible when the kmt turned on the cpc. They used those failures to figure out how to reach the goal, which, unless we are not both communists, is to end the rule of markets over the world, not just to provide bandaid solutions that will be removed when the rate of profit falls too far).
The point isnt to be a matyr, it is to have a full understanding of what the problem is, how to fix it, and not to give up and move the goalposts from “end exploitation” to “make wage-labourers slightly less exploited”
This isn’t a project failing. This is every single project that has ever been attempted failing over and over again for 150 years. If we’re scientists, then we should learn from repeated test results and conclude that Marxism is incorrect theory. Why be a Marxist?
There are two scientific ways to approach a historical analysis of Marxism. Either AES countries are examples of Marxism working in practice, or Marxism hasn’t worked in practice and there’s no reason to be a Marxist. There isn’t some third option where you refuse to give up on a failure ideology that never works, simply because you have faith. That’s not scientific, that’s religious.
Which brings us back to the question: why be a Marxist? If this failure ideology collapses every time it is tried, it’s pointless. Lenin tried, and failed. Mao tried, and failed. Everyone that has ever tried has failed. Eventually, it doesn’t make sense to keep trying. This isn’t about feeling bad and crying because we lost faith in our religion, as good scientists we should be doing something different.
The USSR was working tho. It started suffering economic problems because it moved away from the Stalin-era model. It did so according to Molotov (Molotov Remembers, interviews from the 70s and 80s with him) in large part because of the failure of the partys leadership (including himself at the time) to understand the importance of this struggle against the commodities. The combination of economic issues and lack of a theoretical basis for proactive leadership by the party is what caused the ussr to fall, not
China was also working fine before Deng’s economic reforms (much less the more drastic ones under Jiang or Hu). China’s economy was growing, the people were educated and increasingly politicised. If China had stayed on its path, it might look something like Cuba or Iran today (i.e. a revolutionary state under siege) it wouldnt have just evaporated from existence for lack of american capital or engineers.
And Cuba still exists today and has made more progress towards overcome the urban-rural divide, healing the ecosystems and abolishing commodities than any other project. Idk why youre acting like it has failed, and like if it failed it would be for any reason at this point besides the imperialist encirclement—they have done literally everything right.
But even if Cuba were invaded and the revolution crushed or if Xi announced tomorrow that China is abandoning marxism this wouldnt be cause to give up. We dont have the luxury of giving up because the market rules the world and will kill us all if its not stopped. We cant just move the goalposts from abolish exploitation to reduce exploitation.
This comment chain began with:
If they won’t even accept Cuba is socialist then to these people there is literally no socialism anywhere in the world.
And everything I’ve said so far has been under the assumption that we were still talking about the same thing i.e. you defending supposed “Marxists” who believe that every real world example of socialism is either completely impotent or collapses into revisionism. Including Cuba. If that’s not what you’re defending, then you aren’t even having the same conversation as the rest of us in this comment chain. Do you sort by /Chat and not pay attention to parents?