170

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by pillow@hexbear.net to c/chapotraphouse@hexbear.net

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

poor leftists talk about poverty, labor aristocrats get uncomfortable and insist that sociological classes aren't materialist. "all that matters is that we're working class - we're all in this together"
black leftists talk about racism, whites get uncomfortable and insist that they're not personally part of the problem. "we mustn't allow the bourgeois to divide the proletariat along racial lines - we're all in this together"
female leftists talk about patriarchy, men get uncomfortable and insist that it hurts them too. "this men vs women stuff is reductive anyway - we're all in this together"
third world leftists talk about imperialism, americoids get uncomfortable and insist that red white and blue lives matter too. "what happened to the international working class - we're all in this together"

you don't have to invite yourself to every form and experience of oppression. anyone with a baby's consciousness of intersectionality ought to be capable of admitting when they have privilege

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Juice@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I would say no. Patriotic Socialism is more like the movement that inspired the Nazis to add "socialism" to their name. The CCP has a nationalistic quality, like you have to be born in China to hold positions in the party, but for example there is proportional representation, they really make sure their minority populations are properly represented in the government and party. Patsocs try to use the contradictions that arise as a result of trying to reform a nation, and movements that push for progressive reforms for all, to make it into progressive reforms for some, if not completely derailing any progressive agenda. Sometimes patsocs will make appeals to the nationalist character of China or Cuba to argue for patriotic socialism, but I've never seen it argued for in good faith. People are either confused or lying, regardless of what anyone thinks about the CCP, they helped the Chinese people organize and defend themselves. No patsoc movement has ever come within 1000 miles of relevance, let alone victory (unless you count Nazis which wouldn't be a victory for progress!)

[+] LovesAGoodPigRoast@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[deleted]

[-] Juice@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's a really interesting way of looking at it! I think that the reason they get equated is that the material effect had been historically the same. Patsocs advocate for socialist policies, but ideologically restrict who does and doesn't get the benefit. Class reductionists advocate for socialist policies for all, but when the time comes to redistribute wealth, geez you know we really tried. So like the american socialist movements of the early 20th century, moved popular support for socialism all the way to a New deal. But Black workers were excluded from union membership or any of the benefits of the new deal, until the UAW started admitting black workers in Detroit decades later. So even though the messaging was completely different, the historical effect was the same. If workers have the power to demand truly transformative reforms, like new deal policies, then we have to actually push beyond that because the ruling class is never going to let it go down the way we know it has to. They will always fight back with extreme violence. Anything we win has to be defended and we can only defend it if everyone is on board to defend it, and not everyone will be on board if it leaves most people out. Maybe it wins temporary concessions for some, but we are communists, dammit! It's all or we fighting. Its not enough for the workers to be united. We have to be united in struggle, or we will never get there. At least that's what I think.