105
Why does China make so many "Marxist-Leninists" go crazy?
(lemmygrad.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
105 points (100.0% liked)
Communism
9358 readers
2 users here now
Discussion Community for fellow Marxist-Leninists and other Marxists.
Rules for /c/communism
Rules that visitors must follow to participate. May be used as reasons to report or ban.
- No non-marxists
This subreddit is here to facilitate discussion between marxists.
There are other communities aimed at helping along new communists. This community isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism.
If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.
- No oppressive language
Do not attempt to justify your use of oppressive language.
Doing this will almost assuredly result in a ban. Accept the criticism in a principled manner, edit your post or comment accordingly, and move on, learning from your mistake.
We believe that speech, like everything else, has a class character, and that some speech can be oppressive. This is why speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned.
TERF is not a slur.
- No low quality or off-topic posts
Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed.
This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on lemmy or anywhere else.
This includes memes and circlejerking.
This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found.
We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.
- No basic questions about marxism
Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed.
Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum.
- No sectarianism
Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here.
Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable.
If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis.
The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.
Check out ProleWiki for a communist wikipedia.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That might be a bit exaggerated, but it is a well known fact that working conditions in the early 2000s in China were very poor.
I saw this in a lecture by this Chinese professor.
Here is the video. Unfortunately, the translations seem to be kind of cut in places. There is a part where it says a "he" made errors and failed to do certain things correctly, but now that I look at it, this may be referring to Mao and not deng. In that case, I am probably wrong about this point.
However, it is still true that the cpc's official stance is that many problems exist in the early swcc era. Starting at about 2:40, the professor explains that a party reportly bluntly states that development in china has been rather uneven, unbalanced and lopsided. There are significant issues with party loyalty and corruption. Gaps between rural and urban areas are large. Many cadres don't promote scientific innovation well and so on. It might not be correct to pin all of this on rightist errors by one man, but these are errors.
I disagree with this stance. Nationalism is necessary to wage national liberation struggles, but once a country has been made independent of imperialists, nationalism becomes an obstacle to socialist development. I have not looked too deeply into Chinese nationalism, so I cannot claim to be an expert, but china has reached a point of development where it should no longer promote nationalism. China's policy of peaceful coexistence would be helped by promoting a more internationalist stance in culture.
Maybe you could further explain how uneven development or any of the other issues are "rightist errors", there is a fundamental divide between people who outright reject Deng Xiaoping's policies and those who accept them with criticism. The policy of 一国两制 (One China, Two Systems) is probably the most suitable example that can be viewed as "rightist", letting Hong Kong and Macao continue to operate their capitalist system. Other less "egregious" examples are 经济特区 (Special Economic Zones) like Shenzhen and Hainan, there's also the "infamous" 社会主义市场经济 (socialist market economy).
From Mao era's 世界人民大团结万岁 (Long live the great unity of the people of the world) to Xi era's 人类命运共同体 (community of shared future for mankind), China has always been advocating for internationalism.
Nationalism's call to unity is collectivism at the national-level, I agree that collectivism at different levels can be in conflict with each other, for example when family interests conflict with national interests. There is a Chinese saying "舍小家、为大家", which means something like "for the greater good", to describe putting the interests of the greater collective (nation) before the smaller collective (family/self).
Similarly, national interests and international interests can also be conflicting, but China doesn't choose nationalism or internationalism exclusively, it depends on the situation. When assisting the development of Global South countries, is that not internationalism at work? When handling disputes in the South China Sea, China defends its legitimate claims to the islands for national interests.
Nationalism can be reactionary when used at the expense of other nations (invasion, chauvinism, xenophobia), internationalism can be reactionary when used in disregard of legitimate national interests (like contributing to underdevelopment of the current nation, sounds familiar? That's what some people say when China provides cheap goods at the detriment of Chinese workers). Until world communism has been achieved, there's no simple "choice" between nationalism or internationalism, even then there will be new problems in the new world order.
These issues are the result of SWCC, which was to the "right" relative to other positions that existed when it was developed. Though the label applied is not really the point. The point more so is that these issues could have jeopardized the entire Chinese experiment, especially when it came to corruption and party loyalty.
This is true, but we should not view "China" as a singular entity with a singular will. There is a danger to creating even a positive nationalism of the type you describe. It can lead to chauvinistic attitudes amongst portions of the population and party members. This is especially true in the broader context of Chines society being somewhat conservative in its views.
Yes, and this is likely the source of the resurgent nationalistic attitudes. There is no simple solution to this issue and I fear that the politics around these issues will continue to get more heated and even lead to the CPC making a misstep or full-scale war.
Fair enough.
I'll also add that "nationalism" is one of those spooky words the West likes to trot out to beat the Global South with simply on the premise that because Western nationalism was an absolute clusterfuck (and here they'll usually point to the "nationalism as reason for WWI and WWII so it must be bad" gimmick which is agnostic of the Marxist discourse on the role of capital and imperialism in those wars), it must mean that Global South nationalism must transitively be bad as well.
Similar to how Western sexpats post pictures on Reddit of Buddhist swastikas trinkets in Asian flea markets and the comments use it as a sign that Asians don't care about the Holocaust. Yes, places like Modi's India show that Global South currents of nationalism can be warped into profound fascism and cultural chauvinism, but this should not be seen as the prima facie character of Global South nationalism, particularly for AES states.
In essence, nationalism in the Global South operates on a different register from how it is seen in the West and this distinction should not fail to be appreciated. The reason why the West itself downplays nationalism is because the entire bloc is now more or less subordinated to American hegemony not unlike how their propaganda once portrayed Comintern/Cominform Internationalism. Countries with flare-ups of nationalistic (or "patriotic") state character like right-wing Hungary interfere with the ease of coordination to Washington directives and thus are a distinctly problem child for US state interests, which is why nationalist currents are generally suppressed today in the West.