There will always be a vanguard, whether it’s formalized into an entity that can be structured democratically and transparently or whether it’s left unformalized and therefore subject to cliques, natural power imbalances, and a lack of accountability. The reason for this is that humans vary quite widely in political education and skill, those with more experience with organizing and those with no experience already form a natural hierarchy, and without formalizing this structure you run into danger. That doesn’t mean the Vanguard isn’t of the working class, rather, it just means that the Working Class as a whole is the real driver, and the Vanguard is the pointer, spear body and spearhead.
The essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness does a good job of explaining the necessity of formalizing structures in order to keep them truly accountable.
I don’t really know what you’re trying to say by saying Lemmy.ml and Hexbear are “fake Leftists,” are you just trying to say Marxists are fake Leftists?
Why not? It’s a Socialist country if we consider Marxism to be validly Socialist. It’s certainly not Anarchist, but I don’t think Anarchism is the only validly “left” category of tendencies.
Socialism in the Marxian sense is an economy where public ownership is the principle and driving aspect of the economy, in China this is very much the case, where the vast majority of large firms and core industries are in the Public Sector. There is wealth inequality, and there are billionaires, yes, but this is an aspect that is improving over time, a process that we can track. Socialism is always a long and drawn-out process that can only truly be advanced by building up the productive forces dramatically.
As for Imperialism, I would like you to elaborate.
As for fascism, that’s certainly not the case. Even if China was Capitalist, that does not inherently make it fascist, which is a specific form of Capitalism. I highly recommend you read Blackshirts and Reds if you haven’t already.
By imperialism I am referring to Chinese neocolonialism in Africa. As for Fascism I am referring to the Chinese system of private owmership mixed with indirect government ownership (of which the workers own none of it). In addition the vast majority of the Chinese economy is private, that makes it mixed economy at best.
China’s involvement in Africa isn’t neocolonial, though. Moreover, the vast majority of large firms and key industries are publicly owned, the private sector largely accounts for small businesses, which have little to no control over the economy at large. I don’t know what you are referring to as “worker ownership” if public ownership doesn’t count, that’s the core thesis of Marxism, ie reaching a fully publicly owned economy.
I recommend checking out the post I made and the book I linked. The very notion of a “mixed economy” is wrong to begin with, as no economy is pure, modes of productions are determined by their overall totality. Either every economy is mixed, which fails to account for the dramatic differences between feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, etc, or we adopt a more sensible notion that economies are made up of their constituent, interlinked aspects and thus portions cannot be simply cut away and considered “socialist” or “capitalist,” they all exist in context. That would be like saying a board of directors is Socialist if they all have equal ownership, you can’t cut them away from the workers just like you can’t cut sectors out of the broader economy in which they function.
As for fascism, that isn’t an accurate description of fascism at all. Fascism has always served the bourgeoisie as a means to put down leftist organizing in decaying Capitalist countries. You don’t have to support China to be a Leftist, there’s lots of valid critique, but calling it “fascist” is wrong.
There will always be a vanguard, whether it’s formalized into an entity that can be structured democratically and transparently or whether it’s left unformalized and therefore subject to cliques, natural power imbalances, and a lack of accountability. The reason for this is that humans vary quite widely in political education and skill, those with more experience with organizing and those with no experience already form a natural hierarchy, and without formalizing this structure you run into danger. That doesn’t mean the Vanguard isn’t of the working class, rather, it just means that the Working Class as a whole is the real driver, and the Vanguard is the pointer, spear body and spearhead.
The essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness does a good job of explaining the necessity of formalizing structures in order to keep them truly accountable.
I don’t really know what you’re trying to say by saying Lemmy.ml and Hexbear are “fake Leftists,” are you just trying to say Marxists are fake Leftists?
I was saying that people who unironically support China arent actually leftist
Why not? It’s a Socialist country if we consider Marxism to be validly Socialist. It’s certainly not Anarchist, but I don’t think Anarchism is the only validly “left” category of tendencies.
A “socialist” country with billionaires and wealth inequality? With capitalism and imperialism? That sounds like fascism to me
Socialism in the Marxian sense is an economy where public ownership is the principle and driving aspect of the economy, in China this is very much the case, where the vast majority of large firms and core industries are in the Public Sector. There is wealth inequality, and there are billionaires, yes, but this is an aspect that is improving over time, a process that we can track. Socialism is always a long and drawn-out process that can only truly be advanced by building up the productive forces dramatically.
I don’t know what you mean when you say China has “Capitalism.” Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for the broader economy as a whole, not individual portions of an economy. There is private ownership of Capital and markets, correct, but this alone does not equal Capitalism, just like a worker cooperative in the US is not an example of Socialism. If you’re interested in a Marxist perspective, I wrote a post going over how Marxists identify a system as Socialist vs Capitalist, and frequent errors made by non-Marxists (in the eyes of Marxists).
As for Imperialism, I would like you to elaborate.
As for fascism, that’s certainly not the case. Even if China was Capitalist, that does not inherently make it fascist, which is a specific form of Capitalism. I highly recommend you read Blackshirts and Reds if you haven’t already.
By imperialism I am referring to Chinese neocolonialism in Africa. As for Fascism I am referring to the Chinese system of private owmership mixed with indirect government ownership (of which the workers own none of it). In addition the vast majority of the Chinese economy is private, that makes it mixed economy at best.
China’s involvement in Africa isn’t neocolonial, though. Moreover, the vast majority of large firms and key industries are publicly owned, the private sector largely accounts for small businesses, which have little to no control over the economy at large. I don’t know what you are referring to as “worker ownership” if public ownership doesn’t count, that’s the core thesis of Marxism, ie reaching a fully publicly owned economy.
I recommend checking out the post I made and the book I linked. The very notion of a “mixed economy” is wrong to begin with, as no economy is pure, modes of productions are determined by their overall totality. Either every economy is mixed, which fails to account for the dramatic differences between feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, etc, or we adopt a more sensible notion that economies are made up of their constituent, interlinked aspects and thus portions cannot be simply cut away and considered “socialist” or “capitalist,” they all exist in context. That would be like saying a board of directors is Socialist if they all have equal ownership, you can’t cut them away from the workers just like you can’t cut sectors out of the broader economy in which they function.
As for fascism, that isn’t an accurate description of fascism at all. Fascism has always served the bourgeoisie as a means to put down leftist organizing in decaying Capitalist countries. You don’t have to support China to be a Leftist, there’s lots of valid critique, but calling it “fascist” is wrong.