I mean I was responding to you in particular casually, not that China is taking a casual approach.

That’s not my attitude, though, that’s your perception of my attitude.

“Sure” means “yes,” but casually.

Sure.

De-dollarization, expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative, a transition from fossil-fuels to renewables, energy independence not just in China but in the periphery, revolution in the imperial core, a decrease in marketization and an increase in public ownership by ratio of the economy, etc. All of these are important milestones, but they do not happen overnight.

It’s already started, there’s no such thing as a static system, and China has been advancing steadily along the socialist road already. Once imperialism falls, China’s strategic place within the global markets will change character and will accelerate socialization of production and distribution. China doesn’t have private property for the sake of it, but as a strategic concession to both help develop underdeveloped sectors of its economy, and to become something the west relies on and therefore cannot risk attacking.

The PRC is already in the process of eliminating the commodity form, requirements for doing so include breaking the international system of imperialism, and the establishment of socialism in countries China does trade with. Imperialism still exists, the periphery is breaking free from the domination of the core, but this does not happen overnight. The countries China trades with are largely not socialist either. Much of China itself is underdeveloped, and if the PRC is not indisputably ahead of the rest of the world then this will be turned against it if it makes any larher movements.

In other words, China cannot end the commodity form at the present moment, but that does not mean it is not working at the present moment on fulfilling the requirements to do so.

It would likely make a difference, but probably wouldn’t reduce conflict by much. Capitalism doesn’t exist because humans are evil, or unintelligent, for example.

Probably not. Conflict doesn’t arise because people don’t have the right ideas, more so conflict is the result of material conditions and processes. The battle for resources, the right to surplus extraction, class struggle, imperialism, all of these result from the evolution of class society, and not because of intelligence.

Essentially, in its modern context, it’s used against anti-imperialists and those who support existing socialist countries. Those using it as a pejorative have a different view of these countries and thus see “tankies” as defending the indefensible, while “tankies” tend to have more depth of knowledge going against the hegemonic grain.

Both justify investigation, that’s my point. Investigating why the USSR fell is important for any socialist, and thankfully socialist states have learned from it. Likewise, anarchists need to take anarchist history seriously and not just pitch it all on narratives of socialist “betrayal.”

Fantastic lol!

What the fuck? Wow.

To be fair, I have gotten banned for that from instances like Feddit.org, Piefed.social, and Lemmy.blahaj.zone.

Rimu’s crashing out.

“Totalitarian” isn’t a real thing, and neither Russia nor Iran are imperialist. Even if we assumed that you were 100% correct in saying they would be imperialist if they could (which is extremely debatable in and of itself), it remains true that right now they are undermining actual imperialism, which is being perpetuated by and practiced by the west and their vassals exclusively.

The fact that the USSR did fall justifies investigation. Is it intrinsic to socialism, or the specific struggles of the USSR? Much the same way Marxists have to grapple with that reality (and have), so too must anarchists grapple with the fact that they lost out. Either all of the anarchists combined couldn’t overcome the Marxists, which means anarchism is entirely ineffective, or that a majority of them sided with and even joined the Bolsheviks (which is what happened). The former has even less evidence, considering the Marxists were the greatest ally of the Spanish anarchists, and the anarchists in Spain were fairly effective (especially once they adopted more centralized organizing methods).

One thing about anarchism is that it goes against having tight discipline and a unified group. When anarchists joined the Soviets, they tended to drop the anarchist label and just became Marxists. That’s why what remains are usually instances of conflict. Anarchists chose to be integrated into the Red Army, don’t take away their agency.

From the Marxist perspective, anarchists that genuinely wanted to overturn the socialist state and replace it with anarchism were working to restore capitalism, unintentionally of course but from this respect in such a turbulent period they chose not to take chances. Again, though, many anarchists joined not just the Soviets but the Bolsheviks, and later the CPSU.

My goal here is to highlight that people tend to highlight the real conflict while ignoring that this conflict was against the remaining anarchists, and not the anarchists that had joined the Red Army and even the Bolsheviks unless they continued to press for anarchism. This isn’t to say that these anarchists-turned-Bolsheviks were “fake” anarchists, they chose to join the socialists in establishing a socialist state and were helpful in doing so.

🫡

Gay should be uncensored 😤