It was really annoying back when I was a rightist but it’s even more frustrating now that I am a Marxist-Leninist that so-called “leftists” denounce pretty much every single successful socialist experience in history.
It was really annoying back when I was a rightist but it’s even more frustrating now that I am a Marxist-Leninist that so-called “leftists” denounce pretty much every single successful socialist experience in history.
I’ll bite. What successful socialist experiences are being denounced?
Western leftists often denounce all of them (Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, and the historical experiments), as well as the non-Marxist attempts at socialism like in Venezuela, despite never having achieved anything remotely close to socialism in their own countries
I see that Russia isn’t on your list, is it a socialist state or something else?
Depends on what you mean by Russia. If you mean the Soviet Union, then yes, they were most definitely socialist, even though revisionists would later take over and steer it towards the path of complete capitalist restoration.
If you mean modern Russia, then no, they are not socialist, they are capitalist. They have more state-owned industries than normal capitalist societies and oppose the West, but that’s like saying Iran is socialist because the exact same description I just mentioned fits them as well. Just because the Russian government sometimes says good things about the Soviet Union doesn’t make them socialist or wannabe socialist either, they are just trying to win over the many Russians who are nostalgic for the Soviet era. The Russian government is very much anti-socialist.
Thank you for the explanation. I’ve seen a lot of support for Russia, so I thought you guys thought they were socialists. I’m still learning about all this, I’m quite new to being on the left.
The RF (Russian Federation) is capitalist through and through and openly opposes communism, being the direct descendant of the coup and violent overthrow of the Soviet Union, and being capitalist they will eventually enter their imperialist phase but they’re not here yet.
You see the RF forces in Syria defending the legitimate government against NATO attempts at regime change, and you see them also getting closer to China which ultimately strengthens them both as well as the Global South (imperialised countries). Russia is essentially active at the side of the imperialised.
It’s all skilful ploys for their own survival, but fact of the matter is there is no way the RF will be able to enter their imperialist phase as long as the US and their vassals own most of the world’s resources. So the first order of business for the RF is to position themselves against the current imperialist bloc (much like how WW1 was a war to redistribute the world’s resources between colonial powers), and then after that they hope their capitalism will have developed enough by that point to, combined with diminishing US imperialism, become an imperial power of their own.
The RF is in a certain unique position where they’re neither imperialists or being imperialised, which are the two positions most of the world falls into. They decided to join the side of the imperialised, I think because they learned very soon from Yeltsin that Russia was not going to be joining the ranks of Western Europe as beneficiaries of imperialism, but as victims of it. There’s actually videos of Putin meeting with heads of state like Clinton and Tony Blair before his election or shortly after (and there’s also a video where Yeltsin says Putin didn’t return his phone call when he won the election lol), they really thought they could get him to become a comprador and sell off more of Russia’s resources – what little had not been sold by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. I think the fact that Putin said no to becoming a comprador and has been improving the quality of life in Russia (which was abysmal under Yeltsin, one of the worst humanitarian crisis in history) shows some vision, for lack of a better word. But capitalism enters an imperial phase sooner or later, whether Putin wants it or not.
But here you might see a contradiction – if Russia is able to help the imperialised world throw off the chains of NATO (being used as a shorthand here for the imperial core), how will they ensure that they get to pilfer those resources for themselves? If you help countries defend themselves, how can you then invade them and pillage them for yourself?
I don’t have an answer, and I don’t think Russia has an answer either – as capitalists, they probably don’t even realise it works like that. Although, like Marx said, the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. In other words, the socialist past Russia experienced informs them to this day whether they realize it or not, and you can still see some of those remnants in Putin, the way he talks about certain geopolitical developments. So maybe they do have some idea of how they would achieve that.
But honestly Russia’s imperialist phase is still quite far in the future and most communists agree that the biggest contradiction (and challenge) today is NATO imperialism, chiefly the United States. It’s a more pressing matter than Russia maybe possibly becoming imperialist in whoever knows how long.
Hey btw if you don’t understand any of the terms here I highly recommend you look them up on https://en.prolewiki.org!
Thank you for this, very interesting. I think I’m going to have to read more of prolewiki.
Do you mean modern Russian Federation? It’s not socialist in the slightest
I’d argue that for several of the “experiences” on this list that success really depends on who you are and they aren’t or weren’t so great for everyone. And, certainly they all have socialist policies, but similar how it would be inaccurate to define the US as entirely capitalist, socialism isn’t the only defining characteristic. China, for instance, is more strongly characterized by its fascism.
And the DPRK? By what measurement is this considered successful?
That said, I’m certainly not intimately familiar with all of them, and if socialism didn’t have positive successes in the world I wouldn’t support it.
Idk, I’m pretty sure something pretty major happened ~70 years ago? I can’t really remember though…
Just kidding I’m not a liberal who forgets history if the media isn’t shoveling its interpretation of it into my mouth, the DPRK was bombed into the fucking stone age, and didn’t have the United States to pump billions and billions of dollars to rebuild itself, just some help from the USSR and China who couldn’t afford to pump anywhere near the amount of capital into their economy like the US could into Japan and SK, so considering all that I think they’ve been quite successful for their material conditions
I haven’t been since the pandemic, and I know it hit them pretty hard, but it was a much nicer place than a lot of liberals think it is. They are always opening new housing projects that are actually REALLY nice. Wide variety of food and services, as long as you don’t care about having specific brand names on everything you consume. The best part was definitely that people actually had time to live.
I lived in SK (about one year) and the DPRK (aobut three months) thanks to my grad school research, and I can say that I would much prefer to live in the DPRK than SK again. SK is an absolute unchecked exploitative capitalist hellscape, I am not sure there is a country on earth with worse work-life balance. I live in Japan and SK makes us look like a workers paradise.
Wow that’s pretty cool! I’d love to visit the DPRK one day but it’s literally illegal for me as an American :/
The North was also had better conditions than the South before the 90s when like idk probably nothing important happened in the 90s
Yes exactly
How would you define it then?
I would also like to know your definition of fascism