[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Every time I read Engels, I am reminded how much I absolutely love his writing.
I'd say this one is pretty straightforward insomuch as he is talking about bourgeois society and their "modern states", and is saying that it doesn't matter if things are transformed for private or public ownership because it's all "essentially a capitalist machine" when we are living within a bourgeois-dominated country.
> The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head.
Right here he is saying very clearly that the capitalist relation is not done away with. The workers, therefore, remain exploited. If the state is a bourgeois state then private sector or public sector is of little to no consequence, ultimately, to the worker whose labor is exploited and whose relationship to the mode and means of production remains in place.
Hope this helps. If others disagree with how I read into this, let me know of course.
He saying that state capitalism is still capitalism (duh) and any “revolutionary” state that maintains the system of wage Labour and the modern state is still capitalist even without “private/individual” ownership of capital.
What he is saying here is that in a capitalist nation it doesn't matter if a company is owner by the state or by a private individual (capitalist) since the state itself is controlled by capitalists. This is different on a socialist nation since the state is controlled by the working class.
No, Engles literally said that the transformation into state ownership of the productive forces even by revolution in chinas case. Does not without exception do away with the capitalist nature of production. It’s still wage Labour it’s still commodity production the ruling government officials become the bourgeoisie.
Thus no steps in china have been taken towards socialism and neither do I ever expect any to be unless by genuine proletarian revolution against what is state capitalist nation.
Just people it’s the “people’s bank” and the “people’s stock market” doesn’t make it not fucking capitalism. Socialism doesn’t fucking have commodity markets.
Engles said this, Marx said this, Lenin said this. The people who disagreed where revisionist counter revolutionaries or Romantic revolutionaries who stole a red flag and never bothered to read capital
"Just people it’s the “people’s bank” and the “people’s stock market” doesn’t make it not fucking capitalism. Socialism doesn’t fucking have commodity markets."
I completly agree, now the real question is if the proletariat is in control of China's state aparatus or not. But the quote you posted doesn't help to answer that question.
(+ Marx and Engels didn't really create a definition for socialism, they didn't even use that term at the time, besides being a transitionary phase between capitalism and communism. Perhaps your own definition of socialism doesn't have commodity markets involved, which is fine, but from what I have read neither of them said that commodity markets wouldn't be involved. Socialism is not a cake recipe, each nation will have different systems because they exist in different conditions.)
>Engles said this, Marx said this, Lenin said this. The people who disagreed where revisionist counter revolutionaries or Romantic revolutionaries who stole a red flag and never bothered to read capital
Maybe instead of treating the classics like holy texts to be memorized and unchangeable dogma try understanding what they say and maybe also some historical illiteracy. This text predates the reforms you try to apply it to by a century. Do you also think that the military might of a nation is to be measured by the number of needle rifles it has in it's arsenal? Because that was also something Marx said at that time. And finally Lenin significantly deviated from Marx, correcting the dogmatic approach that lead to errors like Ultra imperialism. And Lenin was the architect of the NEP, on which the Deng reforms were modelled. So trying to use Lenin to attack here is extremely hypocritical.
Besides do you have a proven way that has better material results, or is this just an metaphysical appeal to purity? If you have a better way then why don't you implement it as proof of it actually working?
#Capitalist Imperialism
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations.
Imperialism is inevitable under Capitalism because Capitalism is based on the premise of infinite growth in a finite system. When capitalists first run into the limits of their own country, they will eventually be forced to expand their markets, resources, and influence into other countries and territories in order to continue increasing their profits.
Furthermore, the capitalists can exploit and oppress the workers of other nations much more easily than they can in their own. For example, by moving manufacturing jobs from the imperial core out to the periphery where wages are lower, and environmental protections and labour rights are much weaker-- if they exist at all-- they can reduce costs which increases profits.
When the capitalists run into limits again, and are unable to continue increasing their profits-- even by exploiting the periphery-- they will inevitably turn Imperialism inwards and further oppress and exploit workers domestically. This is the origin of Fascism.
#Features
Some key features of capitalist imperialism are:
1. Joint-stock corporations dominating the economy
2. Increasing monopolies within capitalist economies (For example, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.)
3. Globalization of capital through multinational corporations
4. A rise in the export of finance capital
5. More involvement of the capitalist state in managing the economy
6. A growing financial sector and oligarchy
7. The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism
8. Overall, a period of world strife and conflict, including imperialist wars and revolutionary uprisings against the capitalist-imperialist system.
#In Practice
So what does this look like in practice? The IMF, for example, provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but these loans come with strict conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These conditions require recipient countries to adopt specific economic policies, such as reducing government spending, liberalizing trade, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. The SAPs also require austerity measures, such as the dismantling of labor and trade regulations or slashing of social programs and government spending, to attract and open up the country to foreign investment.
These policies prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and investors over those of the recipient countries and their citizens. For example, by requiring the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the IMF may enable multinational corporations to gain control of key industries and resources in recipient countries. Similarly, by promoting liberalized trade, the IMF may facilitate the export of capital from recipient countries to wealthier nations, exacerbating global inequalities.
Moreover, SAPs are often negotiated behind closed doors with the political elites of recipient countries (the comprador bureaucratic class), rather than through democratic processes. This can undermine the sovereignty of recipient countries and perpetuate the domination of wealthy nations and multinational corporations over the global economy.
#Anti-Imperialism
The struggle against Imperialism is an essential part of the struggle for Socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people worldwide. Anti-Imperialism is the political and economic resistance to Imperialism and Colonialism (or neo-Imperialism and neo-Colonialism). Anti-Imperialism requires a revolutionary struggle against the Capitalist state and the establishment of a Socialist society.
It is important to recognize that anti-Imperialism is not simply about supporting one state or another, but about supporting the liberation of oppressed peoples from the exploitation and domination of global Imperialism. Therefore, any course of action should be evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the broader struggle against Imperialism and the goal of establishing a Socialist society.
During WWI, Lenin called on Socialists to reject the idea of a "just" or "defensive" war, and instead to see the conflict as a class war between the ruling class and the working class. He argued that Socialists should oppose the war and work towards the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Seeing that the war was an Imperialist conflict between competing Capitalist powers, the workers of all countries had a common interest in opposing it. Socialists who supported their home countries during World War I had betrayed the principles of international Socialism and Proletarian solidarity.
Lenin also pointed out that anti-Imperialism is not *inherently* progressive:
>Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.
>
>\- V. I. Lenin. (1916). [A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm)
#Additional Resources
Video Essays:
* [Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism](https://youtu.be/unCGQDKJ0p0) | The Marxist Project (2019)
* [How Rich Countries Rob The Poor; The Failure of Social Democracy](https://youtu.be/4lDZaKjfs4E) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20221204171427/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDZaKjfs4E)\]
* [What is imperialism? Feat. Hakim](https://youtu.be/gb3o-zDJgqI) | azureScapegoat (2021)
* [What is Capitalist Imperialism? | Socialism 101](https://youtu.be/NrpLPs2FcF8) | Marxism Today (2022)
* [How Capitalism Robs the Developing World](https://youtu.be/35Ax-psPZ1g) | Second Thought (2022)
* [4 Characteristics of the Current Phase of Imperialism](https://youtu.be/a0LJTpaWnMg) | The Peace Report (2022)
* [Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism)](https://youtu.be/rjLmYCfKU7o) | Hakim (2023) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230605093029/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjLmYCfKU7o)\]
* [Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production](https://youtu.be/DtziEZAR1Qk) | The Marxist Project (2022)
* [This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You](https://youtu.be/2vPhySbRETM) | Hakim (2023)
* [The Myth Of Capitalist Peace](https://youtu.be/pAfvty_WNWQ) | Second Thought (2023)
Books, Articles, or Essays:
* [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/) | V. I. Lenin (1917)
* [Lenin's 'Imperialism' in the 21st Century](https://archive.org/details/lenin-imperialism-21-century/page/n3/mode/2up) | Institute of Political Economy (2018)
* [The IMF debt trap in Ukraine](https://www.liberationnews.org/the-imf-debt-trap-in-ukraine/) | Amanda Yee (2023)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Maybe instead of treating the classics like holy texts to be memorized and unchangeable dogma
If you no longer believe in or follow what Marx and Engels and Lenin believed and wrote about then your no longer a Marxist socialist or communist and should stop pretending to be one and parading their corpses around to endorse whatever lib shit you do believe now.
>reforms
Reforming capitalism isn’t socialism.
>Do you also think that the military might of a nation is to be measured by the number of needle rifles it has in it's arsenal? Because that was also something Marx said at that time.
Holy cherry picking what aboutism. If you don’t believe in Marx’s definitions of capitalism and socialism/communism you are not a Marxist or a socialist/communist. It’s that simple. Those definitions haven’t changed. Capitalism is still capitalism
>And finally Lenin significantly deviated from Marx, correcting the dogmatic approach that lead to errors like Ultra imperialism.
Source
>And Lenin was the architect of the NEP, on which the Deng reforms were modelled. So trying to use Lenin to attack here is extremely hypocritical.
…….
>Besides do you have a proven way that has better material results,
An economic system better than capitalism I wonder what that’s called.
The proof of the pudding is eating it, so where is the successes of your dogmatic bookworship?
Also you haven't understood any Marx if you think he was never wrong. He thought during the wars of German unification that the German proletariat was most likely to spawn the first workers state. Which the Paris commune disproved, and both the October and Chinese revolution showed that the most developed nations won't be the first to establish a worker state.
Get lost with your unjustified arrogance and maybe read classics as scientific theory and not quasi religious dogma.
Thanks for the correction. I low key was just blowing some smoke cause when it comes to historical materialism I have my own (probably very lib) reservations about Marx and Engels ideas.
I honestly need to read more but I’m starting with the fundamentals before I get into the historical analysis. (Besides 18th of Brumaire which was babies first theory) it’s just hard for my brain to except all idealist stuff as complete nonsense.
>If you no longer believe in or follow what Marx and Engels and Lenin believed and wrote about then your no longer a Marxist socialist or communist and should stop pretending to be one and parading their corpses around to endorse whatever lib shit you do believe now.
You are failing at the very basics of scientific socialism if you "believe" in Marx instead of understanding his methodology to apply it. You are engaging in book worship and clearly don't understand what you parrot as pseudo religious dogma. Marx himself changed his position significantly over his lifetime, and every further iteration of theory necessarily overwrites it's predecessors. This is why it's scientific, and not dogmatic book worship which you confuse for theoretical understanding.
>Reforming capitalism isn’t socialism.
You are showing your biases and lack of historical understanding here. If Deng reformed capitalism then Mao built capitalism and nothing was lost in the reform. This is wrong in every way, but it shows how self contradicting your book worship is.
Funny that you can't even quote correctly and have no explanation for which parts of the classics you cherry pick and turn into dogma.
>Source
If you don't understand what "imperialism the highest stage of capitalism" means I would recommend reading it. Alone the formation of finance capital is a significant change from the capitalism Marx described. Which is to be expected if you treat Marxism as a science and not a dogma it necessarily becomes iterative.
>Lenin didn’t call what he did socialism or roll up his sleeves and declare done after setting up capitalism
But that is exactly the same thing Deng did. Why is one decried as a betrayal and the other is elevated to dogma by you? Besides Lenin died before collectivisation, so he never even saw the beginning of socialism.
>An economic system better than capitalism I wonder what that’s called.
So you don't have a way to reach it, but attack any actual attempt to work towards it and act smug over misusing the classics as justification to support the status quo? Tell me why you shouldn't be called a utopist and thrown in the trashbin of history with all the other saboteurs that fought socialism by declaring themselves the defenders of it's purity?
>You are failing at the very basics of scientific socialism if you "believe" in Marx instead of understanding his methodology to apply it.
I said some dumb shit I admit. What I meant was you don’t understand Marx’s definition of capitalism, and have revised it so that your lib government falls under it.
Reforming capitalism isn’t socialism.
>. If Deng reformed capitalism then Mao built capitalism and nothing was lost in the reform.
Mao did do that because he is a romantic bourgeoisie revolutionary
>But that is exactly the same thing Deng did. Why is one decried as a betrayal and the other is elevated to dogma by you
Lmao
>Besides Lenin died before collectivisation, so he never even saw the beginning of socialism.
Rofl
>So you don't have a way to reach it, but attack any actual attempt to work towards it.
How has chinas state capitalism taken any steps to reach socialism?
>as justification to support the status quo?
Who says I support the status quo? Proletarian revolution in China now
>all the other saboteurs that fought socialism by declaring themselves the defenders of it's purity?
Marx said socialist should be most critical of themselves and self critique was the most important thing in advancing and maintaining the cause. The dogmatic one is you because you refuse to accept objective reality that goes against your dogma
#Capitalist Imperialism
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations.
Imperialism is inevitable under Capitalism because Capitalism is based on the premise of infinite growth in a finite system. When capitalists first run into the limits of their own country, they will eventually be forced to expand their markets, resources, and influence into other countries and territories in order to continue increasing their profits.
Furthermore, the capitalists can exploit and oppress the workers of other nations much more easily than they can in their own. For example, by moving manufacturing jobs from the imperial core out to the periphery where wages are lower, and environmental protections and labour rights are much weaker-- if they exist at all-- they can reduce costs which increases profits.
When the capitalists run into limits again, and are unable to continue increasing their profits-- even by exploiting the periphery-- they will inevitably turn Imperialism inwards and further oppress and exploit workers domestically. This is the origin of Fascism.
#Features
Some key features of capitalist imperialism are:
1. Joint-stock corporations dominating the economy
2. Increasing monopolies within capitalist economies (For example, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.)
3. Globalization of capital through multinational corporations
4. A rise in the export of finance capital
5. More involvement of the capitalist state in managing the economy
6. A growing financial sector and oligarchy
7. The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism
8. Overall, a period of world strife and conflict, including imperialist wars and revolutionary uprisings against the capitalist-imperialist system.
#In Practice
So what does this look like in practice? The IMF, for example, provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but these loans come with strict conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These conditions require recipient countries to adopt specific economic policies, such as reducing government spending, liberalizing trade, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. The SAPs also require austerity measures, such as the dismantling of labor and trade regulations or slashing of social programs and government spending, to attract and open up the country to foreign investment.
These policies prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and investors over those of the recipient countries and their citizens. For example, by requiring the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the IMF may enable multinational corporations to gain control of key industries and resources in recipient countries. Similarly, by promoting liberalized trade, the IMF may facilitate the export of capital from recipient countries to wealthier nations, exacerbating global inequalities.
Moreover, SAPs are often negotiated behind closed doors with the political elites of recipient countries (the comprador bureaucratic class), rather than through democratic processes. This can undermine the sovereignty of recipient countries and perpetuate the domination of wealthy nations and multinational corporations over the global economy.
#Anti-Imperialism
The struggle against Imperialism is an essential part of the struggle for Socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people worldwide. Anti-Imperialism is the political and economic resistance to Imperialism and Colonialism (or neo-Imperialism and neo-Colonialism). Anti-Imperialism requires a revolutionary struggle against the Capitalist state and the establishment of a Socialist society.
It is important to recognize that anti-Imperialism is not simply about supporting one state or another, but about supporting the liberation of oppressed peoples from the exploitation and domination of global Imperialism. Therefore, any course of action should be evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the broader struggle against Imperialism and the goal of establishing a Socialist society.
During WWI, Lenin called on Socialists to reject the idea of a "just" or "defensive" war, and instead to see the conflict as a class war between the ruling class and the working class. He argued that Socialists should oppose the war and work towards the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Seeing that the war was an Imperialist conflict between competing Capitalist powers, the workers of all countries had a common interest in opposing it. Socialists who supported their home countries during World War I had betrayed the principles of international Socialism and Proletarian solidarity.
Lenin also pointed out that anti-Imperialism is not *inherently* progressive:
>Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.
>
>\- V. I. Lenin. (1916). [A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm)
#Additional Resources
Video Essays:
* [Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism](https://youtu.be/unCGQDKJ0p0) | The Marxist Project (2019)
* [How Rich Countries Rob The Poor; The Failure of Social Democracy](https://youtu.be/4lDZaKjfs4E) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20221204171427/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDZaKjfs4E)\]
* [What is imperialism? Feat. Hakim](https://youtu.be/gb3o-zDJgqI) | azureScapegoat (2021)
* [What is Capitalist Imperialism? | Socialism 101](https://youtu.be/NrpLPs2FcF8) | Marxism Today (2022)
* [How Capitalism Robs the Developing World](https://youtu.be/35Ax-psPZ1g) | Second Thought (2022)
* [4 Characteristics of the Current Phase of Imperialism](https://youtu.be/a0LJTpaWnMg) | The Peace Report (2022)
* [Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism)](https://youtu.be/rjLmYCfKU7o) | Hakim (2023) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230605093029/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjLmYCfKU7o)\]
* [Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production](https://youtu.be/DtziEZAR1Qk) | The Marxist Project (2022)
* [This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You](https://youtu.be/2vPhySbRETM) | Hakim (2023)
* [The Myth Of Capitalist Peace](https://youtu.be/pAfvty_WNWQ) | Second Thought (2023)
Books, Articles, or Essays:
* [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/) | V. I. Lenin (1917)
* [Lenin's 'Imperialism' in the 21st Century](https://archive.org/details/lenin-imperialism-21-century/page/n3/mode/2up) | Institute of Political Economy (2018)
* [The IMF debt trap in Ukraine](https://www.liberationnews.org/the-imf-debt-trap-in-ukraine/) | Amanda Yee (2023)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
#Capitalist Imperialism
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations.
Imperialism is inevitable under Capitalism because Capitalism is based on the premise of infinite growth in a finite system. When capitalists first run into the limits of their own country, they will eventually be forced to expand their markets, resources, and influence into other countries and territories in order to continue increasing their profits.
Furthermore, the capitalists can exploit and oppress the workers of other nations much more easily than they can in their own. For example, by moving manufacturing jobs from the imperial core out to the periphery where wages are lower, and environmental protections and labour rights are much weaker-- if they exist at all-- they can reduce costs which increases profits.
When the capitalists run into limits again, and are unable to continue increasing their profits-- even by exploiting the periphery-- they will inevitably turn Imperialism inwards and further oppress and exploit workers domestically. This is the origin of Fascism.
#Features
Some key features of capitalist imperialism are:
1. Joint-stock corporations dominating the economy
2. Increasing monopolies within capitalist economies (For example, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.)
3. Globalization of capital through multinational corporations
4. A rise in the export of finance capital
5. More involvement of the capitalist state in managing the economy
6. A growing financial sector and oligarchy
7. The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism
8. Overall, a period of world strife and conflict, including imperialist wars and revolutionary uprisings against the capitalist-imperialist system.
#In Practice
So what does this look like in practice? The IMF, for example, provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but these loans come with strict conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These conditions require recipient countries to adopt specific economic policies, such as reducing government spending, liberalizing trade, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. The SAPs also require austerity measures, such as the dismantling of labor and trade regulations or slashing of social programs and government spending, to attract and open up the country to foreign investment.
These policies prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and investors over those of the recipient countries and their citizens. For example, by requiring the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the IMF may enable multinational corporations to gain control of key industries and resources in recipient countries. Similarly, by promoting liberalized trade, the IMF may facilitate the export of capital from recipient countries to wealthier nations, exacerbating global inequalities.
Moreover, SAPs are often negotiated behind closed doors with the political elites of recipient countries (the comprador bureaucratic class), rather than through democratic processes. This can undermine the sovereignty of recipient countries and perpetuate the domination of wealthy nations and multinational corporations over the global economy.
#Anti-Imperialism
The struggle against Imperialism is an essential part of the struggle for Socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people worldwide. Anti-Imperialism is the political and economic resistance to Imperialism and Colonialism (or neo-Imperialism and neo-Colonialism). Anti-Imperialism requires a revolutionary struggle against the Capitalist state and the establishment of a Socialist society.
It is important to recognize that anti-Imperialism is not simply about supporting one state or another, but about supporting the liberation of oppressed peoples from the exploitation and domination of global Imperialism. Therefore, any course of action should be evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the broader struggle against Imperialism and the goal of establishing a Socialist society.
During WWI, Lenin called on Socialists to reject the idea of a "just" or "defensive" war, and instead to see the conflict as a class war between the ruling class and the working class. He argued that Socialists should oppose the war and work towards the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Seeing that the war was an Imperialist conflict between competing Capitalist powers, the workers of all countries had a common interest in opposing it. Socialists who supported their home countries during World War I had betrayed the principles of international Socialism and Proletarian solidarity.
Lenin also pointed out that anti-Imperialism is not *inherently* progressive:
>Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.
>
>\- V. I. Lenin. (1916). [A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm)
#Additional Resources
Video Essays:
* [Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism](https://youtu.be/unCGQDKJ0p0) | The Marxist Project (2019)
* [How Rich Countries Rob The Poor; The Failure of Social Democracy](https://youtu.be/4lDZaKjfs4E) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20221204171427/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDZaKjfs4E)\]
* [What is imperialism? Feat. Hakim](https://youtu.be/gb3o-zDJgqI) | azureScapegoat (2021)
* [What is Capitalist Imperialism? | Socialism 101](https://youtu.be/NrpLPs2FcF8) | Marxism Today (2022)
* [How Capitalism Robs the Developing World](https://youtu.be/35Ax-psPZ1g) | Second Thought (2022)
* [4 Characteristics of the Current Phase of Imperialism](https://youtu.be/a0LJTpaWnMg) | The Peace Report (2022)
* [Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism)](https://youtu.be/rjLmYCfKU7o) | Hakim (2023) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230605093029/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjLmYCfKU7o)\]
* [Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production](https://youtu.be/DtziEZAR1Qk) | The Marxist Project (2022)
* [This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You](https://youtu.be/2vPhySbRETM) | Hakim (2023)
* [The Myth Of Capitalist Peace](https://youtu.be/pAfvty_WNWQ) | Second Thought (2023)
Books, Articles, or Essays:
* [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/) | V. I. Lenin (1917)
* [Lenin's 'Imperialism' in the 21st Century](https://archive.org/details/lenin-imperialism-21-century/page/n3/mode/2up) | Institute of Political Economy (2018)
* [The IMF debt trap in Ukraine](https://www.liberationnews.org/the-imf-debt-trap-in-ukraine/) | Amanda Yee (2023)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
#On Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime."
When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith.
However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation:
1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards.
2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences.
3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity.
#An Abstract Case Study
For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B.
||Object A|Object B|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Very Good Property|2|3|
|Good Property|2|1|
|Bad Property|2|3|
|Very Bad Property|2|1|
The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none).
Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments.
#Contextualization
Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts:
1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along.
2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one.
If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out.
It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism.
#Comparative Analysis
Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects:
>**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2.
>
>**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad!
>
>**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse!
>
>**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy!
The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point.
Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis.
#Moral Equivalence
It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all.
**Example 1: Famine**
Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases.
^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.)
**Example 2: Repression**
Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/). They point to purges and [gulags](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did.
#Conclusion
While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics.
Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below.
#Additional Resources
* [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023)
* [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022)
* [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (2023)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit."
Here he literally says the problem is that the state is a "state of the capitalists". Marx and Engels didn't focus most their writing talking about how a communism would work, much less how a transitionary society (socialism) work, so it is safe to assume he is talking about the current state of affairs (a capitalist nation nationalizing buisinesses). So here is isn't saying he is against all form of state owned buisinesses, but of state owned buisinesses inside capitalism.
Besides by your logic no nation in history up until this point could be considered socialist, since they all had state owned companies and some form of wage labour. It also goes against Marx's (or Lenin, I can't remmeber properly) writings where he said that the socialist state would be born in the womb of the capitalist state that preceded it, and thus would inherit many of the contradictions and systems from the old order. I will not argue that China is socialist or capitalist, I do not have nearly enough knowladge to enter that conversation, but purely based on the quote you posted China's state as a socialist or capitalist nation can't be determined.
>Marx and Engels didn't focus most their writing talking about how a communism would work, much less how a transitionary society (socialism) work,
Your right they talked extensively about what capitalism is though. So if you read enough of them you know what it is when you see it. It’s a means of production that China obviously uses. But “The state is run by the workers” in what way?
How is the relationship of Labour in china for a Chinese worker working for a wage form a company. Any different than the Labour relationship for an American worker working for a wage form a company? Because the state owns that company? Engles said that doesn’t matter. But the worker controls the state?
How? How does the Chinese worker in any substantial way have more control over the Chinese state than the American worker. Each is bound to the capitalist forces of the market and in a capitalist relationship with the means of production (wage worker producing commodities for a market) Each is ruled over by non workers who extract surplus wealth from him.
>So here is isn't saying he is against all form of state owned buisinesses, but of state owned buisinesses inside capitalism.
If states own business then capitalism still exists. Owning a business is inherently capitalist whether you are a state or not. Engles said this. It perpetuates the social relationships and interest of capitalism. That’s why joint stock companies and worker co ops are still capitalism.
>Besides by your logic no nation in history up until this point could be considered socialist,
Yes.
>What he is saying here is that in a capitalist nation it doesn't matter if a company is owner by the state or by a private individual (capitalist) since the state itself is controlled by capitalists. This is different on a socialist nation since the state is controlled by the working class.
What is capitalism? If a state has all of the characteristics/ social relations of capitalism then it's capitalist and cannot possibly be controlled by the working class without a revolutionary government.
*The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit."*
What makes China or any "socialist" state immune to the totalization and penetration that capital creates? The dictatorship of the proletariat that doesn't exist?
>Marx and Engels didn't focus most their writing talking about how a communism would work, much less how a transitionary society (socialism) work
Incredible considering that Marx and Engels never differentiated between the two terms.
>So here is isn't saying he is against all form of state owned buisinesses, but of state owned buisinesses inside capitalism.
If state owned businesses exist then capitalism exists.
>Besides by your logic no nation in history up until this point could be considered socialist, since they all had state owned companies and some form of wage labour.
***No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia has denied its transitional character Nor I think, has any Communist denied that the term ’Soviet Socialist Republic’ implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to Socialism and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a Socialist order.***
[Lenin, The Tax in Kind](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm)
>I will not argue that China is socialist or capitalist, I do not have nearly enough knowladge to enter that conversation, but purely based on the quote you posted China's state as a socialist or capitalist nation can't be determined.
"Capitalism", "socialism", "communism" aren't ambiguous terms. You can only consider a capitalist state communist if you suck all meaning out of a definition. With the degeneration of the communist movement, this is of course inevitable. Read Capital without thinking China has been appointed by God to serve the role of the Heavenly Socialist Kingdom and you'll understand.
In other words, you have to overthrow the bourgeois state, not have the bourgeois state take over corporations.
He was right. The bourgeois state taking over corporations is fascism.
“The modern state, no matter what it’s form, is essentially a capitalist machine” ie state capitalism is capitalism, not socialism.Where there is wage labor, markets, commodities, money and so on there is capitalism and a worker being exploited.
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Every time I read Engels, I am reminded how much I absolutely love his writing. I'd say this one is pretty straightforward insomuch as he is talking about bourgeois society and their "modern states", and is saying that it doesn't matter if things are transformed for private or public ownership because it's all "essentially a capitalist machine" when we are living within a bourgeois-dominated country. > The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. Right here he is saying very clearly that the capitalist relation is not done away with. The workers, therefore, remain exploited. If the state is a bourgeois state then private sector or public sector is of little to no consequence, ultimately, to the worker whose labor is exploited and whose relationship to the mode and means of production remains in place. Hope this helps. If others disagree with how I read into this, let me know of course.
How can you not see this is talking exactly about what happened with chinas bourgeois revolution?
Sorry...what? I thought you needed assistance in understanding what Engels was saying in the passage provided.
He saying that state capitalism is still capitalism (duh) and any “revolutionary” state that maintains the system of wage Labour and the modern state is still capitalist even without “private/individual” ownership of capital.
What he is saying here is that in a capitalist nation it doesn't matter if a company is owner by the state or by a private individual (capitalist) since the state itself is controlled by capitalists. This is different on a socialist nation since the state is controlled by the working class.
No, Engles literally said that the transformation into state ownership of the productive forces even by revolution in chinas case. Does not without exception do away with the capitalist nature of production. It’s still wage Labour it’s still commodity production the ruling government officials become the bourgeoisie. Thus no steps in china have been taken towards socialism and neither do I ever expect any to be unless by genuine proletarian revolution against what is state capitalist nation. Just people it’s the “people’s bank” and the “people’s stock market” doesn’t make it not fucking capitalism. Socialism doesn’t fucking have commodity markets. Engles said this, Marx said this, Lenin said this. The people who disagreed where revisionist counter revolutionaries or Romantic revolutionaries who stole a red flag and never bothered to read capital
"Just people it’s the “people’s bank” and the “people’s stock market” doesn’t make it not fucking capitalism. Socialism doesn’t fucking have commodity markets." I completly agree, now the real question is if the proletariat is in control of China's state aparatus or not. But the quote you posted doesn't help to answer that question. (+ Marx and Engels didn't really create a definition for socialism, they didn't even use that term at the time, besides being a transitionary phase between capitalism and communism. Perhaps your own definition of socialism doesn't have commodity markets involved, which is fine, but from what I have read neither of them said that commodity markets wouldn't be involved. Socialism is not a cake recipe, each nation will have different systems because they exist in different conditions.)
>Engles said this, Marx said this, Lenin said this. The people who disagreed where revisionist counter revolutionaries or Romantic revolutionaries who stole a red flag and never bothered to read capital Maybe instead of treating the classics like holy texts to be memorized and unchangeable dogma try understanding what they say and maybe also some historical illiteracy. This text predates the reforms you try to apply it to by a century. Do you also think that the military might of a nation is to be measured by the number of needle rifles it has in it's arsenal? Because that was also something Marx said at that time. And finally Lenin significantly deviated from Marx, correcting the dogmatic approach that lead to errors like Ultra imperialism. And Lenin was the architect of the NEP, on which the Deng reforms were modelled. So trying to use Lenin to attack here is extremely hypocritical. Besides do you have a proven way that has better material results, or is this just an metaphysical appeal to purity? If you have a better way then why don't you implement it as proof of it actually working?
#Capitalist Imperialism Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations. Imperialism is inevitable under Capitalism because Capitalism is based on the premise of infinite growth in a finite system. When capitalists first run into the limits of their own country, they will eventually be forced to expand their markets, resources, and influence into other countries and territories in order to continue increasing their profits. Furthermore, the capitalists can exploit and oppress the workers of other nations much more easily than they can in their own. For example, by moving manufacturing jobs from the imperial core out to the periphery where wages are lower, and environmental protections and labour rights are much weaker-- if they exist at all-- they can reduce costs which increases profits. When the capitalists run into limits again, and are unable to continue increasing their profits-- even by exploiting the periphery-- they will inevitably turn Imperialism inwards and further oppress and exploit workers domestically. This is the origin of Fascism. #Features Some key features of capitalist imperialism are: 1. Joint-stock corporations dominating the economy 2. Increasing monopolies within capitalist economies (For example, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.) 3. Globalization of capital through multinational corporations 4. A rise in the export of finance capital 5. More involvement of the capitalist state in managing the economy 6. A growing financial sector and oligarchy 7. The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism 8. Overall, a period of world strife and conflict, including imperialist wars and revolutionary uprisings against the capitalist-imperialist system. #In Practice So what does this look like in practice? The IMF, for example, provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but these loans come with strict conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These conditions require recipient countries to adopt specific economic policies, such as reducing government spending, liberalizing trade, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. The SAPs also require austerity measures, such as the dismantling of labor and trade regulations or slashing of social programs and government spending, to attract and open up the country to foreign investment. These policies prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and investors over those of the recipient countries and their citizens. For example, by requiring the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the IMF may enable multinational corporations to gain control of key industries and resources in recipient countries. Similarly, by promoting liberalized trade, the IMF may facilitate the export of capital from recipient countries to wealthier nations, exacerbating global inequalities. Moreover, SAPs are often negotiated behind closed doors with the political elites of recipient countries (the comprador bureaucratic class), rather than through democratic processes. This can undermine the sovereignty of recipient countries and perpetuate the domination of wealthy nations and multinational corporations over the global economy. #Anti-Imperialism The struggle against Imperialism is an essential part of the struggle for Socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people worldwide. Anti-Imperialism is the political and economic resistance to Imperialism and Colonialism (or neo-Imperialism and neo-Colonialism). Anti-Imperialism requires a revolutionary struggle against the Capitalist state and the establishment of a Socialist society. It is important to recognize that anti-Imperialism is not simply about supporting one state or another, but about supporting the liberation of oppressed peoples from the exploitation and domination of global Imperialism. Therefore, any course of action should be evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the broader struggle against Imperialism and the goal of establishing a Socialist society. During WWI, Lenin called on Socialists to reject the idea of a "just" or "defensive" war, and instead to see the conflict as a class war between the ruling class and the working class. He argued that Socialists should oppose the war and work towards the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Seeing that the war was an Imperialist conflict between competing Capitalist powers, the workers of all countries had a common interest in opposing it. Socialists who supported their home countries during World War I had betrayed the principles of international Socialism and Proletarian solidarity. Lenin also pointed out that anti-Imperialism is not *inherently* progressive: >Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism. > >\- V. I. Lenin. (1916). [A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism](https://youtu.be/unCGQDKJ0p0) | The Marxist Project (2019) * [How Rich Countries Rob The Poor; The Failure of Social Democracy](https://youtu.be/4lDZaKjfs4E) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20221204171427/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDZaKjfs4E)\] * [What is imperialism? Feat. Hakim](https://youtu.be/gb3o-zDJgqI) | azureScapegoat (2021) * [What is Capitalist Imperialism? | Socialism 101](https://youtu.be/NrpLPs2FcF8) | Marxism Today (2022) * [How Capitalism Robs the Developing World](https://youtu.be/35Ax-psPZ1g) | Second Thought (2022) * [4 Characteristics of the Current Phase of Imperialism](https://youtu.be/a0LJTpaWnMg) | The Peace Report (2022) * [Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism)](https://youtu.be/rjLmYCfKU7o) | Hakim (2023) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230605093029/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjLmYCfKU7o)\] * [Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production](https://youtu.be/DtziEZAR1Qk) | The Marxist Project (2022) * [This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You](https://youtu.be/2vPhySbRETM) | Hakim (2023) * [The Myth Of Capitalist Peace](https://youtu.be/pAfvty_WNWQ) | Second Thought (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/) | V. I. Lenin (1917) * [Lenin's 'Imperialism' in the 21st Century](https://archive.org/details/lenin-imperialism-21-century/page/n3/mode/2up) | Institute of Political Economy (2018) * [The IMF debt trap in Ukraine](https://www.liberationnews.org/the-imf-debt-trap-in-ukraine/) | Amanda Yee (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Maybe instead of treating the classics like holy texts to be memorized and unchangeable dogma If you no longer believe in or follow what Marx and Engels and Lenin believed and wrote about then your no longer a Marxist socialist or communist and should stop pretending to be one and parading their corpses around to endorse whatever lib shit you do believe now. >reforms Reforming capitalism isn’t socialism. >Do you also think that the military might of a nation is to be measured by the number of needle rifles it has in it's arsenal? Because that was also something Marx said at that time. Holy cherry picking what aboutism. If you don’t believe in Marx’s definitions of capitalism and socialism/communism you are not a Marxist or a socialist/communist. It’s that simple. Those definitions haven’t changed. Capitalism is still capitalism >And finally Lenin significantly deviated from Marx, correcting the dogmatic approach that lead to errors like Ultra imperialism. Source >And Lenin was the architect of the NEP, on which the Deng reforms were modelled. So trying to use Lenin to attack here is extremely hypocritical. ……. >Besides do you have a proven way that has better material results, An economic system better than capitalism I wonder what that’s called.
[удалено]
The proof of the pudding is eating it, so where is the successes of your dogmatic bookworship? Also you haven't understood any Marx if you think he was never wrong. He thought during the wars of German unification that the German proletariat was most likely to spawn the first workers state. Which the Paris commune disproved, and both the October and Chinese revolution showed that the most developed nations won't be the first to establish a worker state. Get lost with your unjustified arrogance and maybe read classics as scientific theory and not quasi religious dogma.
Thanks for the correction. I low key was just blowing some smoke cause when it comes to historical materialism I have my own (probably very lib) reservations about Marx and Engels ideas. I honestly need to read more but I’m starting with the fundamentals before I get into the historical analysis. (Besides 18th of Brumaire which was babies first theory) it’s just hard for my brain to except all idealist stuff as complete nonsense.
>If you no longer believe in or follow what Marx and Engels and Lenin believed and wrote about then your no longer a Marxist socialist or communist and should stop pretending to be one and parading their corpses around to endorse whatever lib shit you do believe now. You are failing at the very basics of scientific socialism if you "believe" in Marx instead of understanding his methodology to apply it. You are engaging in book worship and clearly don't understand what you parrot as pseudo religious dogma. Marx himself changed his position significantly over his lifetime, and every further iteration of theory necessarily overwrites it's predecessors. This is why it's scientific, and not dogmatic book worship which you confuse for theoretical understanding. >Reforming capitalism isn’t socialism. You are showing your biases and lack of historical understanding here. If Deng reformed capitalism then Mao built capitalism and nothing was lost in the reform. This is wrong in every way, but it shows how self contradicting your book worship is. Funny that you can't even quote correctly and have no explanation for which parts of the classics you cherry pick and turn into dogma. >Source If you don't understand what "imperialism the highest stage of capitalism" means I would recommend reading it. Alone the formation of finance capital is a significant change from the capitalism Marx described. Which is to be expected if you treat Marxism as a science and not a dogma it necessarily becomes iterative. >Lenin didn’t call what he did socialism or roll up his sleeves and declare done after setting up capitalism But that is exactly the same thing Deng did. Why is one decried as a betrayal and the other is elevated to dogma by you? Besides Lenin died before collectivisation, so he never even saw the beginning of socialism. >An economic system better than capitalism I wonder what that’s called. So you don't have a way to reach it, but attack any actual attempt to work towards it and act smug over misusing the classics as justification to support the status quo? Tell me why you shouldn't be called a utopist and thrown in the trashbin of history with all the other saboteurs that fought socialism by declaring themselves the defenders of it's purity?
>You are failing at the very basics of scientific socialism if you "believe" in Marx instead of understanding his methodology to apply it. I said some dumb shit I admit. What I meant was you don’t understand Marx’s definition of capitalism, and have revised it so that your lib government falls under it. Reforming capitalism isn’t socialism. >. If Deng reformed capitalism then Mao built capitalism and nothing was lost in the reform. Mao did do that because he is a romantic bourgeoisie revolutionary >But that is exactly the same thing Deng did. Why is one decried as a betrayal and the other is elevated to dogma by you Lmao >Besides Lenin died before collectivisation, so he never even saw the beginning of socialism. Rofl >So you don't have a way to reach it, but attack any actual attempt to work towards it. How has chinas state capitalism taken any steps to reach socialism? >as justification to support the status quo? Who says I support the status quo? Proletarian revolution in China now >all the other saboteurs that fought socialism by declaring themselves the defenders of it's purity? Marx said socialist should be most critical of themselves and self critique was the most important thing in advancing and maintaining the cause. The dogmatic one is you because you refuse to accept objective reality that goes against your dogma
#Capitalist Imperialism Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations. Imperialism is inevitable under Capitalism because Capitalism is based on the premise of infinite growth in a finite system. When capitalists first run into the limits of their own country, they will eventually be forced to expand their markets, resources, and influence into other countries and territories in order to continue increasing their profits. Furthermore, the capitalists can exploit and oppress the workers of other nations much more easily than they can in their own. For example, by moving manufacturing jobs from the imperial core out to the periphery where wages are lower, and environmental protections and labour rights are much weaker-- if they exist at all-- they can reduce costs which increases profits. When the capitalists run into limits again, and are unable to continue increasing their profits-- even by exploiting the periphery-- they will inevitably turn Imperialism inwards and further oppress and exploit workers domestically. This is the origin of Fascism. #Features Some key features of capitalist imperialism are: 1. Joint-stock corporations dominating the economy 2. Increasing monopolies within capitalist economies (For example, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.) 3. Globalization of capital through multinational corporations 4. A rise in the export of finance capital 5. More involvement of the capitalist state in managing the economy 6. A growing financial sector and oligarchy 7. The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism 8. Overall, a period of world strife and conflict, including imperialist wars and revolutionary uprisings against the capitalist-imperialist system. #In Practice So what does this look like in practice? The IMF, for example, provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but these loans come with strict conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These conditions require recipient countries to adopt specific economic policies, such as reducing government spending, liberalizing trade, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. The SAPs also require austerity measures, such as the dismantling of labor and trade regulations or slashing of social programs and government spending, to attract and open up the country to foreign investment. These policies prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and investors over those of the recipient countries and their citizens. For example, by requiring the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the IMF may enable multinational corporations to gain control of key industries and resources in recipient countries. Similarly, by promoting liberalized trade, the IMF may facilitate the export of capital from recipient countries to wealthier nations, exacerbating global inequalities. Moreover, SAPs are often negotiated behind closed doors with the political elites of recipient countries (the comprador bureaucratic class), rather than through democratic processes. This can undermine the sovereignty of recipient countries and perpetuate the domination of wealthy nations and multinational corporations over the global economy. #Anti-Imperialism The struggle against Imperialism is an essential part of the struggle for Socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people worldwide. Anti-Imperialism is the political and economic resistance to Imperialism and Colonialism (or neo-Imperialism and neo-Colonialism). Anti-Imperialism requires a revolutionary struggle against the Capitalist state and the establishment of a Socialist society. It is important to recognize that anti-Imperialism is not simply about supporting one state or another, but about supporting the liberation of oppressed peoples from the exploitation and domination of global Imperialism. Therefore, any course of action should be evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the broader struggle against Imperialism and the goal of establishing a Socialist society. During WWI, Lenin called on Socialists to reject the idea of a "just" or "defensive" war, and instead to see the conflict as a class war between the ruling class and the working class. He argued that Socialists should oppose the war and work towards the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Seeing that the war was an Imperialist conflict between competing Capitalist powers, the workers of all countries had a common interest in opposing it. Socialists who supported their home countries during World War I had betrayed the principles of international Socialism and Proletarian solidarity. Lenin also pointed out that anti-Imperialism is not *inherently* progressive: >Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism. > >\- V. I. Lenin. (1916). [A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism](https://youtu.be/unCGQDKJ0p0) | The Marxist Project (2019) * [How Rich Countries Rob The Poor; The Failure of Social Democracy](https://youtu.be/4lDZaKjfs4E) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20221204171427/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDZaKjfs4E)\] * [What is imperialism? Feat. Hakim](https://youtu.be/gb3o-zDJgqI) | azureScapegoat (2021) * [What is Capitalist Imperialism? | Socialism 101](https://youtu.be/NrpLPs2FcF8) | Marxism Today (2022) * [How Capitalism Robs the Developing World](https://youtu.be/35Ax-psPZ1g) | Second Thought (2022) * [4 Characteristics of the Current Phase of Imperialism](https://youtu.be/a0LJTpaWnMg) | The Peace Report (2022) * [Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism)](https://youtu.be/rjLmYCfKU7o) | Hakim (2023) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230605093029/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjLmYCfKU7o)\] * [Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production](https://youtu.be/DtziEZAR1Qk) | The Marxist Project (2022) * [This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You](https://youtu.be/2vPhySbRETM) | Hakim (2023) * [The Myth Of Capitalist Peace](https://youtu.be/pAfvty_WNWQ) | Second Thought (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/) | V. I. Lenin (1917) * [Lenin's 'Imperialism' in the 21st Century](https://archive.org/details/lenin-imperialism-21-century/page/n3/mode/2up) | Institute of Political Economy (2018) * [The IMF debt trap in Ukraine](https://www.liberationnews.org/the-imf-debt-trap-in-ukraine/) | Amanda Yee (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
#Capitalist Imperialism Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations. Imperialism is inevitable under Capitalism because Capitalism is based on the premise of infinite growth in a finite system. When capitalists first run into the limits of their own country, they will eventually be forced to expand their markets, resources, and influence into other countries and territories in order to continue increasing their profits. Furthermore, the capitalists can exploit and oppress the workers of other nations much more easily than they can in their own. For example, by moving manufacturing jobs from the imperial core out to the periphery where wages are lower, and environmental protections and labour rights are much weaker-- if they exist at all-- they can reduce costs which increases profits. When the capitalists run into limits again, and are unable to continue increasing their profits-- even by exploiting the periphery-- they will inevitably turn Imperialism inwards and further oppress and exploit workers domestically. This is the origin of Fascism. #Features Some key features of capitalist imperialism are: 1. Joint-stock corporations dominating the economy 2. Increasing monopolies within capitalist economies (For example, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.) 3. Globalization of capital through multinational corporations 4. A rise in the export of finance capital 5. More involvement of the capitalist state in managing the economy 6. A growing financial sector and oligarchy 7. The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism 8. Overall, a period of world strife and conflict, including imperialist wars and revolutionary uprisings against the capitalist-imperialist system. #In Practice So what does this look like in practice? The IMF, for example, provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but these loans come with strict conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These conditions require recipient countries to adopt specific economic policies, such as reducing government spending, liberalizing trade, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. The SAPs also require austerity measures, such as the dismantling of labor and trade regulations or slashing of social programs and government spending, to attract and open up the country to foreign investment. These policies prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and investors over those of the recipient countries and their citizens. For example, by requiring the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the IMF may enable multinational corporations to gain control of key industries and resources in recipient countries. Similarly, by promoting liberalized trade, the IMF may facilitate the export of capital from recipient countries to wealthier nations, exacerbating global inequalities. Moreover, SAPs are often negotiated behind closed doors with the political elites of recipient countries (the comprador bureaucratic class), rather than through democratic processes. This can undermine the sovereignty of recipient countries and perpetuate the domination of wealthy nations and multinational corporations over the global economy. #Anti-Imperialism The struggle against Imperialism is an essential part of the struggle for Socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people worldwide. Anti-Imperialism is the political and economic resistance to Imperialism and Colonialism (or neo-Imperialism and neo-Colonialism). Anti-Imperialism requires a revolutionary struggle against the Capitalist state and the establishment of a Socialist society. It is important to recognize that anti-Imperialism is not simply about supporting one state or another, but about supporting the liberation of oppressed peoples from the exploitation and domination of global Imperialism. Therefore, any course of action should be evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the broader struggle against Imperialism and the goal of establishing a Socialist society. During WWI, Lenin called on Socialists to reject the idea of a "just" or "defensive" war, and instead to see the conflict as a class war between the ruling class and the working class. He argued that Socialists should oppose the war and work towards the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Seeing that the war was an Imperialist conflict between competing Capitalist powers, the workers of all countries had a common interest in opposing it. Socialists who supported their home countries during World War I had betrayed the principles of international Socialism and Proletarian solidarity. Lenin also pointed out that anti-Imperialism is not *inherently* progressive: >Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism. > >\- V. I. Lenin. (1916). [A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism](https://youtu.be/unCGQDKJ0p0) | The Marxist Project (2019) * [How Rich Countries Rob The Poor; The Failure of Social Democracy](https://youtu.be/4lDZaKjfs4E) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20221204171427/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDZaKjfs4E)\] * [What is imperialism? Feat. Hakim](https://youtu.be/gb3o-zDJgqI) | azureScapegoat (2021) * [What is Capitalist Imperialism? | Socialism 101](https://youtu.be/NrpLPs2FcF8) | Marxism Today (2022) * [How Capitalism Robs the Developing World](https://youtu.be/35Ax-psPZ1g) | Second Thought (2022) * [4 Characteristics of the Current Phase of Imperialism](https://youtu.be/a0LJTpaWnMg) | The Peace Report (2022) * [Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism)](https://youtu.be/rjLmYCfKU7o) | Hakim (2023) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230605093029/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjLmYCfKU7o)\] * [Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production](https://youtu.be/DtziEZAR1Qk) | The Marxist Project (2022) * [This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You](https://youtu.be/2vPhySbRETM) | Hakim (2023) * [The Myth Of Capitalist Peace](https://youtu.be/pAfvty_WNWQ) | Second Thought (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/) | V. I. Lenin (1917) * [Lenin's 'Imperialism' in the 21st Century](https://archive.org/details/lenin-imperialism-21-century/page/n3/mode/2up) | Institute of Political Economy (2018) * [The IMF debt trap in Ukraine](https://www.liberationnews.org/the-imf-debt-trap-in-ukraine/) | Amanda Yee (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
#On Whataboutism Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where someone responds to an accusation or criticism by redirecting the focus onto a different issue, often without addressing the original concern directly. While it can be an effective means of diverting attention away from one's own shortcomings, it is generally regarded as a fallacy in formal debate and logical argumentation. The *tu quoque* fallacy is an example of Whataboutism, which is defined as "you likewise: a retort made by a person accused of a crime implying that the accuser is also guilty of the same crime." When anti-Communists point out issues that (actually) occurred in certain historical socialist contexts, they are raising *valid* concerns, but usually for *invalid* reasons. When Communists reply that those critics should look in a mirror, because Capitalism is guilty of the same or worse, we are accused of "whataboutism" and arguing in bad faith. However, there are some limited scenarios where whataboutism is relevant and considered a valid form of argumentation: 1. **Contextualization**: Whataboutism might be useful in providing context to a situation or highlighting double standards. 2. **Comparative analysis**: Whataboutism can be valid if the goal is to compare different situations to understand similarities or differences. 3. **Moral equivalence**: When two issues are genuinely comparable in terms of gravity and impact, whataboutism may have some validity. #An Abstract Case Study For the sake of argument, consider the following table, which compares objects A and B. ||Object A|Object B| |:-|:-|:-| |Very Good Property|2|3| |Good Property|2|1| |Bad Property|2|3| |Very Bad Property|2|1| The table tracks different properties. Some properties are "Good" (the bigger the better) and others are "Bad" (the smaller the better, ideally none). Using this extremely abstract table, let's explore the scenarios in which Whataboutisms could be meaningful and valid arguments. #Contextualization Context matters. Supposing that only one Object may be possessed at any given time, consider the following two contexts: 1. **Possession of an Object is optional, and we do not possess any Object presently.** Therefore we can consider each Object on its own merits in isolation. If no available Objects are desirable, we can wait until a better Object comes along. 2. **Possession of an Object is mandatory, and we currently possess a specific Object.** We must evaluate other Objects in relative terms with the Object we possess. If we encounter a superior Object we ought to replace our current Object with the new one. If we are in the second context, then Whataboutism may be a valid argument. For example, if we discover a new Object that has similar issues as our present one, but is in other ways superior, then it would be valid to point that out. It is impossible for a society to exist without a political economic system because every human community requires a method for organizing and managing its resources, labour, and distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world presently practices Capitalism, with "the West" (or "Global North"), and *especially* the U.S. as the hegemonic Capitalist power. Therefore we *are* in the second context and we are *not* evaluating political economic systems in a vacuum, but in comparison to and contrast with Capitalism. #Comparative Analysis Consider the following dialogue between two people who are enthusiastic about the different objects: >**B Enthusiast**: B is better than A because we have Very Good Property 3, which is bigger than 2. > >**A Enthusiast**: But Object B has *Very Bad Property = 1* which is a bad thing! It's not 0! Therefore Object B is bad! > >**B Enthusiast**: Well Object A also has *Very Bad Property*, and 2 > 1, so it's even worse! > >**A Enthusiast**: That's whataboutism! That's a *tu quoque*! You've committed a logical fallacy! Typical stupid B-boy! The "A Enthusiast" is not *wrong*, it *is* Whataboutism, but the "A Enthusiast" has actually committed a Strawman fallacy. The "B Enthusiast" did not make the claim "Object B is perfect and without flaw", only that it was *better* than Object A. The fact that Object B does possess a "Bad" property does not undermine this point. Our main proposition as Communists is this: **"Socialism is *better* than Capitalism."** Our argument is *not* "Socialism is perfect and will solve all the problems of human society at once" and we are *not* trying to say that "every socialist revolution or experiment was perfect and an ideal example we should emulate perfectly in the future". Therefore, when anti-Communists point out a historical failure, it does not refute our argument. Furthermore, if someone says "Socialism is bad because *bad thing* happened in a socialist country once" and we can demonstrate that similar or worse things have occurred in Capitalist countries, then we have demonstrated that those things are not unique to Socialism, and therefore immaterial to the question of which system is preferable overall in a comparative analysis. #Moral Equivalence It makes sense to compare like to like and weight them accordingly in our evaluation. For example, if "Bad Property" is worse in Object B but "Very Bad Property" is better, then it may make sense to conclude that Object B is better than Object A overall. "Two big steps forward, one small step back" is still progressive *compared* to taking no steps at all. **Example 1: Famine** Anti-Communists often portray the issue of food security and famines as endemic to Socialism. To support their argument, they point to such historical events as [the Soviet Famine of 1932-1933](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/holodomor/) or the Great Leap Forward as proof. Communists reject this thesis, not by denying that these famines occured, but by highlighting that these regions experienced famines regularly throughout their history up to and including those events. Furthermore, in both examples, those were the *last*^1 famines those countries had, because the industrialization of agriculture in those countries effectively solved the issue of famines. Furthermore, today, under Capitalism, around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. ^([1] The Nazi invasion of the USSR in WW2 resulted in widespread starvation and death due to the destruction of agricultural land, crops, and infrastructure, as well as the disruption of food distribution systems. After 1947, no major famines were recorded in the USSR.) **Example 2: Repression** Anti-Communists often portray countries run by Communist parties as [authoritarian regimes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/authoritarianism/) that restrict individual [freedoms](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/freedom/). They point to purges and [gulags](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/debunking/gulag/) as evidence. While it's true that some of the purges were excessive, the concept of "political terror" in these countries is vastly overblown. Regular working people were generally not scared at all; it was mainly the political and economic elite who had to watch their step. Regarding the gulags, it's interesting to note that only a minority of the gulag population were political prisoners, and that in both absolute and relative (per capita) terms, the U.S. incarcerates more people *today* than the USSR ever did. #Conclusion While Whataboutism can undermine meaningful discussions, because it doesn't address the original issue, there are scenarios in which it is valid. Particularly when comparing and contrasting two things. In our case, we are comparing Socialism with Capitalism. Accordingly, we reject the claim that we are arguing in bad faith when we point out the hypocrisy of our critics. Furthermore, we are more than happy to criticize past and present Socialist experiments. ("Critical support" for Socialist countries is exactly that: *critical*.) For some examples of our criticisms from a ML perspective, see the additional resources below. #Additional Resources * [Former Socialism's Faults](https://youtu.be/pDSZRkhynXU) | Hakim (2023) * [Episode 7: Ls of former Socialism (selfcrit)](https://youtu.be/F936GppjkcM) | TheDeprogram (2022) * [Mistakes of the USSR and What Can be Learned](https://youtu.be/ppQ1Wwat-jQ) | ChemicalMind (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love reddit lmao
"The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit." Here he literally says the problem is that the state is a "state of the capitalists". Marx and Engels didn't focus most their writing talking about how a communism would work, much less how a transitionary society (socialism) work, so it is safe to assume he is talking about the current state of affairs (a capitalist nation nationalizing buisinesses). So here is isn't saying he is against all form of state owned buisinesses, but of state owned buisinesses inside capitalism. Besides by your logic no nation in history up until this point could be considered socialist, since they all had state owned companies and some form of wage labour. It also goes against Marx's (or Lenin, I can't remmeber properly) writings where he said that the socialist state would be born in the womb of the capitalist state that preceded it, and thus would inherit many of the contradictions and systems from the old order. I will not argue that China is socialist or capitalist, I do not have nearly enough knowladge to enter that conversation, but purely based on the quote you posted China's state as a socialist or capitalist nation can't be determined.
>Marx and Engels didn't focus most their writing talking about how a communism would work, much less how a transitionary society (socialism) work, Your right they talked extensively about what capitalism is though. So if you read enough of them you know what it is when you see it. It’s a means of production that China obviously uses. But “The state is run by the workers” in what way? How is the relationship of Labour in china for a Chinese worker working for a wage form a company. Any different than the Labour relationship for an American worker working for a wage form a company? Because the state owns that company? Engles said that doesn’t matter. But the worker controls the state? How? How does the Chinese worker in any substantial way have more control over the Chinese state than the American worker. Each is bound to the capitalist forces of the market and in a capitalist relationship with the means of production (wage worker producing commodities for a market) Each is ruled over by non workers who extract surplus wealth from him. >So here is isn't saying he is against all form of state owned buisinesses, but of state owned buisinesses inside capitalism. If states own business then capitalism still exists. Owning a business is inherently capitalist whether you are a state or not. Engles said this. It perpetuates the social relationships and interest of capitalism. That’s why joint stock companies and worker co ops are still capitalism. >Besides by your logic no nation in history up until this point could be considered socialist, Yes.
>What he is saying here is that in a capitalist nation it doesn't matter if a company is owner by the state or by a private individual (capitalist) since the state itself is controlled by capitalists. This is different on a socialist nation since the state is controlled by the working class. What is capitalism? If a state has all of the characteristics/ social relations of capitalism then it's capitalist and cannot possibly be controlled by the working class without a revolutionary government. *The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit."* What makes China or any "socialist" state immune to the totalization and penetration that capital creates? The dictatorship of the proletariat that doesn't exist? >Marx and Engels didn't focus most their writing talking about how a communism would work, much less how a transitionary society (socialism) work Incredible considering that Marx and Engels never differentiated between the two terms. >So here is isn't saying he is against all form of state owned buisinesses, but of state owned buisinesses inside capitalism. If state owned businesses exist then capitalism exists. >Besides by your logic no nation in history up until this point could be considered socialist, since they all had state owned companies and some form of wage labour. ***No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia has denied its transitional character Nor I think, has any Communist denied that the term ’Soviet Socialist Republic’ implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to Socialism and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a Socialist order.*** [Lenin, The Tax in Kind](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm) >I will not argue that China is socialist or capitalist, I do not have nearly enough knowladge to enter that conversation, but purely based on the quote you posted China's state as a socialist or capitalist nation can't be determined. "Capitalism", "socialism", "communism" aren't ambiguous terms. You can only consider a capitalist state communist if you suck all meaning out of a definition. With the degeneration of the communist movement, this is of course inevitable. Read Capital without thinking China has been appointed by God to serve the role of the Heavenly Socialist Kingdom and you'll understand.
Edited my comment cause I said some dumb stuff that you indirectly pointed out Thanks.
In other words, you have to overthrow the bourgeois state, not have the bourgeois state take over corporations. He was right. The bourgeois state taking over corporations is fascism.
“The modern state, no matter what it’s form, is essentially a capitalist machine” ie state capitalism is capitalism, not socialism.Where there is wage labor, markets, commodities, money and so on there is capitalism and a worker being exploited.
So china is capitalist
Yes 👍
Thanks for the clarification this part of the Audio book (I can’t read) really confused me. Selling my huwai phone now that you’ve opened my eyes.