Hong Kong
- This topic has 637 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
https://libcom.org/library/did-lenin-distort-marx
This article shows that we have had discussions of principles with some members or personalities from the left, as well, we have had discussions with liberals, and Neo Nazis, at a level of high respect
MS, I think someone has to possess a basic understanding of the material conception of history to comprehend why today socialists should oppose anti-imperialism.
It is vital to understand the evolution of imperialism in political thought. The theory made the struggle in the world not one between an international working class and a global capitalist class, but between imperialist and anti—imperialist states.
Anti-imperialism is the slogan of local elites. Anti-imperialism is a doctrine long used by capitalists in relatively weak countries to try and pursue their own ends. We reject nationalism as anti-working class because it has always tied the proletariat to its class enemy and divided it amongst itself: the workers have no country.
Anti-imperialist struggles are class struggles under an ideological smokescreen, but not of the working class. Anti-imperialist nationalism is the ideology of an actual or aspirant capitalist class that seeks the way to its own independent state blocked by imperialism and therefore must mobilise the masses to help break down this obstacle. The logic of such movements is to subordinate the interests of workers to those of the bourgeois leadership and that such movements can tie their movement to presently supportive states that may well be prepared to use it as a bargaining chip in the pursuit of their own geopolitical interests. Different regimes that may now present themselves as anti-imperialists have a history of collaborating with imperialism. It is of the essence of bourgeois nationalists that, when imperialism prevents them from building their own independent capitalist state, they may lead struggles against it, but they are striving to carve out a place for themselves within the existing system, not to overthrow it. This means that, sooner or later, they will come to terms with imperialism. Successful anti-imperialism becomes imperialism.
Marx and Engels did support certain nationalist movements and some wars – TO BRING CAPITALISM TO FEUDAL STATES, to usher the capitalist class into political power so they could create the pre-requisites of socialism; an actual working class within an industrialised society. Prussia against the Slavs. Britain and France against Tsarist Russia. Even Prussia was against France so as to strengthen the unification of Germany. But can anyone seriously think that such a policy is required in to-days world where capitalism is now the predominant system and it’s the working class that is the decisive class, not the capitalists? What may have been right in the 19thCentury for Marx and Engels, may not now be the right choice in the 20th Century under changed circumstances. What was perhaps provident for backward Russia in the eyes of Lenin or Stalin need not be applicable or advisable for the rest of us?
Every up-and-coming capitalist power finds the world already carved up by the established powers. If it is to expand its influence it must clash with these powers, as Germany, Japan, Italy and Russia have found and as China is now finding. All of them, in their time, have beaten the “anti-imperialist” drum, that is, have opposed the domination of the world by Britain and France and later America. Mussolini talked of Italy as a “proletarian nation” in a class war against the “bourgeois nations”. Nazi Germany stirred up Arab and Latin American nationalism. Japan advanced the slogan of “Asia for the Asians”. Russia, too, and now China, like Germany before, vociferously denounce Anglo-French-American imperialism. It is of the essence of bourgeois nationalists that, when imperialism prevents them from building their own independent capitalist state, they may lead struggles against it, but they are striving to carve out a place for themselves within the existing system, not to overthrow it. This means that, sooner or later, they will come to terms with imperialism.
Robbo wrote:
Yet incredibly, you wildly imagine that China is ruled by a “communist party” bent on establishing communism by 2121. This same sort of drivel was expounded by the pseudo-communist party of the Soviet Union in the early post-war years. It too talked of establishing “full communism” in a few decades. Look what happened to the Soviet Union. The red bourgeoisie in their “revolution from above” abandoned the old and increasingly inefficient command economy Stalinist model of capitalist accumulation in favor of a more corporatist model.
———————————————————————————————-
Stalin wrote in one of his books ( On the opposition ) that the soviet union was a classless society and then, he had to back down because it was not true, there were high-class divisions in the soviet society, and the division was visible.The collapse of the soviet union did not have any resistance from the ruling class because they wanted it to become a corporatist society, and the so-called betrayal by Gorbachev and another leader before him it is propaganda made by the pro soviet ‘communist parties, including the CPUSA which also defends the so-called socialist character of the Chinese society
https://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm/2020/11/05/more-leninist-distortions/. Lenin distorted the concept of socialism and communism, both are the same concept and they are interchangeable
Robbo wrote :
The SPGB’s position is crystal clear: a plague on all their houses! We are equally critical of western capitalist regimes as we are of other capitalist regimes. We do not take sides in inter-capitalist rivalriesNot only the SPGB but also the WSPUS which is a companion party of the WSM has written against USA imperialism too, and the Socialist Party of Canada ( another companion party ) has written against the Canada and British capitalism
We do not stand on any patriotic or nationalist world vision
https://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm/2021/02/19/american-imperialism/
https://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm/2021/08/27/a-socialist-one-world/
Alan wrote:
Marx and Engels did support certain nationalist movements and some wars – TO BRING CAPITALISM TO FEUDAL STATES, to usher the capitalist class into political power so they could create the pre-requisites of socialism; an actual working class within an industrialized society. Prussia against the Slavs. Britain and France against Tsarist Russia. Even Prussia was against France to strengthen the unification of Germany. But can anyone seriously think that such a policy is required in to-days world where capitalism is now the predominant system and it’s the working class that is the decisive class, not the capitalists? What may have been right in the 19thCentury for Marx and Engels, may not now be the right choice in the 20th Century under changed circumstances. What was perhaps provident for backward Russia in the eyes of Lenin or Stalin need not be applicable or advisable for the rest of us?
—————————————————–
That historical passage has been used as a pretext by the Leninists, the anti-imperialists, and the supporter of the so-called national liberation movements to justify their support to their own ruling class,
It has been cited by several Latin American organizations including the Puerto Rico independentists, and now in Peru with the new social democratic government which mistakenly they call socialist. Nationalization was a process initiated by the British capitalist class, it has nothing to do with socialism. Many valuable young peoples were killed based on that false conception influenced by Castroism, Guevaraism, and Debrayism
We have criticized Marx for his exaggerated support to nationalist and bourgeois revolution but during its time, it was necessary to be supported in comparison with European Feudalism, but in our time we do not have feudalism, and feudalism only existed in Europe and Japan, it did not exist in Latin America, or China ( a Maoist distortion ) it should be called Asiatic Mode of Production.
Most of them blame the actual problems on the imperialist powers, or Neoliberalism, but the real cause of both is capitalism, as this article clearly indicates:
https://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm/2019/12/08/neo-liberalism-old-religion-repackaged/
In our time capitalism has been fully developed and expanded to all the countries around the world, ( we also have the uneven development of capitalism ) as well, the wage slavery system has expanded to all countries, therefore, we can not advocate for the development of capitalism anymore, or the so-called two-step revolution, we should advocate for a post-capitalist society
This is a critical evaluation of Marx and Engels made by the SPGB and their support to certain bourgeois revolutions, and how their ideas evolved, and how many of their ideas have been taken out of context to justify distortion made by the left, Leninists, and social democrats
https://www.worldsocialism.org/wsm/marx-and-socialism-a-critical-evaluation/
Alan wrote:
MS, I think someone has to possess a basic understanding of the material conception of history to comprehend why today socialists should oppose anti-imperialism.
——————————————————–That concept was also changed, now they call it Dialectical Historical Materialism, Marx was not the creator of Dialectical materialism or Plekhanov, it was the philosopher Dietzgen. The SPGB has also clarified that misconception, we have covered all bases in regard to socialism, that is the reason why it is so difficult to grasp the socialist case in a few days, or months, a lot of research is required, and then they come to this forum to pretend to be our teachers, in reality, the teacher must relearn again.
https://www.radicalphilosophyarchive.com/issue-files/rp10_article1_josephdietzegen_buick.pdf.
Engels simply defined the Materialist Concept of History as follows:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/death/burial.htm.
PS Several months ago we had a discussion where someone tried to prove that Marx abandoned dialectic, personally I believe that too, although the Marxist Humanist believe that he was a dialectician throughout all his life
MS, I know you require very little education from me.
But the phrase anti-imperialism is tossed around a lot by those who have little knowledge of Marxism and believe it was one of Lenin’s major contributions to Marxist theory, although Bukharin and Luxemburg among others also offered their own versions of it around the early 20th Century.
Like the phrase “dictatorship to the proletariat,” anti-imperialism only assumed importance to Lenin to safeguard his premature seizure of power
Robbo wrote:
And then finally there is all the nonsense you talk about “imperialism”. Why is it that so many leftists witter on inanely about imperialism as if that was the problem and not capitalism? They mistake the form for the substance and are thus engaged in a continuous display of mere shadow boxing.
Every country in the world is manifestly or latently imperialist if we take a strictly economic definition of imperialism as entailing the cross border flows of profit-seeking capital. It’s just that some countries are vastly more successful in realising their imperialist ambitions than others.
———————————————
As well, the favorite toy of the leftists and Leninists is Neoliberalism, the real problem is capitalism. Some left communists have defined imperialism as the total summation of all the capitalist countries
Robbo wrote:
China with its Belt and Road initiative etc is a major imperialist power in the world today with investments in scores of countries. Imperialism is an outgrowth of capitalism and its expansionist dynamic: capital accumulation. Since you have little or no understanding of what capitalism is about, you woefully fail to understand the imperialist nature of the appalling capitalist dictatorship you so avidly support
_________________________
The Luxembourgists are saying that the Belt and Road Initiative is the best application of what Rosa Luxembourg described on his on The Accumulation of capital which is economic expansion or imperialism
alanjjohnstone
Participant
MS, I know you require very little education from me.But the phrase anti-imperialism is tossed around a lot by those who have little knowledge of Marxism and believe it was one of Lenin’s major contributions to Marxist theory, although Bukharin and Luxemburg among others also offered their own versions of it around the early 20th Century.
Like the phrase “dictatorship to the proletariat,” anti-imperialism only assumed importance to Lenin to safeguard his premature seizure of power
_———————————————————You are totally correct, the Japanese rulers, Mussolini and Hitler raised the flag of anti-imperialism. Like they were the victim of others empire
Nikolai Bukharin also had his own definition of imperialism based on the world economy, but now the so-called anti-imperialists of our time, only see one country which they call the empire, what about the others, including the so-called socialist countries? According to them, they are not economic expansionists, they are charitable institutions
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/
PS Alan, we all learn from each other. This is what Mark Taiwan said about his father:
When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” My first book of Engels came into my hands from a poor shoeshinerAnother flaw in this thread, is the so-called mixed economy, socialism and capitalism can not co-exist together, and also socialism is not going to be an economic system, it is going to be a social production. The pamphlet published by Adam Buick titled: The alternative to capitalism explains that very clear. That is the same concept of the Kurschevite regarding the pacific coexistence, ironically in 1959, the Stalinists rejected his thesis. Socialism/communism is a post-capitalist society. Another flaw is by saying that the state has one particular purpose different from the economic base, ( China state is socialist and the economy is capitalist ) which is pure nonsense, the state is the superstructure of the economic base and it is not detached from the economy both have the same purpose.
This article about Political Economic and the wage system in the Soviet Union which was published in this thread is a clear indication of the capitalist character of the Soviet Union and a total negation of what Marx indicated about the wage system. They can fool the fools
1) Socialism is not an economic system, it is a social production of free associated labor, and labor is going to be voluntary, but the soviet union imposed in a military way the production during 1917, workers were forced to work overtime and extra hours, and when they protested many were killed, the first slaughter of workers did not start with Stalin, it started with Lenin and Trotsky.
It is not different to the 16 hours imposed by the capitalist countries on the workers, factories had a sign if you don’t come on Sunday don’t come on Monday, this imposition produced the wild cats strikes and the struggles for 8 hours. The Soviet leaders admired Ford production line and it was imposed on the Russian workers to speed the production
2) The existence of wages in a society is an indication of the existence of a capitalist mode of production, and wages are the necessary means for the survival of the slave, Marx himself indicated on Das Capital that the law of value is only applicable to the capitalist society, but in this article they hide it under the carpet
3) Money is used in order to buy labor power, and in this article, the existence of money is justified instead of saying that socialism is a moneyless society, and labor power is not going to be a commodity anymore. Marx indicated that money is capital and a product of the economic exploitation of the working class.
3) Instead of wages, better wages, higher wages, socialists advocate for a wageless society, or no wages at all, probably the capitalist economists known
as Samuelson and Gailbraith could have written something similar to this article.I see the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions has decided to dissolve itself. Individual trade unions will probably continue to exist but they will have to avoid getting involved in politics, at least anti-Peking ones.
ALB
Keymaster
I see the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions has decided to dissolve itself. Individual trade unions will probably continue to exist but they will have to avoid getting involved in politics, at least anti-Peking ones.———————————————————-
A so-called socialist country is against the only class which can establish socialism, and against the economic organizations of the working class known as trade unions or syndicates. They must obey their masters like typical wage slaves, and one of the supporters of the dictatorship of China in this forum is claiming freedom of speech in the forum of the SPGB, and then, they write a bunch of articles saying that they are not imperialist, the same thing was done by the USA in Latin America, any anti-USA corporations trade unions were dissolved and their leader were killed or deported. Like a workers union leader said that sugar cane was a bitter product for the working class
“I see the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions has decided to dissolve itself.”
The Confederation is a tool of the US. It receives NED (CIA) funding. As such it does not operate in the interests of HK workers but in the interests of Washington DC.
The NED provides funding “to strengthen the Confederation of Trade Unions, a key component of Hong Kong’s democracy movement”
https://nedprogramsinhk.blogspot.com/2016/08/ned-grants-to-hong-kong-1994-to-2015.html
The US has a long history of sponsoring trade unions in countries it targets for regime change. How the CIA infiltrates trade unions…
https://off-guardian.org/2018/03/06/how-the-cia-infiltrates-trade-unions/
You’ve been played for a fool. But go ahead, shoot the messenger, I deal with knuckleheads every day of my life.
“TS “ A conspiracist? Really? What conspiracy are you claiming I adhere to?”
So far I’ve noted:
Holocaust denial”I’ve made no mention of the Holocaust. Good Pinocchio do point to my discussion of the topic.
“Denial of the Katyn Forest massacre”
Reading comprehension clearly isn’t something you’re good at. I have not denied the massacre. I have just noted correctly, that it was a propaganda operation carried out by the Nazis. If you believe Goebbels’ version of events then all the power to you, comrade.
“Denial of the Stalinist show trials”
Nope, didn’t deny them either.
“Denial of the Ukrainian famine”
You mean the Soviet famine? Never even mentioned it.
“Denial of the massacre resulting from the Cuktural Revolution……
Again, made no mention of the “Cuktural” Revolution.
You clearly keep a collection of phantoms in your head with whom you like to converse. There’s medication for that you know? For your own sake, please see a doctor.
“A so-called socialist country is against the only
class which can establish socialism, and against
the economic organizations of the working class
known as trade unions or syndicates.”Is your brain broken MS? The Confederation is a front for the CIA. No wonder you people are so irrelevant.
“supporters of the dictatorship of China”
China is not a dictatorship, it’s one of the most democratic countries on the planet with 96 per cent approval of its government. But you, think you’ve the right to tell 1.4 billion people how to live. They all think you kind annoying gnats, as do I.
“the same thing was done by the USA in Latin
America,”Yes, I’ve no doubt the CIA was infiltrating unions there too. But you’re so daft, you probably cheered it on!
- The topic ‘Hong Kong’ is closed to new replies.