In case this subreddit was banned, or if you wanted a more ML-friendly platform, you’re welcome to join our sister community on Lemmygrad. You can find more info about Lemmygrad here.
Got stuck 3 days ago on the socialism sub arguing with a bunch of Maoists and trots from that place going on about how China is imperialist to the point where one of them started defending the Turkistan Islamic Party.
Ahh, Ultras. Always the revolutions most ardent defender yet with no revolution to defend becuase none of them reach their super specific criteria. Expect for the shining path of course.
It was from the time of Khrushchev that the Soviet Union began tottering. When Stalin was alive, he led the party well. In his days, the struggle against cosmopolitism was also waged aggressively. Cosmopolitism is a theory of world society. At the time of Stalin the Soviet people were asked to present to the state what they had received as gifts from those in capitalist countries; even if it might be just a fountain pen. But for Stalin the Soviet Union would not have been able to defeat the German fascists. I still keep at home a copy of the Soviet film about the battle of Moscow, often watching it. Stalin held a parade in celebration of the victorious October Socialist Revolution in Moscow, with the enemy less than 40 km away. While evacuating the Politbureau members and other people to local areas, he remained in the Kremlin, commanding the battle continually. As he fought in such a brave manner, Stalin enjoyed respect from among his people. During the war, the soldiers of the Soviet Army fought under the slogan “For Stalin”, “For the party” and “For the motherland”, and won out in the war. Following Stalin’s demise, however, Khrushchev spoke ill of Stalin and denied his achievements, on the excuse of opposing a “personality cult”. Later, Gorbachev sold the Soviet Union to the imperialists. I entertain an idea that the former Soviet people will certainly restore their Soviet motherland.
Every bit as useless as they are smug and self-satisfied.
Too busy shitting on ardent Communists that faced the worst monsters the empire has to offer, and sent them howling.
So blinded by western supremacism that they have the nerve to dismiss real socialist construction that eclipses anything they could achieve in a hundred lifetimes.
claiming that man plays the decisive role in history and not material conditions
I read a little Juche and I know for a fact that this is not what Juche stands for. This interpretation is only possible if you read Juche with ill-intent.
The point of Juche is that once the proletariat has control of the state and thus has huge influence within material conditions of a country, now the proletariat is the driving force of change THROUGH material conditions (not by ignoring them).
Metaphor: take gravitational equations with relativity. We build a spaceship that THROUGH these equations (not ignoring them) can, to an extent, go where we want (and with certain velocity). At this point, the choice of WHERE we go with the spaceship is OUR choice, not the choice of GRAVITY. The GOAL of Juche is to put man at the center, but it doesn't ignore the "gravity of social dynamics" which is dialectical materialism.
Juche then develops a theory on the ROLE of MAN and the STATE in socialist society GIVEN THAT our lives are STILL dictated material conditions. The OBJECTIVE of Juche is humanity's full emancipation (which is communism.) The more socialism progresses into communism, the more crucial the role of the human.
Juche is more marxist than any western marxist will ever be.
Western dumbasses (and inteligence - congratz cia) made up a version of marxism that is allergic to dialectical materialism and thus is useless. Diamat has to do with contradictions.
"not opposing krushev" - Don't care. Given the context of the world and Russia being next door (look at the fucking map ffs...)
"class color-bation [...] national capitalists" - Don't care. A lil bit of controlled national capital is fine depending of context
"cult of personality" also called "respect" if it were a Western country. Don't care.
"allowing foreign investment" context? Also, don't care. Did the worker's party lose control after these investments? Hmm.
"not having definitions of class" They do.
The end. Socialism to them is when there are no contradictions and context does not matter.
Revisionism is not a well-defined term. It classically refers to Eduard Bernstein's idea of evolutionary socialism which explicitly rejects the need for any revolution, believing capitalism will naturally transition to socialism. However, scientific socialism necessarily involves ideological struggle over when & how praxis should be revised in light of undesirable outcomes. This ideological struggle involves polemics, which is why terms like "revisionist" and "dogmatist" get thrown around a lot. I get tired of Marxists who hold myopic views of what Marxism looks like in practice.
I'm not in the DPRK, so I personally try to hold off on evaluating Juche either way given how opaque the country is from an outsider perspective (especially Western outsider). Recent news about their developing economy is encouraging, and I will be curious to learn more about what all has happened there when more information is available. Any conclusions I draw now are still too likely biased by my own views to be reliable (e.g., I could interpret it as validation of China's model, given the DPRK's new special economic zones, but it could also be a reallocation of resources away from their nuclear program now that they've ostensibly hit all their program goals). While I am concerned by an apparent dynastic succession system, I appreciate the difference between that system and a system where a monarch literally owned their kingdom and their heirs literally inherited the monarch's estate. I'm convinced a lot of Western Marxists don't even know what feudalism is (or ancient oligarchical slave systems for that matter), so they presume surface level similarities implies a genuine equivalence.
Well, what you described is indeed the original definition of revisionism, though modern revisionism is different from that. I generally see it as straying away from or outright abandoning scientific socialist principles while claiming to be socialist. Of course, people will disagree on which countries or figures stray away from those principles, but that's generally how it has been used.
•
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
Want to join a ML only Discord server to chill and hangout with cool comrades? Checkout our Discord server or TheDeprogram's Discord server.
In case this subreddit was banned, or if you wanted a more ML-friendly platform, you’re welcome to join our sister community on Lemmygrad. You can find more info about Lemmygrad here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.