I’m referring to the idea that “Supporting the opposition of the main imperialist, in order to weaken the all system”, a position often simplified as “campist”. I’m not saying it was shaky, however as all the other political theories, the working class shall observe how it worked.
Their is a lot of academic and communist (mostly maoist and titoist, but not only) research to disprove this (see below), but what the point ? You may answer that this imperialist and bourgeois propaganda (which is partly true), and I will your sources are just others bourgeoisie propaganda.
So I would suggest to rely on self-organized working classes. Are they supported or not by the organization, states or union we talking about ? U.S, Nato, Russian federation, Europe, Ukraine, Israel, People’s Republic of China, all this state crush unions or collective that ask too much or are too independent.
And what we see is that supporting those state or organization weaken the expression of a self-aware proletariat and enforce the tools of its repression. Even States at war have no issue to copy each other to do so. It seems that spreading armed and state conflicts just make the Military–industrial complex to grow, and strike population everywhere (but not with the same violence).
The Military–industrial complex is not unique to the US; it’s something important in some European countries, others NATO State (i.e Turquey), or the USSR (at least in its last decade).
If you disagree, please, provide your sources
Alvin Z. Rubinstein, “Soviet Imperialism in Afghanistan.”
Arendt, Hannah “Totalitarian Imperialism: Reflections on the Hungarian Revolution”
Velychenko, Stephen (2015). Painting Imperialism and Nationalism Red: The Ukrainian Marxist Critique of Russian Communist Rule in Ukraine
It’s late I may or may not get around to doing a full reply tomorrow, but I do want to say your sources are incredibly shit to put it lightly I’m afraid to say.
Hannah Arendt was a Zionist Cold War anti-communist liberal whose “totalitarianism” framework was built around collapsing fascism and communism into the same moral category.
Alvin Rubinstein was a U.S. Cold War foreign-policy / strategic-studies writer who spends most of his time downplaying US atrocities in the middle east while braying about how the soviets (invited by the legitimate government of the time) were the real imperialists
Stephen Velychenko is an out and out Ukrainian nationalist and “national-communist” (nazbol style bullshit)
Milovan Đilas was an anti-communist dissident whose work was eagerly taken up by Cold War publishing circuits, such as Praeger. (I hope you can see how quoting anything put out by Praeger as serious is flawed to put it mildly)
Not to mind the myriad of issues in framing, gaps in knowledge and other issues with each piece independently for example Arendts framing of the crushing of the fascist uprising in Hungary secretly being just as bad as fascism because they used force to quell the counter revolution. Or Dilas complete lack of understanding of the difference between administrative stratum and a new class, and much of this literature using “imperialism” as a moral or analogical label rather than in it’s proper analytical meaningful form.
And this is really only scratching the surface, but it’s all I have time for right now so I’ll leave it here for today. I’m sure @Cowbee@lemmy.ml will most likely beat me to the punch to give you a more proper reply.
Apologies if it seems like I’m pushing this onto you but I saw you asked the same question and I just don’t have the time now to give a proper thought out reply so felt you might be interested. Best of luck to you 🫡
QinShiHuangsSchlong already responded pretty well to your sources, which are frankly pretty terrible. I’ll attempt to address the argument itself.
So I would suggest to rely on self-organized working classes.
What is the “self-organized working classes?” Why do you draw a distinction between the proletariat organizing state power, and the “self-organizing” proletariat? I assume you mean unions and the like, but these take on very different contexts depending on the system they find themselves in.
Are they supported or not by the organization, states or union we talking about ? U.S, Nato, Russian federation, Europe, Ukraine, Israel, People’s Republic of China, all this state crush unions or collective that ask too much or are too independent.
This is metaphysics. You’re taking a handful of fascist settler colonies, inter imperialist organizations, imperialist countries, and then one nationalist anti-imperialist state and one socialist anti-imperialist state, in order to equate them all. This is horrendously dishonest. Independent unions in, say, the US are organizing to contest the brutal exploitation of the capitalist system. China on the other hand has the largest federation of unions in the world, and is a socialist state, thus “independent” unions are contesting both this broader federation of unions and the socialist state itself. These are entirely different circumstances that you paint as equal.
And what we see is that supporting those state or organization weaken the expression of a self-aware proletariat and enforce the tools of its repression.
Except this isn’t the case of every state you listed, just some of them. You listed cases where this is indisputably true alongside cases where this is false and used that as evidence alone.
This is really where your entire argument rests on, the hope that people will not actually look beyond surface-level comparison to understand the complexity and context that fundamentally makes these cases entirely different.
Non-aligned movement are composed by States. Their is a lot of proletarian or people movement which are (by definition) not States.
Of course their seems to be a minority, as well as western countries seems to be democratic. Such impression are made by the same system (the bourgeoisie) and are disproved when we do some research.
The non-aligned peaceful faction of Indonesian communists did pretty well with that doctrine! They only got slaughtered and their bones buried in the beaches.
There is a reason as to why all these peaceful non-aligned movements are history and the armed organized communist states, like China and the DPRK, are still standing strong yk.
I’m referring to the idea that “Supporting the opposition of the main imperialist, in order to weaken the all system”, a position often simplified as “campist”. I’m not saying it was shaky, however as all the other political theories, the working class shall observe how it worked.
Their is a lot of academic and communist (mostly maoist and titoist, but not only) research to disprove this (see below), but what the point ? You may answer that this imperialist and bourgeois propaganda (which is partly true), and I will your sources are just others bourgeoisie propaganda.
So I would suggest to rely on self-organized working classes. Are they supported or not by the organization, states or union we talking about ? U.S, Nato, Russian federation, Europe, Ukraine, Israel, People’s Republic of China, all this state crush unions or collective that ask too much or are too independent. And what we see is that supporting those state or organization weaken the expression of a self-aware proletariat and enforce the tools of its repression. Even States at war have no issue to copy each other to do so. It seems that spreading armed and state conflicts just make the Military–industrial complex to grow, and strike population everywhere (but not with the same violence). The Military–industrial complex is not unique to the US; it’s something important in some European countries, others NATO State (i.e Turquey), or the USSR (at least in its last decade).
If you disagree, please, provide your sources
It’s late I may or may not get around to doing a full reply tomorrow, but I do want to say your sources are incredibly shit to put it lightly I’m afraid to say.
Hannah Arendt was a Zionist Cold War anti-communist liberal whose “totalitarianism” framework was built around collapsing fascism and communism into the same moral category.
Alvin Rubinstein was a U.S. Cold War foreign-policy / strategic-studies writer who spends most of his time downplaying US atrocities in the middle east while braying about how the soviets (invited by the legitimate government of the time) were the real imperialists
Stephen Velychenko is an out and out Ukrainian nationalist and “national-communist” (nazbol style bullshit)
Milovan Đilas was an anti-communist dissident whose work was eagerly taken up by Cold War publishing circuits, such as Praeger. (I hope you can see how quoting anything put out by Praeger as serious is flawed to put it mildly)
Not to mind the myriad of issues in framing, gaps in knowledge and other issues with each piece independently for example Arendts framing of the crushing of the fascist uprising in Hungary secretly being just as bad as fascism because they used force to quell the counter revolution. Or Dilas complete lack of understanding of the difference between administrative stratum and a new class, and much of this literature using “imperialism” as a moral or analogical label rather than in it’s proper analytical meaningful form.
And this is really only scratching the surface, but it’s all I have time for right now so I’ll leave it here for today. I’m sure @Cowbee@lemmy.ml will most likely beat me to the punch to give you a more proper reply.
I’ll do what I can! 🫡
Apologies if it seems like I’m pushing this onto you but I saw you asked the same question and I just don’t have the time now to give a proper thought out reply so felt you might be interested. Best of luck to you 🫡
No worries, comrade!
QinShiHuangsSchlong already responded pretty well to your sources, which are frankly pretty terrible. I’ll attempt to address the argument itself.
What is the “self-organized working classes?” Why do you draw a distinction between the proletariat organizing state power, and the “self-organizing” proletariat? I assume you mean unions and the like, but these take on very different contexts depending on the system they find themselves in.
This is metaphysics. You’re taking a handful of fascist settler colonies, inter imperialist organizations, imperialist countries, and then one nationalist anti-imperialist state and one socialist anti-imperialist state, in order to equate them all. This is horrendously dishonest. Independent unions in, say, the US are organizing to contest the brutal exploitation of the capitalist system. China on the other hand has the largest federation of unions in the world, and is a socialist state, thus “independent” unions are contesting both this broader federation of unions and the socialist state itself. These are entirely different circumstances that you paint as equal.
Except this isn’t the case of every state you listed, just some of them. You listed cases where this is indisputably true alongside cases where this is false and used that as evidence alone.
This is really where your entire argument rests on, the hope that people will not actually look beyond surface-level comparison to understand the complexity and context that fundamentally makes these cases entirely different.
You can’t possibly say this as we saw the the non-aligned movement getting completely crushed by the US.
Non-aligned movement are composed by States. Their is a lot of proletarian or people movement which are (by definition) not States. Of course their seems to be a minority, as well as western countries seems to be democratic. Such impression are made by the same system (the bourgeoisie) and are disproved when we do some research.
The non-aligned peaceful faction of Indonesian communists did pretty well with that doctrine! They only got slaughtered and their bones buried in the beaches.
There is a reason as to why all these peaceful non-aligned movements are history and the armed organized communist states, like China and the DPRK, are still standing strong yk.