Spicy question maybe, but I’m interested in your takes.

Personally, I think there’s some major issues with at least the terminology of the 2 phase model of lower/higher stage communism or socialism/communism as the terms are used in classical theory. Specifically the ‘lower stage’ or ‘socialism’ term is problematic.

In the age of revision and after the success of counterrevolution it has become clear that there is in fact a transitional phase leading up to the classical transitional phase. Societies did not jump from developed capitalism to socialism immediately and even the states that arguably did were forced to roll back some of the core tenets of ‘socialism’ as it is described in Marx, Engels and Lenin. Namely no private ownership of the means of production and no exploitation of man by man.

To ultras this just means countries following this path aren’t socialist. So then China isn’t, Cuba isn’t, no country still is really and those of us claiming they are then have to be revisionists. And to be fair, if you’re dogmatic you can make that point going from the source material. China itself recognizes this inconsistency, thus not seeing itself at the stage of socialism. Yet it’s a socialist state. But then what do we actually mean by ‘socialism’ when we use the term like this? Just a dictatorship of the proletariat? Any country in the process of building socialism?

That question comes up all the time and confuses the fuck out of people, because the term is either not applied consistently or as it’s defined is lacking. I think discourse in the communist movement and about AES would profit immensely if we had a more consistent definition or usage of the term or a better defined concept of what that transition to socialism is and how we should call it.

  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think behaviorally and policy-wise it’s easy. I’m saying ML theory struggles to handle it.

    • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would say ML as a theory isn’t flexible to it, but rather that dogmatic settlers don’t understand that we have to study our own material conditions rather than copy-pasting China on.

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am studying it and I’m struggling to find the linguistic and conceptual framings that work, hence why I posted this as my answer to the question about what I find lacking in MLism.

          • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, I’m not saying Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with this. I’m saying MLism doesn’t seem to provide us with the tools required to analyze and formulate dialectical concepts that demonstrate the reality of the situation that Decolonial and intersectional research and analysis have uncovered.

            • Idliketothinkimsmart@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Perhaps I misunderstood your point…I was a bit high. Nonetheless, I’d say that it’s not supposed to come with universal frameworks. The experience of these countries is theory in real time.

              Might not necessarily answer your request, but a bit of a different way of thinking about it.

        • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I believe ‘decolonized Buffalo’ has a collection of quotes from the ‘five heads of ML’ that can very easily be interpreted in a Decolonial way.

          • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How would I find this? I listen to the Decolonized Buffalo podcast. Is it an episode? An essay?

            • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Not exactly sure. This is what the podcast description says:

              spoiler

              Episode 135: Would Lenin or Stalin have supported the idea of Decolonization? (of the North American Continent)

              Guests: Derek (PlantsFanon), Victor (Red Falcon)

              To find the word document that we were reading from, you can go to the podcast share drive, then to go the “Documents” folder. The answer is “YES”, they would support the current idea of ‘Decolonization’. Quoted Sources included:

              A) “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination” by Lenin

              B) “Self-Determination of Nations” by Lenin

              C) “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” by Lenin

              D) “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up” by Lenin

              E) “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination (Theses)” by Lenin

              F) “State and Revolution” by Lenin

              G) “What is to be Done?” by Lenin

              H) “Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalism” by Lenin

              I) “‘Left-Wing’ Communism, An Infantile Disorder” by Lenin

              J) “Marxism and the National Question” by Stalin

              K) “The Foundations of Leninism” by Stalin

              L) “Historical Materialism” by Stalin

              Rick is a citizen of the Comanche Nation, and has a master’s in Indigenous People’s law, from the University of Oklahoma.

              Idk where this podcast share drive is.