So your reply to my post had me wondering, what do you make of revolutionary socialist party states that are not ML? Like Libya formerly or Venezuela (though I'm not sure if they count any more), I think they serve a necessary role in the global struggle against imperialism even if they retain a largely bourgeois character in their leadership, but you saying that the primary core of communism is class struggle got me thinking
well, i suppose the answer to this has to go down a few levels, as i don't believe it is always necessary to ''make'' something of these--this is i think one of the key weaknesses of social media as a medium for discussion of these topics, in that it encourages one to take positions for the sake of having them, like collecting baubles, rather than to take positions as foundation and precursors to action.
but, to kind of take uh, the most pressing or relevant question, which is whether communists on the ground of these states ought to organize in their support, i think history has proven that this is a very complex and contingent question. for example, the chinese revolution very famously incorporated the chinese petty-bourgeois and national bourgeois in an expressly subordinate role to that of the party, proletariat, and peasantry. but that is of course a case where the socialist party maintains primacy under the ideology of marxism--unlike (say) venezuela:
the relationship between venezuelan communists and venezuela's organized working class (especially in the form of the communes) and the bolivarian revolution is a multifarious one. this is going to be by necessity of being a tumblr post a very simplified history, but the communists more or less aligned with the PSUV, worked with the PSUV on the ground, and the PSUV in turn did do some things (although not enough imo) to encourage and support the communes and their autonomous power. however, the PSUV government also entrenched a new capitalist rentier class, which has gotten steadily more powerful and more repressive of the proletariat under maduro and now rogriguez: this is an example of contradictions unravelling wholly in a way that under a genuine socialist DoTP they would not be able to, because the bourgeoise were allowed to exist outside of the control of the party and masses.
so now, by turns, communist parties and labour organizations (as well as the communes themselves) in venezuela are divided, by part supporting the government inasmuch as by doing so means opposing the blockade and imperialist pressures on the country, but also by part opposing the government so much as it represents the interests of the venezuelan national bourgeoisie as mobilized against the people and (increasingly) as it represents those same imperialist pressures. in recent years especially, this contradiction has cracked wide open as the interests of the venezuelan national bourgeoisie have shifted more and more towards accomodation and coexistence with US imperialism (most drastically after january 3rd, of course). and in this light i think the communes and organizations that are now most politically advanced and that have the best signs of longevity are those who did not entirely tie themselves to the edifice of the PSUV
but, you know, there is no actual contradiction in terms of strategy 'on the ground' in supporting a bourgeois government where it suits your strategy to do so, and then opposing them vociferously where it does not. i think that if the communist party is not in a leading position among the masses and in society it can be correct to engage in such alliances with the national bourgeoise with great caution and only insomuch as you are following the masses and providing a socialist bulkwark to the general project of anti-imperialism. cross-class nationalist movements can be made use of, but they should be made use of cynically as means towards advancing the political position of the proletariat, not as ends or causes in and of themselves.
as far as socialists who are not "on the ground" go, i think the correct strategy should of course be informed by the strategy and role of one's own national bourgeoisie--i strongly believe that anti-imperialist action in the imperial core should not be motivated by charitable altruism, nor by a blind sense of solidarity, because both of these motivators are ultimately extremely easy to co-opt into liberalism. instead, it should be informed by the understanding that global imperialism is a key element in the dominance of the bourgeoisie domestically, and that one cannot attack one without attacking the other. when i emphasize the primacy of class struggle, i don't believe in doing so to the exclusion of anti-imperialism, but rather my argument is that true anti-imperialism can only arise out of global class struggle and that at the same time anti-imperialism is a necessary element of succesful class struggle.
dailybridgerton
pixelskylines
baratheonpilled
snowghoul
dededos
discoholicmusic
kaledo-art
