With the recent victory of Mamdani, I thought about sharing this video by Marxist-Leninist content creator Jones Manoel.
The whole video is in portuguese, but the automatic subtitles from youtube are pretty good here, with a few exceptions like getting a few names wrong and confusing “Hollywood” with “Dutch” for some reason.
Still, comrade Jones take seems pretty solid to me. He’s skeptical of Zohran’s actual power to enact any meaning change in NY, while also acknowledging the historical significance of his win as a Muslim and Palestine supporter, specially because it happened in the heart of the empire.
He also throws shade and criticism towards China and Vietnam in regards to the Palestinian genocide, which I think are well deserved, and since he is someone that constantly studies Brasil, and talks primarily to a Brasilian audience, he also talks about it in the context of the video.
What do y’all think about his take?
Yes, exactly. Why isn’t every marxist that blames China, for doing not enough against the genocide, managed not to organise sufficiently in their own country to stop the genocide themselves? It is why I brought up the Cuba as an example; against liberals it is easy to explain underdevelopment as a product of a siege against socialism but for marxist-leninists the point is to succeed despite that - the genocidal nature of capital is a given so how do we beat that?
Philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it
I think we are talking past each other at this point.
The failure of Marxist movements elsewhere is not an excuse for China’s lack of action on Palestine. You can use my example of the conditions of why Brasil can’t meaningfully enact change on Palestine to other countries around the world and it would fit just as well because basically no country other than China right now have the material conditions to enact such change.
So, in this specific case, it doesn’t matter that we are failing, because even if we were not, and let’s say Brasil turns socialist tomorrow, it would still not be able to help Palestine in any meaningful way, because to reach such a stage it would take much more time than Palestine have left. Yet, China is at such stage right now.
So that idealism is the mistake.
If, for example, it is posited that certain deemed actions by China would consitute more than symbolism if China were to act upon them, then it is the duty of said non-chinese self-claimed marxist-leninists who believe in those paradigms then to organise so China can act. So go on then, do so.
If one isn’t going to do that, and instead throw their hands up in the air then one is admitting there is no praxis here:
Like I said in that second link there’s only a few groups of people in the whole world that could potentially hold the geopolitical high ground against China and each one of them come with caveats.
No matter how exasperating the situation we musn’t fall into liberal paradigms and have a dialectical approach. No matter how big the enemy feel it must be understood that capital contains its own seeds of destruction because it by definition has dependancies on those who resist it; it is this weakness that must be exploited, rather than resorting to supposed idealisms (powerful socialist country over there is not doing something that one thinks is important but for which as an ML one chooses nothing effectively to do aboutit) for which one chooses not to organise against because it is not in your material interests (yeah think what an anti-China rally by supposed communists saying that the PRC are not doing enough against the genocide will be effectively supporting in a global western hegemony for which the Global South is only collectively recently slowly turning against, only then because of their own capital interests). MLs should not have the luxury to hold on to idealisms devoid of dialectical praxis.
Socialism is not utopian; one must consider what the strategic concessions are needed to survive. I am reminded by Western Marxists who are aghast that McDonalds exists in China but that is what socialism looks like in that place in this timeline (there’s a lot to unpack in that last sentence for some).
Comrade, what idealism?
You are the one that claimed Marxists in the capitalist global south are at fault for not stopping the genocide, and now that I explained how that is materially impossible, you’re shifting the goalpost to say that these same Marxist are at fault because we can’t pressure China into doing something, while ignoring the material reality of China’s lack of Internationalism which they themselves set goals to return to by 2049. You are uncritically excusing China and labeling anyone that does the most tame criticism of them an idealist. By your logic we can’t criticize them at all since our country here is not socialist, how is that a Marxist position? Just because China is a DOTP doesn’t excuse them of making mistakes. It doesn’t guarantee they aren’t gonna miss or do wrong.
Expecting that a Marxist-Leninist state would do the bare minimum when faced with the option to do something against a genocide is not idealism. The Soviet Union materially supported struggles all over the world and when faced with the reality of their mistake in supporting Israel, turned around and corrected their failure. Meanwhile, China admits Israel is doing a genocide, condemns it, but won’t even stop trading with it.
No one is throwing their hands in the air, we can do more than one thing at a time, we can criticize China while doing agitprop in our country and while pressuring our government to do something, these are not mutually exclusive actions.
Ah yes, we criticize China because we are failures, not because they are the most powerful ML state in existence right now and one of the only states capable of doing something against a literal genocide. How is that not the idealism you accuse me of?
Like you’re doing right now by not even taking into consideration the material reality of countries worldwide in their capacity of doing something against the genocide and just saying we are a failure? Come on now.
If I’m not misinterpreting you here, I don’t think you’re aiming this at me and just putting it out there for other people that might read it. But I’ll use it as a disclaimer that I’m not a Western Marxist nor a Trot.
I support China and will continue to do so, but I’ll also criticize them when it is appropriate, they are not marbled gods incapable of mistake.
No, that’s not what I am saying here.
I’m saying if someone who call themselves marxist lives in a country that does not have a dictatorship of the proleteriat then speaks of an actual DOTP is not doing enough against a genocide, and feels that was important enough that something should be done about it and then fails to do anything meaningful in that direction to agitate said foreign country then they have a geopolitical theory for which there is no meaningful praxis ie idealism.
If someone feels so strongly about China, and feels that such actions are important for China to take they then should organise around it.
I’m not sure how many different ways I can say the above.
It is a failure of marxists to postulate theories without praxis, it is the vestiges of liberalism that they should let go.
Let’s make the abstract concrete, so it doesn’t feel like I am talking past you, let’s walk this through (this will inevitably sound patronising in this format of a thread but it may be useful if anyone was lurking around), so let’s start with the first step: why haven’t you (or pick someone else for this example so it does not feel like a personal attack) organised around China’s supposed lack of action (please don’t say anything that will identify you)?Again you assume we can just pressure China into doing something, when I have more than once stated that China is not internationalist at this time. Why is it so hard to admit that China, as Marxists should just be helping Palestine more? It should not take other Marxists pressuring them to do that.
So, exactly what I said. At the end according to you, WE are at fault for China not being internationalist with Palestine, so the problem is not their stance, the problem is that we disagree with that stance and since we can’t change it, we are at fault. It makes absolutely zero sense, AGAIN, it is excusing China and shifting the blame on the powerless. Besides, saying China, a Marxist-Leninist state is not internationalist and not doing enough for Palestine is geopolitical theory and therefore we are idealists because WE can’t change how China acts? There’s is just no way.
What theory? Doing one tame criticism of China is not the same as postulating theory. We are not analyzing China and trying to understand why it is not internationalist and trying to learn from their experience, we are simply saying, THEY SHOULD help more as a Marxist-Leninist state.
I’m sorry but I’m done with this discussion. I have reiterated the same points and explained the same things over and over again and I don’t feel like doing it anymore, I’m disengaging.
So you have… material constraints… where you have to make strategic concessions… despite a genocide.
Idealism here is waving angry fists at clouds and considering what pretty much about amounts to debate-bro non-actionable “arguments”, and then saying that counts as marxism.
The hubris to consider that a country with about 100 million party members have not considered the implications of what actions to take and not take is unbelievable. From people who have achieved far less. Idealism is probably an understatement. The CPC have material constraints - of which their decisions from that may not be to our liking when it less than utopian ideal in our heads - but like I said we are meant to be dialectical materialists.
This really isn’t that hard. And this isn’t even a defence of the PRC. It’s an attack on liberal idealistic thinking.