• purpleworm [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    37·
    4 days ago

    Literally what about the KR was “Marxist”? You can argue that they were socialist in the crassest, broadest sense, but nothing about their project is Marxist specifically that I’ve ever heard of, and all of what I’ve heard (e.g. glasses) is anti-Marxist.

    Now granted, I think Deng was probably right that the number of people the KR killed gets exaggerated significantly (people say 25% of the population, which is absurd), but the people they killed were still mostly Cambodian civilians and they would have been happy to kill more than they are accused of if they viably could kill more civilians than they already did and were given some excuse by their doctrines (e.g. glasses).

    At least, this is my understanding of the matter. I’m happy to be corrected (except on them being Marxist, because I’m pretty confident that they weren’t).

  • Damarcusart [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    23·
    4 days ago

    I thought Trots didn’t like China? Is this the particular ultra brainworms where they are just anti-USSR to the point that they will support any country that opposed them? (Also, are trots ultras? I can never remember)

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      20·
      4 days ago

      I ran into a Trot on here recently and I think I understand their stance. Trotsky himself criticized Stalin for his support of the KMT early on, which he saw as a betrayal of the CPC. But Trotskyists also have to oppose the CPC because they had a successful revolution and thereby tainted the perfect ideal with reality and practical concerns. I suspect that they might have some sort of narrative about the CPC being corrupted and it all being Stalin’s fault.

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]@hexbear.netEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        More concretely, it was fifteen years before the CPC won the civil war that there was an ideological contention, with the “permanent revolution” types represented by Chen Duxiu all being ejected and/or denounced. I don’t think it directly has to do with the status/successes of the party.

      • Damarcusart [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        14·
        4 days ago

        Yeah, I know they oppose the CPC because they are AES and therefore revisionist/Stalinist, but I guess that makes sense that they must blame Stalin somehow for them being “corrupted”

        Though that is a rough conversation. Good to see Trots haven’t changed a bit and are still perfectly happy spouting off drivel that is internally contradictory and thinking that it makes them the One True Communists. I guess it make sense, the appeal of that sort of thinking is a smug “I told you so” attitude you get to throw at people, so they don’t care about their worldview being consistent, they only care about their hypothetical “what should of happened” being better than reality. That’s why I lump them in with ultras, because a lot of ultra groups do that too, ignoring material reality in favour of “(insert my favourite socialist figure here) should’ve waved their magic communism wand and made communism everywhere for everyone.”

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          12·
          4 days ago

          The conversation was just funny to me. Like, we both basically agreed on several major points that the average person wouldn’t even know what we were talking about (for example about the Second International), we both even basically agreed on what should’ve been done, with the benefit of hindsight, but because I said the decisions were understandable at the time, they’re ready to declare me as an enemy of the people. And that’s how you know what it’s really about, that the theoretical/ideological points are just an afterthought and the main thing is this obsession with attacking and denouncing AES states.

          • Damarcusart [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            9·
            4 days ago

            Matches a lot of my experiences with Trots, often well read and know a lot about socialist history, but always in a “I can recite the exact names and addresses of everyone who attended the first international” sort of way. They can recite things that they have memorised, but they don’t seek to understand it or interpret it, the “information” is pure and not to be examined or discussed or challenged, like religious dogma. There’s no reflection, no understanding of the human element of these events, no “what would I do given the information they had at the time?” it’s always just “the bad people did the bad thing and suppressed the good kind of communism forever.”