thoughts on these critiques:

  1. I mean, I don’t think it’s a camp so much so as it is reality. Dengism has pushed forth a disastrous capitalist restoration that every single CPC government has done ever since, workers have been continually disenfranchised and chinese capitalists pop up everywhere and establish businesses that exploit the proletariat
  2. how can a country be a dotp without its basis of government being soviets they give bourgeois the right to vote and participate in government.
  3. Beijing has legally and specifically preserved capitalist governance where it can during dengism (Basic Laws in Macau, Hong Kong), but even Hong Kong is being outcapitalisted by the mainland, with Shanghai and even Shenzhen surpassing Hong Kong in terms of commerce and trade, points of great pride for Beijing despite this very clearly not being socialist
  4. the 1918 russian constitution officially denied political power to the nobility and bourgeoisie anyway, universal right to vote is inherently bourgeois. ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS this is very basic stuff
  • amemorablename
    16·
    5 months ago

    Given the last part especially, it sounds like a classic case of someone who fetishizes what got destroyed (the now defunct USSR), which conveniently no longer exists to keep making mistakes, and criticizes the real and tangible for not being good enough. I am once again linking the excellent essay on this kind of problem in thinking and culture: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Western_Marxism,_the_fetish_for_defeat,_and_Christian_culture

    Of course, socialist projects can be criticized, but they are best criticized within the context of their conditions, history, and culture, and that requires understanding how they got where they did and why, not imposing an idealistic view on them from outside.