anarchoilluminati [comrade/them]

  • 0 Posts
  • 37 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: November 14th, 2023
  • anarchoilluminati [comrade/them]@hexbear.nettoGenZedong@lemmygrad.ml•Losurdo's critique of "Western Marxism" misses the forest for the trees
    12·
    1 month ago

    First off, I haven’t read Western Marxism so I can’t give an informed opinion so have my hot take instead.

    If we were to sum up the main idea of the book, it would be “Marxism is actually anti-colonialism; without anti-colonialism, Marxism loses its revolutionary character.” … his near-mantra that the Nazi war of extermination against the USSR was actually a colonial war. He repeats this throughout the book, giving the impression that fascism was created not to defend capital against socialism, but rather as a way of rescuing and perpetuating colonialism in a time where it was under threat. This is not the analysis of the communist movement historically.

    I actually completely agree with Losurdo on this.

    Any revolutionary Marxist movement must be decolonial. Not just from an ideological or ethical perspective in regards to the colonized, which also demands it, but it’s necessary to decolonize even to dismantle the capitalist structure in the colonizing nations. There’s no way you can have a revolutionary party in a colonizing country that maintains its colonies. This is literally what made Ho Chi Minh turn away from other socialist schools in France and turn toward Marxist-Leninism. There are a few things that could be said that Marxism “is” and "without [which] it loses its revolutionary character” and anti-colonialism is one of them, so this is correct. Weird Westoid chauvanist argument.

    And, yes, the Nazi war of extermination against USSR was a colonial war?? They literally openly admitted that they wanted to genocide and colonize those lands. Of course anti-communism was a component but that doesn’t preclude the aspect of colonization. Nazis weren’t invading USSR to simply only kill the Communists, they were going to kill everyone who wasn’t German to then colonize the lands with Germans. That is something that goes a little further than just being anti-Communist. Unfortunately as much as we like to worship USSR and Soviets, it’s not like every single person in the entire USSR supported Communism. They could have the stated goal of killing Communist leadership and their supporters and then I’d buy it was purely anti-Communism, but I don’t think it was. Further, I don’t think fascism only came into existence to defeat socialism. Fascism, in the spirit of Césaire and Fanon, existed for centuries in the colonies. The Global South experienced fascism for hundreds of years before it turned inward in Europe. Fascism developing as it did within the countries with a stunted colonial expansion makes sense, as they were trying to aggressively expand their colonial stakes—including with European lands. It seems incredibly based to me to say that 20th century fascism developed “as a way of rescuing and perpetuating colonialism in a time where it was under threat.” This doesn’t ignore the history of Europeans as fascistic colonizers pre-1930, which is how people get into that lib trap of curiously wondering “How was Hitler able to brainwash Germans into genocide?” European fucks were genociding and colonizing for so long it’s part of their culture, of course they went along with Nazism. Fascism also has a major function of “defending capital” against socialism, decolonization, or any other threat, by its very “rescuing and perpetuating colonialism in a time where it was under threat.” These are not necessarily disconnected phenomena. In fact, as the colonized world was being encouraged to decolonize via a Communist ML revolution this actually makes perfect sense. Fascism was protecting capital by defending, expanding, and maintaining colonization.

    What kind of depraved Westoid kkkrakkker wrote this article?