this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
45 points (95.9% liked)

askchapo

23056 readers
126 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

many of these states and their governments are openly hostile to communist elements, but a communist party actively opposing their government would risk destabilising it and then playing themselves directly into the hands of the imperialist states. an indefinite "united front" would be desirable, especially in countries like iran, but it seems all leftist organisations in these states have either decided to fully support the government in everything, becoming controlled opposition (KPRF in Russia) or western puppets like (MEK) or whatever the fuck the "leftist opposition" in russia, belarus is.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 20 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I believe Franz Fanon made the argument that in some developing countries, the domestic class divide is less significant than the international class divide, and that there can be a logic to persuing a class truce. If a country becomes colonized, the domestic bourgeoisie stands to lose their positions (at least potentially) so there's a greater degree of shared interests. This is in contrast to a more old school perspective, which would argue that a class truce isn't really possible, that the bourgeoisie will never let up, and that attempting to persue that course is reactionary and opens the door to opportunism.

I don't have a strong opinion on it because I'm in the imperial core, I think either approach can be valid depending on the circumstances.

[–] woodenghost@hexbear.net 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Some section of the domestic bourgeois in colonized countries always has the option to betray their nation by becoming comprador capitalist that represent outside imperialists interests. The working class doesn't have that option, so there is still a fundamental class divide. But the capitalist class is also devided in that case and there might be temporary alliances with the capitalists who aren't compradors to fight for national liberation as a prerequisite for revolution.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

thats my country in a nutshell.

our burgeoise is the opposite of anti imperialist.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 5 points 4 days ago

Mao argued basically the same thing, and that's the whole point of "New Democracy" besides the issue of development of relations of production, since China still had heavy feudal elements. That was why Mao supported a temporary alliance with the "patriotic bourgeoisie" against colonial forces, but he was quite clear that you can't let that circumstance become cemented.