I don't really know what else to call my views. I'm a socialist in a third world country and I've been on this path for quite a long time. Since I was young, more than anything I've always wanted my nation to have a decent standard of living, so that ordinary people don't have to live in conditions worse than dogs, as far too many of them do today.
I've done some aid work, spent roughly a third of my life involved in socialist groups and I'm still active today. I do believe I've done some good but obviously nowhere near enough.
But there are also things I've come to accept. One of them is that I don't think Marxism is a realistic solution in itself. Anyone who claims that Marxism will inevitably become reality is deluding themselves, perhaps even more so than the Islamists. That doesn't mean I think Marxist thought is useless. Quite the opposite, Marxist-Leninist economics, sociology, history and political writings contain an enormous amount of material that is still incredibly valuable. I see them as necessary resources.
At this point, I have come to believe that the thing that matters most for third world societies is authoritarian developmentalism, regardless of ideology. It could be nationalist, Fascist, communist, ethnic, religious, monarchist or something else entirely. What matters to me is whether a centralized state can actually be formed that has the capacity to force through development, to industrialize, build infrastructure, improve education and healthcare, create jobs and ultimately pull people out of the slums and the conditions they are forced to live in today.
I don't particularly care what ideological label such a government carries if it can actually accomplish that. I increasingly see this as the only realistic path for most third world societies. Liberal democracy in my view is the worst option when it simply reproduces stagnation, poverty and political paralysis. And liberal socialist democracy just as bad when it offers neither meaningful socialism nor meaningful development, also leaving people trapped in the same misery and stagnation.
>>2911988ok but historically the only country able to do that in the 21st century has been china which follows a marxist line.
Plus Marxism isnt about solutions its a theory and epistemic worldview not a conclusion.
Anyway try reading capital volumes 1-3 deeply and understand the theory before you prematurely judge marxism
>>2912046And the Dominican Republic under Trujillo, even a shit hole country under an egotistical drunk dictator who tried to make himself a literal king, the vast majority of my country’s projects that still exist to this day were done under him in the fucking 1950s and 60s.
>>2912060if you extend to the 20th and 19th centuries there are alot more examples but if you take post cold war theres no way atlanticist imperial finance capital will allow global south countries to do that without a coup, esp. in latin america.
Who are you willing to see get decimated in the name of developmentalism if it doesn’t end up being the national bourgeoisie? Migrants? Some religious or ethnic group? Sexual minorities? Communists themselves if they oppose the regime? Development may be progress but it always comes at someone’s expense
>>2912130That's why it has to be destroyed and the support has to come from anywhere, whether from Fascists, Russian,or Iranian imperialists. If Western leftists can offer aid that would be appreciated, but most probably won't.
>>2912135I'm aware of what will come, I am not a western leftist. A few ethnic groups will be forcefully assimilated, including those related to my mother's family and that will be worth it.
>>2911988Welcome back Deng Xiaoping!