[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives


File: 1608680964250.png (23.67 KB, 973x819, PRC.png)

 No.211384[View All]

450 posts and 79 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1050394

File: 1657026833473.png (88.54 KB, 349x642, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1050386
You literally explicitly said lawful property owned by citizens privately =/= private property >>1049712

 No.1050396

File: 1657026952041.png (36.95 KB, 753x262, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1050394
That guy must have meant "personal property" under "lawful property owned privately"

 No.1050399

>>1049780
>is there any proof whatsoever of your claim of pro bourgeois factions in the communist party?
Chinese political scientist Cheng Enfu describes elements in the party which favour greater privatization and liberalization:
<Wang Dongjing, former director of the Economics Department of the Central Party School, praises the superiority of private ownership in a lecture to the provincial and ministerial leaders. He views selfishness as a human nature, and agrees with the completely self-serving homo economics postulate and the idea of “man dies for money as birds die for food”. He puts emphasis on efficiency and completely ignored equity, while only recognizing that human selfishness is what leads to increased social collaboration and public welfare. '''He speaks fully on behalf of property owners
without any consideration of the exploitation of workers.'''
In addition because the CPC has a monopoly on political power in China, we can expect any pro-bourgeois elements seeking to influence state policy to attempt to do so through the party rather than outside of it.
>Surely, if there was, you would see infighting and political instability, no?
Not necessarily. Because the CPC practices DemCent, any political infighting would have to be kept quiet and reserved for specific contexts such as during party congresses, otherwise people could be expelled for factionalism.
>any examples of that either?
Well for historical examples there's the trial of the Gang of Four, but you can also look at the shifts in policy between various leaders since Deng's death. Some assert that these are not evidence of factionalism but the party simply adapting to different immediate needs, I'm not convinced that this is the case however. In any class society we can expect various class formations to express themselves politically, and pursue policies which favour their interests. I think this is a more likely explanation than a monolithic party lacking in internal divisions.
>In fact if the struggle between the party and the national bourgeois were still ongoing, wouldn't our comrades in china have spoken up?
Have they not? Haven't there been recent attempts to reign in people like Jack Ma, suppress consumerist tendencies, etc? Are these not evidence of ongoing class struggle?
>There is next to no money to be made in the chinese politics. For the national bourgeois, it is a much more lucrative opportunity to make money within the capitalist framework the cpc allows.
There may not be much money in politics, but if the bourgeoisie wants to protect their economic interests they are going to need representatives in the party. If you admit the existence of factions then why deny the existence of factions which favour the bourgeoisie? What you are proposing is essentially a society where class struggle in the economic base has no corresponding political manifestation. I don't think that this is compatible with a Marxist analysis.
>>1050396
Even if that's what he meant then he's still wrong, since private property obviously does exist in China and is protected by law.

 No.1050401

>>1050399
>Even if that's what he meant then he's still wrong, since private property obviously does exist in China and is protected by law.

And? Working class is the boss and king in China, and capitalists are little more than pets, existing for as long as it is useful for socialist goals. You know, because rest of the world discriminates against socialism and state property and refuses to trade with socialist countries.

 No.1050406

>>1050401
>Working class is the boss and king in China
The party may hold political supremacy, but I'm not convinced that it's firmly controlled by the broad masses of workers. The structure of ML parties is such that there are numerous layers of mediation between the rank and file and the leadership, in addition to the fact that only a fraction of workers are party members and have any direct say in policy at all. I would argue that like in the USSR, the party apparatus constitutes a distinct stratum with distinct interests.
>and capitalists are little more than pets, existing for as long as it is useful for socialist goals
That's an overly optimistic description. If they really felt that their interests were not represented by the party (or at least by factions within it) then they wouldn't be so positively disposed to it. In addition to having sympathetic factions in the party, their overall economic importance (private sector is 60% of GDP according to Xinhua) makes them pretty essential to China's overall growth-oriented economic and geopolitical strategy. As such their interests must necessarily be taken into account in planning and policy, constituting an indirect influence. There simply is no way that you can have a capitalist economy without the political influence of the bourgeoisie being felt in one way or another. I think it's an idealist view to believe that contradictions in the base will not express themselves in the superstructure.

 No.1050407

>>1050401
>Working class is the boss and king in China
If that were the case, the national bourgeoisie would have been liquidated. Plus Sabocat already demonstrated to that other dude that there are factions in the CPC formed on the side of the bourgeoisie, so the party nominally aligning itself with the working class for now is not necessarily forever.

 No.1050420

>>1050407
>If that were the case, the national bourgeoisie would have been liquidated.

Why?

>there are factions in the CPC formed on the side of the bourgeoisie


Which sides with CPC - just like kulaks in USSR sided with Bolsheviks. That's the funniest shit about capitalists in socialist countries - capitalists benefit from operating in a socialist society because it's free of crises of capitalism and is always growing, unlike capitalism.

 No.1050427

>>1050420
>the bourgeoisie sides with the CPC which has factions on the side of the bourgeoisie
no shit

 No.1050431

>>1050427
That's why we have democratic centralism, kiddo.

 No.1050469

Newfag here, how does this thread work? Why does it always have 500 replies? An eternal general? I dont get it, I'm perplexed.

 No.1050493

File: 1657032716320.jpg (10.88 KB, 203x112, cyclical thread.jpg)

>>1050469
Look at the top of the opening post, if it has the cyclical symbol, that means that old posts (at the top of the thread) disappear as new posts (at the bottom of the thread) are added.

 No.1050719

>>1050326
So you are the recurrent troll that uses this continously the wording "I accept your admission".
Proposal to change that wording into "I accept suck dicks".

 No.1051260

>>1050719
I did that to him once and he is so butthurt over it that he has been spamming it ever since

 No.1051277

>>1050399
>Even if that's what he meant then he's still wrong, since private property obviously does exist in China and is protected by law.

Yeah, but crucially its not institutionally and constitutionally obliged to like you implied, which is an important distinction.

 No.1051287

>>1050384
>The pic makes fun of you for thinking there's any distinction between "private property" and "lawful property owned by citizens privately" lol

There is. Personal property would be property which is owned by citizens privately. They are not the same sets of contents.

 No.1051334

>>1051287
Nobody mentioned personal property

 No.1051340

>>1051334
Yes, because it is property which is owned by citizens privately.

 No.1051353

>>1051340
Nobody mentioned personal property, "lawful property which is owned by citizens privately" encompasses private property, protected by law in China

 No.1051375

> "lawful property which is owned by citizens privately" encompasses private property

It does, but also but also personal property, which is probably what they had in mind considering that the constitution goes on to say

<The state may, in order to meet the demands of the public interest and in accordance with the provisions of law, expropriate or requisition citizens’ private property and furnish compensation. 


Notice that this time "private property" is singled out.

 No.1051391

>>1051375
>which is probably what they had in mind
"property which is owned by citizens privately" and "private property" is literally the same thing worded differently. If they wanted to single out personal property, why didn't they do so?

 No.1051421

>>1051391
>"property which is owned by citizens privately" and "private property" is literally the same thing worded differently.

No its not. Plenty of things can be owned by citizens privately which would not be private property, such as your toothbrush.

> If they wanted to single out personal property, why didn't they do so?


They weren't trying to, but they made clear that Private property does not enjoy the same protection that state property, collective property or personal property does.

 No.1051430

>>1051421
>Plenty of things can be owned by citizens privately
And private property would still fall under that umbrella and be protected by law

 No.1051447

>>1051430
>And private property would still fall under that umbrella and be protected by law
Sure, in the sense that you cant just destroy or steal private property sure.
But not in the sense of bourgeois property rights.

 No.1051838

Given the thoughts around Hong Kong which abound in left discursive spaces, I really do begin to seriously wonder what decolonization is. I see terrible aggrievement at China for attempting to "erase Hong Kong's colonial past". This crime (?) refers to pronouncements from China that the PRC categorically did not accept the original unequal treaties where the British imposed on Qing, and thus *did not accept that Hong Kong should be classified as a colony.* The meaning of this is actually that Hong Kong should be understood as occupied Chinese territory.

>"The questions of Hong Kong and Macau belong to the category of questions resulting from the series of unequal treaties which the imperialists imposed on China. Hong Kong and Macau are part of Chinese territory occupied by the British and Portuguese authorities. The settlement of the questions of Hong Kong and Macau is entirely within China's sovereign right and do not at all fall under the ordinary category of colonial territories. Consequently, they should not be included in the list of colonial territories covered by the declaration on the granting of independence to colonial territories and people." - 1972 address to the UN.


The aggrievement comes from the pro-US, anti-PRC academic left (Lausan, Chaung, etc). They are most upset to see vestiges of British colonialism eliminated, and the very concept of colonial legitimacy undermined. I find this perspective odd.

 No.1051970

File: 1657071735085.gif (1.9 MB, 320x200, 1531342551689.gif)

>>1050493
Been on chans since 2005. No idea this was a thing lol. Cheers, anon.

 No.1051991

File: 1657073061837-0.png (255.4 KB, 599x917, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1657073061837-1.png (43.99 KB, 831x208, ClipboardImage.png)

I was reminded that this article exists so now it's your turn
I dont frequent twitter but are Chinese gov. officials really tweeting screenshots of western tankies?

 No.1052000

>>1051991
People dont read books anymore. Providing an different view, the truth even, on social media is a good thing. The source is irrelevant, the entire internet is a meme in 2022. Might as well meme back. Lijian is BASED.

 No.1052002

File: 1657073809834-1.mp4 (616.18 KB, 480x270, Glow School.mp4)

>>1051838
Reminder that 'Chuang' is a GlowOp.
> Darren Byler is an anthropologist and assistant prof at the SFU School for International Studies. He is also a Kissinger Institute fellow who writes for the so-called leftist outlet Chuang under the pen name Adam Hunerven. “Adam” wrote an extremely lengthy piece for Chuang called Spirit Breaking, which goes over the "Uyghur Genocide" and cites Adrian Zenz and The Jamestown Foundation. There is simply no trace of its author, "Adam Hunerven" anywhere online and the connection to Byler is that “Spirit Breaking” is the same name he titled his thesis at the University of Washington.

 No.1052110

File: 1657079210727.png (119.98 KB, 399x400, 1648405425706.png)

>>1047188
Is there any reason to read through the first three volumes of the Governance of China if those are just compilations of older speeches? Surely only reading this volume is sufficient in understanding China's most up-to-date perspective on its growth, methods, and ambitions.

 No.1052435

>>1051277
The constitution is a piece of paper m8, what matters is the actual material foundation upon which a state and its economy rests, and China's foundation is undeniably capitalist.

 No.1052436

>>1051447
>But not in the sense of bourgeois property rights.
So is it your belief that workers in China could just take over a factory whenever they wanted, and the owner would have no legal recourse? Is it your belief that the state does not protect private property in China?

 No.1052662

>>1052435
>>1052435
>and China's foundation is undeniably capitalist.
As it was the u.s.
and China was a feudal state
and Vietnam
and Cuba
You are doing a stupid non sequitur.

 No.1052688

>>1052662
>You are doing a stupid non sequitur.
That's not what a non sequitur is. I just said that China's lack of constitutional protections doesn't mean much because constitutions don't actually constrain the actions of states to the degree that most assume. China's treatment of private property will depend on which class interests prevail in the ongoing struggle, not what's written on some magic piece of paper.

 No.1052705

>>1052435
Shit take. China is not "capitalist" just as much as the US is not "capitalist". Meaningless use of words.

The primary mode of production in China is either capitalist or capitalistic. That doesn't mean that it is ruled primarily in the service of the bourgeoisie by the vanguard of the bourgeoisie, like in the US or practically elsewhere.

Socialism is the movement to abolish the present state of things using Marxism as a theoretical base and China's vanguard is actively working towards it using Marxism as a theoretical basis.

Retract your shit statement.

 No.1052710

>>1052705
>Socialism is the movement to abolish the present state of things using Marxism as a theoretical base and China's vanguard is actively working towards it using Marxism as a theoretical basis.
I keep asking for compelling evidence that this is the case and you lot keep coming up short. China's economy operates on a capitalist basis, it's primary mechanisms are the same as those of capitalist countries. The government seemingly has no plans to change this.

 No.1052751

>>1052688
>That's not what a non sequitur is.
It is in terms of revolutionary communist processes. They started from somewhere.

 No.1052789

>>1052435
The constitution absolutely matters when discussing the question as to whether or not the constitution protects and guarantees private property. It doesn't.
Not in the way that say, EU or Chile does.
We're not discussing whether or not private properry exists in the PRC. Keep up.

 No.1052812

>>1052436
>So is it your belief that workers in China could just take over a factory whenever they wanted, and the owner would have no legal recourse?

No obviously not. PRC used to do that. It was a good way to get rid of landlord, but it was also a very violent era.
What the bourgeoisie don't have, unlike must other capitalist countries, are any kind of guarantees of their rights to property against the state. The state can sieze it at any point for any reason and pass any law to regulate it that they want, something made constitutionally impossible in many other countries.

In this sense, which is the one to care aboutz, the PRC does not guarantee private property.

 No.1052872

>>1052751
>They started from somewhere.
Sure, but there isn't much evidence to suggest that they are moving decisively past where they are now.
>>1052789
>The constitution absolutely matters when discussing the question as to whether or not the constitution protects and guarantees private property. It doesn't.
Why does it matter? If China's government wanted to abolish private property, their ability to do this depends on the objective strength of pro-capitalist forces. If these forces are strong, well funded and organized, if they have a prominent presence in the party, considerable mass support, etc then the government probably won't be able to pass a law that abolished private property. Conversely if a state has such constitutional protections, but the power of the proletariat has become overwhelming, then there isn't much to stop such abolition. Sure, the constitution of a state can impact the ways in which political struggles are carried out, but ultimately in order for a constitution to hinder a government, the forces backing that constitution have to be strong enough to actually stop them. There is a difference, but it is not decisive.
>>1052812
>No obviously not
Then in a practical sense private property exists in China, is protected by law, and is the basis for most of their economy.
>What the bourgeoisie don't have, unlike must other capitalist countries, are any kind of guarantees of their rights to property against the state.
Plenty of Western countries have clauses in their constitutions that allow for the seizure of property and suspension of the constitution itself. Canada has the "Notwithstanding Clause" for instance, which allows federal and provincial governments to simply ignore the constitution as long as they keep renewing the law every 5 years. Besides, having a theoretical ability to do something and it being politically viable in practice are entirely different questions.

 No.1052883

File: 1657124848805.png (105.68 KB, 765x606, ClipboardImage.png)

New joint Anglow fearmongering just dropped

 No.1052890

File: 1657125011887.png (69.63 KB, 711x447, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.1052892

>>1052872
>their ability to do this depends on the objective strength of pro-capitalist forces.
Nah, legal frameworks do matter that's why you bother abolishing the old state and make a new state with a new constitution and stuf rather than rule by arbitrary will of the party.
Every communist movement has understood this and as such passed socialist constitutions.

>Plenty of Western countries have clauses in their constitutions that allow for the seizure of property and suspension of the constitution itself.

Okay, good. That's very nice. That opens opportunities for communists.

 No.1052924

>>1052892
>Nah, legal frameworks do matter
They matter but are not decisive.
>Every communist movement has understood this and as such passed socialist constitutions.
Did the constitution of the USSR prevent it from being forcibly dissolved by Yeltsin and Co.? Can a judge enforce a ruling if a general strike paralyzes a country, or if the military/police decide to ignore him? If a political faction has the support and tools necessary to violate a constitution, then they will do so, and nothing is going to stop them. If a political faction doesn't have the support or tools necessary to pass a law (even one that does not violate the constitution), then no such law will be passed. This is why I say the objective strength of various class formations is what really matters here. I will concede that violating a constitution requires more effort than adhering to them, but they don't provide any guarantees.

 No.1052955


 No.1053047

>>1052872
>Sure, but there isn't much evidence to suggest that they are moving decisively past where they are now.
Fuck off. Fidel Castro in the very beginning tried to move away from the USSR, stating he wasn't a communist. It was material conditions that forced Castro to move toward communism, and the CPC is prepared to move forward.

 No.1053050

>>1053047
Well when they actually start moving forward then that will change things. Until then you'll have to forgive me if I don't #trusttheplan

 No.1053059

>>1053050
You wouldn't know what a revolution is even if slapped to your face.

 No.1053102

FBI directors assures us that there was not in fact an end to any “China initiative”, and in fact FBI harassment of Chinese Americans has only accelerated and there is immense pressure within the FBI to more aggressively profile and investigate Chinese Americans, bragging about a 1300% increase in opened investigations (which it must be reminded do not yield actual wrongdoing) and a nee investigation ever 12 hours, which he says is too slow. The UK head says his police have increased investigations into Chinese by 7x and hopes to increase it to 14x within the next few years.

 No.1053105


 No.1053785

>>1053050
>Well when they actually start moving forward then that will change things.
What does "moving forward" mean?


Unique IPs: 20

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]