>"China is not communist."
Realistically speaking how do you even respond to this without sounding mad or like you're coping? You know deep down that they are right.
404 posts and 63 image replies omitted.>>2249861>[welfare state is proletarian] Because it advances the interests of the proletariat>>2250118>The only way for a DotP to even remotely be considerated such with a capitalist mode of production is if they shape the state into a welfare one [..] because they protect the interests of workers in the short-medium termThis spells it out very clearly for me. Thank you. You're a social democrat, not a socialist. Marxist socialism isn't about "protecting or advancing the interests of the workers". This is social democracy, like AOC, SDP, Bernie Sanders type. You can call it socialism but it's very confusing in a board filled with Marxists who assume that socialism means something essentially completely different.
In any case, how come China isn't a social democratic DotP in your view? Clearly it has lifted billions out of abject poverty. Public transport is state of the art. Health services too. Education is beyond any third world nation. What exactly is China missing for you to call it a social democratic DotP? People have a way better quality of life now than under Mao, and this came about through insane amounts of planning and work, much of which has been specifically about advancing the interests of billions of working class proletarians and peasants.
I really don't get it.
>>2250153>I really don't get it.Yeah, best not to think about it too much.
I was sure he was one of the "
moe communism doesn't exist in the 3 dimensional form" types. There really was never any cause to think otherwise at all.
>>2250153I explicitly said at least twice that they could only be considerated a DotP but stretching the definition to an absurd degree. I don't consider China nor the european welfare states of old to be socialist or DotP.
>>2250545> I was sure he was one of the "moe communism doesn't exist in the 3 dimensional form" types.…what?
>>2250151They fit the bill much better than China or any welfare states since they actually managed to have at least a planned economy not based on profit, decommodified labour and abolished the bourgeois
>>2250593Doesn't really matter that much if they end up running the economy for profit anyway. SoEs losing money left and right while being overseen by the state were common in the west before the neoliberal turn.
>>2250742Your definition of DotP is incongruent.
>decommodified labour and abolished the bourgeoisEvidence for this claim?
Also, tangential question, don't answer if you do not want. Assume an authentic proletarian movement came to power in your or any country, how long do you suppose it would take for them to "abolish" the commodity form et al.?
>>2240775> The jeffersonian agrarian every man has a castle stylf of society is gone forever.you tell some americans this and they will legit get offended and act like you just personally insulted them lol
t.burgerlander
>>2248127>>2248755The more you post, the more I'm convinced you've never read anything by Marx, Engels, Lenin, or any other foundational Marxist theorist. This post started as me trying to refute you, but as I went I realized that I was explaining things that you should've known before you even started posting here. Everything you say makes me furiously angry that someone would post so confidently in such ignorance. If that was the goal, congratulations, I guess. You succeeded at making me hate you with flying colors.
>>2248301>Yeah, you think my friend kicking you in the shins is bad? What about that guy over there who you said you hated who's raping children? Why don't you hate him and only him?I'm surprised the mods haven't made using your flag an automatic ban.
>>2248309I wouldn't be shocked if he's an actual, honest to god fed trying to disrupt genuine discourse on the site.
>>2255553Is your pen pal well read on Marxist literature? Otherwise why would you pollute this thread with your useless commentary?
>>2260239Don't they do this all the time though? Nationalizing industries? Making them bend the knee? Richest MF in China was made to bend to submission and the west couldn't shut the fuck up about it crying about how he was treated poorly and was "disappeared".
>>2260247Regarding gargantuan tasks, it seems China is engaged in a million and one of these and somehow manages to advance them all forward. Honestly, I don't understand how. Particularly, how it doesn't all just eventually become corrupt and degrade. There's a billion mfs in that country, the capitalist class is enormously rich. There's a lot of corruption. The world powers are hell bent on destroying the country. Yet somehow they advance industry beating even their own expectations, they do massive ecological projects, they single handedly develop the entire periphery, they deadlocked the US's balls politically and economically, they print warships, eliminate extreme poverty, etc etc.
HOW. The immortal science of Marxism Leninism can only explain up to a point. Why is China as a socialist project so effective and so resilient when most others have essentially failed?
>>2238151>>"China is not communist."1. Youre a fucking american
2. Not even CIA will pay you but still you shill against the communist movement FOR FREE
<An insight into what the „Marxism“ advocated by the CCP actually entails is given by David Kotz, who participated in an „International Conference on Property and Property Rights“ in Beijing in 2006. The conference took place in the context of a political debate over a new law on property rights and was supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation in Germany. According to Kotz, the following statements were made at the conference: A functionary of the Central Party School of the CCP argued that the stock market flotation of a state-owned enterprise (i.e., its privatization) represented a „socialization of property“ as Marx and Engels had envisioned, since ownership now shifted from a single owner to a multitude of owners. Furthermore, Marx had allegedly advocated for private ownership of shares. Marx had overlooked that there is „risk labor“ performed by capitalists when they take risks with their investments—this evidently implied that capitalists are a kind of worker, which is why the CCP was right to grant them party membership.
<Various speeches claimed that companies in the „socialist market economy“ could only be efficient if they were privately owned. Ownership of enterprises, it was argued in line with Deng Xiaoping, had nothing to do with whether a country was capitalist or socialist. A country would be socialist if the government taxed surplus value and used the revenues for pensions and social programs. „Modern capitalism,“ it was argued, gradually creates a new form of capitalism that increasingly approaches socialism. Regarding China’s history, it was argued that the CCP had pursued a correct approach in the early years of the People’s Republic with the New Democracy (a period in which private capital still existed), and that the decision to build socialism in the 1950s had been a mistake.
<Some congress participants also argued against the pro-capitalist reinterpretation of Marxism, as Kotz reports. This shows that in 2006—certainly to a greater extent than today—the capitalist development path was still contested within the CCP. However, even then, it was beyond doubt that the pro-capitalist stance was dominant.https://kommunistischepartei.de/diskussion/the-rule-of-capital-in-china/ Unique IPs: 31