>"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.
>>2238326the communist manifesto
>>2238329Where does he explicetely say that?
>>2238329(me)
Striking and independent working class action is also illegal.
>>2238151China is post revolutionary france
>>2238167was abt to say something similar, The CPC literally says they plan on achieving a socialist market economy by 2035.
>>2238151No country that has ever been led by a communist party has ever called itself "communist".
The real question that people disagree on is whether the present chinese economy qualifies as socialist, capitalist (or possibly something else).
>>2240778the 10 planks can take on a whole new meaning depending on how do you define the state.
if its dictatorship then china fits the 10 planks neatly somewhat. If its dictatorship of the proletariat however that woukd mean the state is tyranny of the majority not vanilla tyranny.
>>2238151>China isn't communistNeither is Cuba, the DPRK, DAANES, Venezuala, Vietnam or EZLN controlled Chiapas.
Yet they have socialist/ anti-capitalist economies and were founded on socialist/socialist aligned revolutions, and have arguably better living conditions, education and better forms of government that have contributed more to human dignity, autonomy and stability than the dying fascist empires they're fighting.
Case in point: Cuba
>>2241176People work in Chyna?
And
And then
They produce things in their jobsite?
Like, like, they go to the brick factory and produce brick?
You dont say
>>2238322this applies to pretty much every western state as much as it does China.
Also from the preface:
One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”
>>2238376> the communist party of china has full control of its economyYea and the US having hegemonic ~fiat~ currency can control exchange value over the entire global market.
> under a proletarian dictatorshipPlease tell me what the four stars on the Chinese flag mean.
>>2238151I am sad to announce that the United States, bastion of communism, have decided that China is not "socialist enough". In order to fix this, we will seek advice from the Western ultra-left who neither understand our conditions nor have any experience in producing a successful revolution.. except the one from 250 years ago where they broke away from Britain because they wanted more slaves and fewer taxes.
I have hired as my new foreign policy advisor this white guy from Twitter who called me a red fash once.
>>2243783Hmm today I will fight the US empire. Will I do it by
>claiming the communist moral high ground and dying in a suicidal war against them which I will loseor will I do it by
>working really hard at eroding their manufacturing base for 50 years and getting them all addicted to cheap commodities >>2243799There is no capital in Communist China.
>China is winning, no one gives a fuck if they aren't following a 3000 step plannot what capital is.
>some retard wrote 200 years agoKarl Marx's research is foundation of scientific socialism.
>especially not them.The Communist Party has secured proletarian supremacy and improved proletarian living to unprecedented standard through the science of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.
>>2238322>1,2,3,4Capitalist property does not exist in Communist China. Each of these has been fully carried out.
>the restFully carried out.
>>2238329>Do the workers rule?yes.
>Do they collectively and democratically control production?Yes. Communist China's proletarian democracy is the most complete form of democracy.
>>2241010>cuban doctors leave by the millions to live in other countriesYou mean to live in those countries to aid others on behalf of Cuba?
Yeah, no shit. Are you new here?
>>2243954>>2243955Wrong. China is Communist. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished, and a socialist system established. The exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated.
>Even the fascist scum in the KMT would rule china better than the fascist scum in the CCP.This is anti-Communism. Anti-Communism is against rules
>>2243969You fail to grasp the relations of production of Communist China. Capitalist relations have been abolished and Communist relations have been established.
I don't understand why people keep wasting time on these threads.
If I did like
>>2243992 and said:
>Socialist Sweden's relations to production are ideal. Production is controlled by proletariat.Everyone would make fun of me, right?
But somehow people here do take seriously such empty sentences devoid of content, and try to debunk them, but there is nothing to debunk.
It should be as easy as "What is the Shanghai Stock Exchange? A communist stock market?" but you are arguing with people who keep posting in bad faith. You will never win. Stop it for your own sanity, let these threads die, they serve no purpose. Don't feed the trolls.
>>2243799I am the anon (the other one who responded to you was not and I don't know why they responded on my behalf), and I have read capital.
>you are actually parroting the Smithian view on wages/price that Marx critiqued, extensively.I said absolutely nothing about wages or prices. I said China used a neomercantilist strategy to outflank the US empire and it worked much better than the alternative (being ideological purists who would have gotten CIA couped in the 1970s). My statements in the post you responded to are about the geopolitical strategies of China, not an analysis of wages or prices.
>>2244034>>2244471no you haven't and youre too stupid to get it.
Read the last line losers.
>>2244804he constantly tried to undermine the social democratic movement and toightly control proletarian representation
>>2244805is that you trying to be racist or ableist?
>>2244819he was a prussian nationalist
"The immemorial vestal fire of all civilization, the State, I defend with you against those modern barbarians (the liberal bourgeoisie)."
>>2244784Shouldn't a deeper analysis take into account the the premise behind supporting China, not just reducing it to a team sport, that a country that is severely underdeveloped with multiples larger of a population that has a communist revolution is going to take a long time to develop the necessary forces of production to actually support a socialist economy? Ultimately whether China is real communism isn't something you can answer yet, it will depend on what they do, and we are looking at them right at the moment of a transition point between not having the ability to take care of their whole population to just approaching having that ability and finding out how to manage distribution, while still having a bit left to go to reach 'productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'
I always find it deeply troubling when people just assume that all countries are at the same level of development and try to prescribe a set of ideals that communists should impose by decree in all cases, instead of transforming the world to be capable of meeting those ideals. Ultraism in practice looks like Pol Pot.
>>2244890> long time to develop the necessary forces of production which is why I started the discussion with these:
>>2243783>>2244738This isn't a 'ultra' position, Stalin considered lowering the working week not only important for the development of the Soviet Man but for spurning industrial production. It's seemingly absent from most Chinese analysis though.
>>2243960>Why should I give a fuck they're winning if that does jackshit for my position?!wow ididn't know u were chinese i thought you were a spagetti
or
have you considered overthrowing your own bourgeoisie so you get to decide what flavor of communism to make?
>>2244903the chart is from 2017 (wikipedia). and like I said if the goal is to develop forces of production then lowering working hours is the best tool the workers have by which to force capitalists to do it. Marx talked about this extensively in Vol 1 wrt to the Factory Acts.
Chinese socialists have to actually show how their country is grounded in the application of scientific socialism and not social democracy if they want to be taken seriously.
>>2246764>Is it me or does anyone think China it’s not fully communist but it’s like a bridge between communism and capitalismCareful! You're thinking a bit too
dialectically here.
>>2246982>communism is when government does things <NOOO COMMUNISM IS NOT WHEN GOVERNMENT DOES STUFFMeanwhile Marx in the Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
>>2247093He also said no militaries, police, or militias. He also also said that this specific method was applicable for more advanced countries and that every method would be different in every country.
>NOOO COMMUNISM IS NOT WHEN GOVERNMENT DOES STUFFIf this was the case, America is communist. But that’s clearly not the case, isn’t it?
>>2247152We need to
maintain nike's supply chain abolish the working class by abolishing the distinction between the person and their work through sweatshop camps and extract as much surplus value as possible.
>>2247173>You implied it No I didn't
>with your hemming and hawing over the concept of a government centered around labour rather than treats.I didn't say this either. Here are my only posts ITT:
>>2247162>>2247166>>2247170You are welcome to directly quote what actually said and respond
>>2247182Lost what? I asked a question you never answered:
>>2247162then I said abstract labor will always be needed even if classes no longer exist:
>>2247166then I asked another question that you didn't answer
>>2247170There's nothing to "lose". You just keep shadowboxing a guy you made up in your head.
>>2247168While the meme is funny, I think it's time to start pointing out (since this board is illiterate) that
1. These statements were during the time of WWII, when warring divisions of the bourgeoisie had emerged, and it was tactically favorable to 'destroy the most reactionary half to gain a greater footing following the world crisis' (paraphrasing)
2. this was conceptualized through a first new democracy period, since the conditions of Republic of China were even more undeveloped compared to Tsarist Russia.
3a. Through revolutionary proletarian ideological leadership (the left line), an elimination of the national and patriotic classes were to happen after New Democracy, that was the point of the Cultural Revolution (misnomer, it also involved complete socialization and a reintroduction of the concept of "All-round Proletarian Dictatorship") period.
3b. the element that rejected this and is responsible for the contemporary state of China, with billionaires and big bourgeoisie exerting economic and ideological influence within the party, was the right wing, that victoriously overthrew proletarian leadership in the 1970s. It would thus be overall more reasonable and accurate to replace Mao's face with those that opposed the Cultural Revolution in these types of memes.
>>2247224There is a stupid assumption without a proof in your post, as well as a statement that was checked experimentally by both EU and USA and was found out to be false
1) Why "the most ruthless capitalist country" has one of the best labor protections and pension systems in the world, as well as inclusive democracy and great growth rates that saw people's wages grow 4x in 20 years?
2) Both EU and US have tried to "break rules" just like China (they claim that China breaks those), but not only they've failed, they are also being laughed out of international organizations for rule breaking. Meanwhile, China "colonizes" countries by building them factories into locals' state ownership, unlike Westoids who demand full control of production as well as tax exemptions and special treatment
>>2247235With Khrushchev's cliques economic reforms. Stalin made mistakes as well, just nowhere near as dire, Khrushchev's economic, as well as ideological reactionary turn, reflecting both in the Brezhnev period with stagnation and curruption and finally during Gorbachev who merely extended already present Khrushchevite policies to their logical conclusion.
To remedy these problems I recommend
The Maoist Party by Ajith (CPI-Maoist) and
Towards a New Socialism by Cockshott for two alternative ways forward
>>2247278>I prefer MLs who admit Khrushchev was as Stalinist as StalinInteresting that an illiterate would favor
historically illiterate political takes requiring no nuance or
deeper research, just allowing you to coast onward on surface-level understanding and aesthetics
petty cap
>>2247267What do you think of Roland Boer's Socialism with Chinese Characteristics?
>>2247143Dignity sounds mega spooky. It's the movement to bring about society sustainably, meaning, not just momentarily, but for good.
>>2247288Yeah minor difference being that the United States still fucking exists after Lincoln you fucking trog
You're the anon that chokes on water several times a day aren't you?
>Leftypol 2025 be like:<Theory>I'm allegic >>2247317>at the moment China is still a capitalist economy.Wrong. You are anti-Communist liar. China is Communist. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished, and a socialist system established. The exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated.
>abolition of private propertyCapitalist private property does not exist in Communist China. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished, and a socialist system established. The people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and peasants, which in essence is a dictatorship of the proletariat, has been consolidated and developed.
>generalized commodity productionIn socialist economy commodity production is commodity production of a special kind, without private ownership of the means of production, without capitalists. In the main it is carried on by united socialist producers (the State, collective farms, the co-operatives). The means of production are socially owned, and the system of hired labour and the exploitation of man by man is abolished; these decisive economic conditions confine commodity production in socialist economy within definite limits. It cannot turn into capitalist production, and serves socialist society.
>wage-labourWages in socialist economy are by their very nature quite different from wages under capitalism. Since labour-power has ceased to be a commodity in socialist society, wages are no longer the price of labour-power. They express, not the relation between the exploiter and the exploited, but the relation between society as a whole, in the shape of the Socialist State, and the individual worker who is working for himself and for his society.
Since under capitalism wages are the price of labour-power, they usually fluctuate, unlike the price of other commodities, below value. They do not always enable the workers to satisfy even the minimum of their requirements. With the abolition of the system of hired labour, the law of value of labour-power has completely lost its validity as the regulator of wages. The basic economic law of socialism necessitates the maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and cultural requirements of the whole of society. The emancipation of wages from the limitations of capitalism enables them to be extended "to that volume of consumption, which is permitted on the one hand, by the existing productivity of society … and on the other hand, required by the full development of his (the worker's) individuality". (Marx, Capital, Vol. III, Kerr edition, p. 1,021.) Real wages constantly rise in accord with the growth and perfecting of socialist production. The requirements of the basic economic law of socialism with regard to stimulating production and raising the well-being of the working people are given effect through the law of distribution according to work. In accordance with this law, each worker's share in the social product is determined by the quantity and quality of his work.
Wages are one of the most important economic instruments through which each worker in socialist society is given a personal material interest in the results of his work: he who works more and better also receives more. Consequently, wages are a powerful factor in the growth of labour productivity, enabling the personal material interests of the worker to be correctly combined with State (national) interests.
The money form of wages is necessitated by the existence in socialist economy of commodity production and the law of value. As has already been stated, the consumer goods, which are necessary to compensate for the expenditure of labour-power are produced and disposed of in socialist economy as commodities, subject to the operation of the law of value. The money form of wages allows of flexible and differential assessment of the worker's share in the social product, depending on the results of his labour.
Thus, wages in socialist economy are the monetary expression of the worker's share in that portion of the social product which is paid out by the State to workers by hand or brain in accordance with the quantity and quality of each worker's labour.
>establishment if a planned economy, collective ownership of the MoP, etc.This exists in most developed form in Communist China.
>>2247666You fail to grasp the basic material laws of socialist production.
(1) The economic laws of socialism are objective laws, independent of the will and consciousness of man. They express the relations of fraternal cooperation and socialist mutual aid of workers freed from exploitation. The economic laws of socialism do not operate as a blind and destructive force: they are recognised and utilised by socialist society. The Communist Party and the Socialist State base their economic policy on the economic laws of socialism.
(2) The basic economic law of socialism determines all the main aspects and main processes of development of the socialist mode of production, the purpose of socialist production and the means to achieve this purpose. The essential features and requirements of the basic economic law of socialism are the securing of the maximum satisfaction of the constantly rising material and cultural requirements of the whole of society, through the continuous expansion and perfecting of production on the basis of higher techniques.
(3) In socialist economy the growth of requirements (the purchasing power) of the masses is the motive force of socialist production and drives it forward. The continuous growth of socialist production is the material foundation for the steady growth of consumption by the people and the growth of new requirements. The priority development of the production of means of production is the essential condition for the continuous growth of socialist production. Socialism ensures the steady development of advanced techniques, essential to the continuous growth of perfecting the socialist production and the ever fuller satisfaction of the growing needs of the working people.
(4) Corresponding to the constantly increasing mass of products for oneself and products for society, the real incomes of the working people are constantly raised. Socialism means a constant improvement in the working and living conditions of the people. It opens up the fullest opportunities for cultural development and makes the entire wealth of technique, science and culture the possession of the whole people.
(5) Expressing the vital interests of the people, the Socialist State guided by the Communist Party develops on an ever-increasing scale its economic, organising, cultural and educational activity, directed towards securing a continuous growth of production and a steady rise in the level of welfare and culture of the people. The development of the socialist mode of production proceeds through the surmounting of contradictions and difficulties. Relying on scientific knowledge of objective economic laws and making use of them, the Socialist State assures the victory of the new and progressive over the old in all spheres of the economy, and directs the development of society along the road to communism.
>>2247757>>2247803In case anyone was wondering what I mean, that anon literally just produced word salad that generally amounted to claiming that socialist production is when innovation is occurring and the lives of wage workers is improving
Generally it is impossible to tell apart a dengist from a liberal other than their lack of a negative kneejerk reaction to socialism as a term
>>2247822show me where marx said "communism is when theres no billionaires"
go on, i'll wait
>>2247248>Most characteristically, it is this important correction that has been distorted by the opportunists, and its meaning probably is not known to nine-tenths, if not ninety-nine-hundredths, of the readers of the Communist Manifesto. We shall deal with this distortion more fully farther on, in a chapter devoted specially to distortions. Here it will be sufficient to note that the current, vulgar “interpretation” of Marx's famous statement just quoted is that Marx here allegedly emphasizes the idea of slow development in contradistinction to the seizure of power, and so on.
>As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is the case. Marx's idea is that the working class must break up, smash the "ready-made state machinery", and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it.On April 12, 1871, i.e., just at the time of the Commune, Marx wrote to Kugelmann:
<"If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marx's italics–the original is zerbrechen], and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting." (Neue Zeit, Vol.XX, 1, 1901-02, p. 709.)[2]>(The letters of Marx to Kugelmann have appeared in Russian in no less than two editions, one of which I edited and supplied with a preface.)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm>>2247893Unless you use gains in automation to continually push for lower working hours you are just benefiting the owners of capital.
Lenin:
> The socialist state can arise only as a network of producers’ and consumers’ communes, which conscientiously keep account of their production and consumption, economise on labour, and steadily raise the productivity of labour, thus making it possible to reduce the working day to seven, six and even fewer hoursAs Marx points out too, lowering the working week incentivizes the capitalist to increase automation as well creating a positive feedback loop. This discussion is always completely and the reader is supposed to take China's improvement of productive forces leading to socialism on CCP vibes alone.
>>2247909I mean some are certainly way farther along than others but just like how france was a pseudo-revolutionary republic(that literally had former san culottes and aristocrats in the same political body) way ahead of the curve I would consider the PRC to be the equivalent but for the historical development of socialism instead of liberalism.
>>2247916tbh I haven't read Proudhon so I have no idea anon. I'm personally ambivalent on markets. ffs ancient Egypt had open markets and planned economy at the same time so I expect the two to coexist long after capitalism just like they did beforehand.
>>2247913You fail to understand basic Marxist-Leninist theory. You fail to grasp objective historical development of China. You fail basic literacy. The CPC resolution states that China's socialist system will be further developed, therefore party line is that China is socialist. Socialism is the primary stage of Communism. China is socialist, therefore China is Communist. Read Deng.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/deng-xiaoping/1987/60.htmThe Thirteenth National Party Congress will explain what stage China is in: the primary stage of socialism. Socialism itself is the first stage of communism, and here in China we are still in the primary stage of socialism — that is, the underdeveloped stage. In everything we do we must proceed from this reality, and all planning must be consistent with it.
>>2247929>CCP propagandaYou are anti-Communist. You have been destroyed
>>2247928You are the loser. You say China is not Communist.
>>2247927You hurt Communism by saying China is not Communist. You are retard screeching nothing but right-wing socialist nonsense. China is Communist
Another batch of anti-Communists destroyed. The anti-Communists sink lower with every post.
>>2247928ACP mfers definitely have the same absurd levels of self seriousness
>>2247935sorry ion speak idealist can someone translate?
>>2247958The US had a mixed keynesian economy prior to the 1980s anon. The word you are looking for is dirigisme.
I asumme your picrel has nothing to do with what you said, otherwise here's Engels:
> If the Belgian State, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the State the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the Government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by a sly dog in Frederick William III's reign, the taking over by the State of the brothels. >>2247967And going back to what I said there's no reason to see any of those systems as revolutionary socialism. Rural land falls under ownership of a village collective based on its size.
> For, since every man, from the fact of his existence, has the right of occupation, and, in order to live, must have material for cultivation on which he may labor; and since, on the other hand, the number of occupants varies continually with the births and deaths, — it follows that the quantity of material which each laborer may claim varies with the number of occupants; consequently, that occupation is always subordinate to population. Finally, that, inasmuch as possession, in right, can never remain fixed, it is impossible, in fact, that it can ever become property…. All have an equal right of occupancy. The amount occupied being measured, not by the will, but by the variable conditions of space and number, property cannot exist.”That is Proudhon not Marx. And here's a quote by Marx saying that lowering the working day is the basic prerequisite of socialism, China has one of the longest working days - so to claim it is the most socialist of other countries is bunk,
> With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite. >>2247968makes me If somesort of second cultural revolution type event of leftward shift in the CPC(imagine the chaos is they started exporting revolution lol) would be the beginning of the end for capitalism
>>2247971>see any of those systems as revolutionary socialism.I would agree with that, in many ways its as if the gradualist Eduard Bernstein/lasalle/Bukharin/Kardelj and Deng types got too run a state for a couple decades. It's definitely not revolutionary but whether or not its socialism is a whole other can of worms I don't really know how to adequately answer.
>>2247982There's actually a chapter in Imagined Communities where Hobshawn talks abt how both Prussia and Japan were able to adapt too and manipulate the new waves of nationalism and the transition from dynastic realm to nation-state w/o a french revolution or English civil war level of chaos and violence
>>2248013get a job then lmao
>>2248016Communist China demonstrates that productive labor is fortune under Communist mode of production. You are anti-Communist.
>>2247822>>2247823"Billionaire" is a vulgar capitalist notion which foes not apply to Communist production. There are no billionaires in Communist China, only proletarian managers of vast means of production.
>>2248050you have to actually show you are abolishing *the present state of things* and not just reifying existing relations or old ones. Marx has an entire section on this called reactionary socialism in the manifesto.
Meanwhile for those who actually read:
> the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.Why cant the chinese socialists just say they are doing social democracy instead of trying to staple tentacles onto a dog and call it an octopus?
>>2248068Wrong again, for anyone who reads Capital:
> “It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day’s toil of any human being.”If you just increase automation without lowering the work week you only benefit the owners of capital. Furthermore as anyone who has read the factory acts in Capital, Marx makes it quite clear that the workers fighting for a shorter working day leads to the capitalist further investing in automation to maintain profits. This is why Marx, Lenin and Stalin all made clear that the building up of material forces has as its prerequisite the shortening of the work day.
> Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite. >>2248084>>2243783If the goal is to build productive forces as rapidly as possible then the shortening of the work day is how you accelerate it. it is the capitalist that wants to keep workers working as long as possible
This is what lenin wrote in 1920:
> The socialist state can arise only as a network of producers’ and consumers’ communes, which conscientiously keep account of their production and consumption, economise on labour, and steadily raise the productivity of labour, thus making it possible to reduce the working day to seven, six and even fewer hoursStalin (far more conservative) said something similar about the imminent need to have a 35 hour work week in 1950. Are you seriously going to say that China with its dark factories is less developed than the USSR in the 20s? Why do they have one of the longest working days in the world coupled with one of the highest robots used in production per capita if they are apparently devoted to Marxism.
Find me sources from CCP that place emphasis on lowering the work week.
>>2248090>Why do they have one of the longest working days in the world coupled with one of the highest robots used in production per capita if they are apparently devoted to Marxism.Chronic idleness is a disease of capitalist production.
>Find me sources from CCP that place emphasis on lowering the work week.Higher work week is better because proletariat is richer. Our social democrat here thinks Communism is when the work-week is 0 hours.
>>2248125>Communism is when social democracy. well yes, thats why the communists were originally called social democrats. but with the modern meaning of the term we can differentiate from a "social democratic" state that is still under a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and we can see how it diverges from the original meaning of social democracy as in the first place it relied on imperialist extraction to afford working class concessions, and secondly by the rollback of those same concessions as those countries run up against the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and are forced to squeeze workers to maintain capitalism.
this is obviously completely different from social democracy under a democratic peoples dictatorship which uses the mass support of the communist party to defend revolutionary gains once won, that under conditions of instability instead tightens its repression of the bourgeoisie, and consolidates more and more productive forces under centralized democratic planning.
>>2248110The DotP dictates over the propertied class, the bourgeoisie, and frequently puts them in line. It's not true that there's only proletarians in China. There's also bourgeoisie and peasants.
China is clearly a socialist country to anyone who cares to actually look into the matter, but what you're saying is pure schizophrenia. Just as bad as the western chauvinists who denounce China as "soc-dem Keynesians" or whatever other ignorant shit.
>>2248224>It's not true that there's only proletarians in China. There's also bourgeoisie and peasants. Utterly wrong. The exploiting class has been eliminated. There is no bourgeoisie in Communist China. All land is owned by the proletariat in Communist China; there are no peasants.
ARTICLE 8
Rural collective economic organizations shall practice a two-tiered system of both unified and separate operations with household contract management as its basis. Rural economic cooperatives — producer, supply and marketing, credit and consumer cooperatives — are part of the socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people. Working people who belong to rural collective economic organizations shall have the right, within the scope prescribed by law, to farm cropland and hillsides allotted to them for their private use, engage in household sideline production, and raise privately owned livestock.
The various forms of cooperative economic activities in cities and towns, such as those in the handicraft, industrial, building, transport, commercial and service trades, shall all be part of the socialist economy under collective ownership by the working people.
The state shall protect the lawful rights and interests of urban and rural collective economic organizations and shall encourage, guide and assist the growth of the collective sector of the economy.
ARTICLE 10
Land in cities is owned by the state.
Land in rural and suburban areas is owned by collectives except for that which belongs to the state as prescribed by law; housing sites and cropland and hillsides allotted for private use are also owned by collectives.
The state may, in order to meet the demands of the public interest and in accordance with the provisions of law, expropriate or requisition land and furnish compensation.
No organization or individual shall unlawfully transfer land through seizure, sale and purchase, or in any other form. Land-use rights may be transferred in accordance with the provisions of law.
All organizations and individuals using land must use it in an appropriate manner.
>>2247903China only claims to fully implement a Socialism with Chinese Characteristics by 2050 no?
It's not a Socialist state, and the chances of Socialism being implemented by 2050 are quite low to me.
Still it could be considered something of a Marxist-Leninist State with an extended NEP.
>>2248358>Considering you have a long and well documented history of repeatedly concern trolling in favor of NAFO narrativesCriticism of direct Chinese support for US imperialism is a NAFO narrative?
>before you give your tepid fair weather “support” to AESIn what sense is my support tepid or fair weather? Because I criticize them sometimes? Shit my main criticism of China today is that they aren't aggressive enough in their confrontation of the West. I'm unironically itching to see the PLAN sink a US carrier group.
>You did willingly join up with imperialist death squads after all and have repeatedly been unapologetic when pressedYou're right I'm so sorry I fucked around and did jack shit in the woods for a couple years without even leaving the country I'm literally worse than the SS. I definitely didn't acquire any useful knowledge of how militaries work, useful technical skills, or anything of the sort that have already helped with socialist organizing.
>>2248471Bet your dumb ass don't even comprehend the fact that USSR and eastern European SSRs would be on this extreme today.
Previous response was also fucking retarded, conflating working hours with employment as if they're related.
The fact that China ranks that high in working hours
as a superpower, comparable to neoliberal colonies like Thailand and Cambodia not only proves that it is merely capitalist but also that its state still is as utterly corrupt as in any other period following the 70s. The fanboys soyfacing about it "turning left!1 :OO" need to lay off the fucking opioids.
>inb4 some inconsequential reform more reminiscent of Singaporean dirigisme than socialist mode of production >>2248729You didn't prove any of that, you're just a lazy moron who copy-pastes what you find convenient.
Your only redeeming quality is that your retardation is at least amusing
>>2248789Here's something I don't get.
1) China is objectively the most progressive force in the history of the world since perhaps the early 1800s, with basically no country ever even coming close. If you don't understand this undisputable fact, then we can't discuss further because you don't understand basic concepts and know basic history.
2) it is objectively the single biggest threat to imperialism, with literally no other comparison. Imperialism being the primary fetter of worldwide development of productive forces and the development of society.
3) Chinese communist party members have done extensive research on the issues that China has faced and how to address them. This is basic Marxist praxis. Literally nothing special here.
4) part of that research and Marxist analysis is what led China to the opening up, which again, please see point 1 and 2.
5) assuming communists are not in control in China, and tomorrow they take over China, and also assuming you understand the complications internally and externally and basic Marxist tenants, then it is exceedingly obvious that communists
should do exactly what China is doing now. It's preposterous to demand other things from China if you have even the faintest idea of what's going on there. But maybe you know something I don't.
In basically every sense, and not even mentioning how they literally call themselves communists, China is evidently doing 100% of the things any communist SHOULD do. So they are practically equivalent. But for some reason, you are adamant that they're not.
So I ask you this, what the fuck do you know about China that makes you so sure that China isn't communist?/
>>2248834Glory to socialist USSR and PRC under Stalin and Mao for spearheading the reduction of workhours during socialist mode of production which socdem nations were then forced to copy to stave off revolution.
Death to revisionists, social fascists, liberals and reactionaries.
>>2248873Bro, that meme you just posted is so cool, like it really made me LOL (laugh out loud.)
Keep up the good posts!
>>2248869Do you think the soviet union was more progressive than China all throughout it's history up until 1991? I would find it very hard to defend a point like this.
>>2248870The mode of production might be generalized commodity production. But that is beside the point, as the question isn't whether China has abolished commodity production, but whether it is a socialist project led by socialists or not. You seem to have knowledge about why this is not the case, which I am asking you to please enlighten me on this subject.
>>2248871We're not talking about China's moral actions as a nation state but about its progressive role in history.
>>2248873"Abolish billionaires" isn't "anti Marxist", per se, it's just run of the mill progressive liberal shit. Ask any non-right winger and they'll agree.
>>2248909I don't know why you think quotemining is a gotcha…
>>2248918Good question.
>>2248918>>2249673Bitch contrary to you I have a job
>>2248902> the question isn't whether China has abolished commodity productionIt very much is if we're gonna discuss the character of the nation-system
> whether it is a socialist project led by socialists or not.It clearly is no more since once Mao died they did nothing but liberalize, even if at a slower rate than countries which were subjected to the literal Shock Doctrine
>>2248872Only if you stretch it so much to the point that western welfare states would also fit the bill. You can have some government policies to alleviate the problems that capitalism produces, and you could argue that characterizes the national system as a whole with a proletarian character, but it still remains capitalism and dominated by the bourgeois
>>2248909Rare Deng W?
>>2249612This.
If they can’t define terms then they can fuck themselves.
>>2249829>Bitch contrary to you I have a jobI sincerely doubt that.
>Only if you stretch it so much to the point that western welfare states would also fit the bill. You can have some government policies to alleviate the problems that capitalism produces, and you could argue that characterizes the national system as a whole with a proletarian character, but it still remains capitalism and dominated by the bourgeoisWhy would welfare characterize a state as proletarian?
How is a capitalist system in which the proletariat, or the working class, holds control over state power, not a dictatorship of the proletariat?
>>2249840> Why would welfare characterize a state as proletarian?Because it advances the interests of the proletariat
> How is a capitalist system in which the proletariat, or the working class, holds control over state power, not a dictatorship of the proletariat?Were France, Britain and Norway socialists? When their respective working class parties were in power?
>>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: 179