There is not a single socialist country in the world right now with any power. The ones apparently "socialist" are all in on capitalist exploitation and imperialism only following their own nationalist goals at best. Reactionaries are getting more and more power every day while liberal institutions are declining and no such thing as a Soviet Union exists to counter this era of reaction. Genocides are cool to the masses now and politicians are getting more and more unhinged by the day with technology and surveillance getting so advanced that insurgence becomes practically impossible. Class conciousness is at an all time low as well with workers seeking boogeymen like immigrants, muslims or the chinese. How is anyone supposed to organize against this? Don't answer because you can't. If there was a way it would have happened already. And we haven't even gotten to climate change and how it is already too late to change the direction. I'm not advocating for giving up by the way but shit isn't improving and it's all getting worse.
65 posts and 8 image replies omitted.>>2283551>DO NOT LOOK UP THE LITERAL FIRST SENTANCE IN CAPITAL VOL 1What? It's just Marx's law of value. The worth in capitalist society is determined by an immense accumulation of commodities. How do you get the corollary that lower phases of socialism cannot have commodity production? The issue is
not commodity production but
generalized commodity production. Even when feudal relations were emerging, you had vestiges of slavery; when capitalism was built, remnants of feudalism and slavery remained; after the socialist revolution, commodity form will also remain for a period of time.
>Too bad class distinctions exist in ChinaOkay. Which class is wielding the state appartus?
>>2283987Geography
Lack of a common language
Preference to focus on their own people first
Culture
Etc.
>>2284073They are clearly relevant questions. Unless you believe in some idealist bullshit like bloodline theory how is a bureaucrat who objectively has a completely different relationship to production than a worker proletarian? The CPC itself doesn't even classify bureaucrats as workers.
>who is the Chinese state used to oppresshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasic_incidentProletarians. About 50 other incidents and movements you could bring up, it's not only Jasic.
>>2284094>Same thing happened in the Soviet UnionI'm aware. Both things happened in the Soviet Union, repression of proletarians who were organizing against shit working conditions and a dictatorship of the bureaucracy that was identified with the proletariat for idealist reasons. The CPSU in the 1920s were even more idealist about class status than the modern CPC is actually, they were basically bloodliners. I don't know why you assume I'm MLM. My point is that whatever semantic and theoretical labels you want to apply to the bureaucracy, bureaucrats objectively occupy a fundamentally different position in relation to production than workers do. There is no objective, material sense in which proletarians were the ruling class in the USSR or PRC at any point in either's history aside from possibly the very early USSR. You can only get around that if you have some completely idealist understanding of class. The party is the vanguard and the vanguard is the most advanced section of the proletariat so by definition party rule is proletarian dictatorship. Or x% of the party began as workers or came from proletarian families and that means the party is proletarian even if those people are now working at the Central Committee. Or the party may not be proletarian in terms of its actual makeup but it has the correct line and that makes it proletarian. Tell me how any of that is materialist.
What's the point of "socialism" as a worker if it involves slaving to produce commodities for a wage, answering to a boss (likely even your old capitalist boss if you're in the early USSR), and having no direct control over the processes and material instruments of production that structure your whole life? Because theory says that the technocrats running the show are doing it for your ultimate benefit? Liberal theory says the same of the bourgeoisie now, who gives a shit? And you're supposed to just accept that that will continue indefinitely and that it's good as long as the lines are going up. Work 996 shifts your whole life to make the lines go up. If you expect or organize for anything more you're a counterrevolutionary. MLs always start the conversation with all these lofty slogans about building a new world but then when it comes to talking about "AES" it's immediately a bunch of cynical and pragmatic excuses about why nothing is fundamentally changing for workers.
>>2282179Right
The materialist answer just happens to be one dengoids wouldn’t like
Namely that since only the proletariat can achieve communism, achieving it relies not on the entirely counterrevolutionary (as all national states are, despite the hitlerite fascination with them typical of stalinists) Chinese government, but its abolition by proletarians, alongside likely violent reprisals against nationalists of all stripes, including dengists
>>2284899oh ok then i guess we should centralize production under a proletarian dictatorship
or as marx said:
>"communism is an unachievable ideal that can be used to condemn others as liberals for not having yet reached" >>2284889>The party is the vanguard and the vanguard is the most advanced section of the proletariat so by definition party rule is proletarian dictatorshipThis is an idealist tautology, you need to qualify the claim that the proletariat ruled these countries…somehow, despite the objective maintenance of capitalist relations of production sans private capital (
I get MLs are retarded enough to aggressively embrace idealism and overtly argue that the bourgeois individual is essential to the capitalist production process, when obviously the importance of the individual proprietor was eroding even in Marx and Engels’ time, and of course all contemporary capitalist national states are effectively capitalist entities deeply embedded in commodity exchanges as national entities and were in Marx’s time as well)
This is what you call substitutionism, it is idealist in nature, akin to calling a loaf of bread and cup of wine the body and blood of a historical figure that may not have existed, you’re telling us what the state is *supposed* to be as an explanation of what it actually was
>>2285402That’s not synonymous with heavy industry, holy shit the faggots that trot shits here are so fucking retarded, it HAS to be redditors at this point, leftypol wasn’t this stupid six years ago
NTA
>>22849821. I never said productive forces = heavy industry
2. What the fuck do you mean by productive forces then if it's not industrial capacity of society to produce shit and cooperation i.e. people working in factories instead of weaving fabric on their own and capital i.e. production boosting technology making unit of labour time produce more for example industrial loom allowing one worker to weave more linen fabric per same unit of time
>>2285564Im not the original anon you were talking to btw, I just wanted to clarify what productive forces were
An example could be scientific understanding for instance, not really directly part of industrial capacity, but part of the productive forces
Things like communication networks, human schooling and skills, the division of labor, etc also fall under this umbrella
Though, in actuality, all these things are interconnected ofc
>>2285505Productive forces in modern society is synonymous with heavy industry. This is definition of productive forces I rip from proletarian political econonomic textbook. I did this ironically because you say to read book. You disagree with official proletarian definition of productive forces. You are a liberal liquidationist of marxism. I explain why you utterly wrong now, but you say I wrong because semantics (still you fail to explain why im wrong because you fail to grasp basic proletarian terminology)
>The instruments of production, by means of which material wealth is produced,This is constant capital of heavy industry.
>And the people who set these instruments in motion and accomplish the production of material values, thanks to the production experience and habits of work which they possess, constitute the productive forces of society. This is proletarian. If you dont work in heavy industry, which includes agriculture, then you are not a productive force. Walmart cashier is neither productive force nor proletarian.
Our liberal really has no solid thought to smash but they imply productive forces of capitalist society include more than the proletariat. The liberal preaches liquidation of basic marxism-leninism.
>>2285563China is already Communist.
>>2286020Communist China has eliminated class antagonism by eliminating the system of exploitation of man by man. A socialist system has been built in its place. The exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated.
Unique IPs: 23