>Denounces USSR for seeking peaceful coexistence with the West and breaks off relations with them
>Meets with Nixon and Kissinger 10 years later, beginning the normalization of relations with the US
What did Mao mean by this?
90 posts and 2 image replies omitted.>>2344235>If China has not done away with class then they're no better than Nazi GermanySorry but you are a terminally retarded idealist
>I'm also not sure what to tell you this is like the major distinction between Marxist socialism and any other kindLmao no, whether or not if socialist states don't immediately abolish class society through sheer force of will, they are equal to nazi germany has never been a marxist distinction
>You still have not proved that China has fulfilled it's promises beyond killing landlords200 000 000 people lifted out of poverty would disagree, 94% approval rating of the government would disagree, 500 bazzillion km of high speed rail would disagree. Seemingly for the chinese, the CPC is quite good at fulfilling their promises
> maybe they're slightly better at it than the fascists but not by enoughYou equating the two like this makes you no better than a fascist
>>2344259>Sorry but you are a terminally retarded idealistHitlers argument verbatim for why direct private property seizure could not happen in Germany.
>whether or not if socialist states don't immediately abolish class society through sheer force of will, they are equal to nazi germany has never been a marxist distinctionYou're right Marx is even more rigorous in his scrutiny of other socialists and by the looks of it China is inviting lots of it.
>But China industrializedDoes not matter if the people are not given proper due.
>You equating the two like this makes you no better than a fascistYou're pulling from the fascist rhetoric rule book and not noticing.
>>2344261And you're in denial.
Modern day China defenders like you two are the most delusional leftists in modern times, at least the ziggers admit that their support of Russia has fuck all to do with socialism and all to do with hatred of the USA. You guys actually believe your own shit and make excuses for China that you would not tolerate otherwise.
You will never be real socialism.
>>2344266
>Hitlers argument verbatim for why direct private property seizure could not happen in Germany.>You're right Marx is even more rigorous in his scrutiny of other socialists and by the looks of it China is inviting lots of it.Complete non-sequiturs, idk what you think your baseless conflation of China with Fascist italy and nazi germany counts as a critique on the level of Marx's analysis?
>Does not matter if the people are not given proper due.Lmao go tell the 200 mil lifted out of 3rd world level underdevelopment they didn't "get their due"
>muh real socialismYou are a terminally retarded idealist
>>2344275>idk what you think your baseless conflation of China with Fascist italy and nazi germany counts as a critique on the level of Marx's analysis? Fuck no, I'm not trying to be Guerrin or Marx, I saw you two openly relate how much better Mao is because ᴉuᴉlossnW talked the talk but he walked the walk without the awareness to realize that you were defending utopian socialism.
(>>2344279 which is why I'm also not gonna give you the quote, I could, I'm just not going to search through his works to get you one, I'm busy and not putting effort into my posts believe it or not. If you don't understand class conflict that's your fault)
>You are a terminally retarded idealistYeah so was Marx for critiquing Proudhon I'm sure.
Blow it out your ass.
>Lmao go tell the 200 mil lifted out of 3rd world level underdevelopment they didn't "get their due" They didn't, that's like saying ending the slave economy was based and giving people their due, when aside from the crimes against humanity, slavery actually put more of a money drain on land owners than capitalism ever did.
Not socialism.
Case closed.
>>2344287It's keynesism with red paint
>>2344416Only cristians look at their fallen. When somebody that isn't a sinful westoid drops dead they just leave the rotting corpse there as is because why bother, he failed.
>>2344281>Fuck no, I'm not trying to be Guerrin or Marx, I saw you two openly relate how much better Mao is because ᴉuᴉlossnW talked the talk but he walked the walk without the awareness to realize that you were defending utopian socialism This discussion has nothing to do with utopian socialism, Mao was not a utopian, maybe mussulini, but even then that's a stretch. The fact that duce used socialist rhetoric doesn't mean he didn't "walk the walk", he was a retard and he never gave a shit about any of it. It was just a way of getting through to a crowd which had a lot of sympathies towards socialism. None of this applies to Mao, his life or his historical role and contribution to the development of socialism
>Yeah so was Marx for critiquing Proudhon I'm sure.Again comparing your own baseless conflations to Marx's analysis. And you're telling me to blow if out my ass? Lmao, actually consider killing yourself you pompous, self righteous moron
>They didn't, that's like saying ending the slave economy was based and giving people their due, when aside from the crimes against humanity, slavery actually put more of a money drain on land owners than capitalism ever did.No it's nothing like this other deranged thing you just pivoted to lmao. Literal hundreds of millions of people being lifted out of crippling 3rd world underdevelopment is not like the nominal abolition of slavery, transitioning into an era of racialized social and economic segregation and suppression
>Not socialism.You are a terminally retarded idealist
>>2344553>This discussion has nothing to do with utopian socialism, Mao was not a utopian, maybe mussulini, but even then that's a stretchThat’s correct, Mao was cynical, MLs are utopian, at least in the way Marx himself used it in his critique of the utopians
>Ackshually we believe sweatshops, police dogs, and prison labor are the path to socialism, what’s utopian about that, that sounds like a hellscape!Everything
>Again comparing your own baseless conflations to Marx's analysis.How can you possibly know the claims Marx made about society when you’ve clearly never read him?
Do you just blindly trust internet clowns?
>Literal hundreds of millions of people being lifted out of crippling 3rd world underdevelopment is not like the nominal abolition of slavery, transitioning into an era of racialized social and economic segregation and suppression <Socialism is when high wages and leaving feudalismThis is utopian
>You are a terminally retarded idealistYou are literally arguing a society is socialist if it checks off a few policy and development goals and is ran by people who like the idea of socialism
>>2344568>That’s correct, Mao was cynical, MLs are utopian, at least in the way Marx himself used it in his critique of the utopians Completely baseless lmao, you have done nothing to establish anything of the sort. Again, you just repeating things does not make them true
>Muh real socialist state can't have police dogsAre you listening to yourself? lmao Just become an anarchist bro, drop the socialist pretense
>How can you possibly know the claims Marx made about society when you’ve clearly never read him?It's not Marx's analysis of hitler mussulini and mao, it's yours you self congratulatory retard
><Socialism is when high wages and leaving feudalism>This is utopian Building up productive forces and improving the proletariats material well being is part of socialist development yes, this has nothing to do with utopianism
>You are literally arguing a society is socialist if it checks off a few policy and development goals and is ran by people who like the idea of socialismNo I argue a society is socialist when the proletariat has seized control of the state through a dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of a communist party, which then begins construction of socialism to the extent that material conditions allow, which is what China has done and continues to do, making a big deal about whether it can abolish class society through sheer will, seemingly at the press of a button in your conception of things, is what is utopian
>>2344606
>Jarvis whip out the Engels quote about feudal nations skipping to socialism.China by the time of the establishment of the PRC was not a "feudal" nation, you'd understand this if you weren't an idealist, even tho development had been slow and feudalist landlord ship was of course fully abolished by the CPC, there had already been capitalist elements, development and a growing proletariat. I mean, you might as well start arguing the Soviet Union was fascist as well if we're going down this road
>>2344611>Worst definition of socialism yet award.It's not a definition idealist, it describes the process of a society's transition to the early stages of socialist development.
>Even "Properly being anti capitalist through proper return of the workers labor output" is a better definition, since you can say the Nazis certainly didn't do this and empirically prove it, but under that definition you can, and you can say "Well they were just working under the limitations they had!"The Nazis never claimed to have established a DotP, nor did they ever want to, they vehemently opposed such marxist notions. Your attempt at trying to define what socialism is by how it's not like fascism is just bizarre
>Properly being anti capitalist through proper return of the workers labor output>proper anti bad thing by properly doing the good thing>not a terminally retarded idealist btwYou should probably concede this discussion bro, it's not looking good for you. Like damn man, I could make a better argument for China not being socialist myself at this point lmao
>>2344657Hitler quite literally said that petit bourgeoisie (his exact words) and proletariat interests would be placed above those of the bourgeoisie in his speeches.
He probably read some of Marx at least once and knew the rhetoric.
He likely would have openly said the proletariat if not for the fact that at the time Germany was still majority petit bourgeoisie and he had to appeal to their views.
He didn't have to use the term DoTP but he clearly aped it enough to get power.
>Your attempt at trying to define what socialism is by how it's not like fascism is just bizarre It isn't at all, your definition of socialism is so basic bitch that janny just deleted a thread where a reactoid jarty user said exactly what you said socialism was.
>it describes the process of a society's transition to the early stages of socialist development.Then it's not socialism.
>You should totally concede bro you're totally losing this argument.See you're a derranged China apologist.
I know I cant' change your mind fundamentally, so I'm not looking to, like any online argument this is a documentation for anyone else reading to see and for them to study.
I can write to Xi himself and get him to tell you off, you'll still have your head in your ass.
>>2344588If you read Marx you would know what utopianism actually refers to
I’m guessing MLs think “utopianism” is when you aren’t doing horrendous shit and engaging in surplus value expansion in the name of the People (and other metaphysical fabrications)
>>2344668>Hitler quite literally said that petit bourgeoisie (his exact words) and proletariat interests would be placed above those of the bourgeoisie in his speeches.Bro you are so dumb, hitler repeating some bullshit he heard a socialist say in order to please a crowd with heavy sympathies towards socialism does not make him a socialist. We already went over this, it's the same reason they called it the national *socialist* party. All of this is incomparable with Mao who was a socialist (aka a marxist/communist) or even the later reform and opening up or socialism with chinese characteristics or anything. They are almost completely unrelated historical processes and events
>He likely would have openly said the proletariat if not for the fact that at the time Germany was still majority petit bourgeoisie and he had to appeal to their views He did talk about the proletariat, but his primary rhetoric was to subsume all classes and the class struggle into a racially based, mythical "volk". Another way in which he is nothing like Mao
>He didn't have to use the term DoTP but he clearly aped it enough to get power.No you moron, he was vehemently and very openly against it as he was against all forms of marxist thought. Jesus christ dude, you are so brazenly conflating all these people and countries and you don't even know basic shit lmao
>It isn't at allLmao yes it is and if you understood the historical development of fascism and nazism as in opposition to communism, you'd see just how dumb you are being with that backwards view
>Then it's not socialism.Yes it is, because rather than describing socialism from some preconceived notion like you do, it notes the actual development of socialism in the real world
>Y…You're a.. a China apologist!!LMAO what's there to apologize for you pretentious moralist? Get your head out of your ass dude
>>2344680>utopianismBro if you wanna talk about class collaborationism in China or whatever other hardliner shit you wanna be on about, just make that argument and we can talk about that. But to claim MLs or ML states are utopian is just ultra retardation, idk what to tell you pal
>>2344741Utopianism is building capitalism and calling it socialism because you aspire to build socialism one day
Most MLs are unironic utopians themselves who secretly fantasize about being socdem bureaucrats or military officers as far as I can tell
>>2344847That's not what utopianism is lmao and it's certainly not what marx talked about in relation to utopian socialism
>Most MLs are unironic utopians themselves who secretly fantasize about being socdem bureaucrats or military officers as far as I can tellAgain just showing off what an idealist you are. It's sad really, I was hoping you'd come with at least some good arguments at some point
>>2344856>Also China is obviously not a “utopia”Nobody but you is talking about China being a utopia lol, try to keep up pal
>what MLs tend to offer workers the world over has very little appeal to anyone that isn’t a dirt poor immediate subsistence peasant, considering MLs essentially offer social democracy at the barrel of a gun without the associated few freedoms that bring people comfort in liberal societies; you need to be either extremely impoverished or a hardcore self-loathing middle class western moralist to find it seriously appealingPerma individualist westoid delusion, China's model is becoming extremely attractive to developing nations. If you don't think those guys are looking at China's development and thinking "why don't we have that?" you're kidding yourself. Certainly it has more real appeal on a global scale than pretty much any other actually existing strain of socialism I can think of
>>2344035>Mao was a SocDem and he only did what served chinese capital the most in the momentMao, was pracctually a capitalist-socialist vanguard dedicated to the furtherance of the imperialist powers’ interests within the immediate vicinity of China. He only executed those actions that
yielded the most advantageous position for the Chinese center-control apparatus, a peculiar arrangement in the land of kazakh defined by pragmatic prioritization of expediency over all ethical considerations or genuine moral principles.
>>2344889>Perma individualist westoid delusion<*Chinese nationalist screeching Sorry but my country already has industry and welfare, MLs have literally nothing to offer proletarians here
And again, you don’t know what Utopianism is, maybe look up Proudhon and Lasalle and you’ll start to get the picture
Literally
>>2346362>Sorry but my country already has industry and welfare, MLs have literally nothing to offer proletarians hereAgain with the perma individualist westoid delusions. I don't care about you or your country dawg. I'm talking about the appeal of Chinese socialism on a global scale
>And again, you don’t know what Utopianism is, maybe look up Proudhon and Lasalle and you’ll start to get the pictureYou don't know what utopianism is lmao. You're now claiming MLs hold the same views as Proudhon and Lasalle because because by your definition they want to supposedly "build capitalism and call it socialism because they aspire to build socialism one day" you're a retard with absolutely zero materialist analysis and you don't seem to be able to concretely form an argument in any way lol
>>2346364Cope and seethe loser, you go do a revolution, establish a DotP, make it as purest as your most idealist and utopian as you possible can and come up with a better system where you lift 500 million people out of destitute 3rd world poverty (which you so priveledgedly describe as just "rising wages" lmao) and then we can shit all over that
Until then, shut the fuck up with your retarded "critique" (read, baselessly conflating China with fascism) and support Chinese socialism
>Just move there bro Perma individualist confirmed lmao, completely indistinguishable from any anticommunist lib
>>2346396You'd think ultras would be more accepting of China now that it's the only country ahead of time on Paris climate goals and also a key factor in virtually all green development elsewhere. Wasn't the
climate emergency sooooooo important? Literally apocalypse in 20 years? You'd think radical liberals would want to do what it takes to save the earth, but no, looking to the only country that does the green transition for a model is too much.
As it turns out, Marxism is correct and the majority of western "leftists" is incapable of opposing imperialism since they are labor aristocrats.
Thankfully, the tribute is drying up and the labor aristocracy is as well.
>>2346815The only thing they will accept is utopian, idealist fantasy. Since China exists in the real world it has to contend with the real material reality and does not just exist in the sphere of ideas. They will always reject it
>That picliteral hell
>Thankfully, the tribute is drying up and the labor aristocracy is as well.Inshallah it will be soon
>>2346836>NTA and a china enjoyer but that's basically the vulgar opinion dominating amongst the more pedestrian china supporters or at least how it seems to outsidersListen, you can make an argument there's China supporters out there that are socdem functionalists or just nationalists who love to see a powerful state or whatever. But to claim that the ML position on China is functionally the same as Proudhon/Lasselle's utopianism is just absurd and completely misunderstand the historical context and actual content of Marx's critique. I don't even know what the comparison with Proudhon is about, as he is basically completely irrelevant to the topic, Lasselle at least was a statist of some kind lmao
>If you have nothing to say except cry more westoid >:((( then you are just as worthless as the ideological puristsI don't think that's all I have to say, this conversation has been going on for a while now, after a certain while my patience with these people runs out tho
>Not that any of that matters, china will continue to advance with or without your cheerleading or their cries about le not real socialismIm not "cheerleading" on anonymous imageboards because I think it'll help China lmao
>>2346836>>2346822Marxism has always historically depended on the idea of proof being in the pudding. It's quite inevitable if you are a materialist: knowledge has to be tied to reality. The reality is that one country had the majority of development in the period of 1990-2025, that it keeps developing its productive forces while bourgeois economists keep screeching that it's impossible, that it has developed in the technological sector above the rest of the world in many areas, that it is far above the rest of the world in producing and implementing technologies all "leftists" were begging westoids to adopt… until China did it, now it's not cool anymore.
There is a famous Lenin saying: communism is electrification + Soviet power. Socialist construction is, to a large degree, the number going up much faster than in bourgeois states. Except the number is steel production, electricity generation, etc., not GDP. You don't need to go further than the Communist Manifesto.
>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.>Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
>If you have nothing to say except cry more westoid >:((( then you are just as worthless as the ideological purists.We are the ones who have something to say. We say that communism is functional in theory and practice instead of whining. We say that billions of people all over the world are drawn to communist ideology once again because it keeps proving itself in practice. You are the ones who have nothing to say other than
>cry more tankie, China and North Korea are just as bad as my NATO-aligned state, I don't care about actual developments that affect every person on planet earth, wholesome animal rights and wholesome sex worker positivity are where it's at Unique IPs: 34