>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?
>>2342419Most likely realpolitik.
Considering the USSRs involvement in aiding the nationalists during the Chinese revolution/ prior civil wars- it’s understandable that it’d leave a bad taste in Maos mouth.
It’s not the first communist entity the USSR would alienate.
>>2343156khruschev kinda broke the chinese industrializing projects of stalin which started the split.
the beef was more than just stalin.
>>2343172Wrong.
>>2343162contradiction with Stalin was non-antagonistic.
Contradiction with bourgeois renegade social imperialist khrushchev brezhnev clique was antagonistic to Communism
>>2342423So Mao and Deng were just ᴉuᴉlossnW?
How do MLs separate fascism from socialism other than by saying in fascism the Jews were secretly still in charge?
>>2343197>So Mao and Deng were just ᴉuᴉlossnW?No because, under ᴉuᴉlossnW capital was not subservient to the state
>How do MLs separate fascism from socialism other than by saying in fascism the Jews were secretly still in charge?Delusional word salad, brings up the jews out of no where, makes me suspect you're a zionist
>>2343203So China is just fascism done correctly?
“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”?
>>2343567So, like I told the other poster, the actual dream of MLs is just to do fascism as ᴉuᴉlossnW described it correctly?
To perpetuate wage slavery, which is how capital is accumulated and created after all, in perpetuity?
Functionally what separates MLs from any other type of fascist when MLs are staunch anticommunists at heart, murderous towards proletarians, and believe in the sanctity of the Nation and the People?
MLs as a whole genuinely don’t promote anything but a pathetic obsession to finally achieve fascism the way ᴉuᴉlossnW described it and literally nothing to do with Marx or communism at all
>Oh but I can find and twist Marx quotes into support for the eternal oppression of the workers by the nation and capital! ᴉuᴉlossnW was as much a master at holding every opportunistic position much as MLs are
>>2343865>Has capital>Has bourgeoisie>Has state>Monetary economy >Literal stonks markets >A key pillar of the global capitalist system of the last 50 years<Not capitalistBenito and Hitler also claimed they weren’t the heads of capitalist regimes
The real question is if MLoids can coherently differentiate socialism from the most idealized images of a fascist society from the likes of ᴉuᴉlossnW
Hilariously MLs used to be able to at least explain how whatever they support isn’t just Hitler done right but I guess Greyzone and their ilk have finally rotted your brains way past mere excrement
>>2342419I'm not too educated on the history of communism but I was always surprised people called the USSR a failure. Prior to the Sino-Soviet split it seems like marxism & its offshoots had a real chance of becoming the globally dominant ideology.
From backwater militarily failed monarch in 1917 to global superpower with the second largest political bloc is an immense success in anything except ideological purism. It proves the USSR was economically comparable in some respects that they lasted so long.
The US was only able to stave it off domestically through mass propaganda and blatant lies regarding what marxism is.
>>2343203>>2343567NTA
Are you saying you agree with fascist
theory as long as it's "hecking true when we do it" and your only problem with fascism is that it failed to do what it said it would?
>>2343921Did China establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the form of the ruling Communist Party yes or no?
Is Capital subservient to the party yes or no?
Is the bourgeoise subservient to the party yes or no?
Have the material conditions that give rise to the existence of the state disappeared yes or no?
Have the material conditions that give rise to the existence of a monetary economy disappeared yes or no?
Does communist china need to participate in the global market through stocks in order to survive economically yes or no?
Is socialism a process/movement of the gradual transformation of class society or is it a list of checkmarks that you need to autistically mark before you can call it socialism?
>>2344036It didn’t serve capitalism but it definitely unveiled that capital obviously held power there since the strongest political figure in the country farcically compelled “the people” (obscurantist category) to rise up essentially against the bureaucracy that ultimately consolidated the power of that very same structure while subordinating competitive factions
The period that followed the Cultural Revolution culminated with rapprochement with the United States lmao
>>2344040The point isn’t if there were other factions looking to accumulate capital and consolidate state power, it’s that China couldn’t overcome the determinations of its own revolutionary movement in the conditions the movement found itself in, particularly after the destruction of the original proletarian base of the old CPC
Only MLs are making a truly moral claim, mostly to justify why they are permanently backward facing and sentimental
>>2344022>Did China establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the form of the ruling Communist Party yes or no?No
>Is Capital subservient to the party yes or no? >Is the bourgeoise subservient to the party yes or no?Your first question fundamentally misunderstands what Capital is as a social relation, your second question assumes the bourgeoisie is actually necessary even to maintain a state capitalist society when, as seen with the USSR, they evidently are not, meaning you already justify in your own mind a further capitulation to capital’s rule, by accepting the most typical coordinators of its social order as necessary; put together you seem to understand “socialism” as less an accelerating abolition of capitalist social relations and productive determinations and more the way Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW personally defined fascism and its “reversal” of the relationship between capital and the nation
>Have the material conditions that give rise to the existence of the state disappeared yes or no? Of course not, China is not a movement towards conditions that could abolish such an instrument, because the state is necessary to secure the subordination of the proletariat in China to the dual imperatives of “necessity” and its conjoined twin capital accumulation and expansion
>Does communist china need to participate in the global market through stocks in order to survive economically yes or no?Now you’re arguing that China is socialist because it necessarily *cannot* be socialist? Interesting theory you have.
>Is socialism a process/movement of the gradual transformation of class society or is it a list of checkmarks that you need to autistically mark before you can call it socialism?No, socialism is a movement towards the abolition of class society, you are trying to rationalize class hierarchies and the obvious failure of the states you “support” (meaningless phrase) to produce conditions that could necessarily progress humanity beyond the capitalist mode of society, which is to be expected by any Marxist as only the proletariat can achieve such a task
Please read Marx, Chinese capitalists are doing fine without cherrypickers on the internet desperately groping towards them in effort to vicariously feel strong through the geopolitical power of the Chinese state
>>2344033>ᴉuᴉlossnW didn’t really bend capital to the whim of the state though>No because, under ᴉuᴉlossnW capital was not subservient to the state This is the entire point of fascist rhetoric on why they choose collaborationism and not abolishment of the bourgeoisie which was crucial to Marxian theory.
We both know these posts are actively saying "Well ᴉuᴉlossnW failed to rule over capital therefore he was not a socialist we are" but we wouldn't even know this if it wasn't for actual scrutiny into ᴉuᴉlossnW and Hitlers societies, but this
is what they promised.
Why are you making the distinction that ᴉuᴉlossnW failed but Mao didn't?
Why are you saying that this crucial distinction makes Mao a true socialist but not fascism?
You like fascism.
You like fascist economics.
You support a fascist state who is once again lying about being socialist when held up to the same standards.
>>2344059>The point isn’t if there were other factions looking to accumulate capital and consolidate state powerIt is as those factions were capitalists and the other faction was communist
>it’s that China couldn’t overcome the determinations of its own revolutionary movement in the conditions the movement found itself in, particularly after the destruction of the original proletarian base of the old CPCit’s that China couldn’t overcome the determinations of its own revolutionary movement in the conditions the movement found itself in, particularly after the destruction of the original proletarian base of the old CPCIrrelevant, the question was whether mao served capital, not what the determinations of the revolutionary movement in its conditions. Mao's actions (mostly) served the construction of communism, not capitalism, in so much as the conditions allowed for that is understood to be a given
>>2344069>It is as those factions were capitalists and the other faction was communist<Wtf CPC embraces rapprochement with the United States in 1972, four entire years before Mao’s death and the end of the Cultural RevolutionYes, the capitalist factions were surely defeated
>Irrelevant, the question was whether mao served capitalHe did
>not what the determinations of the revolutionary movement in its conditionsThe actual determinations are why Mao ultimately served capital despite whatever his own political and ideological outlook may have been on a personal level and regardless of the emotional investment his past and contemporary cult of personality have put into him
>Mao's actions (mostly) served the construction of communism, not capitalismEmpty tautology easily disputed by the last 50 years of world history, now it’s time for MLs to differentiate whatever they advocate from keynesian social democracy at best to fascism at worst
>>2344061>Nowrong
>Your first question fundamentally misunderstands what Capital is as a social relationNo it doesn't, in western capitalist states the government is purely subordinate to the interests of capital and the capitalist ruling class, this is not the case in the chinese system.
>your second question assumes the bourgeoisie is actually necessary even to maintain a state capitalist society when, as seen with the USSR, they evidently are not,Uhm buddy maybe you missed it but the USSR fell 30 years ago and the PRC is still around
>meaning you already justify in your own mind a further capitulation to capital’s ruleConcessions to capitalism had to be made for survival, that is reality. The CPC did not fully capitulate and only allowed capitalist forces in, in so much as they could control them. This doesn't mean they are guaranteed to remain in control, but they seem to be doing alright so far
>by accepting the most typical coordinators of its social order as necessary; put together you seem to understand “socialism” as less an accelerating abolition of capitalist social relations and productive determinations and more the way Benito ᴉuᴉlossnW personally defined fascism and its “reversal” of the relationship between capital and the nationNo I think China is currently doing the most to accelerate the abolition of capitalist social relations, moreso than anybody else
>Of course notExactly, so why are you bringing up whether china has a state or not lmao?
> China is not a movement towards conditions that could abolish such an instrument, because the state is necessary to secure the subordination of the proletariat in China to the dual imperatives of “necessity” and its conjoined twin capital accumulation and expansion What are you an anarchist? It's not something that will happen overnight lol, it will take many decades perhaps centuries before the conditions are such that the state will no longer exist. Hardly makes china not socialist
>Now you’re arguing that China is socialist because it necessarily *cannot* be socialist? Interesting theory you have.No Im arguing china has to be a country in the real world, whether it participates in the global market does not determine the validity of its socialism
>No, socialism is a movement towards the abolition of class societyWe agree
>you are trying to rationalize class hierarchies and the obvious failure of the states you “support” (meaningless phrase) to produce conditions that could necessarily progress humanity beyond the capitalist mode of society, which is to be expected by any Marxist as only the proletariat can achieve such a taskWe disagree, I say they can and do contribute to the construction of those conditions, you for some reason do not. Because they have a state or something lol
>Please read Marx, Chinese capitalists are doing fine without cherrypickers on the internet desperately groping towards them in effort to vicariously feel strong through the geopolitical power of the Chinese stateWhy are you seething so much about people "supporting" China? (ie just expressing the opinion that you think China is socialist) Do you hate asian people that much?
>>2344063>Explain why your definition of socialism is ᴉuᴉlossnW’s definition of fascist society rather than Marx’s hypothetical musings on lower stage communismThis is completely unintelligible, what are you even trying to ask me lol?
>>2344067>We both know these posts are actively saying "Well ᴉuᴉlossnW failed to rule over capital therefore he was not a socialist we are" but we wouldn't even know this if it wasn't for actual scrutiny into ᴉuᴉlossnW and Hitlers societies, but this is what they promised. >Why are you making the distinction that ᴉuᴉlossnW failed but Mao didn't?Because ᴉuᴉlossnW promised all kinds of shit, he told people what they liked to hear, he was an opportunistic populist who knew how to play crowds, same as hitler. Upon actual inspection of their ideas and "theory" it becomes clear that they didn't really believe in anything tangible, let alone socialism or marxism. Mao, while maybe no Lenin and a bit kooky, was an actual committed socialist/communist and his ideas words and actions demonstrate as such. If you dont see the difference, idk what to tell you
>Why are you making the distinction that ᴉuᴉlossnW failed but Mao didn't?>Why are you saying that this crucial distinction makes Mao a true socialist but not fascism?Because ᴉuᴉlossnW never cared about that shit anyway and he was never ever going to fulfill his "promise", he just said what he thought would go over well with the crowd. It´s the same reason the nazis called themselves "socialist"
>You like fascism.>You like fascist economics.>You support a fascist state who is once again lying about being socialist when held up to the same standards.You are retarded
>>2344081interesting
I never knew the Chinese communists wanted to become part of the USSR. You got any sources/books etc on this, I want to learn more about it
>>2344079>muh rapprochementThat's realpolitik for ya, what about it?
>He didNo he did not
>The actual determinations are why Mao ultimately served capital despite whatever his own political and ideological outlook may have been on a personal level and regardless of the emotional investment his past and contemporary cult of personality have put into himBut he did not, so there's no determinations on that front
>Empty tautology easily disputed by the last 50 years of world historyYou're projecting my friend
>now it’s time for MLs to differentiate whatever they advocate from keynesian social democracy at best to fascism at worstAnd you're delusional too
>>2344090>No it doesn't, in western capitalist states the government is purely subordinate to the interests of capital and the capitalist ruling class, this is not the case in the chinese system.<ML again argues Hitler would have been right if he was honest about his intentions 😌Capital is a social relation, not a magical power you conjure into the world, the necessary conditions for its accumulation are secured by subordinating laborers, paid via wages, to the objective imperatives of capital as a socially coordinating structure, you cannot successfully accumulate capital without accomplishing these goals, as the accumulation of capital is itself economically synonymous with accumulating abstract labor; of course, as a fascist who feels emotionally loyal to the Chinese government rather than a meaningful interest in communist theory (as your likely true fantasy is likely either to obtain welfare at the most optimistic level but more likely than not to be a hypothetical functionary of a future capital accumulating regime)
You cannot accumulate capital without taking the actions and maintaining the structure and social relations necessary for the production and accumulation of surplus value, whether the coordinator of this process is a private capitalist who personally stands to benefit from the accumulation of the wealth into his own hands and the expansion of an enterprise he owns or a state functionary who merely enjoys a privileged position in the political subordination and surplus extraction of the laborers makes no difference, capital is not a synonym for capitalists
You were a fool to concede that China’s society turns on the axis of capital accumulation, which necessitates capital expansion; all states engaged in this process must cede to the imperatives necessary to sustain accumulation; this is basic materialism
>Uhm buddy maybe you missed it but the USSR fell 30 years ago and the PRC is still aroundThe Soviet Union’s attempt to re-instate the bourgeoisie and properly integrate their economy with the rest of the capitalist world failed, that is correct. China’s attempt was highly successful, that is also correct.
>Concessions to capitalism had to be made for survival, that is reality. The CPC did not fully capitulate and only allowed capitalist forces in, in so much as they could control them. This doesn't mean they are guaranteed to remain in control, but they seem to be doing alright so farArguing
<This country isn’t socialist because it couldn’t be, therefore it IS socialistIs one of the more farcical arguments I see regurgitated pretty regularly. I’m not making moral judgements of China if that’s what you’re trying to defend against. Stating “China has always been developing a capitalist society since 1949” isn’t a moral judgement, it’s just a materialist analysis of the past 76 years of Chinese history, particularly in the long duree
“Communism is not a state of affairs to be established” doesn’t mean defining whatever the fuck you’re doing, whether it’s building nukes to attack the world proletariat with or emphasizing your commitment to private property in your state constitution (two things the PRC actually did lmao, the latter in their ORIGINAL constitution LMFAO) becomes communist so long as you pay lip service to Marx, it means anything that isn’t actively abolishing the social relations and productive determinations of capital is not any meaningful movement to progress the advancement towards the liberation of humanity.
The extreme utopian idealism of MLs and their very low level, seemingly tiktok viewer level engagement with Marxist concepts makes them very grating to talk to, I never get why people such ignorant people are so emotionally attached to “Marxism” 😮💨
>>2344119Refer to
>>2344118 , either implement your ideas into real life or shut up, no one has time or patience for critique
>>2344125Considering the history of American political assassinations and anarchism, murdering random politicians obviously cannot lead to anything of substance, nice try tho, Mr. FBI
Try a Marxist argument next time, rather than limp-dicked deflective shaming tactics
>>2344148Fascism isn’t a synonym for military dictatorship, it wasn’t “colonial rule” in the metropole, that doesn’t even make sense unless you assume, like MLoid libs do, that “colonialism” is a synonym for racialized violence and not an economic and political relation. What fascism did represent was the abolition of bourgeois democracy in imperialist states that had fallen into the abyss of capitalist decay and the potential for collapse of this social order, to escape this crisis fascists societies forcefully created a new bourgeois unity under the fascist party that aggressively shuttered competition between capitalists themselves, consolidated smaller more independent proprietors, and ensured the whole of the bourgeois class in each fascist nation unified their investments, production, and political activities to the imperatives of a deeply decayed imperialist economy in a process that historically began with terroristic violence against all organs of labor dispute and the turn towards slave labor due to a decline in profitable investments and ended in a global redivision of territories to settle what was left unfinished in 1918
>>2344151If this were true it is further proof that ideology takes no precedence over material conditions despite the eternal utopianism of the ML pseudo-movement
>>2344119><ML again argues Hitler would have been right if he was honest about his intentionsYou are retarded, if hitler had been an honest socialist then he would have been, but we're not talking about abstract hypotethicals, we're talking about the real world where fascists like hitler used the name of socialism or even a few talking points here and there to opportunistically garner support for their right wing capitalist ideology. This does not apply to the PRC or Mao, which is what this whole argument is about retard
>Capital is a social relation, not a magical power you conjure into the world, the necessary conditions for its accumulation are secured by subordinating laborers, paid via wages, to the objective imperatives of capital as a socially coordinating structure, you cannot successfully accumulate capital without accomplishing these goals, as the accumulation of capital is itself economically synonymous with accumulating abstract labor; of course, as a fascist who feels emotionally loyal to the Chinese government rather than a meaningful interest in communist theory (as your likely true fantasy is likely either to obtain welfare at the most optimistic level but more likely than not to be a hypothetical functionary of a future capital accumulating regime) You cannot accumulate capital without taking the actions and maintaining the structure and social relations necessary for the production and accumulation of surplus value, whether the coordinator of this process is a private capitalist who personally stands to benefit from the accumulation of the wealth into his own hands and the expansion of an enterprise he owns or a state functionary who merely enjoys a privileged position in the political subordination and surplus extraction of the laborers makes no difference, capital is not a synonym for capitalists
blaah blah blah, nobody cares about your autism dude. In china, capital is controlled at the behest of the CPC and thereby the Chinese proletariat, the bourgeoisie as a ruling class, has been abolished, for the moment. You crying and hueing about "state functionaries" or whatevr is completely meaningless in the face of that essential difference is state organization. This is why the chinese describe it as the preliminary stage of socialism.
>You were a fool to concede that China’s society turns on the axis of capital accumulation, which necessitates capital expansion; all states engaged in this process must cede to the imperatives necessary to sustain accumulation; this is basic materialismThat world revolution did not happen no, that doesn't mean China is not socialist
>“Communism is not a state of affairs to be established” doesn’t mean defining whatever the fuck you’re doing, whether it’s building nukes to attack the world proletariat with or emphasizing your commitment to private property in your state constitution (two things the PRC actually did lmao, the latter in their ORIGINAL constitution LMFAO) becomes communist so long as you pay lip service to Marx, it means anything that isn’t actively abolishing the social relations and productive determinations of capital is not any meaningful movement to progress the advancement towards the liberation of humanity. But China is socialist and it is moving towards the liberation of humanity.
All you keep saying is that China has to "be" capitalist, because we still live under the current capitalist order. Yes, in that sense China is capitalist and has to play the game or be destroyed. However I argue that as they have maintained their DotP in the form of a ruling communist pary, their socialism has not been overturned and they are still in the process of constructing it. To you this is seemingly a complete impossibility, I don't know why, something about muh state in the real world, therefor cannot construct socialism
>The extreme utopian idealism of MLs and their very low level, seemingly tiktok viewer level engagement with Marxist concepts makes them very grating to talk to, I never get why people such ignorant people are so emotionally attached to “Marxism”You are projecting
>>2344181>crisis = fascism!!!!!yet despite the multiple crises of the last century fascism only happened in italy and germany lol
call me when theres a real strong labor movement that the petit bourgeois sees as a threat
>>2344169I guess the internet and two hermit nations technically count as “having power”
To be fair if I had a slave in my basement that would also be me having power over someone, since “power” is the only determinative factor in the mind of an opportunist (proto-hitlerite)
>>2344177I have no interest in an *ideological* defense, bound as they are in appeals to rhetoric that relies on the interlocutor simply being too illiterate to rebut them
No investigation, no right to speak, deng beetle
>>2344192Not any crisis, an extreme crisis that makes the bourgeoisie think it cannot rule in the old way unless the old system is done away with at least temporarily.
Only Italy and Germany? Ah, its bait. Nevermind.
>>2344107>Mao, while maybe no Lenin and a bit kooky, was an actual committed socialist/communist and his ideas words and actions demonstrate as such. If you dont see the difference, idk what to tell youIf China has not done away with class then they're no better than Nazi Germany, I'm also not sure what to tell you this is like the major distinction between Marxist socialism and any other kind.
>You are retardedYou still have not proved that China has fulfilled it's promises beyond killing landlords, maybe they're slightly better at it than the fascists but not by enough.
>>2344205I mean to be fair if some MLoid put on a hammer and sickle pin and then raped someone they’d also be exerting more power than I have
>ah yes well you have never killed any proletarians but see the people I shill for have killed millions of proletarians easily, meaning they have power, checkmate<Sure I as an American tankie have never held any sort of power, howeverAnother exciting game of Deprogramite or Nazi
>>2344234>It’s not a concession, if you’re willing to operate in intellectual dishonesty at the level of refusing to call Chinese business owners capitalistsWhen did I deny this? I said in China Capital is beholden to the CPC, not that it didn't exist.
>you are functionally just a fascist and continuing to debate you lends legitimacy to fascism as a political positionI reject your equation of the PRC with fascist states completely, it's anticommunist slander
>>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: 61