how do anti-CPC shills genuinely respond to this?
they keep yapping about how china has deviated from marxism without providing a shred of evidence meanwhile everything that marx wrote just reinforces the positions of the CPC in its road to build socialism
>>2435367the source of the quote in the left image is from this document btw
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/epm/3rd.htmgonna add this to the elder scroll, thank you so much
>>2435713lmfao nice cope
to the immiserated wage worker they see no difference between the poorer bourgeois and the haute bourgeois
>>2435367>deviated from marxismYou mean deviate from proletarian demands. Marxism is not something to be implemented.
>everything that marx wrote just reinforces the positions of the CPC in its road to build socialismSuch as? You realize the "production forces" were considered developed by Marx in many countries back in the 19th century already?
Well if you read the quote with a bit of context
>It is true that a controversy has arisen in the field of political economy. One school (Lauderdale, Malthus, etc.) advocates luxury and execrates thrift. The other (Say, Ricardo, etc.) advocates thrift and execrates luxury. But the former admits that it wants luxury in order to produce labor – i.e., absolute thrift; and the latter admits that it advocates thrift in order to produce wealth – i.e., luxury. The former has the romantic notion that greed alone should not regulate the consumption of the rich, and it contradicts its own laws when it forwards the idea of prodigality as a direct means of enrichment. The other side then advances earnest and detailed arguments to show that through prodigality I diminish rather than increase my possessions; but its supporters hypocritically refuse to admit that production is regulated by caprice and luxury; they forget the “refined needs” and forget that without consumption there can be no production; they forget that, through competition, production becomes more extensive and luxurious; they forget that it is use which determines the value of a thing, and that it is fashion which determines use; they want only “useful things” to be produced, but they forget that the production of too many useful things produces too many useless people. Both sides forget that prodigality and thrift, luxury and privation, wealth and poverty are equal.
Nothing here says socialism has markets, commodities and private property, and there are many things in that same text that reiterate it doesn't.
Stop quotemining Marx for fuck's sake, you know damn well that socialist society doesn't fucking have markets and money.
>>2435734>Top image>instead of left imagePHONEPOSTER ALERT
PHONEPOSTER ALERT
>>2435367the quote doesn't really address commodity production? No one thinks socialism has to be austere barracks socialism, the argument is China resorted to capitalism and markets and therefore commodity production, not that socialism has to mean poverty.
Repeating this bullshit is essentially buying into the right wing bullshit that socialism can't produce material wealth equal or greater than capitalism when in reality its capitalism itself which is a barrier to greater productivity and the socialist mode of the production will be more materially prosperous.
Retreating into their fantasy world.
Or rather they never left. Or they wouldn't be were they are at "politically". It's tautological, see.
>>2435378Man's bringing out the Hegel.
Bringing a bazooka to fight a guy who's primary weapon is bad breath.
>>2435991It's a slightly paraphrased Hegel quote.
Or whatever I don't read Hegel and I especially do not read the man in english.
Also reminds me an anglo (oh sorry, Oirish) came up with the same. Independently, cause he never read Hegel. No one does.
Bonus, it's what ultra leftoids remind me of strongly.
>you cannot go that way, you cannot go this way
>no turning back, no turning left, no turning right; no retreat but also (naturally) no advance
>Pol Pot! Pol Pot! Pol Pot! Year Zero
>the real socialism is not the one that actually exists in reality
>The real communism is the one that does not and cannot exist (cannot in a practical sense, you have no path to anything in reality, real life)
See how that works?
It's the ol' switcheroo. Real is unreal, unreal is real. Well no. You are precisely the wrong way round in your "quest" for purity.
Call it whatever you want. My question would be, rationally, why do you think your opinion is so damn important? Is it that you do not have anything else? Compensation. Those who can do, and then there is the critics.
They are a non-entity. It's not so hard to suss out.
This is the truth of this world.
Now go bug someone else, little lefty
would you kindly?
>>2435998In
practice rather than
theory, we always hear one of two things: either "real socialism" has never been tried, or actually existing socialist societies work differently than they are said to in older theoretical works. But let's read many different works and not just one to get a clearer picture:
>Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
<Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism, 1847
>To my mind, the so-called “socialist society” is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change. Its crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production. To begin this reorganization tomorrow, but performing it gradually, seems to me quite feasible. That our workers are capable of it is borne out by their many producer and consumer cooperatives which, whenever they're not deliberately ruined by the police, are equally well and far more honestly run than the bourgeois stock companies.
<Engels, Letter to Otto Von Boenigk In Breslau, August 21, 1890
>Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.
<Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, 1845
>[…] it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse.
<Karl Marx, The German Ideology, 1845-1846
>Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
>“No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society."
<Karl Marx, from the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)
>The pure socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
<Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism, 1997
>Socialism means the abolition of classes. The dictatorship of the proletariat has done all it could to abolish classes. But classes cannot be abolished at one stroke. And classes still remain and will remain in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship will become unnecessary when classes disappear. Without the dictatorship of the proletariat they will not disappear. Classes have remained, but in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat every class has undergone a change, and the relations between the classes have also changed. The class struggle does not disappear under the dictatorship of the proletariat; it merely assumes different forms. Under capitalism the proletariat was an oppressed class, a class which had been deprived of the means of production, the only class which stood directly and completely opposed to the bourgeoisie, and therefore the only one capable of being revolutionary to the very end. Having overthrown the bourgeoisie and conquered political power, the proletariat has become the ruling class; it wields state power, it exercises control over means of production already socialized; it guides the wavering and intermediary elements and classes; it crushes the increasingly stubborn resistance of the exploiters. All these are specific tasks of the class struggle, tasks which the proletariat formerly did not and could not have set itself. The class of exploiters, the landowners and capitalists, has not disappeared and cannot disappear all at once under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The exploiters have been smashed, but not destroyed. They still have an inter national base in the form of international capital, of which they are a branch. They still retain certain means of production in part, they still have money, they still have vast social connections. Because they have been defeated, the energy of their resistance has increased a hundred and a thousandfold. The “art” of state, military and economic administration gives them a superiority, and a very great superiority, so that their importance is incomparably greater than their numerical proportion of the population. The class struggle waged by the overthrown exploiters against the victorious vanguard of the exploited, i.e., the proletariat, has become incomparably more bitter. And it cannot be otherwise in the case of a revolution, unless this concept is replaced (as it is by all the heroes of the Second International) by reformist illusions.
<Lenin, Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat, 30 October, 1919
>We made the mistake of deciding to go over directly to communist production and distribution. We thought that under the surplus-food appropriation system the peasants would provide us with the required quantity of grain, which we could distribute among the factories and thus achieve communist production and distribution […] brief experience convinced us that that line was wrong, that it ran counter to what we had previously written about the transition from capitalism to socialism, namely, that it would be impossible to bypass the period of socialist accounting and control in approaching even the lower stage of communism […] our theoretical literature has been definitely stressing the necessity for a prolonged, complex transition through socialist accounting and control from capitalist society (and the less developed it is the longer the transition will take) to even one of the approaches to communist society. […] Get down to business, all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out.
<Lenin, The New Economic Policy, 1921
>To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organization, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content; a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism. Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organization, which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries). At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state. This also is ABC. And history (which nobody, except Menshevik blockheads of the first order, ever expected to bring about “complete” socialism smoothly, gently, easily and simply) has taken such a peculiar course that it has given birth in 1918 to two unconnected halves of socialism existing side by side like two future chickens in the single shell of international imperialism.
<Lenin, “Left-Wing” Childishness, 1918
>For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.
<Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, Section Titled: Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?, 1917
>The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
<Lenin, To the Russian Colony in North America, 14th November, 1922
>So, to build socialism it is necessary to develop the productive forces. Poverty is not socialism. To uphold socialism, a socialism that is to be superior to capitalism, it is imperative first and foremost to eliminate poverty. True, we are building socialism, but that doesn’t mean that what we have achieved so far is up to the socialist standard. Not until the middle of the next century, when we have reached the level of the moderately developed countries, shall we be able to say that we have really built socialism and to declare convincingly that it is superior to capitalism. We are advancing towards that goal.
<Deng Xiaoping, To Uphold Socialism We Must Eliminate Poverty, 26th April, 1987
>A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls. An appreciable rise in wages presupposes a rapid growth of productive capital. Rapid growth of productive capital calls forth just as rapid a growth of wealth, of luxury, of social needs and social pleasures. Therefore, although the pleasures of the labourer have increased, the social gratification which they afford has fallen in comparison with the increased pleasures of the capitalist, which are inaccessible to the worker, in comparison with the stage of development of society in general. Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.
<Karl Marx, Wage Labour and Capital (1847), Chapter 6
>The thoughts of every piece of private property as such are at least turned against richer private property in the form of envy and the desire to level everything down; hence these feelings in fact constitute the essence of competition. The crude communist is merely the culmination of this envy and desire to level down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited measure. How little this abolition of private property is a true appropriation is shown by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilization, and the return to the unnatural simplicity of the poor, unrefined man who has no needs and who has not yet even reached the stage of private property, let along gone beyond it. (For crude communism) the community is simply a community of labor and equality of wages, which are paid out by the communal capital, the community as universal capitalist. Both sides of the relation are raised to an unimaginary universality – labor as the condition in which everyone is placed and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community. […] The first positive abolition of private property – crude communism – is therefore only a manifestation of the vileness of private property trying to establish itself as the positive community. […] By reducing the worker's needs to the paltriest minimum necessary to maintain his physical existence and by reducing his activity to the most abstract mechanical movement. In so doing, the political economist declares that man has no other needs, either in the sphere of activity or in that of consumption. For even this life he calls human life and human existence. By taking as his standard – his universal standard, in the sense that it applies to the mass of men – the worst possible state of privation which life (existence) can know. He turns the worker into a being with neither needs nor senses and turn the worker's activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. Hence any luxury that the worker might enjoy is reprehensible, and anything that goes beyond the most abstract need – either in the form of passive enjoyment or active expression – appears to him as a luxury.
<Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Third Manuscript, Private Property and Labor (1844) >>2436013> The required productive forces for defense of the revolution is always relative to the external forces that seek to overthrow it.I've said this so many times on here but much more clumsily. This is such a succinct way of putting it. It's the perfect answer to "Uhhhhh bros how much longer is china gonna have to develop productive forces they aren't semi feudal anymore"
the answer is until they overtake NATO in productivity which next to manpower is the main determinant of who would win in a war.
>>2436015>if communism has to be worldwide and is impossible in one country then socialists states are in a holding pattern while they wait for you to overthrow your own bourgeoisie>>2436013>The required productive forces for defense of the revolution is always relative to the external forces that seek to overthrow it.TRVKE
TRVKE
TRVKE
TRVKE
TRVKE
https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/The harsh recrimination of the impotent.
What it boils down to is: it is just noise. It is better to turn off noise. Otherwise you are going to have to live with it.
That is their function, their essence.
Trade is not aid, to randomly pick one part of this nonsense.
https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/unilateral-sanctions-civilian-deaths/What does it mean to sanction, to "cease trade"?
They are war by other means
Come and get it, lady(boy)
We are the drowned
You are vestigial
>>2436240Who can afford 100 TB in this economy?
And I can barely imagine the time involved in sorting all that.
>>2436005I think the real discussion is actually whether socialism is a heroic ideological tradition upheld by heroic leaders and governments that can be defined by being a government that aspired to socialism (ML line)
Or whether socialism is an actual mode of production wherein the relations of capital have been abolished by the universal class in the proletariat, which necessarily abolished itself as the central pillar of capital in the abolition of the capital relation itself; to explain why socialism is in fact capitalism, MLs essentially had to redefine “socialism” to mean the transitional period immediately after a communist party has secured a political revolution, whether or not their subsequent actions are the reproduction of the capital relation, here MLs, stepping even more aggressively away from Marxism, assume capital is synonymous with capitalists, therefore, confiscating their property into the hands of the state, and reproducing the fundamental radical separation of production from control, production from consumption, and production from distribution, becomes the fundamental horizon upon which “socialism” is redefined, to in fact mean, the radical oppression of the proletariat by its self-appointed “socialist” representatives; thereby socialism has retreated from mode of production to pure ideology, and the opposite of socialism can therefore be defined as the only possible socialism
>>2435367>how does [X group] respond to my dank memes?seriously. what's wrong with you?
I wish you lot would be relegated to /siberia/ by force.
>>2436777I would just say no.
How about another joke?
How about another embargo, Hirohito?
Point is, you'll get yours. You simply have to wait a bit.
Young people have no patience.
Read your books, eat your greens, I don't give a fuck.
I can't be bothered with this right now.
I'm out, see you tomorrow KKKolonizers
>>2435367>how do anti-CPC shills genuinely respond to this?To some low-effort memes? Golly gee how will anti-revisionism ever recover?
>they keep yapping about how china has deviated from marxism without providing a shred of evidenceThere's decades of polemics and volumes of literature on this subject. If you don't consider the evidence presented to be convincing, that's you're prerogative, but all you accomplish by saying that none has been provided is telling the world that you don't read.
>everything that marx wrote just reinforces the positions of the CPCIf you asked Kautsky, everything Marx wrote agrees with the Second International's economism, reformism, vulgar "materialism", and capitulation to imperialism. Posting dogmato-revisionist low-effort regurgitations of Marx quotes out of context (the first quote is particularly egregious in this way), a product of many people's inability to actually grasp the essence of what Marx said and instead treating his work as holy texts, does nothing to prove that the CPC's line is genuinely Marxist.
Unique IPs: 46