[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


File: 1760570537944.jpeg (157.63 KB, 954x1200, IMG_9217.jpeg)

 

How do you reconcile that this revisionist is responsible for China being the only hope left for socialists? What does China‘s success change about Marxist thought?
145 posts and 45 image replies omitted.

>>2566649
Sorry, but Hitler lost.

>>2524464
CIA hands wrote this thread which is ironic since its defending Russian imperialism but killing workers is something both camps can unite on

>>2566649
Of course capitalism is global and the conflicts between countries are not permanent and not based on moral principles. Every country tries to trade as much as possible with every other country, only limited by security concerns, sanctions and public image concerns.

File: 1763626592532.jpg (20.44 KB, 535x221, 1720550723570325.JPG)

>>2566896
they're rebuilding iran, israel, afghanistan, iraq. maybe the middle east will have stability

File: 1763659060318.png (5.04 MB, 2247x1600, ClipboardImage.png)

Deng Xiaoping was able to see 50 years into the future and gave America the kiss of death. He synthesized capitalism and communism because he was a master of shadow dialectics. I don't know what that means, but I know that I mean it.

>>2566898
>they're rebuilding iran, israel, afghanistan, iraq. maybe the middle east will have stability
meanwhile burgers in usapol cope they're imperialist because they only look into chinese-israeli relations and don't look at the broader context of China rebuilding the region America has spent every year since 1948 working hard to destabilize.

>>2567413
b-but they are making money while doing it and thats bad they should be broke!

File: 1763661875493.png (288.19 KB, 923x1381, 1763661118342.png)


>>2567492
posted it again award

>>2522744
>How do you reconcile that this revisionist is responsible for China being the only hope left for socialists? What does China‘s success change about Marxist thought?
Your post contains four assumptions:
>Deng is responsible for the continued existance of the PRC and his way was the only one
>China is hope for the communists
>China is a success for the world proletariat
>China's supposed success undermines Marxism somehow

Lets see
>No
>No given every bit of their foreign policy history even since Mao and their continued refusal to take up the mantle of vanguard of world revolution
>Not significantly, unless you believe the mere existance of China as a counterpower to the USA/NATO creates favourable conditions for world revolution. Which would have also happened over time in some other way, we can already see USA-EU conflict, so this isn't something that could only be done by China and by extention Deng
>No, the existance of a developmentalist nationalist government (which has existed in various forms all over the world since the first world war) does not undermine the core tennants of marxism


I do think the tactics of China can be studied if actually employed by Marxist government of substantial size who did do the bare minimum in terms of internationalism for the proletariat.

Cue the Dengists telling me:
>Building factories builds socialism even if it only enriches the rich, and you cannot skip the capitalist stage!
<Both Lenin and Mao departed from old dogma by refuting this very point, which is the very basis of the Chinese state, even officially, the proletariat leading the development, so there is no reason why you can't do the same abroad
>You're a lazy westerner! Why don't you make your own revolution!?
<If it was not for the USSR coming to the aid of China for decades on end, it would be a Japanese colony right now.
>Forces of production, NEP!
<If the Soviets could end NEP and transition to the fastest growing economy after just 7 years why does China need 35+ years? Just admit you're a Bukharinist, the right wing of the right wing of the communist movement.
>Trust the plan bro! Why do you not trust China? 2050!
<We have been betrayed by supposed leaders of our movement over and over again, and China has not given any real indication of being true believers and being willing to trade some of their gained position as a nation for gains of the global communist movement.

>>2566524
><Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.
We have long developed beyond this stage. There is no more national bourgoiesie. There is only international bourgoiesie which uses the nation states politics to play populations out against one another.

>>2523078
Honestly I agree with this, and I think my country should do the same, but let's be real for a second here: this is Keynesianism, or a set of capitalist policies very related to it and favoring demand, or at least production over finance capital and supply. This is no edgy revolutionary Marxism, it's just economists being less retarded than Reaganite Americans all while remaining with the framework of capitalism. I'm okay with this, but saying "this is acktually what Marx wanted!!!" while LARPing as a Soviet komissar is megacope.

>>2523159
>Cambodia
>AES
Megakek. Guess the prostitutes blowing bald passport bros are building the productive forces too, heh.

>>2567418
Deng: Socialism isn't poverty

Anti-Deng Contrarians: I hate Deng therefore socialism is poverty

>>2567569
except in keynesianism we see the rollback of state regulations as the profit rate falls and in china we see the opposite. this is due to the class character of the state


>>2567736
ok now do one for gutting pensions instead of helping retirement and reprivatizing the commanding heights of the economy, you know something that actually addresses the claims

File: 1763671654050-0.jpg (25.95 KB, 644x479, 1678130709544644.jpg)

File: 1763671654050-2.jpg (41.97 KB, 793x664, 175957208471.JPG)

File: 1763671654050-3.png (171.16 KB, 680x453, 1674829493339 (1).png)

File: 1763671654050-4.png (109 KB, 842x669, 1762789143770.png)


>>2566524
Dengism is historically progressive capitalism. That doesn't make China socialist. The USSR was also historically progressive capitalism.

>What does China‘s success change about Marxist thought?
Sometimes history unfolds as two steps forward (Mao), one step back (Deng), 1.5 steps forward (Xi).

>>2567775
>2 -1 +1.5 = 2.5
xi is more communister than mao

>>2567784
Hes just sitting on the cumulative communisterisms Mao achieved.

>>2567766
yeah it's weird how a lot of the prominent marxist economists and professors like michael roberts, michael hudson, john bellamy foster, vijay prashad, alfredo saad-filho etc are dengoids and say that china is not capitalist and is building socialism

>>2567798
I would say DoTP is more important term here as, like people have said, not even USSR achieved socialism.

>>2567798
no,it's not that weird,as an intellectual at some point you need to find one W no matter what if you don't want to end up like nick land or Mark Fisher

>>2567798
Why should I care about bourgeois college professors opinions, furthermore they are american or teaching in america, and they teach fucking economics which is capitalist pseudoscience

>>2523041

Its a common perestroika era technique used by Gorby & co.

The egregious abuse is quote-mining Lenin, who often is doing concrete analysis & policy making in a concrete situation, and then taking what he said to be generalized or generalizable.

>>2522895

I would say the proper term is revisionist. But kust like Khrushchev it inevitably leads to capitalist restoration.

>>2567798
if you read the scroll you would know why

>>2567918
Reminder that "capitalist" is not an ideology, its a class, retard.

>>2567918
you are anti-intellectual, NGMI

>>2567822
but isn't that just a semantic difference? the people saying it is socialist mean dtop and the people that say its not mean full last stage communism

>>2522744
>China being the only hope left for socialists
Its a strong country thanks to Deng.

>>2568945
Socialism is a mode of production. DoTP is a matter of state control.

>>2568956
>Socialism is a mode of production.
is it? first time hearing so

>>2568956
no, socialism is a transitionary stage headed by a dotp who aims to advance the productive forces as rapidly as possible in order to obtain the material basis for a classless society. marx also said this stage will look different in each country due to their historical circumstances and level of development. full on communism (classless, stateless, moneyless) is the next mode of production.

>>2568997
>no, socialism is a transitionary stage headed by a dotp
This is leninist revisionism. Marx never said this.

>>2569008
no, it's classical marxism.
>Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
marx always framed socialism as a transitional stage, not a final economic system. it also retains elements of the old society. and because it is transitional and contains elements of capitalism, marx does not treat it as a fully realized mode of production.

>>2569036
It was bait but Marx rarely even mentions socialism and instead talks about lower stage communism.

>>2569146
right but thats a semantic difference. we can call it lower stage communism or use the convention of socialism and communism being different stages. the important thing is the class character of the state, and a dtop is not a dtob, its not social production for private profit, but social production for public need according to democratic decision through representative democracy.

i think the reason a lot of people get it twisted is because liberals appropriated a lot of communist rhetoric. like a rising tide really does lift all boats if you actually build necessary infrastructure, but thats not what liberals do thats just what they say.

File: 1763838479858.png (302.37 KB, 1068x877, Deng centrist.png)


File: 1764066579324.png (174.99 KB, 727x814, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2522744
> this revisionist

>the only hope left for socialists?
Hope would imply that they're doing something for socialists but they don't. Are submarines or helicopters our only hope because they occassionally kill a billionaire? No. I'll do what I always do and I hope Chynah won't fund the reactionaries in my country.

>>2573064
Do you really want to dogmatically cite Marx‘s work from a time where he was young and had a less developed outlook? What would the late Marx say?

>>2573080
Yes, this is invariant communist doctrine and (you) are a denier.
>the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the NATION, it is, so far, itself NATIONAL, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

>United action of the leading civilized countries at least is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
Why is there no united action? People will blame the chinese proletariat for that.

>>2573170
Yeah, all these ultroid bordiggers suddenly become voluntarist when it comes to China. They are so inconsistent man. And they never elaborate.

>>2573080
> What would the late Marx say?
You tell us. Late marx wrote Capital, his critique of poiltical economy but as far as I know never rejected the content of the 1848 Manifesto

>>2573080
lol he gets even more explicit and economic determinist

>>2573064
reminder that he surmised that socialism will likely come about in advance western countries because they had the most advance productive forces and he was writing the communist manifesto with that in mind.
he even says
>These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
this means that the development of the socialist project in a post colonial agrarian countries will not be the same as socialist development in advance western countries. marx's view is not actually rigid as often claim, he mainly gives direction and a method call dialectical materialism. by the end of his life, he even allows for different starting points and uneven development, with his writings in his letters on russia.

when china established a dotp with the founding of the PRC in 1949, it was still agrarian and technologically backwards and far behind the west. its industrial output was tiny and like 1% of its population would even be considered proletariats in the marxist sense. so mao's central goal was to build a strong industrial base that is necessary for socialism in marxist theory as well as modernize society by improving living standards and urbanization.

by the late 1970s, the prc did achieve some basic industrialization and improved the quality of life for its people with a dramatic increase in life expectancy and literacy. however, china still remained overwhelmingly rural with subsistence farming being the norm for most people. there was still limited connectivity between rural areas and industrial centers. most people were living in extreme poverty and they were far behind in living standards to the west as many did not have access to electricity, running water, or modern healthcare.

according to historical materialism, the capitalist phase is considered necessary before socialism. marx even admired capitalism, not morally, but as a historical force in its ability to revolutionize the productive faster than previous modes of production. he also says,
>The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism.

so when the khmer rouge claimed it established communism, that would be considered utopian delusion by marx. the people were extremely poor and agrarian. they would be skipping both the capitalist and the socialist stage without the productive forces being highly developed and beyond post scarcity. deng's central insight is that he did not believe china needed to go "full capitalism" like russia after the fall of the USSR. however, china had already went through their social revolutionary by mao, so he would keep the DOTP intact with political power being monopolized by the CPC. the heights of the commands would be owned under the CPC. deng believes that PRC, under CPC guidance could rapidly increase the productive forces faster than capitalism. deng used SEZs to strictly control capital flows and guard against foreign capital from accruing power. he required foreign companies to transfer tech along with joint ownership if they wanted to set up shop in china. the PRC sought to harvest capitalism’s productive power, while avoiding capitalism’s political hegemony. thus, the logic of capital is tactically deployed, but the logic of socialism (planning, class leadership of the proletariat through the party) still hegemonizes the system. in a capitalist society, the logic of capitalism hegemonizes the system.

>>2573064
by the way, you should also highlight
>centralization of credit in the hands of the state
they have a monopoly on banking and can easily issue immense flow of credit to an industry based on five year plans.
>centralization of the means of communication
news organizations are all state owned. tv networks and film studios are state owned. a great firewall and golden shares in tech companies so companies aligns with national priorities
>centralization of transport
rail, roads, airlines, airports, highways, mass transit, maritime ports, maritime lanes are owned by the state
>extensions of factories and instruments of producion owned by the state
they have it to a significant extent, commanding heights of the economy are owned by the state aka the slogan of "grasping the large, letting go of the small," so not fully highlighted.
>free education for all children in public schools and abolition of child labor
all children are entitled to free education and laws have been passed that prohibit employing children, with offending employers getting harshly punished now.
>combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries
this has acelerated in the past decades where rural regions host factories, food processing plants, and light manufacturing, closely linked to agricultural output. highways, railways, and logistics networks connect rural areas to industrial and urban markets. during mao's era there were barely any highways and most rural roads were unpaved.
>gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution over the country
after the costal cities became developed, china's regional disparity has been shrinking for the past two decades due to targeted poverty alleviation initiatives.
marx said gradual and it's happening. gini index has gone from 0.43 to .35 in a decade. also, reducing income inequality is not the only measure of equailty.
study shows the inequality gap between educational outcomes in rural and ruban areas is shrinking.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10877417/
the inequality gap in health outcomes between rural and urban areas is narrowing as well
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9566669/


Unique IPs: 30

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]