The pro PRC anons here, are coping. There won't be a Chinese century. China today increasingly resembles a kind of Dengist Brezhnev stagnation: a system originally built for rapid mobilization and catch-up growth that now faces diminishing returns, bureaucratic inertia, and structural rigidity.
The Dengist growth model was revolutionary and finite
Deng Xiaoping’s post-1978 reforms unleashed:
- Market incentives within a planned framework
- Export-oriented industrialization
- Massive investment and urbanization
- Pragmatic central control (black cat, white cat…)
For 30+ years, that model delivered almost miraculous catch-up growth, exactly as Stalinist heavy industry did for the USSR in the 1930s-1960s, or as Brezhnev inherited in the 1970s.
But, like the Soviet system under Brezhnev, China’s model has:
- Exhausted its easy growth margins (labor migration, infrastructure, state-led investment)
- Built massive bureaucratic and institutional complexity
So now China faces systemic diminishing returns, not unlike the USSR did once its industrial frontier was saturated.
Where this leads, if nothing changes:
Growth stabilizes around 3% or less, productivity flatlines, debt rises faster than output, youth unemployment and brain drain worsen and China risks a kind of long, slow plateau, not collapse, but sclerosis. Growth has long depended on capital deepening (more machines, more infrastructure) rather than productivity. The economy is still imbalanced as household consumption ≈ 38% of GDP (too low), investment ≈ 40% (too high). High-value-added sectors (semiconductors, enterprise software, advanced pharmaceuticals) remain underdeveloped. The property sector and local-government debt system trap huge pools of capital in low-yield assets.
Working-age population peaked around 2015 and total population started shrinking in 2022. Fertility rates are below Japan’s (~1.0–1.1). Aging means higher savings (less consumption), labor shortages in some sectors, and rising pension costs.
Dengism was able to succeed in the short run by riding demographics and infrastructure but now China is running up against the limits of fiscal stimulus and abundant labor.
China will not collapse but it will probably become the Italy/Greece of Asia.
They'll just do a neoliberal shock therapy and be amerikkka 2, already raised retirement age after all, and if chinese people protest or go on strike over this they will be accused by western dengists of being cia plants or undialectical
>muh Brezhnev stagnation
while Brezhnev did not achieve blinding success in every field, there was no 'stagnation'. Things were just cruising, not as fast as desirable, but cruising still.
Gorbachev took over and fucked everything up.
"Oh Leonid, we can't close the gap with America any further? How about we piss away everything and widen the gap as much as possible then lmao?"
big if true
I’m gonna tell you one thing, and I’m not ashamed to say it.
My estimation, of Xi Jinping as a General Secretary just fucking plummeted.
>China will not collapse but it will probably become the Italy/Greece of Asia
how? china has abundance of natural resources
>>2533875
>wives, daughters, sisters, moms, aunts, nieces get absolutely POUNDED by young vigorous BBC
STOP MAKEING ME WETTTT!!!
Goddamit. Where are dem BBC's at???
>>2534041They’re talking about how sparse the population is in both countries, to the point where the drop off
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y76483200o.amp>>2533875>White Man has been here The elephant in the room here is America and why it's so resilient to economic malpractice. All the egghead numbers ultimately don't matter, good or bad. If you sit around trying to focus on development and foster global cooperation, you're eventually going to run into the hegemon's hardball. How did wooing Europe work out? Does China now realize that the Europeans were simply indulging it so it would remain le neutral in the Ukraine conflict?
>>2533838this is part of their next five year plan. headlines say devastating losses as if the markets invisible hand is doing it as if its not state directed. they are intentionally investing in low rate of return projects for strategic autonomy now that they have a sufficient industrial base
>>2533838Meh. As you said, the problem lies in a weak local demand. Xi had already managed to redirect his labor-intensive exports into technology-intensive exports but now faces the reality of protectionism. Imo it would be absurd for them to believe that they must imperatively stay an export-oriented economy.
As for population, they have like 700 million living in the rural countryside. I think they’ll have enough
>>2534302capitalism demands war for the redivision of world markets? You're telling me this now for the first time
>>2533838>High-value-added sectors (semiconductors, enterprise software, advanced pharmaceuticals) remain underdeveloped.They are working on that. Enterprise software especially is nothing compared to SMIC and the way they're crushing it. We already have widespread Chinese mobile and IoT silicon, widespread desktop processors and GPUs are just a few years away, especially with the Nvidia ban. Not that I know the situation with enterprise software in China, or pharmaceuticals for that matter.
But yes, it is very obvious that models of socialism only have a limited lifespan by their definition. The party has to deepen the revolution when it runs into the limits. CPSU was unable to do that, that's why we are in this mess. CPC will have to move past market mechanisms at some point.
You still have to kill yourself for repeating liberal bullshit though. This one is the most jarring logically:
>The economy is still imbalanced as household consumption ≈ 38% of GDP (too low), investment ≈ 40% (too high).You do realize that socialist states are supposed to keep household consumption lower as a % of GDP than capitalist countries and invest more into production of the means of production, right? That's very basic socialist economics.
The presence of memes like
>massive bureaucratic and institutional complexity>Growth has long depended on capital deepening (more machines, more infrastructure) rather than productivityis raising questions about OP's intentions or knowledge. I'm pretty sure China is a lot more productive in real terms than anyone else on this planet, just look at the difference in price between Xiaomi EVs and everyone else's, or Chinese phones, or most other products.
That's why the west found protectionism to be necessary instead of just putting their money into other countries and watching China crash down because they just provided cheap labor and clearly white man's money and technology are what matters. This was genuinely what western economists thought for decades, many still do.
>>2534470It's how capitalist economies measure their success, and the PRC is by all measures a capitalist economy
I can go to MSM if I want FUD. Reported, saved. Belongs in /PRC/
>>2533838Actually new research suggests that for the late USSR & especially Eastern Europe the problem was precisely lower growth in (non-housing & social infrastructure) investment; The low growth that was achieved in the late 70s and into the 80s was itself mostly productivity increases.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/wusa.12467Moreover a lot of productivity growth is itself driven by utilization of newer machinery & equipment, which is more efficient in input use and produces more per hour worked in the plant.
>>2534566*low growth in gdp
>we le need to become le consumer society
No, we dont, having higher investments than consumption is good actually
>>2534706Also productivity growth has been stagnant in a lot of high income societies, example would be Japan
>>2534569There have been a lot of people on this site lately that forget that the material conditions work in a dialectical manner.
Like even idealists get this right, wtf.
>>2533838>gdp growth</leftypol/ trying not to be hysterical neolibs challange impossible. Of course it's going to slow down over time this is not abnormal read marx and you have to be completely retarded to think that Chynah would come to resemble Greece/Italy and not America by sheer scale.
>>2533857the only known 'solutions' to global denatalism is abject poverty, mass immigration, and automation of labor. All of which are detrimental to the working class.
>>2533875Mutt's law in action
>>2534540Just say the GDP is a spook when its growth is low/negative or the measure of all success when it's high, only works if you talk about the good capitalist dictatorships instead of the evil capitalist dictatorships though so you have to work around a certain amount of hypocrisy
omg why cant there be infinite exponential growths in a limited system
>>2533838>unsourced graph where the big dip is "forecasts">pure neolib interpretation of economy>muh bureaucracylmao nice cope
>>2533849Unlikely. Given the existing thrend of slow liberalization of the economy, I think a slow decline like europe is much more likely.
>>2533875
< Big Bolognese Cock
>>2534836moffin I would call you one of the few sane people on this site but you have pedo vibes….
>>2534569> This situation is pushing the CPC to reconsider its path and possibly shift back toward stronger economic planning and nationalization of key industries. lmao, as if they aren't privatizing and liberalizing by degrees year by year. They're going in the exact opposite direction of what you say.
>>2534847Amd you give off schizo vibes, but that's why rationality exists and those who live following their vibes are considered childish.
>>2534847>>2534858nta but is it really just vibes when the main plot points and themes of Made in Abyss are always fictional children being captured, totured, mutiliated, stripping their clothes, losing their humanity, and raped. Is there really no other way to write a dark story? Even the author's staff admits that the mangaka stares at kids in public.
This is one the more tame scenes in the show and I'm pretty sure it breaks tos on most websites that aren't yours.
>>2534890kek he always conveniently goes silent when someone calls him out. I once got banned for a week for calling him a closet zionist jew.
/leftypol/ is dogshit and is mainly just full of libs engaging in petty nationalist debates like every other imageboard. Which sucks because this could be a decent place to organize for its userbase but the mods are utterly pathetic cowards who would rather just shitpost and watch anime all day and choose to ban everyone who does so outside of vooting for socdems.
>>2534905yeah I dont use this place for serious discussion. Reddit and discord is better than this place, at this point of time. Im just here to observe.
>>2534905>I once got banned for a week for calling him a closet zionist jew. >I once got banned for a week for calling him a closet […] jew.Notice how the zionist part was merely an adjective and not the primary accusation?
>>2534889>Is there really no other way to write a dark story?There's several ways, and yet that way is valid. I have the impulse to call it "cheap" but I know that's a spook (evoking a belief in teiredness in art) and I haven't even watched it yet. I know some plot beats from arknights would've seems cheap to me from a synopsis but execution and finer details proved me wrong.
>>2534905>Which sucks because this could be a decent place to organize for its userbaseAn imageboard is never and will never be the replacement for organizing. What a stupid comment. It's a fucking imageboard, it's a news-aggregator and meta-commentary forum. If you want organizing join a fucking org, lmao.
>At a glance, China’s export-focused manufacturing sector is buoyant, racing away from the US and other advanced economies in areas including batteries, robotics, and biotechnology. And yet its domestic economy is in deep crisis, suffering from spiraling levels of joblessness, plunging consumer confidence, and falling business investment in the midst of a real estate collapse.
>These tensions are mirrored in sectors such as automotives — the EV industry, for example, is both thriving and in the doldrums — and renewables: Depending on the view one takes, China is either the savior of the planet, producing the green hardware the world needs, or its greatest despoiler, for being by far the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
>To understand China is to believe all these things to be true. It is an economy moving fast and slow at the same time, a tech superpower that creates opportunities for PhD scientists but not its underclass of rural workers, a nation that manufactures a third of everything made in the world but can’t stir demand at home. Its growth model is so lopsided it is unbalancing the global economy. In short, China is at war with itself; taking the long view, the current US-China trade spat is a sideshow.
>EVs are a case in point. BYD out-innovates and outsells Tesla; its latest batteries provide a 250-mile range on a five-minute charge. Yet the EV sector as a whole is plagued by massive overinvestment that is adding to the country’s mountain of debt and weighing on growth: More than 100 EV makers crowd the market, crushing profits — a common phenomenon in China known as “involution.”
>There are other anomalies. China, the undisputed global leader in renewable energy, installed more solar panels in the first half of this year than all existing US capacity, and it is readying to build the world’s biggest-ever wind turbine. Yet it’s still surging its fossil fuel output to meet the demands of its red-hot manufacturing sector; new and revived coal power proposals hit a decade high in the first half of this year, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
>China is doubling down on its tech ambitions. A high-level Communist Party conclave in Beijing this week vowed to “greatly increase” the country’s capacity in science and technology; a communiqué issued at the end of the meeting also spoke of the need to boost domestic consumption, but without going into any detail.
>In one sense, China’s economic strengths and weaknesses are two sides of the same coin. Scott Kennedy, a China specialist at the CSIS think tank, and Scott Rozelle, a Stanford Center fellow, write in Foreign Policy that “a seemingly bifurcated picture is still one country, and the roots of both the optimism and the pessimism are the same.”
>In effect, China has failed to connect its high-tech economy to the real economy, one in which 60% of workers don’t have a high school diploma, and where 900 million people get by on roughly $10 a day.
>For now, China is trying to export its way out of its dual economy problem. The Mercator Institute says that net exports accounted for 30% of its GDP growth last year, the highest share since 1997. But the export surge is stoking a trade war with the US and raising tensions with China’s other trading partners.
>Scott Bessent, the US Treasury Secretary, believes that China is now in a “recession/depression,” despite official data that show the country is on track to meet its growth target of around 5% this year. That leads him to believe the US has the upper hand in the tit-for-tat trade spat. Beijing is fighting back using its dynamic tech economy, especially its control over global supply chains. Chinese threats to choke off exports of rare earths will likely result in a truce.
>The warping effects created by a dual economy have profound consequences for China’s long-term prospects. In the Financial Times, Tej Parikh explains how colossal financial waste helps account for the fact that the Chinese innovation and manufacturing boom has failed to translate into notable productivity gains.
>And paradoxically, China’s technological surge, designed to catapult the country into the top tier of developed nations, has coincided with a slowdown in GDP and risks driving the country into the middle-income trap instead.
>China’s leader Xi Jinping is a Marxist, comfortable with contradictions; in his ideological worldview, history progresses through conflict between opposing forces. But today, the clash that matters most is not the one playing out between the US and China, but within China itself.https://www.semafor.com/article/10/23/2025/china-has-a-two-economy-problem >>2534969>news-aggregatorAnd most certainly not a replacement for a proper RSS reader. Tho it's a good starter hub for finding feeds I'd reckon.
>>2533838This dude doesn't know how percentages and accumulation works. 3% growth now is much more growth than 10% growth in the 90s.
>>2533838You say Communist China stagnates, yet China has the fastest trains
oh my god bro what r we doing anymore
>>2534985>CSIS think tank>Stanford Center>Foreign Policy>Mercator Institute>Scott Bessent, the US Treasury Secretary>the Financial TimesWell here's your problem. Come back with some real sources, freier. You wouldn't happen to be in the market for a bridge would you?
This is obvious to actual Marxists (not internet dengists calling themselves Marxists)
Also funny how dengists will scream about capitalist metrics being irrelevant when used to be critical of China’s revisionist path but quickly use these same metrics (GDP, wealth gap, etc) to try and dunk on American capital against Chinese capital.
>>2534988Excellent point.
>>2534857>They're going in the exact opposite direction of what you say.Privatizations wont change the fact that labor and resources are more expensive now. Like I said its a gradual approach towards socialism not a great leap forward that is is finished in months or years but decades.
>>2534905>/leftypol/ is dogshit and is mainly just full of libs engaging in petty nationalist debates like every other imageboard. True. This is because leftoids lost hope and instead engage in all sorts of idpol instead and try 4D chess that it has something to do with socialism.
>Which sucks because this could be a decent place to organize for its userbase Absolutely not this place is not good for either theory or organization or action. Only thing leftypol is useful for is spreading leftist propaganda/memes and maybe entry point towards leftism for /pol/ tourists.
>>2535125what they said is true though.
Besides, all individuals are weak, it is why we organise to become strong
irl.
>>2535131It's not true. It's just a cop out for faggots that don't want to do anything and hate everyone that tries to do anything.
>>2535057Capitalist methodology differs from socialist methodology. Socialist statistics differ from capitalist statistics. You are pigheaded vulgar anti-Communist
>>2533857The imperialist lies and says Communist China has "birth rate crisis" because they know Communism in China has lifted billion and a half from capitalism and poverty. The imperialists lie because they fear the billion and half because they know the billion and half eradicate the imperialist basis of existence
>>2535155There are plenty of more serious websites than this. But like the other anon said organize IRL instead of posting online.
>>2534969>An imageboard is never and will never be the replacement for organizing. What a stupid comment. What a stupid comment. It's a fucking imageboard, it's a news-aggregator and meta-commentary forum. If you want organizing join a fucking org, lmao.Maybe you're right and I am stupid for thinking this place could be used for anything useful but it's pretty telling when the sharty and /pol/ raids directed towards this place have a thousand times more cohesion and organization tham the 'antisectarian' left is supposed to have. And all they had to do is post a link to this site on a raid thread. Would it really be so hard to have threads to be about movements in the real world instead of a billion nation state generals that accomplish nothing.
>>2535110>Only thing leftypol is useful for is spreading leftist propaganda/memes and maybe entry point towards leftism for /pol/ tourists.<He thinks meme warfare is real99 percent of /pol/ converts stay closet reactionaries and are content to do absolutely nothing like when they were chvds.
>>2535542I and a few others managed to learn about theory from the /edu/ pinneds back before the site got nuked. It's not as useful for actually organizing as something like activitypub, but it does have an overall positive impact.
>>2534946There is literally not wrong or derogatory with being called a Jew, contrary to the persecution narrative mossad wants to push. You're a secret Jew, I am a super secret Jew.
Stop browsing /pol/.
>>2534963>There's several ways, and yet that way is valid. I have the impulse to call it "cheap" but I know that's a spook (evoking a belief in teiredness in art) and I haven't even watched it yet.Except it's not even executed well, it gets bland and repetitive using grotesque imagery as a crutch every single time. It's a derivitive of the same exact theme and senario for each and every character, kid wanders into the murder hole and dies (if they're lucky) or gets either raped, mutilated, or both. There's nothing to take from it other than the loss of innocence and suffering for the sake of suffering. It's not even done tastefully half of the time either. Like most of the side characters actively wonder if the main character (a child robot) has genitalia or not and constantly harrsses and strips him for it. Iirc there is a scene where moffin's waifu tries to bite it as a way to 'greet' him. Another adult character has a crossdressing maid who she strings up naked and abuses which is played up for laughs. The manga is much worse as each of the main characters are shown naked for no narrative reason as 'fanservice'.
>>2534988yeah by that logic americas 2% growth is much more than chinas 3% growth
>>2535047>0.000% of Communism has been built. Evil child-murdering billionaires still rule the world with a shit-eating grin. All he has managed to do is make himself *sad*. He is starting to suspect Kras Mazov *fucked him over* personally with his socio-economic theory. It has, however, made him into a very, very smart boy with something like a university degree in Truth. Instead of building Communism, he now builds a precise model of this grotesque, duplicitous world.News aggregation and meta-commentary apaprently.
Re OP
Every accusation is a confession
>>2534905> kek he always conveniently goes silent when someone calls him out. I once got banned for a week for calling him a closet zionist jew.< Why isn't this guy online 24/7, does he have a job?>>2535577>>2534889I can tell you haven't watched the thing and instead rely upon 3rd party character assasination reviews.
>>2535101They're gradually going in the opposite direction then
>>2535168Picrel
>>2535712Because it is? R u retarded?
Faputa loves bbc
>>2535910Isn't being online 24/7 literally your job as a jannie but oh wait you don't get paid and volunteer to make your safe space [which you failed at].
>I can tell you haven't watched the thing and instead rely upon 3rd party character assasination reviews.nice deflection but the plot of the second season is literally about magical child pregnancy and opens with a rape scene.
>>2533838>Dengism was able to succeed in the short runDude, It's been almost 50 years of unending success. Japan's peak was 10 years tops, same as South Korea. USA's last "success" were 10 years tops in 1990s.
>>2533857>states inability to fund pension schemesIt's easy, actually - just automate everything
>>2534985>muh export-focused manufacturing1st pic
>muh deep domestic crisis2nd pic
>muh workers subsist on 10$ a day3rd pic
>>2534889what a shitty anime
shame of its fans
>>2535914I actually think you might be kind of retarded if you think that the US economy has been growing more than the PRC economy in the last two years. But I understand certain metrics might make it seem that way. I guess?
I really don't think there is much argument to be had in this thread. China is growing in really tangible and dramatic ways that the US simply is not. I guess that the reason it might seem otherwise has to do with a combination of AI/datacenter spending, financial speculation, inflation, and real estate market fluctuations. I think these things combine to conceal the dynamic from anyone who isn't really grounded into reality. Which is most people.
I get the impulse of the USian to deny the existence of China, mostly because it's painful not to. Their own government has excluded them from the possibility of participating in the benefit materially.
But it really seems delusional at this point. China is undeniable.
>>2534847he is Italian, leftcom, AND has shit taste in fiction?
jeezos Moffin', get your shit together
>>2534858>>2534847now I understand why I get banned when I argue with loli-weirdos and pedo-apologists… They have connections with the almighty mods…
what is it with imageboards and freaks?
>>2535980Yeah. Chinese deflation is a result of a costs declining for goods paired with quality increases. Not an unknown or unprecedented cause of deflation, but one that generally reflects a pretty vigorous historical analog in economics. It's not really a surprise that people want to avoid it. Western economics believe they cannot emulate China and so they just engage in a form of denialism. The doomcasting has been going on for so many decades it's actually a joke now. And it's reached the point where the manufacturing economy there is so advanced and so efficient it might actually be the pinnacle of human manufacturing capability in terms of quality and price that can be achieved under market economics.
>>2534985I think that this intentionally schizo point of view, that basically doesn't even acknowledge Chinese policy or actual strength, kind of encapsulates where the US stands and why it's failing. Nobody in DC is able to say Bessent is retarded. They are fearful of Trump, fearful of their own role in this "bipartisan" trade war. Let's look at simple statements like this:
>"Scott Bessent, the US Treasury Secretary, believes that China is now in a “recession/depression,” despite official data that show the country is on track to meet its growth target of around 5% this year. That leads him to believe the US has the upper hand in the tit-for-tat trade spat"So it's not only not true that China is in a depression, it's growing at an astonishingly fast rate of 5%! Five fucking whole percentage points! Jesus! Wow. That's a fucking lot of points. Good fucking god. 5! For an economy of that size! Holy fucking shit. FIVE POINTS. Fucking hell! FIVE WHOLE PERCENTAGE POINTS. Good god. Isn't that like whole god damn countries worth of production? A whole fucking new UK or Germany added to China just last year? FIVE fucking points. Oh my fucking god.
But that said, China clearly doesn't react as if the US has an upper hand. It's actually hit back with very severe trade retaliation and appears prepared to accept full embargos.
There's no paradox here. By definition, it has escaped the "middle income trap" since it now produces every single high value input to all of its high-value manufacturing chains, which it sells domestically.
China is NOT a paradox. It is a developed and extremely large, very powerful and advanced country with a robust economy operating at the frontier of technology.
All you GDPoids and black cat, white cat whiggas have abandoned marxism. Dengism is a fundamentally revisionist trend.
Karl Marx, in the three volumes of Das Kapital, uncovered the economic laws that determine the development of the capitalist mode of production. He shows how, from the form of the commodity, which possesses both a use value and an exchange value, all capitalist relations necessarily develop. The value of commodities, whose quantitative amount is determined by the socially necessary labor time required for their production, ultimately determines the exchange relations between commodities. Marx calls this the „law of value.“ The law of value governs, in the capitalist mode of production, not only price movements but also the distribution of social labor across different goods and economic sectors and the incomes of the various social classes.
The capitalist relations of production are based on the private ownership of the means of production, which are concentrated in the hands of a social minority that Marx describes as the bourgeoisie or capitalist class. Opposing them is the working class, which increasingly becomes the social majority as the intermediary strata (particularly small farmers and the urban petite bourgeoisie) shrink. The working class has no significant private ownership of means of production and is forced to sell its labor power to the capitalists. Through the exploitation of labor power, not only is the invested capital reproduced, but surplus value is also created. Because capitalists are in constant competition with one another, they cannot fully consume the surplus value themselves; they must reinvest a significant portion in improved production methods and techniques to gain an advantage over their competitors. This leads to the accumulation of capital – and any capitalist enterprise that fails to accumulate capital is doomed to quick extinction. The appropriation and accumulation of surplus value is the sole and overarching goal of capitalists, which determines their success or failure in capitalist competition. The accumulation of capital knows no limits, whether in terms of the amount of accumulated capital, time, or space.
Capitalist relations of production can thus be summarized as follows: First, they consist of two opposing classes, one of which owns the means of production while the other lacks ownership and is compelled to sell its labor power to the capitalist class. Second, they involve competition among workers and capitalists alike because all commodities (including labor power) are traded in a market. Third, capitalists necessarily orient all their actions toward the unlimited accumulation of capital.
Commodity production and the capitalist mode of production are not immediately identical; that is, capitalist production entails more than just the production of commodities and their distribution according to the law of value. However, there is a close logical and historical connection between the two, as Marx makes clear. For Marx, the division of society into the working class and the bourgeoisie becomes „inevitable as soon as labor power is freely sold as a commodity by the worker himself. But only from then on does commodity production generalize and become the typical form of production; only then is every product produced from the outset for sale, and all produced wealth passes through circulation. Only where wage labor is its basis does commodity production impose itself on the entire society; but only there does it develop all its hidden potentials. To say that the intervention of wage labor falsifies commodity production means to say that commodity production, to remain uncorrupted, must not develop. To the extent that it progresses according to its own inherent laws to capitalist production, to that extent do the property laws of commodity production turn into the laws of capitalist appropriation.“5 Thus, for Marx, capitalist production necessarily arises from all commodity production and the workings of the law of value; capitalism is nothing other than the full unfolding of commodity production or the law of value. A „market socialism“, in which commodity production and distribution according to the law of value endure permanently – let alone private ownership of the means of production and exploitation – is inconceivable for Marx.
The capitalist social formation also includes the political rule of the bourgeoisie. Safeguarding capitalist property relations against any disregard for private property, organizing capital accumulation and favorable conditions for it, asserting dominance against revolutionary efforts, and constantly working to disorganize and politically weaken the exploited class all require the bourgeois state, which politically enforces the dominance of capitalists. Economic and political dominance are inseparably connected: On the one hand, the state, as the „ideal collective capitalist“, organizes the accumulation of capital, i.e., the enrichment of the capitalist class through the exploitation of the working class. On the other hand, the bourgeois state is also the site and instrument of direct dominance by the capitalists, who are interconnected with the state apparatuses through countless links and overlaps, enabling them to organize as the ruling class.
Socialism
What, then, is socialism? In Marxism, a socialist society is typically understood as a society in the initial, still immature stage of the development of communist production relations. Marx emphasizes that in such a society, various remnants and influences of the preceding capitalist mode of production persist: „What we are dealing with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but rather, as it has just emerged from capitalist society and is thus in every respect – economically, morally, and intellectually – still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.“6 However, the decisive point is that the capitalist property and production relations have been overcome, existing at most on a small scale, while the new (socialist-communist) production relations already predominantly govern economic development.
Socialist-communist production relations are based on the social ownership of the means of production. This implies that production of use values can no longer be regulated (as in capitalism) through a market, i.e., supply and demand, nor is it driven by profit; instead, individual production units are subjected to an overarching societal plan. A central authority must determine the needs of society in advance and develop a plan that allocates raw materials, intermediate products, and labor across various economic sectors and enterprises to achieve the desired production result as efficiently as possible. The fundamental law of the socialist-communist mode of production is, accordingly, the planned development of productive forces to increasingly meet the needs of the population. Marx expresses it this way: „Economy of time, along with the planned distribution of labor time across the various branches of production, remains the first economic law on the basis of communal production.“7 Marx emphasizes the planned distribution of labor time under socialism – while labor time remains the measure in which products are related to one another, this is no longer done unconsciously and retrospectively through the market but rather in advance by central planning authorities. The notion of a „market socialism“, in which socialism is permanently compatible with the continued existence of commodity exchange and the law of value, fundamentally contradicts Marx’s understanding of socialism.
In a socialist society, remnants of capitalist production relations may exist in an early stage of development; however, these can no longer play a determining role (otherwise, the society as a whole would be capitalist, not socialist). It must also be the goal of the ruling working class to increasingly push back these elements: „This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessary passage to the abolition of class distinctions altogether, to the abolition of all the production relations on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations corresponding to these production relations, and to the revolutionizing of all the ideas arising from these social relations.“8
Just as capitalism implies the political dominance of the bourgeoisie, socialism represents the dominance of the working class, or, in the words of Marx and Engels, the dictatorship of the proletariat. This means that in a socialist state, the working class, through its own organs of power, enforces and defends social ownership of the means of production, and the communist party is tasked with advancing the planned development of communist production relations.
The theoretical investigation of the interaction between the development of the productive forces and the relations of production is crucial both for understanding the course of socialist construction and for shaping the strategy of the international communist movement.
From his early works, Lenin emphasized that social development is historically determined by the mode of production of material life. His entire analysis rested on the Marxist view that the process of material production constitutes a unity of productive forces and relations of production, which develop through their mutual interaction. While Marxist theorists of the 1920s generally recognized this dialectical relationship, debates soon emerged in the USSR over its precise character and its implications for socialist construction.
Lenin, in opposition to Plekhanov, Kautsky, and the Mensheviks, demonstrated both theoretically and in practice that the maturation of capitalism was not a prerequisite for socialist revolution in Russia. He showed that relative backwardness in the development of productive forces could be overcome through revolutionary transformation. However, within the Comintern’s later “stages” strategy, the active, transformative role of socialist relations of production in liberating and advancing the productive forces was underestimated.
The Leninist and subsequent Soviet discussions highlighted that productive forces cannot develop autonomously, detached from social relations and class struggle. Capitalism’s monopolistic stage generates both socialization of production and parasitic stagnation; only the socialist revolution can fully unleash the development of productive forces.
Stalin’s *Dialectical and Historical Materialism* reaffirmed the primacy of productive forces but also acknowledged the reciprocal influence of relations of production, which can either accelerate or restrain development. Later Soviet and East German theorists, such as Deborin, Rubin, and Eichhorn–Bauer–Koch, expanded this debate, emphasizing that relations of production are not passive forms but active forces that initially promote and later constrain development as contradictions intensify.
Despite valuable theoretical contributions—particularly regarding planning, indicators of production, and the integration of science as a productive force—these discussions often remained confined to academic circles and failed to shape the strategic orientation of the international communist movement.
It is very important to open up this conversation again not only because you terminally online whiggas don't know basic marxism but because most of the communist parties don't examine the extent to which the law of value and capital accumulation govern China’s economy, whether property relations are primarily shaped by private or social ownership, and what role central planning plays. Furthermore, we must analyze which class dominates the Chinese state—whether it reflects the interests of the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. For assessing China’s international role, it is necessary to investigate whether monopoly capital has emerged in China, whether Chinese capital is exported on a significant scale, and how China is integrated into the imperialist world system. When examining these questions some communist parties have abandoned basic marxist methodological tools and that is way they tail chinese and even russian imperialism.
>>2536299>china bad*yawn*
>>2536312>china good*yawn*
>>2536312Whigga you are literally simping for imperialism. I am not saying that you are a revisionist because of it, but that you support imperialism because you are a revisionist. You support China because you think that socialism is when the GDP go up and that the capitalists and the workers have common intrests and it is just matter of correct handling of contradictions among the people.
china is classical fascism
>>2536346china is socialism with chinese characteristics
>>2536027>alternative websitesTouch digital grass, that's not a real thing. The rest of the internet other than twitter isn't "alternative" to twitter, they're just other websites.
>>2536392It doesn't matter if 1% of people will question the source, 99% won't.
>>2533875
so we're gonna go back to british hegemony but gayer?
>>2535542>thinking /pol/ raids and sharty raids accomplished anything the most they ever got done was get a few e-celebs doxed and rustling shia labeouf's jimmies for a few months
So what's the next cool kids site going to be
>>2536510Ridiculous. Completely out of context. Cannot even be called dogmatism.
In "Under a False Flag" Lenin accuses Potresov and other social-chauvinists of falsifying Marx and Engels by mechanically applying their 19th-century positions to a new historical epoch. In the mid-1800s, Marx and Engels supported certain national wars because they advanced the bourgeois struggle against feudalism and thus represented historical progress. By contrast, the wars of 1914–1915 were imperialist—conflicts between fully developed capitalist powers over colonies and markets. To invoke Marx’s past statements to justify siding with one’s “own” bourgeoisie is therefore a historical and methodological fraud: it ignores the transformation of capitalism from a progressive to a reactionary world system. True fidelity to the Marxist method, Lenin insists, lies not in repeating old conclusions but in analyzing the concrete class content of the present epoch, recognizing that only the proletariat’s struggle against imperialism now embodies historical progress.
Then there are your out of context references to state-monopoly. The NEP was not a permanent or universal model for socialist construction, but a temporary, tactical retreat—a necessary and transitional maneuver adopted by the Soviet workers’ state under extremely adverse conditions following civil war and imperialist intervention. It aimed to revive agricultural and industrial production by temporarily allowing market mechanisms and limed private activity, under strict state control, in order to rebuild the material base of socialism. socialism must still contend with remnants of commodity production and the law of value, especially in sectors of small-scale agriculture and consumer goods. These elements, however, were to be gradually overcome through industrialization, collectivization, and planned economic development — processes ensuring the expansion of socialist relations of production. Stalin stressed that the economic laws of socialism, such as balanced growth, operate objectively and must be studied and applied scientifically, rather than ignored or replaced by administrative will.
The NEP was understood by Lenin and the Bolsheviks as a short-term compromise, not as an intermediate socio-economic system or a “mixed economy.” Its purpose was to buy time for the recovery of socialist industry, to strengthen the alliance between the working class and the poor and middle peasantry, and to create the technological and material conditions for collective farming. However, the policy also contained inherent contradictions, as the reintroduction of market relations risked fostering capitalist tendencies and social strata hostile to socialism.
Lenin warned early on of the need to halt the retreat and prepare an “economic offensive against private capital.” Eventually, with the recovery of industry and the policy of collectivization, the Soviet state resolved these contradictions by advancing toward socialist relations of production.
Therefore, it is wrong to interpret NEP as a model for “transitional societies” or as proof that market mechanisms are essential to socialism. Such views distort Lenin’s position and historically paved the way for opportunist deviations—culminating in the perestroika period and the restoration of capitalism.
Even by your vulgar bourgeois economic standards China is the largest economy in the world. Also, it has had its opening up for over 50 years. Even more, its leaders are assuring that this developmental path is the one they will be taking practically forever, for they already project it as socialism. And yet it is capitalism. It is generalised commodity production, with worker exploitation and monopoly capital. Your out of context nitpicking cannnot defeat basic marxist logic.
>>2536700>Ridiculous. Completely out of context. Cannot even be called dogmatism. sounds like you agree that these policies apply under differing material conditions, you just disagree that china is experiencing those conditions(why though we will never know). i find it interesting that marx engels lenin stalin and mao all advocate these types of things at different times, and i will go with the communist party of china over a random internet poster. yes go ahead and call it capitalism if you want, but you have to admit that capitalism under a communist party is not the same as DotB.
>>2536299>>2536700Proove that china isnt dotp
>>2536802Read the freaking Chinese constitution. They went back from DotP to PDD, class collaborationism headed by a vanguard party.
>>2534706Yep, when either America or China finally bites the bullet and forces the great decoupling(probably America considering Comrade Jianguo's recent actions) the majority of poor Americans, who have endlessly consumed rather than saved, pissing away their wealth for temporary pleasures, will be swept under by the economic crash, while the vast majority of the Chinese population will simply lean on their savings.
>>2536895Well, world revolution is currently impossible.
>>2534819Actually we consistently shittalk GDP and how useless it is as a measurement, glowie
>>2534857Hasn't the CPC been nationalizing more and more recently? Especially with the protectionism from the West which reduces the need to continue with a capitalist system.
>>2536901They have an ideological objection to privatization, although a few rounds can buy time.
End of the day, not sure where this is headed to. The situation in liberal countries is so bad, no one can clearly imagine it as a social model.
China can survive for 1-2 decades as simulated social democracy, but long-term, there has to be preparations for AI socialism.
>>2536910I mean they've increased state control over companies and shit, which is the opposite of liberalization. If the current trend continues and all companies become de-facto nationalized, there will be no more neoliberal free market in China.
>>2536910>They have an ideological objection to privatizationYes, they don't want to nationalize people's property. As in, they don't want to impoverish self-employed workers
However, they are willing and able to nationalize private companies
Porky propagandists love to conflate the two.
>>2536795>you just disagree that china is experiencing those conditions(why though we will never know).>>2536802I made a passing remark because I thought that no special theory was necessary to prove the empirical fact that the second largest and upcoming imperialist economy in the 21st century, already surpassing the US in crucial high-tech sectors, is not the same as Europe during the era of bourgeois revolutions or as semi-feudal tsarist Russia. I think that if you use basic marxist methodological tools you will see that capital accumulation is going on, that labor is commodified and the state is not controlled by the people but by capital (this is called capitalism).
First of all can we agree that a state company is not inherently socialist? Friedrich Engels already pointed this out: “The more productive forces it (i.e., the state) takes into its ownership, the more it becomes the real aggregate capitalist, the more it exploits its citizens.” And Lenin also stated: “In the era of finance capital, private and state monopolies intertwine, and both, in reality, are merely links in the chain of imperialist struggle between the largest monopolists for the division of the world.” The fact that an enterprise is state-owned, therefore, does not in itself allow any conclusions to be drawn about its social character. If this wasn't the case then De Gaule's France would be socialist. State-monopoly is progressive only in one context: it is easier to socialise and therefore abolish because it is more centralised.
Since 1979, China’s economic transformation from a socialist planned economy to a capitalist system has unfolded gradually through widespread privatization and market reforms. During the 1990s and early 2000s, most state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were privatized, while the remaining large corporations became partially market-oriented under mixed ownership structures. Although state-owned firms still dominate key strategic sectors like energy, construction, and banking, they now account for only about 25% of GDP and a small share of total employment, meaning that private capital overwhelmingly drives production and job creation.
With the reform and opening up SOE managers profit incentives and autonomy, leading to capitalist behavior within nominally state firms. The 1990s marked the decisive turn toward capitalism, with stock exchanges enabling public listings and the large-scale sale of state assets. In the 2000s and 2010s, further reforms institutionalized the coexistence of state and private ownership. Since 2013, under Xi Jinping, the market has been officially described as playing a “decisive role,” and policies have promoted private investment, mixed ownership, and deeper integration with global capital.
Today, SOEs serve three main capitalist functions: providing infrastructure for private accumulation, acting as profit-oriented monopolies in global competition, and supporting China’s international expansion through initiatives like the Belt and Road. Despite retaining some state control, China’s economy is characterized by private profit, market competition, and integration into global imperialist structures—Xi is of course continuing in the capitalist path.
State-owned enterprises in the monopolistic stage of capitalism, can be necessary to generate the massive investments needed for some modern, high-tech industries and international expansion. China’s global economic rise is based on this concentration of capital, with state-led mergers creating powerful “national champions” that drive projects like the Belt and Road Initiative. However, these SOEs do not represent a socialist sector: despite state ownership, they function as capitalist enterprises operating for profit and under market competition, with budgets independent from the state and often partially privatized. The Chinese state maintains control to guide capital accumulation and macroeconomic development—similar to earlier Western “indicative planning”—but this coordination remains capitalist, not socialist. China’s financial system, dominated by state banks, supports this model by directing credit toward industrial growth while remaining insulated from global finance. Thus, state ownership in China serves capitalist modernization and global expansion, not socialist transformation.
most crucially, since the 1978–79 reforms, China has transitioned from socialism to capitalism by commodifying labor power — turning work into something bought and sold on the market. Under socialism, employment in state enterprises or communes was secure, socially guaranteed, and not wage labor in the capitalist sense. The reforms ended this system: tens of millions of workers were laid off, and peasants were expropriated from their land, creating a vast class of wage laborers. By the 2010s, most Chinese workers were employed in private or profit-driven state enterprises, often under harsh conditions, with migrant workers facing systemic discrimination through the *hukou* system. Despite high economic growth, unemployment and inequality persist, with youth unemployment surpassing 20% in 2023. Worker resistance has grown through thousands of strikes and protests, though trade unions remain state-controlled and largely side with management. The Chinese Communist Party suppresses or mediates labor struggles to maintain capitalist stability. Official claims of poverty eradication are misleading: while wages and consumption have risen, social protections, healthcare, and education have worsened, and inequality has deepened. Most Chinese still live in poverty by realistic global standards. Thus, China’s transformation has produced capitalist growth based on exploitation and inequality, not socialist development.
Finally on the question of the state.
China’s state and ruling party no longer represent the working class but serve the interests of a powerful and intertwined bourgeoisie. Despite the dengist dellusion it is automatically DotP because le Communist Party, the state’s real class character is revealed through its function: it defends capital accumulation and suppresses independent labor organization. Since the reforms, a new capitalist class has emerged, originating from privatized state enterprises, returning overseas Chinese capitalists, and new entrepreneurs in modern industries. This class is now among the richest in the world, with China ranking second globally in the number of billionaires.
A defining feature of the Chinese bourgeoisie is its deep integration with the state. Around two-thirds of the largest private capitalists have state participation in their enterprises, and upward mobility into the capitalist elite is often only possible through political connections. The Communist Party of China (CCP) plays a central role in this process. After 2001, when Jiang Zemin allowed capitalists to join the CCP, business elites flooded into the party—by 2006, 35% of private entrepreneurs were members. Party membership provides capitalists with access to political influence, government contracts, and protection. Leading figures like Jack Ma (Alibaba), Ma Huateng (Tencent), and Lei Jun (Xiaomi) are all CCP members, and dozens of billionaires hold seats in the National People’s Congress or the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.
Family networks also tie top CCP officials to monopoly capital, with documented billion-dollar fortunes linked to the families of Wen Jiabao and Xi Jinping. This fusion of political and economic power demonstrates that the CCP functions as an apparatus of the bourgeoisie, ensuring capital accumulation and preserving class hierarchy.
Lobbying and the fusion of state and capital in China reveal the fundamentally capitalist character of its political system. Since the 1990s, corporations—state-owned, private, and foreign—have actively influenced policymaking through lobbying networks, advisory roles, and personal connections (guanxi) with officials. The All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce (ACFIC) institutionalizes this process, transmitting business demands such as deregulation, privatization, and tax relief directly to top leaders through bodies like the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. Major policy shifts, including the 2004 constitutional protection of private property and the 2007 Property Law, resulted largely from capitalist lobbying. Industry groups have also shaped monetary, trade, and industrial policies in favor of export competitiveness and private accumulation.
Wealthy entrepreneurs occupy political positions within the ACFIC and maintain ties to CCP leadership, ensuring privileged access to state decision-making. While the government occasionally targets individual billionaires for corruption, these actions merely discipline capitalists who disrupt elite consensus rather than challenge the bourgeois class as a whole. The Chinese state thus functions as a collective capitalist—coordinating, protecting, and legitimizing accumulation while mediating conflicts within the ruling class. Despite its “socialist” rhetoric, it serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, embodying a fusion of political and economic power under the CCP that secures the expansion of Chinese capitalism. China’s state capitalism thus represents not socialism, but a mature form of capitalist rule under a CP that is a classic example of assimilation in capitalist path after leading the counter-revolution.
>>2536951>already surpassing the US in crucial high-tech sectors, is not the same as Europe during the era of bourgeois revolutions or as semi-feudal tsarist Russiaoh so when u disagree then things are relative and other people are dogmatists but when you agree then we apply different conditions to now and the future eternally
>through widespread privatizationof what specifically? the commanding heights of the economy? the natural monopolies? the socially necessary input resources?
>GDP>meaning that private capital overwhelmingly drives productionhow are you measuring production? in GDP? what about kilos of rice? tons of steel?
>With the reform and opening up SOE managers profit incentives and autonomy, leading to capitalist behavior within nominally state firms. really? all of them? then why are critical industries the rest of the supply chain relies on run at a loss according to the plan of the communist party?
>SOEs serve three main capitalist functions: providing infrastructure for private accumulationor maybe providing infrastructure according to public demand? idk like some kind of peoples dictatorship??
>and integration into global imperialist structures—Xi is of course contemdash detected;GPT discarded
>>2536951>empirical fact that the second largest and upcoming imperialist economy in the 21st centuryIt's neither captialist or imperialist.
Then the whole wall of text talks about how SOEs are not socialist and that GDP is the real measure of economic success. Then they argue that
>Under socialism, employment in state enterprises or communes was secure, socially guaranteed, and not wage labor in the capitalist sense.workers getting paid in food is more progressive and socialist than getting paid in money. In other words, they argue that barter economy is more efficient than money economy
This is a joke posiiton. Nobody should take analysis like this - "imperialism is when iron rice bowl gets replaced with wages paid in money" - as serious
>>2536959>>2536968>>2536971All you whiggas pretend that there is a socialist thing-in-itself behind the phenomenon of chinese capitalism. Marxism is against your extreme metaphysics.
>What privatizationsAfter China’s economic reforms, privatization occurred in several stages that transformed the economy. In the 1980s, TVEs, de facto private, expanded rapidly, paying low wages and offering minimal protections and by 1996, most were formally privatized, transferring ownership to managers and creating a new capitalist class. SOEs also underwent massive restructuring in the 1990s: heir share of industrial production fell sharply, many were partially privatized or converted to joint-stock companies, and tens of millions of workers were laid off. Smaller SOEs were transferred to local governments, while strategically important ones remained under central control through SASAC. From the 2000s onward, the CCP promoted mixed ownership, allowing private participation even in major sectors, and encouraged the private sector’s role in policymaking and international business. By 2017, most SOEs had become joint-stock companies, operating like capitalist firms with a focus on profit.
In practice, it is therefore also the case in China that land has long been privatized. While a capitalist cannot acquire legal ownership of a plot of land, they can purchase a usage right for a fee, which they can also resell or pass on to others.83 This arrangement ultimately reserves for the state a theoretical right of objection, which it could also maintain through other means. After all, even in Western capitalist countries, the use of land is subject to regulations, such as obtaining building permits. At the same time, the state has removed all barriers to the development of a fully-fledged capitalist real estate market: the Chinese real estate market was larger than that of the United States in 2016, making it the largest in the world.
>Le public demandYou forget to ask development for whom? You don't make a class analysis and use fundamentally bourgeois categories that hide class distinctions.
You accuse me of pointing out vulgar bourgeois statistics in order to showcase some empirical fact. Our diffeences are in our methodological tools. I use class analysis while you talk about a people's dictatorship, assuming that chinese capitalists have the same intrests as chinese workers because le development.
>No more facotryCommunism, of course, seems utopian to the reformist/socialdemocrat
>Chat gptIts a tool. English is not my mother language and i don't have time to spare
>Its a tool. English is not my mother language and i don't have time to spare
Great, most intelligent anti-dengist can't even write a paragraph without using AI slop.
>>2537054>After China’s economic reforms, privatization occurred in several stages that transformed the economyNo. Chinese "private" companies were either joint-stock ownership companies with SOEs de facto owning those while foreign investors provided franchise, market access and technology. "Homegrown" companies are people's companies.
>many were partially privatized or converted to joint-stock companiesSee here, there was no conversion to joint-stock - there were deals for creating subsidiaries in the way I've described.
>the CCP promoted mixed ownership, allowing private participation even in major sectors, and encouraged the private sector’s role in policymaking and international business.You mean, China should have prioritized state monopoly over people's participation? Besides, China didn't abandon state monopolies on anything
>While a capitalist cannot acquire legal ownership of a plot of land, they can purchase a usage right for a fee, which they can also resell or pass on to others.Funny reading this after Evergrande's collapse and cannibalization by SOEs lmao
>development for whom?For Chinese proletariat.
>You don't make a class analysis and use fundamentally bourgeois categoriesThat's you who does this. You can't even be bothered to find Chinese own opinion on the issue, instead you brainlessly repeat after Bourgeois propaganda outlets
>I use class analysis while you talk about a people's dictatorshipYou literally don't. Your analysis ends at "hurrdurr I heard word 'private'", even though the whole fucking issue with Chinese marxism in the eyes of Western communists is due to bad translation
>>2537155one of the stars on the flag lol
>>2537164>private is when less than 10% state ownership share>mixed is when 10-50%Ahahahaha truly the Western economists are most retarded
>>2537158All bourgeoisie countries are famously still absolute monarchies because some aristocrats still exist.
>>2537168George Washington betrayed the revolution because he sold lands to British nobles.
>>2537143Again extreme metaphysics to deny the obvious: private capital reigns in China, as seen by the fact that China has 800 billionaires and millions of millionaires. Even if that wasn't the case, state entreprises still operate on profit and exploitation of wage labor and are therefore capitalist. Capital is a social relation not a thing. That means that when surplus value is extracted and used for profit then there is exploitation
>For Chinese proletariat. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/the-global-stagnation-and-china/The chinese proletariat needs to sacrifice its its intrests so that the nation (eg capitalists) can prosper. Basic understanding of marxism teaches that the general law of accumulation means wealth on the one pole means poverty on the other, if the chinese (and any for that matter) proletariat is to win then capital has to lose. Simple as. No amount of socialdemocratic calls for unity or even hammers-and-sickles and references to "the people" in general can extinguish class struggle and diametrically opposed class intrests of waged proletariat and capitalists.
>Class analysis>People's entreprisesPick one. Perestroika was the vehicle of counter-revolution and did the turning people into shareholders in a lesser degree. China simply needs the state intervention for its model and cannot abandon the symbols in order keep the facade.and you are falling for it. You and i both look at both chinese and western propaganda outlets. I however also look what the leninist pole (KKE and others) says in the international communist movement and use marxist methodology.
Your vulgar statistics about lifting millions out of poverty accept the bourgeois definition of poverty. I am pretty sure if your daily income was 2.15$ (World Bank) you would wish for class struggle too.
>>2537155>Point to me where the bourgeoisie residesOf course not in the formal structure of the party state system as a metaphysician like yourself would think, but in the relationship of said system with the economic base, the capitalist social relation, and by extension to its operation as a mechanism of the chinese bourgeoisie. I have previously shown that the chinese state is in fact not a dotp but it is very closely intertwined with chinese capital, not only formally but with millions of strings of personal relationships and lobbies. Yet none of you commented in my main point on this.
The Chinese state thus functions as a collective capitalist—coordinating, protecting, and legitimizing accumulation while mediating conflicts within the ruling class. Despite its “socialist” rhetoric, it serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, embodying a fusion of political and economic power under the CCP that secures the expansion of Chinese capitalism. China’s state capitalism thus represents not socialism, but a mature form of capitalist rule under a CP that is a classic example of assimilation in capitalist path after leading the counter-revolution.
I know you somehow have to cope and that you are not taking part in organized class struggle through the lines of a steady leninist party, so in your infinite time on the internet you have to look for hope in a state. However, our only real hope is in the independent struggle of the peoples against capital, not in collaboration with it.
>>2537253>fact that China has 800 billionaires and millions of millionairesThis is not a fact at all.
>The chinese proletariat needs to sacrifice its its intrests so that the nation (eg capitalists) can prosper.Where are Chinese workers sacrificing their interests?
>if the chinese (and any for that matter) proletariat is to win then capital has to loseYeah, we are seeing American and European bourgeoisie losing the cold war 2.0
>Perestroika was the vehicle of counter-revolution and did the turning people into shareholders in a lesser degree.You have a very rose-tinted understanding of Perestroika. From the get go it was designed in a way to prevent workers from achieving any shares. When privatizing auctions were held, workers were specifically excluded, and banditry was hired to explain to workers that they don't own anything.
>cannot abandon the symbols in order keep the facade.and you are falling for itChina is bona fide communist. As simple as.. You, however, take the position of neither Beijing nor Washington, which favors Washington
>Your vulgar statistics about lifting millions out of poverty accept the bourgeois definition of poverty.Dude. Just look at 3rd pic
>>2535980 Chinese accepting Westoid definitions of poverty was done only to make Westoids not feel down and desperate
>>2537253>but in the relationship of said system with the economic base, the capitalist social relation, and by extension to its operation as a mechanism of the chinese bourgeoisie.When Lenin was saying similar things, he did in fact point out the HQ of capitalism in Russia. That's why your metaphysical nonsense rings hollow - you speak a lot of words, but they fail to connect to material reality
>The Chinese state thus functions as a collective capitalist—coordinating, protecting, and legitimizing accumulation while mediating conflicts within the ruling class.Was sinking Evergrande and splitting it's corpse apart to state enterprises a 5d chess move to strengthen the capitalist class through dispossessing it?
>a mature form of capitalist rule under a CP that is a classic example of assimilation in capitalist path after leading the counter-revolution.For it to be a "classic" it has to have more than 1 example buddy
>>2537259>which chinese workers?The ones that needed suicide nets because of over exploitation
>China is bona fide communist. As simple as.. You, however, take the position of neither Beijing nor Washington, which favors WashingtonMy brother the people and the working class in my country have done material damage to NATO. Have you? It just happens that the workers also fought against chinese monopolies that tried to dry out the last drop of value of them, after after both the socialdemocratic and neoliberal governments gave away infrastructure to them.
As for the wall of text about sources. You are nitpicking again. You need to learn about the marxist concept of social capital in marx is the dynamic aggregate of the individual capital movements. The bureaucratic state is simply reproducing the terms for its extended reproduction.
>Classic Another example is perestroika
>>2537289>muh suicide netsWhat next, are you going to destroy me with empty cities or tiananmen?
>workers also fought against chinese monopoliesPffft now it's workerism aka any organising is good - despite the fact that all the bourgeois wars and actions throughout history were done by workers.
It's funny how your position falls apart at seams the moment you are forced to give practical examples. Almost like you speak out of your ass instead of basing your position on reality
>>2537492Imagine how ridiculous I would sound to my coworkers if I went to them with my theory about "material reality", calling them undialectical for striking for better wages when they have mouths to feed. When our (otherswise NATO friendly goverment) and the extremely profitable for chinese and capitalist, chinese monopoly uses every reactionary element to break their strike, they would probably beat the shot out of me. They are probably to dumb and naove to understand that the profits that the monopoly is making by exploiting them are socialist profits.
>>2537054>You forget to ask development for whom? For the people. People elect representatives to the party and the party sets production targets for the commanding heights of the economy. They produce the input resources for consumer goods and market competition among commodity producers drives prices down.
>>2537253>state entreprises still operate on profitThey operate for public demand which is why they are subsidized and run at a loss.
>however also look what the leninist pole (KKE and others)yes i see now, you get your info from the reactionary labor aristocrat union controlled IMCWP run by overpaid greek dockworkers that seethe about China bailing out their failing industry
>>2537259>PerestroikaWhich ran for less than a decade before the USSR collapsed. Meanwhile China has been doing reform and opening up for years. Obviously they learned from Soviet mistakes and are not implementing the same polices.
Its perfectly reasonable to use a hands off approach in developing industries while subsidizing their inputs to facilitate growth in the desired sector according to public demand. This is rational economic planning not capitalist profit driven anarchy.
>proletariat needs to sacrifice its its intrests so that the nation (eg capitalists) can prosper.They sacrifice for the future of communism and are pretty open about it.
https://monthlyreview.org/articles/the-global-stagnation-and-china/>February 2012these problems(housing crisis) are solved or being solved and part of the plan(gdp slowdown). these guys are big chinaboos idk what you think this means go look at a more recent article by the same author
>>2535910the author is definitely a pedo
>>2537289>suicide nets Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, which suddenly americans agree is chinese when something bad is occurring
>>2537259>fact that China has 800 billionaires and millions of millionairesand they kill or disappear them when they step out of line
I think regardless of the argument on how China isn't pure enough in its communism for Italian leftcoms, it's probably our best chance at resolving the impending climate catastrophe. No other major power even cares about the climate - the US and Russia are perfectly content to keep burning fossil fuels forever, in fact they'd probably be happy to let the Arctic melt some more and open up sea routes in the north. Countries like the EU or Japan are better than them, but being vassal states of the US they are never going to bring about a green power revolution on a global scale. China is the one mass producing solar panels and wind turbines, building dams in Africa, building up fission and thorium power, and is probably going to mass produce fusion reactors whenever fusion gets cracked.
>>2537687And so they can get away with working their employees to suicide? What garbage is this?
>>2537732How about not letting them exist in the first place rather than killing like 0.1% every decade. Are Chinese billionaires uniquely different and earned their billions actually from their own hard work or something? Obviously not, they STOLE those billions from the workers but this is somehow fine.
>>2537604The CPC encourages strikes and worker actions.
Moffin is an indian living in italy. He inherited ultraism from italy and the passionate hatred (envy) of china from india.
There, that is all you need to know.
>>2538620Do you have any proof of this?
Chat, is this true or not?
>>2536895>Read the freaking Chinese constitutionOk
<After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, our country gradually achieved the transition from a new democratic society to a socialist society. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished, and a socialist system established. The people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and peasants, which in essence is a dictatorship of the proletariat, has been consolidated and developed >>2534172It's always anfem flags.
>>2538613Why do workers even need to strike in a DoTP? What do they strike against?
The West hasn't collapsed after 50 years of stagnation and declining social cohesion. So what if China growth starts slowing down? What would actually make China collapse is if they allow mass immigration, especially of Indians
>>2538673NEP + DotP is compatible.
Unique IPs: 86