Doesn't the fact that CHINA has multiple STOCK exchanges, prove that its CAPITALIST? How do le elder scroll ones explain this? Even old turn of the century imperial germany was closer to socialism than modern day China.
>>2580376See vidrel.
Also, unlike the US or Japan for instance, China does not rely on the stock market as a significant and central driver of economic activity. That's why when Japan's stock market crashed in the 1990s, so did the economy. It's the same way the 1929 stock market crash was tied to the Great Depression in the US. Meanwhile, companies in China get their funding primarily from state bank loans and state led investements. China also makes it hard for foreigners to invest in its state market with restrictions, quotas and selective access.
>>2580376The idea of using finance to socialize the economy was first suggested by Hilferding I think. I am skeptical because I place the real bottleneck in management, not finance. Finance is an indirect way to socialize labor and an indirect way to socialize the means of production. Central planning and a bureaucracy/management team dividing and organizing labor is a direct way to socialize labor and the means of production. A stock market is not really different than a State Planning Committee except that the stock market is anarchic and inefficient.
>>2580376Its a mixed economy
like all the worlds countries, buy with a gigantic public sector.
>>2580418>mixed economy like all the worlds countriesBullshit term. It’s liberalism and capitalism all the way down.
>>2580391Notice how India's stock market has exploded in growth due to the financialization of its economy. Even India's public banks shifted to be be market driven due to IMF stipulations and they also deregulated interest rates.
Meanwhile, China's GDP rate of growth still grew in double digits at the same its stock market was stagnating. China's economy has far outpaced India's economy in size. 98% of finance is state-controlled in China. The loans and funding from China's state owned banks are coordinated through five year plans that shape industrial policy and set strategic direction, and they will also take reasonable losses to achieve social ends.
>>2580433people tend to refer to chinas economic system as a "mixed economy" or "state capitalism", which is bullshit because all capitalism is state capitalism
thats the point he was trying to make
Capitalism is good when China does it
Wonder if there's a movement in China to abolish the stock market
>>2580399>The idea of using finance to socialize the economy was first suggested by Hilferding I thinkLenin had unkind words for Hilferding, yet here we are, with the USSR dead, and the PRC alive
Look, mom, another "westoid gets buttblasted by choynah" thread!
>>2581099they adjusted to capitalism and gdp went up. they're just doing it a little more responsibly than the other capitalist powers
>>2580376>Doesn't the fact that CHINA has multiple STOCK exchanges, prove that its CAPITALIST?No
This is literally the least of the problems. China is an authoritarian state capitalism where buildings are constructed with cheap labor that fall apart, workers have few labor rights, and there is no free public healthcare.
This modern obsession with China is ridiculous; just because they are “enemies” of the United States does not make them good. It is the same logic as supporting Iran when they have executed hundreds of socialists.
>>2581142>China is an authoritarian Thanks for the info Hillary Clinton
>>2580418Spain with almost 30 times less population has more social workers per capita than China
>>2581142its literal moralfaggotry. most 'leftists' are just ashamed christians.
they believe that the world is a battle between good and evil, and whoever fights the big bad evil guy is instantly good.
I don't give a shit, can we do some praxis in real life now or will we just cry about china all the time?
>>2581186I dont know about good vs evil but I for sure see the west as an irrationalistic force thats a danger to itself meanwhile China even if not perfect seem compromised to modernity.
Oh, youre that achmed from that thread >>2580201
>>2581099>winningJust be a socdem then.
>>2581218Is iraq socialism yet
>>2581175
Interesting how China can do this while also having less generous public health care than many European nations. Really makes you think what interests dictate Chinas health care policy…
>>2581220Well the Americans won, so who am I to judge.
>>2581222European free healthcare sucks and theres preferential treatment for private payers.
>>2581225
Yeah but CIA told me china is le bad and euroids are le good so I'll just spread CIA propaganda with western leftist characteristics
>>2581234in Europe we don't have slavery like in China
>>2581243>we just outsource our slavery to the third world so we are goodcarpet bomb e*rope
>>2581105
The owners and stockholders are interested in seeing the value of their stocks rise. Companies may sell more stock to raise capital after the initial offering
>>2581233Not all European systems are the same. But is China's health system better than theirs?
>>2581289How do you know this?
>> 2581243
>>2581296Have you ever tried to get an MRI scan in Europe? Enjoy waiting for months until theres an open slot
>>2581306true, because healthcare is free in Europe, while in China it's paid
>>2581322free has nothing to do with it. China's healthcare system is affordable.
>>2581322Are you even European? Nobody in Europe thinks of themselves of one entity that has the same healtcare lmaoooooooo
>>2581306I was thinking about coverage and cost, but China has a way lower rate of health care personal per capita compared to developed European nations, so I'm not sure if bringing up accessibility really helps your argument.
>>2581326Most people in europe also would not consider their healthcare 'free'.
>>2581334Statist dick rider
>>2581335>Statist Yes. Marx explicitly says proletarian dictatorship uses state capital to multiply productive forces in chapter 2 of communist manifesto
>>2581338
Ok counter rev
>>2581341Lenin:
>To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism.
>Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation, which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm >>2581344>LeninLmao, read Marx and Engels
>>2581147>Spain with almost 30 times less population has more social workers per capita than Chinawhat a stupid post, first if its per capita what does the total population matters
second, now compare wealth per capita and realize that despite staggering development pace, china is very big and still has a massive poor population : spain is twice as rich in gdp ppp per capita, and in pure gdp per capita three times as rich
they beat everyone industrially because they're very numerous and have a competent worker state, but they still have a significant way to go just to catch up to the west in term of average wealth, and theres massive inequalities between rural areas which are still in need of a lot of development and urban center where they seem a decade ahead of the west.
Social services are also mostly independently handled by regions themselves on their budget and thus can be vastly different in term of what they can cover or how well.
>>2581355
>Marx and Engels also mogged anti-capitalist/anti-authortarian retards like you over 150 years ago
Source pls
>>2581353Or maybe despite being wealthy enough to offer all of its citizens free health care, Chinese state capitalism deliberately holds back on social services to keep wages low.
>>2581344>it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries)Wow, Lenin really called me out personally for posting on this site.
>>2581373A great quote anarchists would agree with as the state is the biggest question for them
>>2581335Palestinians are a stateless people, you wanna be like them?
>>2581395Do you really expect me to respond to this piece of idiocy in respectful manner? Use your brain, and figure out why your question was such a stupid thing to ask.
>>2581405>I…I have no argument so im just gonna seethe and act outraged!!Lmaooo what a faggot, too easy man
>>2581404>>2581406Whatever you say you fucking gigacringe lord. Go back to 4chan with the rest of the shitters.
>>2581360https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
>A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?^this is the repudiation of anti-authoritarianism
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
>[Reactionary Socialists] consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.
>[Bourgeois socialists] consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.
>[Democratic Socialists] favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.^ these are the 3 types of "anti-capitalist" which fail to be communist
>>2581409Go touch grass kid. You ain't shit.
>>2581348>>2581379Why is Lenin wrong, in your opinion?
kinda tragic marx didn't live long enough to write a book on the State like he wanted to. would be way less morons allergic to any and all kind of authority
>>2581414Still not hearing any arguments, just more seething. Really pathetic stuff dude. A simple question got you riled up like a little bitch lol
Lenin talked about the heights of the economy. Had trotsky eon he would have continued the nep.
>>2581334The gang of four at the very least wanted to treat China as a DOTP and try to transition to socialism again after the cultural revolution failed. Dengism was just a managed transition to capitalism and it strikes me as odd that everyone here shits on Gorby but when China is living his goals most MLs seem to love it and keep posting quotes from books they didn't read to justify everything the PRC is doing at any given moment
>>2581225
imagine blaming the tourists instead of local and international owners who profit off of them and you.
>>2581413>A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?>^this is the repudiation of anti-authoritarianismWell done, you proved can read to some degree. But only to some degree. This is not a total rejection of anti authoritarianism, but more a statement on the necessity of authority for revolutionary bodies. This is not an excused for all brands of authority. Capitalist authority will be opposed.
>these are the 3 types of "anti-capitalist" which fail to be communistAnd yet none of them match my description. Honestly, I think the last two could be more applicable to you than me.
>>2581415I have quite a few problems with him, but my main problem is that people like to give him a strange precedence over Marx and Engels that I personally find unacceptable.
>>2581427What a weird way to look at history and the class struggle anon
>>2581427Marx and Engels were just inspirational figures to lenin.
>>2581429My opinion is the exact opposite of yours.
>>2581431That is clear to me. The glazing is not.
>>2580376Even in a fully communist society without class,state, or currency something similar to a stock exchange will exist,just not for private ownership.
>>2581434No it will not. In a fully communist society there is no need for labor or scarcity hence the stock exchange would bd useless. Maybe if its a videogame or sonething.
>>2581432Why do you find the precedence so unacceptable anon? Basically the only reason you even care about Marx and Engels is because of Lenin and the Bolsheviks and they were only able to do what they did because of Marx and Engels. Seems odd to get hung up on precedence
>>2580404what do you mean trading is restricted at night except for porky? Are you referring to illegal under-the-table trading?
>>2581454at least here in america, our bourgeoise pour money into dark pools to secretly execute after hours trade. a feature exclusive to porky as they get info hidden from the public
>>2581447>Why do you find the precedence so unacceptable anon?Because I find it weird, suspicious, and nonsensical. The OG stayed true against the tests of time, so why is the more questionable deviation sidelining them?
>Basically the only reason you even care about Marx and Engels is because of Lenin and the Bolsheviks The only reason I care about Marx and Engels is because they’re some of the only political figures and theorists that actually makes complete sense to me without fail, which is something Lenin and his vanguard party failed to do.
>and they were only able to do what they did because of Marx and Engels. Seems odd to get hung up on precedenceIt’s really not when ideological integrity is at stake.
>>2581426> but more a statement on the necessity of authority for revolutionary bodieslike the authority the CPC has over its economy
>>2581426> Honestly, I think the last two could be more applicable to you than me.Nope. Imperial core needs to collapse into revolutionary civil war, but the sovereignty of the oppressed nations should not be challenged, and the sovereignty of the CPC in China should not be challenged. If you understood imperialism, you wouldn't cry so much about Lenin quotes.
>>2581427I asked why he was wrong, not for you to vaguely say you have "problems" with him (and not explain them)
>>2581476Hm yeah I mean you might be a super special boy who lives outside of history with his big brain that just takes in information and objectively analyzes it, who'd have been a marxist even if the bolsheviks didn't take power, but historically they are the reason it's not known as some irrelevant/forgotten minor socialist/left wing sect. The Bolsheviks proved their theories right by actually using them and changing the world, thus changing the socialist landscape forever. You still haven't explained how Lenin is wrong about anything in any way
Communism is just capitalism but with central planning. Simple as. All that shit about the abolition of class and state is just ultra leftoid Hitlerite nonsense. There is nothing more communist than The People's Stocks
>>2581490No. Like the paris commune.
>>2581493>but the sovereignty of the oppressed nations should not be challengedBut the sovereignty of the oppressed proletariat who has no homeland should?
>>2581495Mmh, yes you did. I’ll give you three big reasons as to what he fucked up on:
1.Vanguard Parties
You aren’t supposed have them period. Marx explicitly said no to communist exclusive parties, they have to be open to the worker, else you’ll end up becoming sectarian.
2.The red army
You aren’t supposed to have militas or militaries whatsoever.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htmYou will have the proletarian guard in their place. Only the proletariat can defend themselves.
3. Marx’s hope for russia
Marx explicitly hated Russia until he started interacting with the russian peasant communes.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/russia/index.htmhttps://monthlyreview.org/articles/marx-and-engels-and-russias-peasant-communes/Thanks to this interaction, he later offered the idea of a completely direct path to socialism that Lenin himself would later ignore along with the peasant councils in favor of state capitalism and vanguard parties because reasons.
>>2581496>but historically they are the reason it's not known as some irrelevant/forgotten minor socialist/left wing sectMore like part of the reason why people confuse socialism for social democracy and vice versa.
>The Bolsheviks proved their theories right by actually using themIn a liberal revolution and therefore did not actually do so.
Thank you so much for further confirmation of my fears, Leninist.
>>2581366>despite being wealthy enough I literally just explained how they arent "wealthy" on average
sure you can offer free healthcare and Im all for it (dprk and cuba despite being poor do have free healthcare), but the real service delivered to the average citizen is another matter entirely and is arguably more important than symbolic achievements such as "free healthcare" (you still pay for it, it just goes entirely through the state), and urban center have excellent healthcare but delivering the same kind of services to people lost in rural area where the first real road was built in the last 10 years is ofc gonna be vastly more expensive, and as its handled regionally rural areas have both less money and more cost and difficulties to provide the population (mostly they invest their money in infrastructure precisely because its the first thing to do to allow more people access to the services that are there).
>deliberately holds back on social services to keep wages lowthat argument sounds ridiculous when you consider its handled regionally and some have very good services, but theres actually some truth to it, its mostly a problem of the hukou system, where in effect you have internal migration where people still are registered in rural areas despite working in urban centers, and as such get inferior social services despite living and working in a place where it should be good. This does allow to keep cheap unskilled labor costs down, and reforming it would be pretty hard because then you have to find how do you not blow up the budget of the developed areas that suddenly have higher costs of labor and a lot more people to service.
Overall I'm guessing they are keeping it to keep up fast pace industrialization and development for now, and will try to reform it (and possibly handle the healthcare services under single system rather than keeping it purely regional) when growth is slowing and they start closing in on actually wealthy countries.
>>2581523>they have to be open to the workeryou're simply wrong, they were never closed to the workers, no parties were ever as big as the communist ML parties, having a vanguard doesnt mean workers arent allowed, on the contrary, but you train and educate them before giving them responsibilities. A big success of ML parties was precisely how good they were at taking random lower class people and giving them skills to have plenty of competent cadres coming from everywhere at the bottom.
>You aren’t supposed to have militas or militaries whatsoever>You will have the proletarian guard in their placewhich is literally a militia with elected leaders. And the model had to be abandoned because militias just get fucked by real militaries.
and the text you quoted is speaking specifically in the german case about the struggle against the petty bourgeois democrat (aka libs) in the direct aftermath of a successful struggle together with them against big porkies and autocrats, not in the context of an established proletarian state
>would later ignore along with the peasant councils <what are sovietsyou seem completely lost in pure ideology and conveniently forget how much marx valued real experiences, real improvement, and recommended constant adaptions to the reality rather than blindly following his advice and emphasized the "movement to abolish the present state of things" rather than "a state of affair to be established".
>>2581427>people like to give him a strange precedence over Marx and Engels <The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. even marx disagree with you
>>2581523>More like part of the reason why people confuse socialism for social democracy and vice versa. No it's the reason marxism is well known and seen as the main current of socialism to look towards.
>In a liberal revolution and therefore did not actually do soNo it was a socialist revolution, the first of its kind, which is why it's kind of a big deal historically, another liberal revolution wouldn't really be noteworthy. Your perception of marxism is actually completely discongrues with its formation as a social current in the real world. Pretty funny stuff
>>2581523damn you are getting cooked
>>2580409>>2580404Don't be a Proudhonist twat. I dislike that 90% of Chinese "proles" are real-estate speculators.
>>2581084I mean a lot of Lenin's ideas built off of Hilferding anyhow. IMO the main problem is simply that finance is inefficient compared to directly socializing labor through centralizing the bureaucracy. I'm okay with a little finance and a little indirect socialization of labor (particularly in the beginning) but too much finance just gets inefficient and is a drain on the productive forces.
>>2581547>you're simply wrongI am simply correct
>they were never closed to the workers>having a vanguard doesnt mean workers arent allowedIt is inherent to the concepts function.
>but you train and educate them before giving them responsibilitiesYou don’t need a vanguard party for that.
>A big success of ML parties was precisely how good they were at taking random lower class peopleThey are notorious for being the opposite this.
>which is literally a militia with elected leaders. No, it is not. The proletarian guard is less formal than a militia. And he has already the importance of arming the ENTIRE proletariat, making the idea of a “worker militia” utterly meaningless.
>the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers.>And the model had to be abandoned because militias just get fucked by real militaries1. We’re not in the business of making militias so this is completely untrue
2. Unconventional warfare exists
>and the text you quoted is speaking specificallyBut not restricted to
>you seem completely lost in pure ideology and conveniently forget how much marx valued real experiences, real improvement, and recommended constant adaptions to the reality rather than blindly following his advice and emphasized the "movement to abolish the present state of things" rather than "a state of affair to be established".…Ironic considering you based this literally on nothing in reality.
>>2581565>No it's the reason marxism is well known and seen as the main current of socialism to look towards.You think too highly of yourself Leninist, and it’s become a serious problem.
>>2581565>No it was a socialist revolutionWhatever helps you sleep at night. The only reason it’s noteworthy is because it is a revolution won by self proclaimed socialists, not that it was actually socialist.
>>2581555>even marx disagree with youYou couldn’t even quote right. That’s about philosophers just musing about shit instead of being more practical and material with their thinking. That has literally nothing to do with this conversation.
>>2581574By what metric? You’re just saying shit dude.
>>2581586>You think too highly of yourself Leninist, and it’s become a serious problem.Weak response, I'm simply illustrating the rise of marxism as a social current. No need to cope about it so much
>Whatever helps you sleep at night. The only reason it’s noteworthy is because it is a revolution won by self proclaimed socialists, not that it was actually socialist>Not muh "real" socialism Always sad to see a self proclaimed materialist be such an unselfaware idealist
>>2581609>Weak responseAn appropriate response to someone who needs to be ego checked.
>I'm simply illustrating the rise of marxism as a social currentAnd yet, in attempting to do so, you have instead insulted the core theories for the communist ideology in the process, along with demonstrating the estrangement of Leninist ideology and it’s spin off’s from Marx’s and general communist thought.
>Not muh "real" socialism Weak response. And I mean that truly. You can get the same exact response from your average 4channer, and I find that to be a very curious thing.
>such an unselfaware idealistA weak tack on to an even weaker response.
>>2581618>An appropriate response to someone who needs to be ego checked.My ego and its need to be checked are completely irrelevant, this is cope
>And yet, in attempting to do so, you have instead insulted the core theories for the communist ideology in the process, along with demonstrating the estrangement of Leninist ideology and it’s spin off’s from Marx’s and general communist thought.How so? I didn't really make any statements on the theories of communism
>Weak response. And I mean that truly. You can get the same exact response from your average 4channer, and I find that to be a very curious thing.>No uEmbarrassing
>A weak tack on to an even weaker response.My framing of your argument is sufficient when that's what your argument boils down to. Try to justify your position more concretely next time and you won't receive simple retorts to simple arguments
>>2581627>My ego and its need to be checked are completely irrelevantVery incorrect. It has greatly colored this conversation.
>How so? I didn't really make any statements on the theories of communismOh but you did. You’ve already implied that Marx’s could not stand on their own, and that they require Lenin.
>EmbarrassingYou didn’t address the point after the “no u”. Why do you sound like a 4channer?
>My framing of your argument is sufficient when that's what your argument boils down toOh it does? Really? Show exactly where.
>Try to justify your position more concretely next time and you won't receive simple retorts to simple argumentsMore ego to go with the ego.
>>2581638>Very incorrect. It has greatly colored this conversationNo not really, that's just your little cope to try and personalize this neutral conversation
>Oh but you did. You’ve already implied that Marx’s could not stand on their own, and that they require Lenin.That's not what I implied at all
>You didn’t address the point after the “no u”. Why do you sound like a 4channer?Oh I'm not addressing it because it's another baseless assertion/insult that's not really worth replying to. I don't think I sound like a 4channer at all and I think it's really weird to try to use it as an insult or whatever you're trying to do lol. Probably projection on your part
>Oh it does? Really? Show exactly where. When you said that the Bolsheviks are noteworthy for claiming to be socialist, not for being "actually socialist"
Are you not following the conversation or what?
>More ego to go with the egoSimple arguments produce simple retorts my man. Again, ego is irrelevant
>>2581665>that's just your little cope to try and personalize this neutral conversation It’s really not.
>That's not what I implied at all
>boy who lives outside of history with his big brain that just takes in information and objectively analyzes it, who'd have been a marxist even if the bolsheviks didn't take power, but historically they are the reason it's not known as some irrelevant/forgotten minor socialist/left wing sect. The Bolsheviks proved their theories right by actually using them and changing the world, thus changing the socialist landscape forever. >No it's the reason marxism is well known and seen as the main current of socialism to look towards.>Oh I'm not addressing it because it's another baseless assertion/insult that's not really worth replying to.Oh it’s not baseless in the slightest. You can go check right now even, and you’ll get that response, I guarantee it. There is no projection here, you literally just said something 4channer tier. And even by itself, it is such an empty response, you’re lucky I even bothered to address it this seriously.
Like seriously:
>Not muh "real" socialismWhat the fuck am I going to do with this?
>When you said that the Bolsheviks are noteworthy for claiming to be socialist, not for being "actually socialist"Oh no sweetheart, that’s not it. You said an outlandish and baseless ego statement, and I responded in kind. You never provided the evidence for Marx needing Lenin to stay relevant and known. And now you want try to get petty over your own fuckup.
>Simple arguments produce simple retorts my man. Oh yes, I agree. Unfortunately for you, the retort you tried to move past by is not so simple.
does china have a capitalist class that profits from exploited wage labour? would a socialist society permit this?
>>2581523>he later offered the idea of a completely direct path to socialism that Lenin himself would later ignorebecause the situation in the 1910s was way different than when Marx died in 1883
>>2581523>In a liberal revolution and therefore did not actually do so. The February revolution was a liberal revolution, one which the US supported.
The October revolution was a proletarian revolution, one which triggered the international bourgeoisie so much that they invaded with a coalition of 14 nations to kill it in its cradle, and they fucking failed.
>>2581680>It’s really not.Well it seems to be, i didn't bring in any personal arguments, it was you who brought up ego and whatever else. Unless you're saying it's my tone that brings in the ego, but I would say that's more of a you issue.
>The things that are supposed to prove I implied Marx and Engels cannot stand on their own and requires lenin.It makes sense you don't understand. Im simply saying that it is Lenin and the Bolsheviks that popularized and made Marxism historically relevant, in actual history. They were only able to do this because Marxism is correct, independently of them. Hope that cleared up the situation.
>Oh it’s not baseless in the slightest. You can go check right now even, and you’ll get that response, I guarantee it. There is no projection here, you literally just said something 4channer tier. And even by itself, it is such an empty response, you’re lucky I even bothered to address it this seriously.Idk I haven't been on 4chan in years, from what I remember they'd mostly just talk about how Marxism is a jewish thing, idk where this idea of yours comes from that 4channers are Leninists, or that they would say that the pontification of "real" or "actual" socialism is idealism, or how this 4chan comparison is relevant and not just more cope
<Not muh "real" socialism>What the fuck am I going to do with this?Reflect on how your arguments are basic and dumb?
>Oh no sweetheart, that’s not itBut you did say that, which implied that you don't believe it was real socialism (that's what actual socialism means)
>You said an outlandish and baseless ego statementWhat statement? That you only care about Marx and Engels because of the Bolsheviks? It's most likely true tho, before them they were a relatively small sect, I mean marx himself had only died a couple decades before that and there was no practical reason to elevate him over any other socialist theorist and especially no reason to view him as the grandfather of the communist movement. He and his theories were just one of many.
>You never provided the evidence for Marx needing Lenin to stay relevant and known. And now you want try to get petty over your own fuckup.Well that makes sense because that wasn't my argument. Marxism doesn't "need" Leninism, it resulted in Leninism, which in turn solidified the relevance of Marxism to the entire world. Also the argument we're having is stupid, Im not going to go digging through sources and neither are you. How about you just engage and try to actually argue your position instead of this pointless and embarrassing posturing lol
>Oh yes, I agree. Unfortunately for you, the retort you tried to move past by is not so simple.Bruh and you're here talking about my ego? Lmfao get off it broski
>>2581771The situation was not sufficiently different for deviation from the original idea
>>2581773>The October revolution was a Majority peasant revolution with some proles sprinkled in that ultimately led to a liberal Russia
>>2581850good job cutting off the rest of what I said and ignoring it
>>2581850Actually the Bolsheviks were majority proletarian and the october revolution was a revolution of the peasants and proletarians, that's why their symbol has both a hammer and sickle on it. Unfortunately the USSR was eventually defeated and dissolved, but still they were the longest lasting and most advanced experiment in socialist construction, proletarian dictatorship and revolution in history.
Hope that clears things up for you <3
>>2581830
You should use opera instead of chrome or firefox as it is owned by a Chinese megacorp so all your data will be owned and sold by proletarian managers
I have a feeling that you can't be anti-dengist without critizicing all other Warsaw pact countries. Like East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland had firms that weren't publicly traded, but had join-stock ownership. For example the SDAG Wismut was a 50% German and 50% Soviet joint-stock company.
>>2581846>Well it seems to be, i didn't bring in any personal arguments, it was you who brought up ego and whatever else. Unless you're saying it's my tone that brings in the ego, but I would say that's more of a you issue>Hm yeah I mean you might be a super special boy who lives outside of history with his big brain that just takes in information and objectively analyzes it, who'd have been a marxist even if the bolsheviks didn't take powerStop coping
>Im simply saying that it is Lenin and the Bolsheviks that popularized and made Marxism historically relevant, in actual historyAnd I am simply saying that’s egoistical Leninist bullshit
>They were only able to do this because Marxism is correct, independently of themIt was also popular and international independently of them.
>Idk I haven't been on 4chan in yearsI find that hard to believe, but sure
>from what I remember they'd mostly just talk about how Marxism is a jewish thingThey do that too
>idk where this idea of yours comes from that 4channers are LeninistsThat isn’t what i’m saying. It’s not an idea either. They this exact phrase:
<muh "real" socialism>or that they would say that the pontification of "real" or "actual" socialism is idealismThat’s easy to answer. If socialism hasn’t been tried, none of the accusations stick.
>or how this 4chan comparison is relevant Because you gave me the same exact fucking brain dead response they gave me, and expect me to treat it like its some cosmic revelation Reflect on how your arguments are basic and dumb?
>Reflect on how your arguments are basic and dumb?I’ve reflected, and I've come to the conclusion that my arguments are in fact not basic and dumb, and that you are still a fucking dumbshit for posting this 4channel tier crap regardless of the reason.
>But you did say that, which implied that you don't believe it was real socialismYeah, I did. And I didn’t imply, I said it.
>(that's what actual socialism means)No the fuck it isn’t.
>That you only care about Marx and Engels because of the Bolsheviks? Exactly that Leninist.
>It's most likely true thoThat’s complete bullshit
>before them they were a relatively small sectAt one they were small (they were never a sect)
>I mean marx himself had only died a couple decades before that and there was no practical reason to elevate him over any other socialist theorist He is the literal OG
>especially no reason to view him as the grandfather of the communist movement.He is the literal OG
>He and his theories were just one of many.He lived a very unique and interesting life, and his theories were objectively correct.
>Well that makes sense because that wasn't my argument>That you only care about Marx and Engels because of the Bolsheviks?U serious m8?
>it resulted in LeninismIt threw up Leninism by accident
>which in turn solidified the relevance of Marxism to the entire worldThe relevance of Marxism never needed solidifying in the first place.
>Bruh and you're here talking about my egoYes we’re talking about your fucking ego. You have the fucking audacity to treat the literal fucking communist OG himself as some fuck off random shitty dime store author so can glaze your revisionist successful liberal revolutionary even harder.
>>2581853I agree
>>2581861>Actually the Bolsheviks were majority proletarian The leadership was, support was not.
>and the october revolution was a revolution of the peasants and proletariansleaning peasants.
>>2581334Do you understand that when prices fall (deflation) so does the price of labour power?
>>2581904<Hm yeah I mean you might be a super special boy who lives outside of history with his big brain that just takes in information and objectively analyzes it, who'd have been a marxist even if the bolsheviks didn't take power>Stop copingSure I did call you a special boy, but hidden in there is an argument about us all being connected by the thread of history and that your interest in Marxism is invariably interlinked with Leninism, no matter how much you claim it to be a result of your pure logical reasoning "they’re some of the only political figures and theorists that actually makes complete sense to me without fail, which is something Lenin and his vanguard party failed to do." as you said.
>It was also popular and international independently of themNowhere near to the extent that it was after the Bolsheviks took power lol, get real. Just think about it like a fucking materialist man. Think what a state like the USSR can do for the prominence of Marxism as a school of thought, for its global relevance, translation and distribution of the works, etc. They had whole institutions dedicated to this shit dude.
>That isn’t what i’m saying. It’s not an idea either. They this exact phrase:><muh "real" socialismThis is an anonymous imageboard like 4chan, people use the "muh" formatting all the time. I wouldn't know how much they still use it on 4chan, again I haven't gone there in years. You seem to spend quite some time there however, seeing as you're so concerned about it
>That’s easy to answer. If socialism hasn’t been tried, none of the accusations stick.Im not asking you to answer it, your answer is dumb, the response would be that any attempt at socialism would result in said accusations. Im saying retards on 4chan don't care about socialism "real" or otherwise to consider these things or have this kind of discussion about it and so your contemplation on said 4chan likeness is a completely irrelevant cope on your part.
>I’ve reflected, and I didn't reflect at allShame
<you did say that [it wasn't actual socialism], which implied that you don't believe it was real socialism>Yeah, I did. And I didn’t imply, I said it<that's[real socialism] what actual socialism means>No the fuck it isn’t.?
>Exactly that Leninist.>That’s complete bullshitNo it isn't, why are you taking this so personally? Lmao
>At one they were small (they were never a sect)So pedantic. Yes they were not a "sect", but they were a small and obscure current in the mostly western left.
>He is the literal OG>He is the literal OGAnd in a lot of ways that is because the bolshis you despise so much made him that way my man. They were naming streets after him and erecting statues in his honor. But yeah none of that probably had any effect at all on your understanding of the man, you're above such things.
>He lived a very unique and interesting lifeMany people did lmao, this means nothing
>and his theories were objectively correct.I agree
<That you only care about Marx and Engels because of the Bolsheviks?>U serious m8?Yeah that's not the same argument as claiming Marxism "needs" Leninism in some kind of way objectively, maybe some other people in some other country could have led a revolution as Marxists, but as it stands in the real world that revolution was the one with Lenin. I'm saying it's relevant to you through Lenin and the Bolsheviks because that is what objectively happened in history.
>It threw up Leninism by accident idealism
>The relevance of Marxism never needed solidifying in the first place.What do I even say to this? Who cares about what you subjectively think "needs" to be or not be solidified?
>Yes we’re talking about your fucking ego. You have the fucking audacity to treat the literal fucking communist OG himself as some fuck off random shitty dime store author so can glaze your revisionist successful liberal revolutionary even harderWhat's with the weird binary thinking and veneration? Also the weird insistence on Marx "being the OG" lmfao? I would never claim or imply Marx to be some dime store author. His work is of tremendous significance both historically and as a works of theory in their own. The question is thought, why would you ever want to look at something through such a narrow scope, as in a theory "in it's own" while claiming to be a fan of Marx's work?
>>2581909Both the leadership and the organization itself was mostly proletarian. Of course support and the revolution at large leant towards the peasants, but they were also the vast majority of people. They couldn't have done basically anything without the proletariat and the communist party. It's imo a bit pointless to get in the weeds about it too much, like are we gonna compare percentages and stuff?
>>2580452Honestly I dont even care about socialism and shit I just want to see China win
>>258037699% of Dengists/MLoids simply do not care about these facts.
You have to understand these people have convinced themselves China can undertake any hyper-capitalist actions it wants to, just so long as China claims it's for the good of improving the infrastructure and material conditions of China.
You see, China simply needs to utilise the people's landlords and the people's billionaire CEOs who are "revolutionaries on the economic front" in order to generate enough power to finally press the magic "transition to socialism" button.
They believe China is too poor, weak, and underdeveloped to have a socialist economy yet. "Just keep waiting! The time isn't yet ripe!" they will cry for centuries more to come if they can have their way.
The hard truth is that Dengist capitalist roaders won power over the CPC and ever since the notion of a socialist economy is just portrayed as a distant utopian ideal to sing about in songs, rather than a realistic goal to gradually move towards.
Who even fucking cares at this point 😔, I’m at the point why America is so fucking dystopian with its mass-social-murder and late stage capitalist that even if china was a social democracy (Which it’s not, I don’t agree with you) I would support it over the US.
Very funny how as soon as Japan starts building new military bases right off of Taiwan and threatens a invasion of China, all of these Western Leftists break out in unified chorus about how evil China is, how it's actually not real socialism, how it needs to be overthrown, and so on. Very coincidental Im sure!
>>2582010>Sure I did call you a special boy, but hidden in there is an argument about us all being connected by the thread of history and that your interest in Marxism is invariably interlinked with LeninismStop coping
>Nowhere near to the extent that it was after the Bolsheviks took power lol, get realI am getting real. You overstate the importance of the Bolsheviks greatly.
>Think what a state like the USSR can do for the prominence of Marxism as a school of thought, for its global relevance, translation and distribution of the works, etc. We live in that reality already. The answer was very little.
>They had whole institutions dedicated to this shit dude.And now those institutions are ancient history to their former citizens have become ever more reactionary since it’s collapse.
>This is an anonymous imageboard like 4chan, people use the "muh" I said that exact phrase. Not just muh. That exact phrase, muh included.
>your answer is dumbNo u
>the response would be that any attempt at socialism would result in said accusationsWith a lack of historical weight behind them. The usual accusations won’t work so well on a more freshly presented communism.
> Im saying retards on 4chan don't care about socialism "real" or otherwise to consider these things or have this kind of discussion about it Well, they do. And I already told you that you can see for yourself, quite easily even.
>and so your contemplation on said 4chan likeness is a completely irrelevant cope on your part. Stop coping
>ShameStop coping
>?I am not surprised by your confusion.
>No it isn'tYeah, it is. Your little mythology about Marx being some random Hobo in a sewer until god king Lenin himself decides to uplift him into the heavens didn’t happen Lenoid. He wasn’t some global giga superstar, but he was far from irrelevant.
>why are you taking this so personally? LmaoEverything is more personal than it seems Lenoid.
>but they were a small and obscure current in the mostly western left.Were
>And in a lot of ways that is because the bolshis you despise so much made him that wayHush with the bs. He was OG before they were even in diapers.
>They were naming streets after him and erecting statues in his honorThat ain’t shit
>But yeah none of that probably had any effect at all on your understanding of the manUnironically yes.
>Many people did lmao, this means nothinghe lived a interesting life in relation to communism, which many people didn’t.
>revolution was the one with LeninNuh uh
>I'm saying it's relevant to you through Lenin and the Bolsheviks because that is what objectively happened in historyIt’s not
>idealismNot what that means
>What do I even say to this? Nothing.
>Who cares about what you subjectively think "needs" to be or not be solidified?You.
>What's with the weird binary thinking and veneration?Wake up, cause that isn’t here
>Also the weird insistence on Marx "being the OG" lmfao?You have the weird instance of him not being an OG
>I would never claim or imply Marx to be some dime store author. Not explicitly
>His work is of tremendous significance both historically and as a works of theory in their own. Yeah
>The question is thought, why would you ever want to look at something through such a narrow scope, as in a theory "in it's own" while claiming to be a fan of Marx's work?I don’t though
>>2582011>Both the leadership and the organization itself was mostly proletarianTrue.
>the organization itself was mostly proletarian. Of course support and the revolution at large leant towards the peasants, but they were also the vast majority of people.True
>They couldn't have done basically anything without the proletariat and the communist partyStill more peasant than anything though.
>like are we gonna compare percentages and stuff?Absolutely not.
>>2582023I'm not an American or Chinese but let's say *hypothetically* for the sake of arguement that both were capitalist super powers.
One is openly funding genocide in the middle east and preparing for another big oil war, while allowing millions of its citizens to be homeless, be in medical debt, die from lack of healthcare and from mass shootings.
The other one forces people to use VPNs to get online and also gets kinda butthurt about some artificial islands or something?
Neither are great, but one is pretty objectively worse both domestically and globally.
>>2582025It is in fact possible to have nuanced opinions on things. It isn't black and white, China vs the West. 3rd Worldism is extremely stupid and reductive. No, we don't need to shut off our brains and give uncritical support to any state.
In fact, it's both possible to criticise China's ecomomic policies and oppose US-backed military presence off the coast of China. Wow, crazy!
Plus I don't see a single person calling to overthrow China. It is not realistic nor beneficial for the Chinese people at all. The best outcome is a more left wing faction of the CPC arises and takes power.
>>2582029>Stop coping Nothing to cope about, sorry you took such offense to my cheeky phrasing
>I am getting real. You overstate the importance of the Bolsheviks greatly. But you're not getting real at all, you seem to think that the Bolsheviks were completely irrelevant to the spread of Marxism
>We live in that reality already. The answer was very little. Ridiculous. A rejection of the facts of the matter.
>I said that exact phrase. Not just muh. That exact phrase, muh included.So? Again it's a common way to paraphrase an argument so if you're using the same dumbass arguments about real socialism on other anonymous imageboards you're going to receive the same sort of phraseology. I feel like Im talking to a retard having to explain this to you
>No uYou have yet to establish that
>With a lack of historical weight behind them. The usual accusations won’t work so well on a more freshly presented communismYeah nothing that lives entirely in your head can be accused of anything happening in the real world that's true, but that doesn't really matter because it's a refutation of reality. Even retards on 4chan seem to be easily able to call you out on this cope, which is probably why you are so bothered and bringing them into this conversation
>Well, they do. And I already told you that you can see for yourself, quite easily even.I have no desire to refamiliarize myself with that place, you can have it
>Stop coping >Stop coping Projection
>I am not surprised by your confusion.please explain rather than posture <3
>Yeah, it is. Your little mythology about Marx being some random Hobo in a sewer until god king Lenin himself decides to uplift him into the heavens. He wasn’t some global giga superstar, but he was far from irrelevant.I already agreed His work stands on its own friend, you're arguing with figments of your imagination. I already stated that the bolsheviks were only able to do what they did because of the validity of Marx's work, which of course they were also not the only ones tuned into lol.
>Everything is more personal than it seems Lenoid. Meaningless posturing
>WereYes that is what I said, we already went over what happened after that
>Hush with the bs. He was OG before they were even in diapers.So?
>That ain’t shitNo I think it's actually quite significant and being only the tip of the iceberg if anything. Sound like a lot of coping on your end friend.
>Unironically yesUnironically cringe if you actually believe this lol
>he lived a interesting life in relation to communism, which many people didn’tNo there's still thousands of people at least who fit that category
>Nuh uhAlright, where's your socialist revolution? Can I see it?
>It’s notYou deny history
>Not what that meansIt is, you are an idealist.
>Nothing.Then why say it friend?
>YouNo Im not interested in knowing that at all
>Wake up, cause that isn’t hereIt is, your vision is very black and white
>You have the weird instance of him not being an OGNo, it's not weird because I've never heard somebody repeating being the OG in relation to Marx this many times. It's clearly something you have a particular interest in
>Not explicitly Nor implicitly
>YeahGlad we agree, now no more coping
>I don’t thoughThat is what you argue for, you seek to divorce Marxism from its history
What Chinese stock should I buy to become porky in a few years?
>>2582056>>2582029make another topic retards
>>2581084he also praised him in comparison to eg kautsky
>>2581416nah they still would be they would just make up arbitrary early marx late marx bs like they already do
>>2581476The only difference between Marx and Lenin is the material conditions. Lenin = Marx.
As capitalism experiences a crisis of profitability, two things can happen. Either the concrete members of the bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie and professionals surrender to monopoly capitalism by allowing themselves to be cannibalised by monopolies and/or seeking employment from these monopolies. What is technically counted profit is really from the standpoint of the economy as a whole functions as monopoly rent. This is primarily facilitated by stock markets in our day, where value flows from the real economy to the fictitious economy and monopolies.
The other option is a socialist revolution. This has already happened in China. The Chinese government holds a huge stake in the economy and has the political power and will to nationalize companies that seek to turn into monopolies. This is described by President Xi as the fight against "the disorderly expansion of capital". Look at how Jack Ma's attempts to break the state monopoly on banking was handled or how the recent real estate crisis where the companies responsible were forced to take the fall instead of getting a bailout and allowing their monopolistic behaviour to continue.
The Chinese stock market does not facilitate the outflow of value from the real economy. As a whole it doesn't appreciate in value, it always stays constant. Its only function is to force companies to be accountable to the general public, as the ratio of small investors is much greater and to allow people to legally gamble.
>>2582106>The only difference between Marx and Lenin is the material conditions.Oh sure, if you look at literally fucking nothing about what they write or how they lived.
>Lenin = MarxDelusional
>>2582107>You aren’t supposed have them periodYeah, and that remains true completely and utterly despite what you posted. Communists can serve as a vanguard without their own vanguard party. They are supposed to do that while in proper communist parties.
>because reasons.AKA no material reason
>>2582073I’m leaving this conversation outright. Other guy is more stubborn than a mule in their thinking. All I’m really asking here is for them to step off with making their deviant leader the center of the ideology instead of the guy who made it, and they just won’t. It’s ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.
Waited several hours to post this because I was too tired to bother responding at that point. Now I’m out. This conversation sucks.
>>2582011all those peasants were proletarianized or drafted by 1939 anyway
>>2582022> hyper-capitalistwhat is "hyper" capitalism and why is a state controlled by as communist party managing a slow transition from state capitalism to socialism, just as Engels predicted would happen, somehow "more" or "hyper" capitalist compared with bourgeois dictatorships in the west, especially when that communist party first took power in relatively semi-feudal conditions? Why are "Dengoids" and "MLoids" wrong when they show you Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, all saying the same thing, that once a DOTP is in power they have to practice stewardship over a
transition at a
national level, based on material conditions they find themselves in, by using
state capital?
>>2582307Oh yeah and it was an absolute delight talking to your retarded ass, who cannot engage in basic arguments or defend their position at all, rather just gasping exasperatedly and referring to some kind of seniority that must be upheld without explaining why that matters at all. The fact that you're asking for anyone to be centered, rather than view history and the development of Marxism into the current day as a continuous whole that you are also subject to, is the problem. This conversation does suck, because you are a retard and I was stupid enough to think you might actually engage with anything being put forward instead of complain about 4chan. I'm out too, fuck you and the waste of time it was arguing with you anon
>>2582307>Other guy is more stubborn than a mule in their thinkingthe irony is palpable
>>2581449
So if communism isn't an ideology, and it isn't a state of affairs, what the fuck is it?
>>2582904Contradiction between the development of the productive forces and the mode of production.
Maoist-Bordigist Alliance (do total economic transition right now!!!) VS the Dengist-Stalinist Alliance (10,000 years of McDonalds and Stock Markets until we press the socialism button!!!) in this thread and neither side will convince the other it seems.
What does it achieve?
>>2582904>and it isn't a state of affairsA state of affairs
to be established. Communism in practice already manifests today as the proletarian association and struggle, as dormant as it is.
>>2582932There's almost no difference between Mao and Deng, lol. Mao already favored the peasantry and national bourgeoisie, what Deng did is just the inevitable conclusion.
>>2582504
>because god forbid subhuman orientals do capitalism better than the herrenvolk
Isn't that the problem? Why would a socialist not living in China celebrate Chinese capitalism?
>>2581986the price of labour power is the price of subsistence, i.e. the price needed to keep a prole alive, sheltered, and capable of reproduction, so it's good when that price goes down.
>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as "an immense accumulation of commodities
/thread
>>2595920
I'll do my part to establish socialism by trading stocks. Every time I make money by moving it around, the proletariat grows stronger
>>2596603only if you are doing that as a non western person in a non western country since as we know marxism is as conservatives think, about destroying the west but actually thats a good thing
China is in phase D of capitalism as described by Engels in Anri-Duhring
>>2597447can you summarise the phases please
>>2581493>sovereigntyIdealism to the max
>>2581344 This quote is about Taylorism not re introducing markets in an already socialist state
>>2581348>Lmao, read Marx and Engelsokay….
>To my mind, the so-called “socialist society” is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change. Its crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production. To begin this reorganization tomorrow, but performing it gradually, seems to me quite feasible. That our workers are capable of it is borne out by their many producer and consumer cooperatives which, whenever they're not deliberately ruined by the police, are equally well and far more honestly run than the bourgeois stock companies.
<Engels, Letter to Otto Von Boenigk In Breslau, August 21, 1890
>Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
<Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism, 1847
>Our theory is a theory of evolution, not a dogma to be learned by heart and to be repeated mechanically. The less it is drilled into the Americans from outside and the more they test it with their own experience […] the deeper will it pass into their flesh and blood. When we returned to Germany, in spring 1848, we joined the Democratic Party as the only possible means of getting the ear of the working class; we were the most advanced wing of that party, but still a wing of it. When Marx founded the International, he drew up the General Rules in such a way that all working-class socialists of that period could join it – Proudhonists, Pierre Lerouxists and even the more advanced section of the English Trades Unions; and it was only through this latitude that the International became what it was, the means of gradually dissolving and absorbing all these minor sects, […] Had we from 1864, to 1873 insisted on working together only with those who openly adopted our platform where should we be to-day? I think that all our practice has shown that it is possible to work along with the general movement of the working class at every one of its stages without giving up or hiding our own distinct position and even organisation […]
<Friedrich Engels, Letter to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky, January 27, 1887
>Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
>I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating—partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks, which are springing up like mushrooms this year (in furtherance of every imaginable and unimaginable joint stock enterprise), are forced up to a quite unreasonable level and then, for the most part, collapse. In this way, I have made over £400 and, now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again. It's a type of operation that makes small demands on one's time, and it's worth while running some risk in order to relieve the enemy of his money.
<Karl Marx, Letter to Lion Philips. 25 June 1864, preserved in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol. 41
>Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
>Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. The above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
>Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product. From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc. These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity. There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption. Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.
<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
>“No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society."
<Karl Marx, from the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859) Hello xibros
I see many libtubers bring up china's demographics as a big problem
What do you think? Will the declining population be a huge problem
>>2580376Does owning stocks mean that i am a capitalist
>>2616940not unless you can live off the dividensd, otherwise its just a glorified savings account
>>2616883>Hello xibros >I see many libtubers bring up china's demographics as a big problem>What do you think? Will the declining population be a huge problemno because every other place other than africa and central asia is declining as well so its a wash
>>2580376People in China usually work for bosses who own the means of production and who sell what the workers produce for profit. Markets don't just cover a few steps of the production process, there isn't just a market for consumer goods, but also for the means of production and raw materials ("allowing the market to play the decisive role in allocating resources" - Xi Jinping, Governance of China). The split between work for immediate consumption and building up means of production is not set in a plan, but by market processes. The government has some rough ideas about how the split should look like and nudges the market decisions with taxes and subsidies. I guess it isn't real capitalism from the perspective of an "anarcho-capitalist", but that form of capitalism does not and cannot exist anywhere.
"To further balance the relationship between the government and the market we need to decide which of the two is to play the decisive role in allocating resources. To boost the economy we must enhance the efficiency of the allocation of resources, especially that of scarce resources, so that we can use fewer resources to make more products and gain more benefits. Both theory and practice have proved that the allocation of resources by the market is the most effective means to this end. It is a general rule of the market economy that the market decides the allocation of resources, and a market economy in essence is one in which the market determines resource allocation. We have to follow this rule when we improve the socialist market economy. We should work harder to address the problems of market imperfection, too much government interference and lack of oversight. Positioning the market as playing a “decisive role” in resource allocation is conducive to establishing the correct notion of the government-market relationship…" - Xi Jinping, The Governance of China. I think any Marxist should be able to recognize this outlook for what it is.
>>2616880>To my mind, the so-called “socialist society” is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change. Its crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all of production. To begin this reorganization tomorrow, but performing it gradually, seems to me quite feasible.<Engels, Letter to Otto Von Boenigk In Breslau, August 21, 1890How about gradually moving, but in the opposite direction?
"Over the past two decades or so we have advanced economic and other reforms centering on the goal of establishing a socialist market economy, and realized a great historic transition from a highly centralized planned economy to a robust socialist market economy…" - Xi Jinping, Governance of China. Countless times there is the mantra about the market having the "
decisive role" (a right-wing shift from "basic role"). I haven't read TGoC part 2 yet and heard it's better, but that's some bleak shit. I did read the rest of that letter by Engels and it ends with Engels expecting quick collectivizing of big industry after gaining political power.
*Glancing over the rest of the quotes*
What does Critique of the Gotha Programme have to do with China? You believe a capitalist speculating on the Chinese stock market gets a return in proportion to his labor hours? Have you actually read those texts or this is just some copypasta?
>>2617821Already his first sentence was false, fyi.
>>2618277Like 60% of China's economy is state owned.
>>2617792>People in China usually work for bosses who own the means of production and who sell what the workers produce for profit.Wrong. Proletarians in China work for themselves. The proletarian managers who oversee vast socialized means of production and circulation on behalf of Communist society work for the proletarians.
>Markets don't just cover a few steps of the production process, there isn't just a market for consumer goods, but also for the means of production and raw materialsThe Communist market is perfect, unlike capitalist market.
>The split between work for immediate consumption and building up means of production is not set in a plan, but by market processes.Wrong. The plan is created by the Communist Party. Capitalist market forces cannot exist in Communist China.
>The government has some rough ideas about how the split should look like and nudges the market decisions with taxes and subsidies. I guess it isn't real capitalism from the perspective of an "anarcho-capitalist", but that form of capitalism does not and cannot exist anywhere.100% wrong. The Communist market is not a form of capitalism. The Communist market is planned.
>I think any Marxist should be able to recognize this outlook for what it is.Xi Jinping Thought is scientific socialist outlook of modern Communist society.
>How about gradually moving, but in the opposite direction?Communist China moves forward in great strides thanks to the Communist market. Communism without markets is not Communism.
love the communist stock exchange, keep it up fellas
>>2618449it's another "anti-dengist" projects his brain farts on the evil "dengists" thread
>Gommunism is when gobernment
>>2618455The economy of Communist China is fully planned in accordance with the primary material laws of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, ensuring that production is systematically expanded and perfected to meet the ever-growing needs of the people, free from the exploitative contradictions of capitalism.
As a result of the replacement of China's old bourgeois production-relations by socialist production-relations, the economic laws of capitalism, expressing relations based on the exploitation of man by man, cease to operate. The law of surplus-value, the basic economic law of modern capitalism, disappears from the' scene. The general law of capitalist accumulation, the law of competition and anarchy of production, together with other laws, also disappear. The categories which express capitalist relations cease to exist: capital, surplus-value, capitalist profit price of production, wage-labour, the value of labour-power, etc.
With the birth and development of China's new socialist relations of production, new economic laws make their appearance and begin to operate: the basic economic law of socialism, the law of planned (proportional) development of the national economy, the law of steady increase in the productivity of labour, the law of distribution according to work, the law of socialist accumulation, etc. The basic economic law of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics determines all the main aspects and main processes of development of the socialist mode of production, the purpose of socialist production and the means to achieve this purpose. The essential features and requirements of the basic economic law of socialism are the securing of the maximum satisfaction of the constantly rising material and cultural requirements of the whole of society, through the continuous expansion and perfecting of production on the basis of higher techniques. In socialist economy the growth of requirements (the purchasing power) of the masses is the motive force of socialist production and drives it forward. The continuous growth of socialist production is the material foundation for the steady growth of consumption by the people and the growth of new requirements. The priority development of the production of means of production is the essential condition for the continuous growth of socialist production. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics ensures the steady development of advanced techniques, essential to the continuous growth of perfecting the socialist production and the ever fuller satisfaction of the growing needs of the working people.
That socialist direct social products still possess varying degrees of commodity characteristics is determined by the level of productivity in the socialist period and by the two forms of socialist public ownership system and other material economic conditions. Since socialist products still possess varying degrees of commodity characteristics, categories related to commodities, such as use value and exchange value, concrete and abstract labor, money, price, and so forth, will certainly exist. To negate the commodity aspects of socialist direct social products and to attempt to abolish commodity production prematurely is obviously erroneous. Ch’en Po-ta, a renegade and Trotskyite, clamored for the abolition of commodity production and exchange during the period of the rapid development of China’s rural people’s commune movement in a vain attempt to lead revolution and construction astray. Chairman Mao saw through this conspiracy in time and engaged him in a resolute struggle. In the resolutions of the Sixth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party personally convened and chaired by Chairman Mao, this was pointed out: “This way of thinking which attempts to prematurely abolish commodity production and exchange, prematurely negate the constructive role of commodities, value, money, and price is detrimental to developing socialist construction and is therefore incorrect.” (4) Socialist commodity production must not only be retained, but must also be developed to consolidate the economic link between China’s industry and agriculture and between urban and rural areas in order to promote the development of socialist construction.
>>2618449>>2618486(you)
>>2618455Don't reply to him. He's either being payed to do this, mentally ill, or both.
>>2618300Yeah that's what Wikipedia says:
<State-owned enterprises accounted for over 60% of China's market capitalization in 2019https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_China(and this is their source:
https://insight.factset.com/investing-in-chinese-state-owned-enterprises"By FinChina’s definition, more than 60% of the CSI300 index (the Chinese large-cap index) by weight are SOEs.")
Anyway, this is not telling you size as fraction of jobs.
The Wikipedia article goes on (in the same paragraph) to say that SOEs
<employ between 5% and 16% of the workforce.So I don't see how this debunks post
>>2617792 saying this:
<People in China usually work for bosses who own the means of production and who sell what the workers produce for profit. >>2617792>What does Critique of the Gotha Programme have to do with China? because the vulgar marxists are lassalleans who see deductions from the wage in the chinese economy as the same as capitalist exploitation when really it's just socialism in practice.
>>2617792>To further balance the relationship between the government and the market we need to decide which of the two is to play the decisive role in allocating resources. To boost the economy we must enhance the efficiency of the allocation of resources, especially that of scarce resources, so that we can use fewer resources to make more products and gain more benefits. Both theory and practice have proved that the allocation of resources by the market is the most effective means to this end. It is a general rule of the market economy that the market decides the allocation of resources, and a market economy in essence is one in which the market determines resource allocation. We have to follow this rule when we improve the socialist market economy. We should work harder to address the problems of market imperfection, too much government interference and lack of oversight. Positioning the market as playing a “decisive role” in resource allocation is conducive to establishing the correct notion of the government-market relationship…Holy cow, that's one hell of a quote…
>>2617792>I think any Marxist should be able to recognize this outlook for what it is.What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it.
>>2618750What do you mean by this?
>>2618753Those are Marx's words from Gothakritik. State Capital exists after proletarian revolution. So does reform. So does class. Marxists have always admitted this. Marx says that the proletariat, once it has won political supremacy, wrests "by degrees" (i.e. gradually) all "capital" from the bourgeoisie. And they do this initially only at a national scale rather than an international one, hence why they confiscate the property of "rebels and emigres" who inevitably flee to remaining capitalist countries. Marx says the proletariat after it has won power should force people to work "equal liability of all to work" and should establish a "national bank" with "state capital." Are you seeing where I am going with this? Engels says the proletarian revolution will not be able to abolish private property overnight, but will probably do so gradually. Lenin says State Capitalism is a prerequisite for socialism several times, and only blockheads don't understand that.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, they all were "dengists!"
The SOE thing has always been goofy to me. Would you consider your local public utility to be run by the proletariat? Is the post office some sort of coop?
>>2618769it's about class dictatorship
SOE under capitalism = bourgeois state owned enterprise
SOE under socialism = proletarian state owned enterprise
inb4
>proletarian state?! how dare you!read Lenin
>>2618768>To boost the economy we must enhance the efficiency of the allocation of resources, especially that of scarce resources, so that we can use fewer resources to make more products and gain more benefits. Both theory and practice have proved that the allocation of resources by the market is the most effective means to this end. It is a general rule of the market economy that the market decides the allocation of resources, and a market economy in essence is one in which the market determines resource allocation. We have to follow this rule when we improve the socialist market economy. We should work harder to address the problems of market imperfection, too much government interference and lack of oversight.Does not sound like a gradual transition away from markets, but instead an embrace of them as a permanent solution.
>>2618770What makes a state proletarian anyway? It seems very abstract to me.
>>2618776You seem very abstract for me.
>>2618770How is a Chinese SOE run differently from government owned entities all over the world?
>>2618734Still, you defy Deng Xiaoping Theory. You are wrong because the entirety of China's economy is Communist. Independent proletarian enterprises are just as Communist as SOE. The Communist Party does not need to micromanage every social product. Despite your confusion, that post has already been utterly debunked.
>>2618449>>2618749This quote is 100 percent wrong because they implicate that the perfect Communist market system is itself a problem, as if the Communist Party directly distributing every single social product would be less "imperfect." Such defiance of the Communist market is Trotskyite nonsense as Mao explained
>>2618486>>2618773You never say single reason why the Communist market system is so bad, despite the fact it eradicated poverty. To all of reasonable mind who adhere to Communism, you seem to think Commumism is marketless poverty. Communism without markets is poverty. Please explicate why you think the Communist market system is so bad when you have been given so many corrections.
>>2618769Correct. The ultra obsession over SOE originates from their failurr to grasp the necessity and Communist nature of private proletarian enterprise. Private proletarian enterprise is no less Communist than SOE.
>>2618794>>2618850You ask the wrong question. You ask "How are China's SOE Communist?"
You should ask, "Why is China Communist?"
China is Communist not because of SOE, but because 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 exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated.
China also is the central producer to the products of capitalist countries and businesses.
>>2618948>>2618953It's amazing how you're able to say so little in so many words. Despite what you seem to think, angrily asserting the same thing repeatedly does not a convincing argument make. You need to actually justify your positions if you want anyone to take you seriously.
>>2618773>Does not sound like a gradual transition away from markets, but instead an embrace of them as a permanent solution.Where are you getting the permanence. It says especially that of scarce resources. They are saying that the more scarce something is the more they should rely on the market to allocate it. Thats just correct. As things become more abundant the market becomes less important. Its good to use the market to distribute scarce resources as long as the state puts up minimal guardrails to ensure they are incentived towards increasing production
right after that quote
>Our market economy is socialist, of course. We need to give leverage to the superiority of our socialist system, and let the Party and government perform their positive functions. The market plays a decisive role in allocating resources, but is not the sole actor in this regard
>To develop the socialist market economy, leverage should be given to both the market and the government, with differentiated functions. The Decision put forth clear requirements for improving the functions of the government, emphasizing that scientific macro control and effective governance are the intrinsic requirements for giving more leverage to the advantages of the socialist market economy. The Decision also makes plans for improving macro control, correctly performing government functions in all areas, and improving the organization of government. It stresses that the main responsibility and role of the government is to maintain the stability of the macro economy, strengthen and improve public services, ensure fair competition, strengthen market oversight, maintain market order, promote sustainable development and common prosperity, and intervene in situations where market failure occurs
>Second, adhering to and improving the basic economic system. The basic economic system with public ownership playing a leading role and all forms of ownership growing side by side is an important pillar of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics.
>Second, adhering to and improving the basic economic system. The basic economic system with public ownership playing a leading role and all forms of ownership growing side by side is an important pillar of the socialisSince the introduction of the reform and opening-up policy in 1978 the structure of ownership has undergone gradual adjustment, with the weights of the public and non-public sectors changing in their contribution to the economy and employment. The economy and society have grown more vigorous during this process. In such conditions, how to better recognize the leading role of public ownership and stick to this position and how to further explore the effective forms for materializing the basic economic system have become major topics for us.
>It is emphasized in the Decision that we must unswervingly consolidate and develop the public economy, persist in the leading role of public ownership, give full play to the leading role of the state-owned economy, and incessantly increase its vitality, leveraging power and impact.
>Adhering to and furthering the relevant deliberations made since the Party’s 15th National Congress, the Decision proposes to vigorously develop the mixed- ownership economy. It stresses that such an economy, with cross-shareholding by and integration of state-owned capital, collective capital and non-public capital, is important to materialize the basic economic system of China. It will help to improve the functions of state-owned capital, maintain and increase its value and raise its competitiveness. It is an effective channel and inevitable choice for us to adhere to the leading role of public ownership and improve the vitality, leveraging power and impact of the state-owned economy in the new conditions.
>The Decision states that China will improve the state assets management system, strengthen state assets oversight with capital management at the core, and reform the authorized operation mechanism for state capital. State-owned capital investment operations must serve the strategic goals of the state, invest more in key industries and areas that are vital to national security and are the lifeblood of the economy, focus on offering public services, develop important and future-oriented strategic industries, protect the ecological environment, support scientific and technological progress, and guarantee national security. The government will transfer part of the state-owned capital to social security funds. We will increase the proportion of state-owned capital gains that are turned over to the public finance, to be used to ensure and improve the people’s livelihood.t system with Chinese characteristics. >>2618958Basic ass european country
There is no reason to convince dengits they are wrong. It will be more pleasurable to watch them looking the inevitable rot of China completely clueless of what happens.
Unique IPs: 89