>>2647869It's no use latams are generally allergic to theory, it's all vibes based
ultras should just wait for the eventually american socialist revolution.
American socialism will have a different character than the chinese one
>>2647830even doing that is chauvinist. I'd rather defer to the Chinese proletariat on the issue of whether they want regime change from well-meaning American "socialists" (they don't).
>>2647867>criticizing communismchina is capitalist tho
what's a latam?
China isnt socialism or capitalism, its schrodingerism.
A capitalist nation when the poster is dooming and a socialist nation when the poster is hopepilled.
>>2647881i disagree. cowboy individualists who overthrew every socialist regime know socialism better.
>>2647874>regime changeno one has even suggested this retard
>>2647855China very clearly has a capitalist economy, but this doesn't mean it has a bourgeois government or isn't engaged in some form of socialist construction.
china's basically achieved eight of the ten point minimal program outlined in ch 2 of the communist manifesto even after their retreat to the market. they liberalized their economy, got rid of equal liability to work, brought back inheritance, and they're still like a century or more ahead of the west in social organization of political economy.
>>2647882>do you absolute braindead apes realize this does not happen at all in china?fuck? really? I guess they are capitalist then.
picks up phoneHello? CIA? I need another regime change, pronto! I'll take a Double Triple No-Bossy Deluxe on a Hammer, 4x4 Mao style, extra sickles with a wheat laurel and a fist, light tank tread grease; make it sing the internationale, raise it high, and let it wave.
>>2647874we get it bro you live vicariously through others and complain you can go to another platform more your speed like instagram or facebook now
>>2647888>capitalist economyif you want accuracy you should be saying 'commodity production economy', a 'capitalist economy' implies Porky has exclusive ownership and control of surplus value and re-investment
>>2647852that framing is retarded. it is not "bait" to stop people from organizing, it is simply the mechanism by which they stop people from organizing. what are people supposed to organize around if not the immediate goal of getting ICE out? directly confronting them is kind of the only option because ICE is going to kidnap their friends and family anyway. why are you being such an obtuse retard?
>>2647882Babbys first time reading theory, so cute
>>2647897>capitalism is when bourgeoisieBut phase D? But Engels?
>>2647897I don't get why people just can't say mixed economy and call it a day like semi-feudalism wasn't already a fairly common economic system in the global south in the early 20th century.
>>2647882Why dont you read all of it and come back? As in all of gothacritic
>>2647901nobodies saying porky doesnt exist
>>2647903because then every country would be a mixed economy like brazil owning Petrobras, its a useless definition
>>2647179You’re going to end up like Winston with an attitude like that, breathlessly waiting for help that will never come.
>>2647855>china isn’t a capitalist country Even if you’re not Amerikkkan, you’re spiritually retarded like an Amerikkkan who watches fox news
>>2647179Why would anyone seek help from a nation to weak and scared to invade Taiwan and too cowardly to defend Palestinians being actively genocided?
>>2647179not worried about that, single country will be interfering with the american civil war when it starts, with foreign sponsors on every side. it'll be a global spectacle for the rest of the world to eat popcorn to, very american-like
>>2647897>a 'capitalist economy' implies Porky has exclusive ownership and control of surplus value and re-investmentNo it doesn't. All capitalist economies have classic capitalist ownership existing alongside other forms (e.g. state ownership, co-ops, etc). Private property, market allocation, generalized commodity production, and wage labour are all dominant within the Chinese economy, even if there is extensive state intervention and planning as well. Again, this doesn't mean that China is not on a path of socialist construction, but it means that currently they have not transcended the capitalist mode of production.
new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915new thread chuds
>>2647915Why do people say that Socialism in one coutry is not a thing? How come? Why tho?
>>2647917No, we’re not done in here
>>2647897state intervention is key in capitalist development and the differentiation between the bourgeois state and individual bourgeois is irrelevant considering both follow the directives of capital
>>2647906and it implies socialism is when the state does things
>>2647906I don't think the simple presence of SoEs is why it's mixed. Stuff like SWRCs,Rural cooperatives and the new employee assembly laws are what I would consider lower stage socialism in the PRC.
>>2647916>this doesn't mean that China is not on a path of socialist construction>all available evidence points to it but the opposite could still be truecopium
>>2647916you're just repeating yourself. nobody is saying there isn't elements of capitalism in China and that it doesn't have an economic base connected to capitalism, but this:
>Again, this doesn't mean that China is not on a path of socialist construction, but it means that currently they have not transcended the capitalist mode of production.is exactly what makes it not strictly a 'capitalist' country lmao
>>2647933you could say that about every capitalist country in the world
>>2647933But they’re by no means doing anything to transcend their pure capitalist superstructure, thus making them strictly capitalist.
>>2647947no. brazil is a bourgeois-led society, so its ownership of petrobras is led with considerations for bourgeois society only. China being under one-party-rule under a workers dictatorship means China is a worker-led society, so its ownership and re-investment of the means of production is led with considerations for worker society only
>>2647963thats not true at all the ccp has been doing since deng is developing capitalism even without billionaires in their party they'd still be a bourgeois party since their ruler is capital
>>2647845> just wait for china to free themI never see anyone say this that isn’t half joking. Autists can’t read between the lines.
>>2647832In the next 10 years at this rate
>>2647871theory is just vibes but more verbose
American: Collectivism le bad
Trve?
>>2647525I guarantee that hardcore MAGA will find ways to believe that trump is not dead.
Unique IPs: 22