/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2674141
Socialism just refers to governments that attempt to address the social question so yes, dirigisme is socialism albeit a liberal perversion. If you're implying China however is dirigist because you've gotten it in your head that communism means no capitalism then you're just a genuine retard

Let’s be real, China never left the Oriental mode of production

>>2674140
Hello I'm CEO of the global south™️ and I want Chinese investors (rapists) who were brought in by US imperialists out of my country.

Thank you for your attention on this matter!

>>2674129
I did read Marx and Lenin, China is not a DOTP

>>2674304
Correct, it is a Dictatorship of the Whole People, which in practical effect empowers the most numerous class, the Proletariat.

I appreciate the fact that denglets only way to make neolib shithole China socialist is by changing the definition to fit every other neolib shithole

Can't believe these "people" were taken seriously few years ago.

>>2674133
china has actually come out of poverty and mass starvation to one of the most powerful and prosperous civilizations in the world, socialism turned illiterate peasants literate, increased the life expectancy of the country.

what happened in china over 100 years can only be said to be an economic miracle, but since it's not perfect yet (due to the real limitations of world capitalism )retards like you want to find an 'alternative'

was he dengist

>>2674419
>what happened in china
was not socialism lol

>>2674136
No anon, you are just stupid

>>2671760
>The USSR failed as a political experiment exactly because of its internationalist nature
I agree with everything else, but the USSR else failed precisely because it lacked internationalism. Its rigid socialist system was incompatible with third world countries, which tended towards developmentalist state capitalism. The only way it could support its allied nations is by giving by sending aid like weapons, blueprints and technical advisors. All of it had to be produced by the USSR itself, so even if it wasn't free of charge, it was necessarily limited because it could only draw from the surplus produced by Soviet workers. The Soviet Union wasn't able easily replicate its system in other countries. The vast majority of socialist revolutions were imposed directly by the Red Army or were made in alliance with the Red Army. Both of these types of revolutions happened after WW2, meaning that is an empirical fact that the Soviet Union was only able to compete with the West in terms of military power. It's also clear that direct material aid and in the case of Eastern Europe military occupation didn't create loyal allies. The leaderships of Warsaw Pact countries instantly defected to NATO after Gorbachev "let them go". If USSR had found a way to advance deep economic integration with third world countries by partially modifying its system to be more like them, the national bourgeois of these countries wouldn't have been so ready to submit to CIA anti-communism. If we try to measure the decline of the USSR during the Cold War in terms of their internationalist engagement, the trend clearly anticipates someone like Gorbachev coming to power in the end. First Khruschev withdraws advisors and material support from China resulting in the Sino-Soviet split, then secret meetings in the early '80s announce the coming end of practically free Soviet oil supplied to the Warsaw Pact. Gorbachev concludes everything by declaring that communism failed because it failed to overtake the West in total isolation. Well, what if we changed the rules of the game? What if socialism isn't supposed to isolate itself from the world? This is the line of thinking China follows and China is winning.

>>2674482
his system was a good system from an isolated perspective, the problem is that this is invalidated by the fact that it was done under american occupation and in the service of american imperialism, as the point of dialectics is that in the last instance analysis should concern the system as a whole, not only parts of the whole, and in the case that higher level contradictions contradict lower level contradictions, the higher level contradiction always overrides the lower level contradiction

>>2674111
This post >>2674513 also applies to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has a massive welfare state, large public sector and it is definitely a good place to live. A dialectical analysis shows that the kingdom is still 100% capitalist because as a producer of strategic commodities it is one of the strongest pillars of American financial hegemony. The public sector in the KSA depends on debt recycling. Much of the Chinese private sector is small entreprises that depend of infrastructure investment by SOEs.

>>2674513
> it was done under american occupation and in the service of american imperialism
tbf it looked like his system was going to a more independent direction. But then he got shot and then south korea stopped all independent attempts shortly after…..
huh interesting how he got shot right around the time when he became more independent

>>2674501
>The leaderships of Warsaw Pact countries instantly defected to NATO after Gorbachev "let them go".

Because all of the nationalist projects of easten european countries were specifically built in their opposition to the Russian identity. Poland, Slovenia, the Czek Republic, etc… All of those countries specifically used the image of "russian ocupation" to engineer their newfound nationalistic projects. The most effective way to counteract such tendencies would have been to create a single unified national identity and state structure within the soviet project itself and do away with the minor national identities which aren't useful since they don't help with generating cohesion among the working class.

>>2674534
The reason why South Korea was able to adopt state-led developmentalism as a poor post-colonial nation is because the US allowed it. If it didn't coincide with the strategic goals of American imperialism, it wouldn't have existed in the first place. From a broader, grand-historical view the primary contradiction always overrides the secondary contradiction, even if it doesn't seem so at a particular moment in time. This is what is meant by an exception that proves the rule.

>>2674548
Or maybe they shouldn't have been made close allies of the USSR. Finlandization would have been enough for all of Eastern Europe. If the Soviet Union thought that the confrontation with the West will be fought militarily, why not just station troops there and force the already existing capitalist class to say nice things about the USSR, if it's only military power they are scared of? It's not like a socialist country can't sell out to Western imperialism through loans for example, Yugoslavia showed this very early on. They should have behaved like a good capitalist, cut their losses and prefered methods that don't hurt their bottom line that help to achieve strategic goals, like making long-term non-predatory investments in third world development (this was impossible due to the exclusivity of state and collective enterprise).

>>2674576
Tbf the USSR actually tried to withdraw its troops from Hungary and Romania. Hungary didn't agree, but Romania did and it become the only Eastern European country besides the USSR itself where socialism had to be overthrown violently.

>>2671766
Dengoids love national socialism!!!

>>2674551
that is fair

Reminder that chomsky thinks autism score race science is real

>>2674654
Ashkenazi supremacism is one hell of a drug + he's a glowie (look into what he was working on during the 50s and 60s)

genuinely the most liberal coded statement i've ever seen. the USSR failed because of capitalistic market reforms and liberal political reforms. please read a book op

>>2674576
They weren't simply "made close allies". Countries like Ukraine, Belarus, Khazakstan, etc… were all part of the former Tsardom of Russia that in principle Moscow could have administered directly. And Western Europe was a set of conquered territories earned through costly battles in WWII. The USSR had full control of all of these territories by the end of the war and they could have annexed and russified them (establish the education systems that teach the russian language alongside local languages under a secondary status, reform the administrative system, unify the state under direct control from Moscow); instead the USSR structured itself as a coalition with multiple national identities. This was its downfall.

>>2674668
>the USSR failed because of capitalistic market reforms and liberal political reforms

The USSR had to undergo these reforms exactly because it didn't had a private sector and it's industry was over-centralized and only effective when it came to military production. The types of consumer goods that genuinely improved the standards of living for people in the west simply weren't available in the USSR.

China underwent a similar process of opening up its markets and it experienced unprecedented economic growth and massively improved the standards of living for it's previously impoverished population. The issue is not the markets, the issue was the lack of political centralization. If you retain direct control over the financial sector and you discipline the capitalist class, then markets become an almost exclusively beneficial aspect of your nation.

>>2674682
Those famous photographs of people waiting long lines just for bread and empty super markets all come precisely from the Perestroika era. The USSR stopped being socialist when Stalin died

>>2675155
>Those famous photographs of people waiting long lines just for bread and empty super markets all come precisely from the Perestroika era
incorrect buzzer sound
Wrong. The lines existed long before Perestroika and were a common feature in all planned economies. No one starved but people did in fact have to constantly wait at lines due to shortages of "luxury" food items like strawberries.

>>2674682
>then markets become an almost exclusively beneficial aspect of your nation.
Kek'd

>>2675246
If you cannot propose an alternative then your critique is vacuous. Leftcoms during the 20th century claimed the USSR was state capitalist. There have been no revolutions that leftcoms have ever supported. Their default state is to criticize everything while offering up no solutions. Even Marx in the Communist Manifesto proposed concrete measures (nationalize banks, nationalize industry, progressive income tax) that are derided today as state-capitalist or socdem revisionism by leftcoms.

>>2675249
>Leftcoms during the 20th century claimed the USSR was state capitalist
Yes famous leftcom Vladimir Lenin

>>2675249
>There have been no revolutions that leftcoms have ever supported.
Read a book at any time you retarded fucking pseud
https://pcint.org/07_TP/014/014_1917.htm

Westoid nazis:
>China is actually our project
<Point out it's not
>REEEE

Westoid leftcoms:
>China isn't our project
<Point out it is
>REEEE

>>2675265
Stupid thirdie

>>2675272
They're reiterating Lenin about the USSR being capitalist. If you have a problem take it up w the big dog.

>>2675272
You are fucking retarded lmao

>>2675273
>>2675277
If either of you were capable of reading, and not AI chatbots defaulting to insults, because AI chatbots are incapable of analyzing information contained within links posted on imageboards, you would both realize that every critique of China made by leftcoms today was applied in a much earlier fashion during the 20th century by like-minded individuals agitating against the Soviet Union.

>>2675280
Let's hope then, that China fails in the same manner the USSR did, so we can finally put an end to your retarded falsifier and bourgeois interpretation of marxism and class struggle.

>>2675280
So are you going to debunk Lenin on how the USSR is capitalist?

>>2675272
>>2675272
That Duna article is so nonsensical.
>Actually, all stakhanovites were fake propaganda OP
>Actually, stakhanovites were the factory bureaucracy
>No, actually, the stakhanovites were the labor aristocracy

Like, bro, at the time of the article USSR's entire state bureaucracy was like 7% of working age population while like 20% of workers were stakhanovites. The data doesn't support her view.

Also, in calitalist economies the labor aristocracy is not conditioned on superior productivit, while the stakhanovites were.

She lost all objectivity from grief and shat out this nonsense.

>>2671760
The Dalai Lama was in the Epstein pedo network. Tibetcels on suicide watch right now.

>>2675284
>Let's hope
Leftcoms described in two words lmao

>>2671760
>The USSR failed as a political experiment exactly because of its internationalist nature and because it suppressed the market mechanisms necessary for the entrepreneurship that generates economic development and social well-being.
Wrong. Ussr was not "experiment." Ussr failed because of fascist revisionist monopoly-capitalist restoration of bourgeois dictatorship and market mechanisms and categories like surplus-value. Ussr was not internationalist, but fascist empire that oppressed and exploited hundreds of millions.
>Instead of wasting resources promoting independent revolutions throughout the world, the USSR should have committed to the much wiser project of russification and centralization. It should have expanded it's sphere of influence through direct military conquest and annexation. If they had unified Eurasia under a singular national project they would have become unstoppable. They should also have allowed for the existence of markets and free enterprise, but retained control over banking and finance in order to fully and completely subject these capitalist forces to the totalizing logic of the state's developmental project.
You are fascist
>This is why China succeeded where the USSR failed. This is also why China will become the undisputed hegemon of the next world order; it is inevitable.
Wrong. China is not capitalist. That is why China succeeds. Hegemons are abolished in Communist camp.
>>2674089
There is no sarcasam

>>2675267
BBC

>>2676884
Yes you are built for BBC

>>2676874
>China is not capitalist
Tell that to the capitalists who are going to do business there they are delighted to go there

>>2676874
>>2677374
China is in phase D of capitalism as described by Engels in Anti-Duhring. China is DOTP. The next stage after phase D is communism.

>>2678398
Quote the passage

>>2676923
I have the BBC, you have the ass
Do the math