>adopts a market economy
>immediately begins to develop
Idk how anyone can still be a stalinist in 2026 when stalinist centrally-planned economies simply dont work and only produce dysfunctional shitholes.
Nprth Korea is doing pretty well. Also the Soviet Union did also do pretty well.
>>2738294>North Korea is doing pretty well.Lmao
>Also the Soviet Union did also do pretty well.It wouldnt have collapsed if this was actually true
>>2738284>damn, who knew massive foreign capital injection to build industry would develop the country?retard
>>2738300USSR collapse was purely political and strictly from the top, elites betrayed basically
and yes, NK is doing pretty well
retard
>>2738300USSR lasted almost 70 years and it "collapsed" because of internal sabotage, during a time they were already engaging in market reforms. And the post-USSR Russian economy collapsed when they implemented "shock therapy" that led to a massive reduction of quality of life and life expectancy.
>>2738344
Okay but the legacy of the American Civil War was the United States and also Walmart and Israel but are you going to support the Confederacy
>>2738305>USSR collapse was purely political and strictly from the top, elites betrayed basicallyAnother failure of the stalinist system where the elites and leaders of the country are chosen entirely by the already existing elites and are not accountable or beholden to the proleteriat whatsoever.
the USSR under Stalin developed even faster
>turn an agrarian shithole into a world power
>um sweaty they didn't have Pizza Hut??? checkmate
>>2738376The problem is nobody tried to emulate Stalin at all after him.
This is why you need a dynasty.
The methods have changed. What the USSR did by hand and on paper using clunky linprog algorithms can now be done in minutes by computers running the harmony method. Iterative stock adjustment and price seeking in scarce consumer goods is trivial. The only country even trying this is NK and they're too defeated geopolitically to really matter or provide any kind of good standard of living.
>>2738460stalin should have groomed an heir TBH
china developed because they took advantage of a specific historical circumstance. aka they got lucky
>>2738460crazy how much Kim jong un looks like his grandfather tbh, tho Kim Il Sung was a little bit more handsome, no shade
>>2738284Market Socialism was always the answer the NEP was literally the first economic policy of the USSR. Its just that after WW2 every international communist movement thought they needed to emulate Stalin's economic policies and they all fell into the same trap and ended collapsing when the house of cards fell apart. China and others escaped this by ditching the system (or in North Korea's case being close to someone who did). Cuba today still keeps the old Stalinist model in many areas and people literally can't get homes because of it. It was always a retarded wrong turn and it has cost us alot.
>>2738496If socialism needs to have all the same mechanics of capitalism but slightly tweaked it isn’t worth anyone’s time or sweat or blood
>>2738498Genuinely wtf is so bad about people buying and exchanging goods and services?
>>2738502Kills the community of pleasures and pains.
Also, when you do a cult of personality around a leader, it is best to form a dynasty to preserve the cult of personality and the community of pleasures and pains derived from it–for corporatist endeavors.
>>2738502That’s the status quo and the only thing it can produce is the current status quo, if you don’t like the status quo it makes no sense to advocate for markets and money
>>2738509That doesnt answer the question what exactly is inherently bad about exchanging goods and services?
>>2738511It makes the current, very bad, extinction causing status quo you moron
>>2738519Money implies scarcity which hasn’t existed in 150 years
>>2738522No it doesnt money is merely the medium by which we exchange goods.
It exists because its simply more convenient than having to barter goods directly.
>>2738527The fact that goods even need to be exchanged at all is where the vast majority of human misery originates, someone having and someone else not having
>>2738527That’s also not true because money makes money by itself with tricks like interest and speculation
>>2738532>money by itself with tricks like interest and speculationI fail to see how that matters?
>>2738533That’s how the vast majority of wealth is created, not by productive industry
>>2738531Yeah well your fantasy land doesnt and will never exist.
>>2738537And again how does that make money not the medium that we exchange goods with?
>>2738538It can easily exist, we have the resources and the machinery to do so, what we don’t have is the political will
>>2738539It’s how you exchange commodities but it’s also a commodity onto itself
>>2738540Human nature doesnt work that way
>>2738543It needs to fucking go, the vast majority of crimes are either motivated by money, or facilitated via money
>>2738544Human nature is extremely pliable, straight people will have gay sex in prison because they don’t have access to women, famers left thousand year legacies to get jobs in cities, all you need to change someone’s nature is to hold a gun to their head and the heads of people they love and they’ll do what you demand
>>2738546People robbed each other before the existance of money
Getting rid of it wont change anything
>>2738551That was because things were actually scarce and we didn’t have machinery to turn everything into anything, we have that now, anarchy of production and money are anachronisms we choose to live with because it strokes our egos and we deliberately suppress our imaginations
>>2738550Whos going to hold the gun?
>>2738567If he was actually healthy he wouldn’t be near where people would stab him, it’s his fault for not getting out of the way
More like a healthy person wouldnt have shot himself in the foot.
>>2738527The idea that early humans started out bartering is contradicted by basically all modern anthropology. Instead, communities exchanged goods according to need need, and as a form of gift or social favor to be indeterminately reciprocated as apart of an ongoing relationship. Go read Debt by David Graeber.
Obviously that kind of system of exchange is not really scalable, but what seems highly plausible through technology to craft a democratic system to coordinate production and distribution according to social need rather than market forces. The last time this was attempted was Cybersyn, but sadly Allende was ousted by a CIA-backed neoliberal military dictatorship. Other more primitave democratic and decentralized systems of distribution have been tried, but IMO technology will be necessary for any kind of transition away from the dominance imposed on us by market logic.
>>2738537In the US and imperial core, there has been in increase in growth driven by speculation but this it's pretty ridiculous to claim that productivity hasn't increased over time with globalization and the transition to our post-industrial information age.
>>2738578>Go read [] David Graeber<In fact, “communism” is not some magical utopia, and neither does it have anything to do with ownership of the means of production. It is something that exists right now — that exists, to some degree, in any human society, although there has never been one in which everything has been organized in that way, and it would be difficult to imagine how there could be. All of us act like communists a good deal of the time…. “Communist society”… could never exist. But all social systems, even social systems like capitalism, have been built on top of a bedrock of actually-existing communism.No I don't think I will
>>2738284All the independent infrastructure that was used in China's state capitalism when capitalist relations were restored was created during the Maoist period, so you are wrong. This can only be done with mass expropriation and socialization of the economy. By restoring capitalist relations, China took advantage of state capitalism to pursue profit interests, acquiring technology and using industries domestically, while other countries deindustrialized with neoliberalism and the financialization of their economies.
The so-called "Stalinist" economies are correct and should be forcibly implemented in all countries, with violence being used against all who resist.
>>2738488>china developed because they took advantage of a specific historical circumstance.is there another way to develop?
>>2738284>>adopts a market economy>>immediately begins to developfundamental attribution error. they developed because they industrialized. the adoption of a market economy was just to trick the burgers into outsourcing all manufacturing jobs to them. it worked. one step backwards two steps forward
>>2738600What's your issue with that quote?
>>2738666he disagrees, and if a book has a paragraph or a chapter you disagree with, you should not read it.
>>2738660To have an independent national industry, you can carry out a socialist revolution by carrying out mass expropriations, abolishing private property and production for profit, and planning the economy. All the industries and dams built in China that were used in the capitalist restoration came from the Maoist period. Furthermore, the development of a sovereign national economy, as demonstrated in all revolutions that socialized the economy, provides guaranteed employment for the population, education at all levels, independent industries, a guaranteed public health system, public transportation, leisure, community, food sovereignty, etc. This is already enough for workers, rather than worrying about production for profit by selling goods. Only in this way can workers of all nationalities develop equally, industrializing together, acting rationally together without exploiting each other because they don't follow the logic of profit. Therefore, what can be replicated in all countries to develop is a socialist revolution to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat, which will socialize the economy.
>>2738483he was but then he got assassinated and his stupid chud protege suslov was too socially awkward to get his hands dirty
>>2738666It reduces communism to a vibe and/or personal characteristic and claims communist society could never exist.
I don't have particular interest in reading anticommunists
>>2738670I always look up what people have to say about communism to decide if I will take them seriously or not. Graeber did not pass the check, sorry bro
I don't think a single one of you motherfuckers has read Marx or knows anything about the history of China, but the reason why China embraced a market economy is because it's in line with a pretty basic understanding of dialectical materialism as well as Mao's observation that you must apply the principles of Marxism to the unique conditions of a particular country at its stage of development. in the case of China, which was one of the poorest and most underdeveloped countries on earth, its unique conditions were essentially a pre-capitalist society that needed to pass through that stage of developing its productive forces in order to able to then transition to socialism, and Deng's and Chen Yun's theories were essentially to do this in a way that both controlled the excessive, destructive tendencies of capital and also could steer the economy in strategic directions, letting the state control certain areas of the economy that don't need to be developed while still allowing for the market to exist and have a limited degree of freedom.
the Chinese system is essentially the wuwei counterpart to the Soviet model, which is very typically western in its hyper-rationalist fixation on total control, and if you get into Chinese philosophy in general there's an argument to be made that Daoists contemplated for thousands of years that wuwei is superior to rationalism because yin is more primary than yang. but either way, it's still questionable to what extent the Chinese system is applicable to the rest of the world and it would be a gross misinterpretation of Mao & Deng's theories to try to universalize it. I still think it's pretty self-evident by China's meteoric rise that their interpretations of Marx are simply more correct and practically useful than western Marxism and that more western communists should be reading Mao, Deng, Chen Yun and engaging with Chinese culture and philosophy since we're soon going to find the situation has been reversed and it's the west that is the underdeveloped part of the world. in fact I'd argue the US is already in that position but no one realizes it yet because we measure the wealth of a country in terms of fictitious, speculative finance capital that is basically a form of propaganda.
>>2738684>you can carry out a socialist revolutionto do this you have to take advantage of a specific historical circumstance
>>2738693It can both be true that when Marx described communism that he was referring to a society where coordination, production, and distribution is socialized after proletarian revolution. That's not what Graeber is talking about here, he is an anthropologist and looking at this from a bottom-up rather than top-down perspective. I take it to mean he is talking about the kinds of behaviors we all participate in that facilitate communistic social relations. While clearly limited by our class system, most of us participate in mutual aid (informally or otherwise) that help us in ways that our state-run social safety net does not.
>>2738745>when Marx described communism that he was referring to a society where coordination, production, and distribution is socialized after proletarian revolutionYes, as well as the process that actualizes that society
>That's not what Graeber is talking about hereI know, that's why I don't care to read him
>he is an anthropologist He is a liberal
>looking at this from a bottom-up rather than top-down perspectiveFalse dichotomy
>I take it to mean he is talking about the kinds of behaviors we all participate in that facilitate communistic social relationsThat would be actions that facilitate proletarian revolution, that is not what he's talking about. He's talking about sharing is caring or some shit
>While clearly limited by our class system, most of us participate in mutual aid (informally or otherwise) that help us in ways that our state-run social safety net does not.That's fine, but that can describe a bunch of unrelated nonsense like church funded charity drives. Just don't call it communism
>>2738693>It reduces communism to a vibe and/or personal characteristicthis part of the quote:
>>2738600>It is something that exists right now — that exists, to some degree, in any human societyis compatible with Marx when he defines communism as the real movement that abolishes the present state of things, communism in this sense is nothing but proletarian organization and association and it that sense its already an actual reality and forms of it have indeed existed always
the fact that you call him anti-communist for this its hilarious
>>2738752>is compatible with Marx when he defines communism as the real movementIf you ignore everything else sure
>communism in this sense is nothing but proletarian organization and association That is not what he's talking about
>the fact that you call him anti-communist for this its hilariousThank you, I try
>>2738744You prepare the masses by organizing the workers and building forces with the communist movement through the formation of dual power, where, with the intensification of the class struggle, you will be preparing the workers so that, in the environment of a revolutionary situation, the communist revolution can take place. If there is no preparation, there will be no revolution when the crises of the bourgeois state lead to a revolutionary situation. This type of historical circumstance is much more replicable than present-day China, which, by using state capitalism after the restoration of capitalist relations, uses what was created during the Maoist period and takes advantage of the fact that other countries were financializing themselves with neoliberalism, which was deindustrializing these countries, so that China could become a global manufacturing center while acquiring and developing its own national technology to pursue profit by selling goods on the market, taking advantage of the interests of capitalists worldwide, something that other capitalist countries avoided or considered taboo for ideological reasons. The conclusion is that state capitalism is superior to private capitalism, and for any country to industrialize with an independent sovereign economy, a socialist revolution will be necessary to socialize the economy if you don't want to be a deindustrialized neocolony controlled by finance capital or dependent on other countries and other peoples becoming neocolonies for finance capital.
>>2738600This quote is fucking great, it means the seeds of communism are already embed in the normal behavior of most working-class people. You see someone in need, your instinct is generally to help them if you aren't a bourgeois psychopath. I find it funny how the most radical "anti-liberal anti-revisionist" "communists" are always the ones who distrust the proletariat to do the right thing. They want to a top-down Hobbesian bureaucratic state to tell them what to do and how to do it because deep down inside, they think most proles are fundamentally evil morons. In ten years, the petit-bourgeois instinct of these "radicals" will tell them to join the new fascist-liberal wave of the day for "the greater good", it's the new Trot-to-neocon pipeline.
>>2738704>Deng's and Chen Yun's theories were essentially to do this in a way that both controlled the excessive, destructive tendencies of capital and also could steer the economy in strategic directions, letting the state control certain areas of the economy that don't need to be developed while still allowing for the market to exist and have a limited degree of freedom. >the Chinese system is essentially the wuwei counterpart to the Soviet model, which is very typically western in its hyper-rationalist fixation on total controlThis is a very interesting way of conceiving the modern trajectory of China. Also it's a very rare mention of Chen Yun here, who was in the shadow of Deng but as important as him
in fine, if not more, because he wanted to be curb the "destructive tendencies of capital" with state intervention even moreso than Deng. China from the 1980s to the Xi era was a West East.
I still think modern China is fundamentally capitalist, but the Chinese state is better at managing capital than the crude neoliberal states of Western countries. When it became unfashionable to use strict state intervention into the economy and common affairs for the Western intelligentsia, due to various factors (e.g. end of Keynesianism, collapse of the USSR, …), the CPC still followed that way of managing society, because, let's face it, neoliberalism also involve a lot of state intervention, but in a more diffuse way, while China is more unshamedly honest about it.
Also, the West has a really hard time to be shape-shifting officially, officials (and also radicals!) want to embody great Enlightenment values, and when they fail, they want to double down on their failure, they can't face cognitive dissonance. We can see it in Iran right now. Self-reflection and self-criticism is really hard for Westerners. While I would say China seems much more pragmatic, "whatever works, works", you know? And it's also pretty obvious when you look at how the "will of the people" has worked in China throught its history: people will put up with hard rules and any kind of oppressive government, until all hell breaks lose and things drastically change. If thousands need to die for this change to happen, it will.
I think the Chinese government is very aware that they need to play a delicate balance between the interests of capital and the interests of common people because when workers are furious in China, they really don't joke around.
I would also mention that a lot of Westerners don't realize at the same time how eerily similar modern China is similar to the West for the average worker, practically, in terms of business, unemployment statistics and so on; but how also daily life is more chaotic, while remaining safe. Huge crowds and motorbikes driving unto the pavement are absolutely normal.
There is a lot of historical and pragmatic factors that make what currently China is today, and I think it would be mistake to either try to impose our grand failing Enlightenment ideals on them, but also on the contrary to strictly try to apply the Chinese model onto the West. Just look and take notes, and focus on the class struggle where you are if you want to make a real change.
>>2739071 (me)
Fuuck by "West East" I meant "Wild East" lol
Ending the NEP was Stalins biggest crime and an actual case of destructive ultraleftism. I never understood how none of his successor reintroduced it, the Soviet elites brain cristallized after the great patriotic war i think.
true. the reason the dengist world outside of china was prosperous before china became dengist was precisely because they were dengist. one might say that dengism ended history.
>>2739071China is capitalist but capitalism is a mode of production that is unavoidable. The are quickly making huge steps in automation in and are on the road to actually manifesting the next mode of production which is communism. The goal of all Leninist states was to accelerate the advance of the world towards communism. Its quite obvious at this point that a mixed economy directed by a well disciplined communist party is the best way to do this. This is the reason why China has surpassed us as being the states most advanced in capitalism was because their political system allows for it.
>>2739209The traditional justification for Stalinist's was that ending the NEP was necessary to industrialize Russia to fight against western intervention and later the Nazi's. Now whether or not this is true it doesn't justify Stalin purging Bukarin and ending any chance of the USSR going back to the NEP once the war was done. After the purge the only people left were self-interested bureaucrats who were more concerned with keeping their cushy jobs than being communists. Which is why they eventually ditched communism and looted the state to make a profit in the end.
>>2739262Boo hoooo hooo muh bukharchikerino boooo fucking hooooo
The biggest problem with the Maoist periods was not having good growth and production rates but a lot of instability.
>>2739258it is not capitalist. it is dengist.
>>2739319its biggest problem was that it wasn't dengist
>>2739325Dengism wouldn't have worked in the 1950s or 1960s. It needed Central Planning to get the country back on it's feet after hundreds of years of severe chaos and mismanagement by the Qing and KMT then WW2.
Dengism was the correct path post-industrialization to start training the now urbanized proletariat into more high skilled work.
"When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract"
>>2738348>1990>stalinist systemidiot
>>2739414The political system under stalin hadnt changed at all.
>>2738502some autistic man from germany wrote a book on why its bad 150 years ago
>>2738284>when stalinist centrally-planned economies simply dont work and only produce dysfunctional shitholes.The cope is that USSR and China were not dogmatic enough in following the teachings of the holy Marx. Material conditions evolve and theory should evolve with it.
That said the new 5-year-plan of China has will have only a modest 5% GDP growth target. China has exhausted its advantages of cheap labor force. Capitalism is becoming a burden instead of something to take advantage of.
>>2739868>That said the new 5-year-plan of China has will have only a modest 5% GDP growth target. China has exhausted its advantages of cheap labor force.Nah they're just undergoing demographic collapse same as every other developed nation
>>2739883>China has exhausted its advantages of cheap labor force.Nah they're doing just fine in the third world
https://archive.is/Bqjqt >>2739933I aint clicking that shit.
>Idk how anyone can still be a stalinist in 2026 when stalinist centrally-planned economies simply dont work and only produce dysfunctional shitholes.
stalin did nothing wrong lol, USSR was the fastest growing economy and was barely affected on great depression besides selling grain
>>2738755>If you ignore everything else sure nothing else he says contradicts that
>That is not what he's talking aboutit is, you are just too dumb or too contrarian to see it
>Thank you, I tryI respect that
>>2739936>barely affected on great depression besides selling grainHard to be affected when you barely even have an economy in the first place
>>2739936>USSR was the fastest growing economyModern China beat this in the 90's. Besides economic data during Stalin's time is highly untrustworthy.
>>2739209Wrong. The NEP has lasted too long and only served to allow the more prosperous peasants to try to create a civil war in the Soviet Union in order to restore capitalist relations with imperialists abroad, attempting to pit the rural peasants against the urban proletariat. The so-called kulaks attacked and sabotaged the poorest peasants to create dependency for them through debt and intimidation, trying to corrupt the peasant people's councils. You are merely an apologist for capitalist relations and will be punished as a counter-revolutionary if you continue spreading this lie. Planning the economy without profit must be implemented by force and with violence against those who deny collectivization and socialization. The socialist production system is superior to state capitalism, private capitalism, and small peasant production and should not be driven by profit in any way.
>>2738284>centrally-planned economies simply dont workThe USSR's initial five year plans resulted with the highest mass-industrialization rate and growth of output in world-history, which was also reflected to the Soviet armanent production during the Eastern Front where USSR alone outproduced the entirety of Axis, and were second in the overall production in the world after the USA which was already fully industrialized and safe from the war.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/02/04.htmI would suggest this very cool read from Stalin for some reference talking about the 5yr plan
>We had the first condition: the "objective" possibilities for fulfilling the plan. But we did not have in sufficient degree the second condition: the ability to manage production. And precisely because we lacked the ability to manage the factories, the plan was not fulfilled. Instead of a 31-32 per cent increase we had one of only 25 per cent.>Of course, a 25 per cent increase is a big thing. Not a single capitalist country increased its production in 1930, or is increasing production now. In all capitalist countries without exception a sharp decline in production is taking place. Under such circumstances a 25 per cent increase is a big step forward. But we could have achieved more. We had all the necessary "objective" conditions for this.[…]
>Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and to lose its independence? If you do not want this, you must put an end to its backwardness in the shortest possible time and develop a genuine Bolshevik tempo in building up its socialist economy. There is no other way. That is why Lenin said on the eve of the October Revolution: "Either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced capitalist countries.">We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall go under.>That is what our obligations to the workers and peasants of the U.S.S.R. dictate to us.>But we have yet other, more serious and more important, obligations. They are our obligations to the world proletariat…And they could catch up to the Western nations, which would take a half hundred year, in a decade or two!
>>2739972>Besides economic data during Stalin's time is highly untrustworthy.It is the officially calculated data as well used by the economical planners. Any untrustworthy data would hinder the process of the economic planning and is undesirable for all the parties collecting and introducing the data. Soviet economic reports are valid ( and must be valid and reliable ), because it is not something you'd desire to fake, this thing happened in the PRC during Great Leap Forward.
>>2740130 (me)
Also PRC is one of the most stable, technologically advanced places to live life with proper welfare and with some structure of top-down economic control & management, but 25-40% of their workforce is still employed in agriculture, it is still not close to what had been achieved with the rapid industrialization and mechanization in the USSR.
>>2739936cool, wonder how its going nowadays..
>>2740290Dengism is a betrayal of maoist principles since it actually works.
>>2740306There are no chinese principles, mercenary people
>>2739209Continuing what I posted here:
>>2740009I forgot to mention that the NEP in the Soviet Union had the function of giving an advantage to the transition from isolated small-scale peasant production to encouraging peasants to produce in cooperatives together, following the logic that state capitalism is superior to private capitalism and isolated small-scale peasant production lacking technology. The means of production developed with state capitalism would prepare the isolated peasants to work together to initiate socialist production with economic planning without following the logic of profit. Remember that state capitalism has the same problems as private capitalism, with profit causing instability in society that will lead to the formation of false consciousness among reactionaries and liberals giving wrong answers to the problem.
All this follows Engels' text on what to do with isolated peasants in the following quote:
<We, of course, are decidedly on the side of the small peasant; we shall do everything at all permissible to make his lot more bearable, to facilitate his transition to the co-operative should he decide to do so, and even to make it possible for him to remain on his small holding for a protracted length of time to think the matter over, should he still be unable to bring himself to this decision. We do this not only because we consider the small peasant living by his own labor as virtually belonging to us, but also in the direct interest of the Party. The greater the number of peasants whom we can save from being actually hurled down into the proletariat, whom we can win to our side while they are still peasants, the more quickly and easily the social transformation will be accomplished. It will serve us nought to wait with this transformation until capitalist production has developed everywhere to its utmost consequences, until the last small handicraftsman and the last small peasant have fallen victim to capitalist large-scale production.
<Engels 1894: The Peasant Question in France and Germany, Part 2: Germanyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/ch02.htmThis has nothing to do with wanting to increase wealth by selling goods in the market, which some are trying to invent here, including you.
Now let's begin with this quote from Lenin on what all countries should do immediately upon assuming power in a communist revolution:
<Infinitely stereotyped, for instance, is the argument they learned by rote during the development of West-European Social-Democracy, namely, that we are not yet ripe for socialism, but as certain “learned” gentleman among them put it, the objective economic premises for socialism do not exist in our country… “The development of the productive forces of Russia has not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible.” All the heroes of the Second International, including, of course, Sukhanov, beat the drums about this proposition. They keep harping on this incontrovertible proposition in a thousand different keys, and think that it is decisive criterion of our revolution… You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?
<Lenin, “Our Revolution” (1923)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/16.htmLenin reiterates that it is feasable and necessary to implement measures of proletarian state-control, which is not socialism, but a step towards it:
<Under no circumstances can the party of the proletariat set itself the aim of “introducing” socialism in a country of small peasants so long as the overwhelming majority of the population has not come to realise the need for a socialist revolution.
<But only bourgeois sophists, hiding behind “near-Marxist” catchwords, can deduce from this truth a justification of the policy of post poning immediate revolutionary measures, the time for which is fully ripe; measures which have been frequently resorted to during the war by a number of bourgeois states… the nationalisation of the land, of all the banks and capitalist syndicates, or, at least, the immediate establishment of the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, etc., over them… which are only steps towards socialism, and which are perfectly feasible economically.
<Lenin, The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution (1917)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/ch09.htmLenin also realized that in order to transition to socialism it was necessary to create a collective agriculture sector. He said in 1923, talking about agricultural co-operatives:
<As a matter of fact, the political power of the Soviet over all large-scale means of production, the power in the state in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured leadership of the peasantry by the proletariat, etc, …is not this all that is necessary in order from the co-operatives – from the co-operatives alone, which we formerly treated as huckstering, and which, from a certain aspect, we have the right to treat as such now, under the new economic policy – is not this all that is necessary in order to build a complete socialist society? This is not yet the building of socialist society but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for this building.
<Lenin, “On Cooperation” (1923)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm Discovered today that China doesn't have a wealth or inheritance tax. Even the Economist was amazed
>>2740536Almost like they’re liars who don’t believe in anything
>>2740556>>2740536Like they dont have harsher measures than socdem reform taxes.
>>2739209>Ending the NEP was Stalins biggest crimeStalin consolidated his power by abolishing NEP. He used more fanatical members for personal gain.
>>2740009>Wrong. The NEP has lasted too long and only served to allow the more prosperous peasants to try to create a civil war in the Soviet Union in order to restore capitalist relations with imperialists abroadCompletley unfounded, give me once piece of evidence for this that isn't a memoir or NKVD edited bullshit.
>>2739262>>2739209Everything you say is wrong. Socialization of agriculture (ending nep) was necessary to end cyclic famine caused by kulak.
>>2740783I never stated otherwise, China is now a developed, industrial capitalist nation.
>>2740793Wrong. China is Communist. In Communist China, the exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production is complete. All systems of exploitation of man by man are abolished. You are epstein.
>>2740793Ah, I agree then. Although imo It's more mixed economy than purely capitalist, only because they subsidize quite a bit of the raw materials needed for production
>>2740810Put a cock in your mouth
>>2740812>Although imo It's more mixed economyIf we go down this path every single country in the world is a mixed economy. There needs to be clear boundaries for this categorization.
>>2740821Lassalle did nothing wrong + Marx was a bum.
>>2740821>Le China is Le fascistretarded
>>2740834>Fascism is when white supremacy!!!!Retarded
>>2740834Oriental mode of production
>>2740839Fascism doesn’t exist and has never existed
>>2740839>Bringing up white supremacy out of nowhereretarded
>>2740844China has a fascist economy, ask the milliona of Chinese that are exploited by corporations.
Chinese girls are underrated btw
>>2740849Name a single aspect of “fascism” that wasn’t first done by either Napoleon or a Latin American caudillo, you can’t
>>2740855Industrial production of commodities
>>2740857British did that first
>>2740861Neither Napoleon or LatAm Caudillos were Bri'ish
>>2740864Argentines are crypto brits
>>2740865What???? Argentinians are Italians
>>2740819>>2740812There is no such thing as mixed economy. China is Communist because working people control all raw materials.
>>2740814You are bourgeois imperialist sexual deviant. Stop sexually harrassing me. You are epstein.
>>2740857Read stalin theory on socialist commodity production.
>Read Stalin
Kill yourself
>>2740870You wish I was epstein, I’m worse, you’ll beg for your death
>>2740856Chinese Jews control the CCP btw
>>2740885Who cares, same is true of the KMT and the DPP
>>2740871You really are a fascist
>>2740885Chinese jews sodomize your mother every night.
China is revisionist. I support them but let's not beat around the bush and pretend they're Marxist-Leninist like they say they are.
>>2741010oh yeah they went from 12 weeks of life expectancy to the biggest industrial power in the known universe but hey, they're not
true marxist-leninist, who cares about labels motherfucker i wanna ride bullet trains not be in your stupid imaginary boys club of pure communists
>>2741019>the biggest industrial power in the known universe Liberal tier accomplishment
>>2741021You are proudhonite
>>2741019China is pure Communist. The exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production is complete. All systems of exploitation of man by man are abolished.
>>2740603what are those harsher measures that would make up for distributive taxes? China is unironically a low-tax country without an inheritance tax or universal healthcare
>>2741040>The exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production is complete. All systems of exploitation of man by man are abolished.Then it shouldn’t even exist then, because those are the exact conditions in which causes a dictatorship of the proletariat to dissipate
>When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection; as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon our present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from these, are removed, nothing more remains to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary. The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not "abolished". It dies out. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase "a free people's state", both as to its justifiable use at times by agitators, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency [117]; and also of the demands of the so-called anarchists for the abolition of the state out of handhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm >>2741028Trying to see your point of view, how is that not impressive? I don't see how it's a "liberal-tier" accomplishment?
>>2741065Communists do more than just mere industrialization. Any liberal state can industrialize. Communists ensure industry is not privatized by an upper class.
>>2741065communism doesnt intend to edvelop industry, bro, we just want to make art and poetry in our bookstore with gluten free bagels and almond milk latte
>>2741068<as a class>posts individualslearn2read
>>2741061Yeah and what if you're a millionaire not in real estate, tech, or private education? More to the point, where's the redistribution? What was the benefit to the working class when Jack Ma's IPO got cancelled? He's free to pass his billions to his kids *tax-free*
>>2741081Thank you anti-CIA department
>>2741055The exploiting class has been eliminated and reformed into working peoples. The proletarian dictatorship is threatened by epstein imperialist who want to destroy it, so it remain proletarian dictatorship.
>>2741068You take the assets which independent proletarian managers of means of production operate as if it were capitalist private property. You are wrong. In China, the independent proletarian managers of vast means of productions do not operate capitalistically. Proletarian managers of vast means of production earn Communist wages that are planned in accordance with principle material laws of socialism production. Capitalism cannot exist in China because wages under the socialist system are fundamentally different from wages under the capitalist system. Under the capitalist system, labor power is a commodity. Wages are incomes for the sale of labor power. They embody the relations between the employer and the employee, between the exploiter and the exploited, existing between the capitalist and the worker. Under the socialist system, workers are masters of the state and the enterprises. Labor power is not a commodity. It cannot be sold to themselves. Wages are no longer a transformation of the value or price of labor power. They are a form of state distribution of personal consumer goods according to the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor.”
>>2741068>no female proletarian managerwhy is China like this
>>2741111China learned from the mistakes of the USSR. It won't happen again
>>2741118by adopting a market economy?
>>2741104>The exploiting class has been eliminated and reformed into working peoples.Then it should not exist.
>>2741137Among other things yes
>>2740915revisionists tend to be like that
>>2740915I love when people ignore material reality and focus on beig pure blooded purist communist that want to belong to a group with labels such a marxist-leninist or revolutionary instead of seeking for a viable way to emmancipate the working class according to current objective reality
>>2741265I don't think it's ignoring material reality to wonder why the people's republic has a stock market
>>2741148Exploiters do not exist in China
>>2741357The Communist stock markets nurtures Communist labor attitude by allowing workers to voluntarily redistribute their own earning into the greater socialist enterprise, putting socialist construction above selfishness, elevating them to master of production.
>>2741443>corpo speak gibberish Let's put a pin and this and circle around back to it.
Why does China allow foreign investors?
Communism is when you break your back making plastic bullshit and get a 401k
>>2741462The workers exploit foreign capital by using their dictatorship over means of production to exploit foreign investors, revolutionizing the forces of production and enriching workers
>>2741443>The Communist stock marketsyou lost me there.
What is next? the "People's Billionaires(tm)"?
>>2741265>>2741443>>2741516JEWISH NEGRO ALERT
>>2741036You are a NEPsteinite pedo.
>>2741539I will explain. Communist stocks allow workers to volunarily redistribute their own earning back into socialist production in exchange for deferred labor voucher claim of future aggregate product. In Communist stock market, Communist state enterprise has leading role. Communist stocks are not certificate of exploitation, Communist stocks are planned production and consumption of social aggregate product. Communist stocks market is democratic mass-line planned production.
>>2741415Then China should not exist
>>2741539There are no "billionaires" in Communist China. "Billionaire" is social relation specific only to imperialism. 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. There are proletarian managers of vast means of production who, as a class, draw income thousands of times less personal income than their imperialist form.
https://www.yicaiglobal.com/news/senior-exec-pay-slumps-at-chinese-listed-firms-in-2023-for-first-time-in-20-years-report-says The chairman of biotech firm WuXi AppTec, Li Ge, a "billionaire", was the highest paid executive with a salary of CNY41.9 million (USD5.7 million). To equate these proletarians who manage vast means of production with imperialist ceo billionaires is to fail to grasp distinction between socialist manager and capitalist exploiter.
DEATH TO REVISIONISTS, BUKHARINISTS AND RIGHT CAPITALIST ROADERS
UP THE BANNERS OF MARXISM-LENINISM AND MAO ZEDONG THOUGHT
>>2741712You are revisionist who fails to grasp Mao Thought. 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.”
>>2741745
This is same as when imperialists say "xi is a multitrillionaire" because because the party controls everything. The asset belong to the people, not the manager. You fail to grasp scientific understanding of socialist relation.
>>2741745
Also Forbes,
>Mortality rate notwithstanding, what's more disturbing is how these mega wealthy souls met their demise. According to China Daily, 15 were murdered, 17 committed suicide, seven died from accidents and 19 died from illness. Oh, yes, and 14 were executed. (Welcome to China.)
>I don't know about you but I find it somewhat improbable that among such a small population there could be so many "suicides," "accidents" and "death by disease" (the average age of those who died from illness was only 48). I'm only speculating but the homicide toll could really be much higher.
Also Marx,
>The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.
>No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.
They are harvesting capitalism’s productive power, while avoiding capitalism’s political hegemony. Thus, the logic of capital is tactically deployed, but the logic of socialism (planning, class leadership of the proletariat through the Party) still hegemonizes the system. This led to CATL, Unitree, BYD, Deepseek, etc which will help develop the new quality productive forces (AI, Robotics, renewable energy and the coming 4th Industrial Revolution) so the relations of production can eventually change. The bourgeois become their own grave digger as Marx predicts. Eventually, mass unemployment from automation severs the link between labor and value creation central to capitalism as AI becomes more capable of automating cognitive, physical, and logistical labor. If labor is no longer the source of value, if abundance becomes the norm, if centralized coordination replaces markets, it then becomes historically necessary for the relations of production to transform in order to match the new productive reality. That's because trying to fit this level of productive power into capitalism is like pouring molten metal into a wooden mold, it breaks the form.
Deng never liberalized the superstructure. China has a Leninist state apparatus where the CPC monopolizes political power along with a cadre system where political officials must study Marxist Leninism.
The bourgeoise cannot buy media companies as media companies are state owned.
The bourgeoise cannot buy elections through liberal democracy.
The largest banks in China are state owned. The party directly appoints the people and internal CPC committees guide major decisions. 98% of finance is state-controlled in China. China has also implemented a salary cap for employees at state owned financial institutions.
While China does have a stock market, its economy does not rely on the stock market and gets financed primarily through state bank loans and government funding. The loans and funding are set through five year plans that shape industrial policy and set strategic direction, often through "policy banks" that do not care about profit and will take reasonable losses to to achieve social ends.
In China, the heights of the economy are state owned. Sectors like aerospace, airlines, aluminum, architecture & design, automotive, aviation, banking, chemicals, coal, engineering, forestry, heavy equipment, gold, grain, heavy machinery, intelligence services, iron, materials, metallurgy, mining, non-ferrous metals, nuclear energy, ocean shipping, oil, pharmaceuticals, postal services, rail, salt, science and technology research, ship building, silk, steel, telecoms, travel and utilities are monopolized by the state.
For private companies with more than >100 employee count, China has special golden shares to exert control. This allows the CPC to secure secure board seats and veto powers to override key operational decisions.
China has what are known as 'economic development zones' where foreign capital is permitted. These come in provincial and state level varieties. Currently, there are over a hundred different economic development zones, but the fact remains that the Chinese government chooses exactly where each zone is, and therefore directly influences the flow of capital into the country. In this sense, Capitalism and billionaires are allowed, although generally controlled, because the CPC is trying to build up their productive forces. But this is not without consequences or hostility to the bourgeois class. According to Forbes, China executed 14 billionaires in a period of 8 years.
The corollary question is, has the working class benefited from the Communist party? Yes. Wages have been increasingly annually at 12%+. Per capita disposable income went up 22.8 times in the last 40 years. Life expectancy has surpassed the US. They've reduced pollution: annual deaths from air pollution in China peaked in 2013 and are now below 1990 levels. Suicide rates were high in the 1990s but a 2016 WHO report shows that has dropped significantly and China now has among the lowest suicide per capita in the world. Professor Paul Yip at the University of Hong Kong said "no country has ever achieved such a rapid decline in suicides." And 800 million people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. The CCP has a 92% approval rating of their government according to a Harvard study.
>>2741911In China, there is no bourgeoisie. The exploiting class was eliminated.
>Capitalism and billionaires are allowedWrong. Read
>>2741104 >>2742019
You dont even pretend to care about workers when you attack Communism. You are epstein
>>2742015Is Elon Musk, who manufactures and sells cars in China, bourgeois? What's the difference between how Elon does business in China vs how he does it anywhere else on the planet?
>>2742052Inside China Elon Musk constitutes proletarian manager subordinated to dictatorship of proletariat. Foreign imperialist capital gets compelled to produce aggregate social product to the people, channel social product into socialist accumulation under public land ownership without forming any domestic exploiting class relation, transfer cutting edge means of production, unlike unrestricted private accumulation Musk exploits elsewhere on planet.
>>2742098>Inside China Elon Musk constitutes proletarian manager subordinated to dictatorship of proletariatIn China, billionaire Elon Musk is considered part of the proletariat? When people speak of the views of the Chinese proletariat, these include their millionaires and billionaires?
>>2742098is….is this bait or retardation?
>>2742485wrong. communist is china.
>>2742478Outside Communism, Elon is bourgeois. Inside Communist China, elon is reformed manager who submit to the workers and their system, always working towards redemption and reformation by hand of the Party . There are no "billionaires" in China.
Unique IPs: 71