/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2784540
Bullshit, the KMT and the CPC are essentially the same party with almost the same founders and policies, the only actual difference being Chiang was 20% more incompetent and corrupt than Mao. China exists purely to sell bullshit to westerners and enrich themselves at the expense of everyone and everything just like their brothers the westoids because their basis isn’t Marxism but Georgism through Sun Yat Sen. Mainland Middle Kingdom has the exact same problems and structures of every other eastern tiger economy, an actual DOTP wouldn’t have the collapsing birthrates.

>>2784530
>It can be sufficient only relative to the development of the totality of the means of production of the whole of society globally. Which it's currently not
In what is literally the manufacturing center of the entire world

>This is the case for the majority of the MoP in China, 60% I believe. Mostly being the big base industries.
SOEs are not the same as proletarian control over the MoP. Every other country has them. Most of Eastern Europe would be socialist by this metric.

>>2784540
China didn’t even HAVE A PROLETARIAT during the revolution

>>2784547
Socialism isn’t possible until we have star trek replicators which the bourgeois, oriental or occidental, would never allow to come to market

Imagine defending a country where children commit suicide every year because of standardized tests, this is socialism to you? This is advancement? No, it’s fucking cannabalism and crypto Zionism.

>>2784552
trvke…

>>2784530
>It can be sufficient only relative to the development of the totality of the means of production of the whole of society globally. Which it's currently not
It is literally though, Marx stressed that the lower phase of communism was already possible in the most advanced capitalist countries at that time (England, America, Germany etc…) China has a sizable bourgeoisie and yet even more sizable proletarians, they are long past that point.

>>2784544
>Bullshit, the KMT and the CPC are essentially the same party with almost the same founders and policies, the only actual difference being Chiang was 20% more incompetent and corrupt than Mao.
I disagree, that is not how civil wars and parties operate and if it were true they could have just been one party. Why didn't they do that? Are Chinese people stupid?

>China exists purely to sell bullshit to westerners and enrich themselves at the expense of everyone and everything just like their brothers the westoids because their basis isn’t Marxism but Georgism through Sun Yat Sen. Mainland Middle Kingdom has the exact same problems and structures of every other eastern tiger economy, an actual DOTP wouldn’t have the collapsing birthrates.
So for you, socialism is when high birthrates? I guess Somalia is a DotP too then?

>>2784547
>In what is literally the manufacturing center of the entire world
There's other factors that mere production alone. Things are changing of course, but they are not there yet currently

>SOEs are not the same as proletarian control over the MoP. Every other country has them. Most of Eastern Europe would be socialist by this metric
It is when you are a socialist country, ran by the communist party. These institutions have literal mandated communist party committees, which eastern europe definitely doesn't have

>>2784549
They did, just very small. Also Mao solved this issue

>>2784559
Uhh uhh uhh, the US would put sanctions on them and cancel the debt they owe China if they transitioned so uhhhh

>>2784560
If you can’t even afford to have kids in a DOTP why should anyone bother with revolution?

>>2784559
>It is literally though, Marx stressed that the lower phase of communism was already possible in the most advanced capitalist countries at that time
Odd they haven't abolished the commodity form then

>China has a sizable bourgeoisie and yet even more sizable proletarians, they are long past that point.
It's not about the relative internal size of the classes, but the relative size of the means of production seized from global capitalism.

This is a circular argument

>>2784563
? Chinese people used to be much much poorer, many millions of them regularly starved to death, they had plenty of kids.
You ever gonna address the arguments or just keep moving goalposts? Maybe the next gotcha will be the one dude

>>2784570
No one in China has had a kid since 2008, not a single one, same story as Japan and Taiwan, almost like it’s all the same bullshit. Your system is anti human just like the west. You need Islam.

>>2784573
>You need Islam
Perhaps, but I'll only take Shia or Sufi

>>2784523
>>2784532
As Engels said:
>These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.

Look, here is what the French constitution says;
>France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis.
Does it mean France is truly like this, because it was written in the constitution? I don't think so.

I can call a cat a dog, but will that turn the cat into a dog? No.

If socialism doesn't imply at the very least the application of some policies, what it is? A vibe? Why did Marx and Engels bother to write down a set of 10 measures in the second chapter of the Communist Manifesto?

China has all the hallmarks of a capitalist society, it's all in the picture posted by >>2784326, I won't bother repeating them again.
The CPC might have a different way of managing capital that is more efficient and perhaps better for workers overall (and even then it's debatable as China has been currently experiencing an economic downturn for a couple of years now, this is a more complex subject to be tackled with data and research), but at the end of the day, there is still a bourgeoisie controlling the mode of production.
Zhang Yiming (CEO of Douyin, 26th richest person in the world), Lei Jun (CEO of Xiaomi, 33th richest person in the world), Jack Ma, Liu Qiangdong or Wang Xing cannot seriously be considered to be proletarians.

This is tiresome, really. The reality is right in front of your eyes, and you could learn more about it, but you prefer to retire into your orientalist fantasies about how China is so epic and different than the West.
People like you aren't interested into understanding what is really happening in China, the good and the bad, you just have an overarching narrative and you selectively take a few tidbits there and there to convince yourself it is right.
If this is what communists are supposed to do then there won't be any communism ever.

Why would the victorious chinese bourgeoisie bother pretending to be communist? The russian ones didn't bother because they had a dictatorship of the bourgwoisie.
If they are pretending, are we implying that chinese people are so dumb that they are fooled by red flags despite their own material reality?

If the chinese state has to pretend to be communist, and satisfy the drmands of the chinese proletariat to maintain legitimacy, how is that functionally different from a dotp?

>>2784601
quotemined ragebait caca

>>2784611
>Why would the victorious chinese bourgeoisie bother pretending to be communist?
Same reason Soviets had to after the failure of the German revolution. Same reason the SPD and labor party have red flags.

>>2784614
What is the reason?

>>2784616
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm

1. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
   

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

>>2784601
Trvke

>>2784591
>muh idealism
>muh constitution
I brought up the Chinese constitution because anon said that the PRC doesn't proclaim itself to be a DotP, which is evidently false

>If socialism doesn't imply at the very least the application of some policies, what it is? A vibe?
No it's not the application of this or that policy. It is the political supremacy of the proletariat manifest in the rule of the communist party in process of constructing socialism

>Why did Marx and Engels bother to write down a set of 10 measures in the second chapter of the Communist Manifesto?
Not to make a policy checklist to follow lol. That would be utopianism. Regardless, China has reached most of those measures in the main

>China has all the hallmarks of a capitalist society, it's all in the picture posted by >2784326, I won't bother repeating them again.
Alright then I wont bother to argue them. Lets just go pic for pic like real men.

>but at the end of the day, there is still a bourgeoisie controlling the mode of production
They do not, they are subordinate to the Chinese state and the Communist party and cannot freely control the means (im guessing you meant?) of production, as they would in other countries.

>This is tiresome, really. The reality is right in front of your eyes, and you could learn more about it, but you prefer to retire into your orientalist fantasies about how China is so epic and different than the West.
>People like you aren't interested into understanding what is really happening in China, the good and the bad, you just have an overarching narrative and you selectively take a few tidbits there and there to convince yourself it is right. If this is what communists are supposed to do then there won't be any communism ever.
This is not an argument and I could just as easily say the same thing about you. Quit your exasperation

>>2784611
>Why would the victorious chinese bourgeoisie bother pretending to be communist?
Because China is a one-party state and if you don't respect the party, you go to jail. Politics are done within the party apparatus, so joining the party as a member of the bourgeois class is useful.
>The russian ones didn't bother because they had a dictatorship of the bourgwoisie.
The CPSU completely disintegrated in the 1991.
>If the chinese state has to pretend to be communist,
It's not a question of pretending, it's a question of how the economy functions in China. Look at the US, they can pretend they are the most democratic and free government in the entire world, but that's simply isn't the case when you look at what's happening in the US.
>and satisfy the drmands of the chinese proletariat to maintain legitimacy
This is debatable, China doesn't have a perfect economy for the proletariat, I mentioned unemployment in a previous post for example, and even then, you could argue Norway or Japan also satisfy their proletariat since they don't revolt.
>how is that functionally different from a dotp?
It's different because the immediate goal of a DotP is to establish worker control over the means of production by taking control over the state, read Marx.

I don't understand why you people want to insist China is a DotP so much.
What do you have to gain? Do you think you are going to get a good job in Shanghai if you keep repeating this or something?
Why does it trigger you if we say that the Chinese economy is capitalist? Virtually every country in the world has a capitalist economy, it's the status quo everywhere.
These endless semantic debates serve no purpose when Marx already defined what a DotP is in Civil War in France, when capitalism already has a clear definition, when everyone in financial circles know very well China has a capitalist economy. It's crazy that communists, people who are supposed to understand what is capitalism better than any other, seem completely clueless about what it is, and these arguments are a waste of time that prevent people to actually understand what is truly happening in China.

>>2784636
>Because China is a one-party state and if you don't respect the party, you go to jail. Politics are done within the party apparatus, so joining the party as a member of the bourgeois class is useful.
That's not an explanation.
Are you saying that the complicated machinery of the chinese state is not an inconvenience for the bourgeoisie but actually benefits them? Why don't other bourgeois dictatorships adopt it then?

>The CPSU completely disintegrated in the 1991.
Yes, because the russian bourgeoisie didn't have to pretend, they established their own apparatus that suited their needs

>It's not a question of pretending, it's a question of how the economy functions in China.
I agree, specific types of governments serve specific economic classes. So why doesn't the chinese government resemble a typical liberal bourgeois one?

>China doesn't have a perfect economy for the proletaria
Are you saying capitalism is capable of being merely "imperfect" to the interests of the proletariat rather than wholly hostile to it? You're whitewashing capitalism and inadvertently sounding like a soccdem ("capitalism can be reformed to be less bad")

>It's different because the immediate goal of a DotP is to establish worker control over the means of production by taking control over the state
How would that look like, concretelly?

>read Marx
I have, have you? Maybe start with the manifesto

>the rest
Incoherent drivel

>>2784630
>Lets just go pic for pic like real men.
Ok

>Land
Already addressed in this thread, Land is owned by the CPC but leased to businessmen. It's not socialism, just a measure to control how land is exploited.
>SOEs
90% of UAE's GDP is generated by SOEs, 60% of Indonesia's GDP is also generated by SOEs. Would you consider them socialist countries?
>Citizen support
95.5% of Chinese citizens support the central government because they have no choice, if you vocally disagree too much with it, the cops will pay you a visit. That said, a lot of citizens also genuinely think their government is doing a fine job, I've talked with Chinese people on both sides of the fence.
But that has nothing to do with the mode of production, a capitalist government can also have high approval ratings
>Central planning
It was already answered earlier in the thread, it's not central planning like in the USSR but guidelines about how the economy should be managed, with more or less restrictions. Western European countries also had a similar way of managing their economy until the 1980s, it's called "dirigisme".
>They execute billionaires
They haven't executed anyone in this: https://www.forbes.com/lists/china-billionaires/
And again that doesn't fundamentally change the mode of production, it's just a way to make sure billionaires behave. Some other capitalist countries also jail rich people when they commit fraud for example.
>SOEs on the stock exchanges
You realize stock exchange is a purely capitalist concept? Did the USSR had a stock exchange?
>Lenin quote
Did you miss the "to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly" part of the quote? Did Tencent suddenly ceased to be a private company suddenly?

This picture misunderstand what is socialism, and I find it funny that you would post it all while claiming that socialism is not a policy checklist to follow.
I guess socialism is when you have positive statistics and therefore Norway also qualify as socialist. It's crazy how communists can be so easily manipulated.

>>2784657
>Are you saying that the complicated machinery of the chinese state is not an inconvenience for the bourgeoisie but actually benefits them?
Yes, they have a stable government which makes sure business can be well conducted unlike the USA.
>Why don't other bourgeois dictatorships adopt it then?
They have a different history. Also the American model of capitalism was seen as more desirable until recently.

>So why doesn't the chinese government resemble a typical liberal bourgeois one?
Because it has a different history. Why the Pinochet dictatorship didn't resemble Sweden's social democratic model? Not every capitalist economy is completely uniform and identical.

>Are you saying capitalism is capable of being merely "imperfect" to the interests of the proletariat rather than wholly hostile to it? You're whitewashing capitalism and inadvertently sounding like a soccdem ("capitalism can be reformed to be less bad")
I'm just making an observation, it's not a prescriptive statement. Whatever I say about the Chinese economy doesn't change its fundamental reality, if talking could change this, /leftypol/ would have already ushered world communism.

>How would that look like, concretelly?
Read Civil War in France and what happened during the Paris Commune.

I need to run some errands, I'm done with this shit, it's a complete waste of time.

>>2784673
>because of le different history
Voluntarism

>paris commune
You mean the one that didn't last a year and marx criticised for not being statist enough?

>>2784664
>Already addressed in this thread, Land is owned by the CPC but leased to businessmen
So in other words, it's collectively owned through the the communist party and leased at its discretion.
>90% of UAE's GDP is generated by SOEs, 60% of Indonesia's GDP is also generated by SOEs. Would you consider them socialist countries?
No because they are not socialist countries where the proletariat has established a DotP, so those states are run at the behest of the bourgeoisie, including their "SOEs". This is not the case in China

>95.5% of Chinese citizens support the central government because they have no choice, if you vocally disagree too much with it, the cops will pay you a visit.
The statistic comes from independent researchers outside of China, the simple fact of the matter is that people in china approve of the central government in numbers unseen in other counties of comparable scale because they overwhelming think that government serves them well.

>But that has nothing to do with the mode of production, a capitalist government can also have high approval ratings
Where do 1.4 billion people in capitalist countries approve of their government with 95.5%? Maybe if you add up all the tax havens where everyone is a millionaire and you add them all together, but that still wouldn't be close in terms of scale

>It was already answered earlier in the thread, it's not central planning like in the USSR but guidelines about how the economy should be managed, with more or less restrictions. Western European countries also had a similar way of managing their economy until the 1980s, it's called "dirigisme".
It doesn't have to be exactly like the soviet union. China is not the Soviet Union. It's really not the same as european economies of the 80s, which were managed by bourgeois parliamentary liberal democracies. There was nowhere near the oversight and involvement that occurs in China. Such as mandatory CPC committees in all major SOEs

>They haven't executed anyone in this
Why would they? And more importantly how many billionaires have been executed in countries outside of China? The only other place I can think of at the top of my head is vietnam, even though the sentence there was suspended

>And again that doesn't fundamentally change the mode of production, it's just a way to make sure billionaires behave. Some other capitalist countries also jail rich people when they commit fraud for example.

It's an indication that even billionaires are subordinate in China, they do not run the place freely like they do in other countries

>You realize stock exchange is a purely capitalist concept? Did the USSR had a stock exchange?
Irrelevant, China is not the USSR and the USSR is gone.

>Did you miss the "to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly" part of the quote? Did Tencent suddenly ceased to be a private company suddenly?
China is a mixed economy and so it has residual elements of capitalism, but their position is simply different than it is in a non mixed economy. The Lenin quote is just there to address accusations of "state capitalism"

The picture is not meant to serve as a checklist lol. What is funny that you can only think that way and therefor others must be thinking like that too. I only posted it because you pointed to that blue china image which is obviously in answer to this original. You can call me once Norway has had a social revolution which the Communist Party of Norway comes out victorious, until then I will consider it a bourgeois state

>>2784697
The communist party of china is neither communist, nor a party, nor chinese

China is AEL (Actually Existing Lasalleanism)

Communism is the biggest enemy of both itself and the working class on this earth, death to them all

>>2783517
what a retarded fucking post

>996 work culture (it still goes on without actual enforcement against it)
on the contrary there have been many major crackdowns since years

>Not effectively using government resources to help corral unemployed youth into infrastructure projects
according to whom? you?

>Gaokao
<nooo you cant have an important school exam near majority even though most of the world has one

>Not successfully pivoting the youth away from STEM
<I dont want well educated people able to actually build high tech shit

>Not successfully pivoting the youth away from seeking to be come bureaucrats
<they shouldnt become STEM but also shouldnt help manage the economy. muh bureaucrats
>and entrepreneurs
<I LOOVE THE PETIT BOURGEOIS

>Not effectively preventing sex-selective abortion against daughters
<outdated criticism of one child policy

>Too much emphasis on coastal urbanization
<nooo dont urbanize the place where most of the human population always concentrated

fucking kys moron

>>2784779
Die

The status quo is the enemy no matter who runs it

Death to China and America, two sides of the same shekel

>>2784854
Israeli currency

>>2783513
Please share some marxist analysis of the Pokemon world, for fanfic purposes.

>>2784779
Trvke and I hate dengoids but absolute trvke

>>2784523
That vulgar stagist image is anti-Party theory. Never post it again, for the author of it admits it is anti-Party theory. That false anti-Party, anti-Communist theory is menshevik, mechanical stagist, deterministic and idealist. It is DISTORTION of Marxism-Leninism and you should be ASHAMED for propagating falsehoods.
https://dn720006.ca.archive.org/0/items/on-the-three-stages-in-the-development-of-socialism/On%20the%20Three%20Stages%20in%20the%20Development%20of%20Socialism.pdf
>This paper follows a very different line from China’s official classification of the primary stage of socialism in terms of productivity and standard of living, which in turn differs in important respects from current economic developments in China. It will follow the spirit of Marx’s methodology and take changes in relations of production as the key determinant of each stage. These relations are revealed in the systems of property rights, distribution, and regulation. I will also analyze the characteristics of production, exchange and distribution in each stage, as well as micro-, medium- and macro-level economic management in each stage. The goal is to develop a framework to address the various forms of conflicts and constraints at each stage, with due consideration given to politics and the state at the level of the superstructure.

China not mixed economy. Mixed economies do not exist. China is Communist.

>but why the way China allied with the US during the Sino-Soviet split means they never benefited from imperialism?
>You could say that China benefits from imperialism by allowing it to fund their development sure. I don't really see how a country, socialist or not, would go about it without that and survive. The Sino/soviet split is a whole other topic
CHINA NOT IMPERIALIST. SOCIALISM CANNOT EXIST WITH IMPERIALISM. DEATH OF SOVIET REVISIONIST SOCIAL FASCIST SOCIAL IMPERIALISM DEMONSTRATE THIS. China create united front to DESTROY soviet revisionist social fascist social imperialist soviet monopoly capitalism. China sided with third-world and all anti-fascist forces AGAINST social fascist soviet revisionist social imperialism.

ALL of the GOOD AND CORRECT things you have happened to say have been INVALIDATED by your usage of anti-Party Theories and your portrayal of them as The Party's, as well as other mistakes. Your mistakes have CEDED MUCH ground to anti-Communism.

>>2785628
If China is what socialism looks like I’m a proud reactionary, simple as

>>2785628
Meds now

>>2785631
you are epsien

>>2785634
Mao was China’s epstein, he fucked 12 year old red guards and gave them HPV

>>2785630
>if x, then
>I’m a proud reactionary
no need for unnecessary conditionals

>>2785628
It's not anti party or it would not be allowed to be published. The author is a professor in Beijing, are you saying the CPC allows anti party professors to freely disseminate anti party theory? The party allows for an open and scientific discussion and investigation of marxism, socialism and the stages thereof, within limits of course.

My critique of the image is that of course the real world doesn't fit so neatly into these little boxes with rigid and defined categories and traits, but overall it does a good job of illustrating how these phases could be considered

>>2785653
It is a conditional, why should anyone want to be a socialist if socialism has all the se anti human structures like money, capital, markets, and the firm?
>but deh winnin
For now, they’ll decline and that decline is already starting, people in China don’t want kids