From my understanding Mao said China will be an industrialised socialist nation by the year 2000, then Deng postponed it to 2050 which is still repeated to this day.
But what does this concretely mean in qualitative terms, how do the relations to production shift? Will the stock market be abolished, private ownership of capital, the three represents system abolished, a planned economy be build? It can't just be more development of the productive forces or building a welfare state or it doesn't mean anything.
So people who think China is actually socialist, can you give government approved sources that prove any intention to build communism?
It means the interior of the country will have the same living standards as big coastal cities
>>2847852China's GDP line will go up by 0.4% and tanKKKiddies will act like communism has been achieved.
>>2847856USA is declining and China is rising. When the two pass one another, not just in terms of GDP, but in terms of military, that will be the moment where China will no longer have anyone who can challenge them. It is in that moment that they will either finally fulfill or fail to fulfill the claims made. If you think they have already betrayed it, fine, but I think they were being pragmatic. One needs to be pragmatic when one is not yet the strongest.
China won't do shit an only wants imaginary line go up. Call it a national kind of socialism
>>2847852>So people who think China is actually socialist, can you give government approved sources that prove any intention to build communism?My friend, intentions are the one thing that cannot be proven. A person or group can say one thing and intend another. A person or group can do something which seems to contradict their intentions as a form of subterfuge or obfuscation.
What is the metric for proving an "intention". You can cite anything and say "this shows their intentions" then someone else will present counter evidence. Actions can be interpreted in any way to reveal any intention.
for example, libs say the molotov ribbentrop pact "proves" that the USSR "intended" to side with the nazis, while communists say it proves that the USSR needed to buy time and move their factories east before operation barbarossa commenced. Evidence supports the latter much more, but a shallow glance at the scenario allows people to deliberately misinterpret the realpolitik as betrayal of principles
>>2847872westoids won't overthrow their governments and will only complain about china not doing enough for them. call it an armchair kind of socialism.
you outsourced all your jobs to them now you want to outsource the revolution to them too.
Current civilization will have ended by then, and humanity would be busy dealing with the disastrous effects of climate change.
>>2847880Environmentalists have been so buckbroken by their failed predictons of the oceans rising by 2000m and drowning everyone that they've retreated to cope about Nature's End™ which will happen Soon™ to wipe out all the
infidels Pollutors™ .
>>2847880Okay, I think climate change deniers are absolute retards and I live in a country that's been severely impacted by climate change. I know people who have suffered heat-related strokes because of it. But this "we'll literally all be dead in 10 years" fearmongering is on par with the "we'll be extinct in 20 years if the birth rate isn't 7+" crowd.
Yeah, climate change is a serious problem, but humanity isn't going to go extinct because of it. More likely, things will get bad enough that geoengineering measures start being used. They won't be a permanent solution, but they could help a lot while longer-term solutions are developed.
>>2847886The environment is absolutely essential, especially for developing countries. We're already seeing the effects in my country through extreme heat waves and violent storms.
That said, I think environmental movement have become too liberalized and often overlook practical solutions. Calls to halt industrialization entirely aren't realistic for developing nations. The Kyoto Accords would have been preferable. What's done is done, but action still needs to be taken.
wasn't it supposed to be 2035?
>>2847874Marx famously said "Piggies of Chynah unite! There is more stolen Palestinian homes to sell to Jewish porkie!"
>>2847852>It can't just be more development of the productive forces or building a welfare state or it doesn't mean anything.I think any non-blind person can see that china has basically given up on trying to achieve communism. Theyve realized communism can never happens unless socialism is established worldwide first which is never happening.
They will and basically already have degenarated into just another nation state.
>>2847896I'm an irrelevant ultraliberal and this is my post
>>2847891>Okay, I think climate change deniers are absolute retards and I live in a country that's been severely impacted by climate change. I know people who have suffered heat-related strokes because of it. But this "we'll literally all be dead in 10 years" fearmongering is on par with the "we'll be extinct in 20 years if the birth rate isn't 7+" crowd.the fear mongering is a psy op meant to make people either take the problem less seriously, or to go full doomer and give up entirely
"Socialism by 2050" does not mean they'll return to a completely centrally planned economy. The CPC has no intention of doing that. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is socialism, in their view.
>>2847852China will have won the cold war by 2050. The world will be carved into imperialist spheres, incentivized to develop self reliance. China will be first among imperialists which come together mostly to stop internationalism and class warfare. Everyone deploys their respective liberalism-with-a-human-face, their
Marshall Molotov Plans to secure their spheres and pretend the illusion of peace and prosperity after the climax of the cold war is the proof of the "new" system working better. The elites are eager to sign on, the compradors love the new industrial development agenda and the proles are just glad the war is not taking their children anymore.
China takes a lesson from the RF and substitutes historical revisionism and nationalism for everything. The spoils of imperialism *prove* "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" works. It's good to be red.
Then the crises keep coming, environment, new tech, wars and resource scarcity and wars for scarce resources and covert shit like never before from all fronts at once.The state of exception becomes permanent everywhere. And the powers enforce liberalism on each other (with China at the top) by threatening to exclude from the much needed collaboration to address said crises.
I goggled it for you anon.
Roadmap:
<Phase 1 (2020–2035): Focused on basic socialist modernization. This stage aims to significantly increase economic strength, innovation capabilities, and living standards, completing the groundwork for an advanced socialist market economy.Phase 2 (2035–2050): Focused on global leadership. During this time, China aims to become a leading global power with advanced systems of governance, widespread "common prosperity," and a world-class military.
>Phase 2 (2035–2050): Focused on global leadership. During this time, China aims to become a leading global power with advanced systems of governance, widespread "common prosperity," and a world-class military.
<It means transforming into an advanced global superpower with a highly developed economy, cutting-edge military, robust social equity, and a state-directed "socialist market economy
>>2847852Depends on the future generation of CPC policymakers. Currently best thing you can do is build up productive and military forces for confonration with USA. But even after creating safety and stability its younger cadres that need to be educated.
>>2847852>how do the relations to production shift?Productive forces are already shifting with or without revolution. Its the material forces that come first not ideology. AI replacing service jobs is the current shift and this will only accelerate.
>>2847958>China will be first among imperialistsPeak American projection
>>2847963>economy.Phase 2 (2035–2050): Focused on global leadership. During this time, China aims to become a leading global power with advanced systems of governance, widespread "common prosperity," and a world-class military.So this is when they will export localism?
>>2847886Brain damaged. I’m not going to even debate you on this because I already know you’re the exact type of person who enjoys cheap plywood housing and potholes. Disgusting. Kys.
>>2847891> But this "we'll literally all be dead in 10 years" fearmongering is on par with the "we'll be extinct in 20 years if the birth rate isn't 7+" crowdYes, you will be fucking dead in like 20 fucking years because no one actually prepared for a global climate shift. We have done fuck all.
>geoengineering measuresFuck off. Genuinely lazy.
https://cleantechnica.com/2026/06/21/termination-shock-the-existential-danger-of-geoengineering/ >>2847852When they adopt liberal democracy then fascism has done it's job
>>2848052>america, historically transcendent #1 imperialistyou are an american exceptionalist
>>2848102Yes America and the imperial core are uniquely evil
>>2847852it's literally just soviet developmentalism which, assuming the ccp maintains its current trajectory (socdems flirting w/corporatism sans liberal smoke and mirrors) will hopefully make green technologies cheaper, set some good policy precedents, etc. but not much else
>actually china is due a revolution/counter-revolution/cia-backed coup/fasci-xi's administration is more sustainable than any coinciding american government, most you'll get is something like an ascension of the chongqing model or some chuddy ultranationalist larp that lasts a couple years tops until it's bonaparte gets caught on embezzlement charges or whatever
>>2847978most realistic and levelheaded answer award (you were supposed to post lazy bait, you idiot, you moron)
Cities like new York and shangai will be empty due to floods and wet bulb temperature, manufacturing will collapse due to water shortage
>>2848140That is a certainty if nothing continues to really happen in terms of development and preparation.
They will call whatever their status quo is communism
>>2848257>when a communist party is in power, communism is the status quowoah
>>2848267Communist entrepreneurs
The owl of Minerva only takes flight at dusk. Whether the bourgeoisie truly rule China or whether they are subordinate to the party is impossible to say with certainty at this point.
The transformation to socialist mode of production, the primary phase of Communism, was completed in China by 1956 and the exploiting class was eliminated by 1982. By 2049, China seeks to have completed the great rejuvination of China by building modern socialist economy by guaranteeing national sovereignty and development. They have have already succeeded, but the goal is to ensure the longevity lf this success
>>2848274I'd say the three represents policy pretty decisively made capitalists in control. If Deng killed the revolution then Jiang buried it deep into the woods so no one could reanimate the corpse
>>2848278This is your first warning. Unsubstantial Green text response is bannable offense. The CPC resolved this
https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/cpc/history/01.htmI made a mistake. The exploiting classes in China were eliminated by 1981, not 1982.
>>2848287>there's no exploitation because we said sothis is your brain on dengism
>>2848282I used to think so, but I don't think any other bourgeois state has placed such tight restrictions on individual members of that class. If China is a bourgeois state then it at the very least represents a more advanced form of it and is still progressive insofar as they will help exhaust all possible avenues of capitalist development. People often blame social democrats for the failure of Western countries to have a revolution, but the fact is that if social democracy could save capitalism then the situation was not revolutionary to begin with. I think the same is true with regard to China's model of capiralism. Revolutions only happen when the ruling class can no longer find some new way out of a crisis. The real test will come when China inevitably reaches the stage where they exhaust their capability for growth within the confines of equitable international trade and their own borders. Then they will be forced to turn to either socialism or imperialism and financialization.
>>2848290You say many incorrect things, but i will focus on the critical portions.
>If China is a bourgeois state then it at the very least represents a more advanced form of it and is still progressive insofar as they will help exhaust all possible avenues of capitalist development. Pretending the possibility of this exists defies science and is a total betrayal of socialism.
>The real test will come when China inevitably reaches the stage where they exhaust their capability for growth within the confines of equitable international trade and their own borders. Then they will be forced to turn to either socialism or imperialism and financialization.China made this choice long ago. China is socialist and as such does not suffer from crises particular to capitalism. So these words have no meaning.
>>2848297
>Pretending the possibility of this exists defies science and is a total betrayal of socialism
Marx specifically says that no social order disappears before is has exhausted all possible forms of development. Simply put if there is a way out of a crisis through reform then the situation is not revolutionary.
>China is socialist and as such does not suffer from crises particular to capitalism
China is a capitalist economy. It has private property, wage labour, generalized commodity production, and market distribution. I can accept the notion that despite this the bourgeoisie are not the ruling class, that China is some form of DotP, and that this is a transitory stage that lays the foundation for socialist construction. But looking at the way the Chinese economy is currently structured and denying that it is capitalist is delusional.
>>2847854This, large swathes of China outside of big cities are vastly underdeveloped.
>>2847958I more or less agree with this, but the thing is, China is already hit by a recession, just like the West: low wages, expensive real estate, and a bad job market going through a downturn since the end of the COVID lockdown. Many young people I've talked to there are scared of being replaced by AI, or about "the curse of 35", while youth unemployment is above 15%.
A advice to /leftypol/: Stop seeing China is this mystical country we can't possibly know anything about, the numbers are out there, the translated texts are out there, you are just a bunch of lazy orientalists.
>>2847963It just means continuing to modernize the country, perhaps introducing some social welfare reforms, but that doesn't imply changing the economic system as it is at all.
>>2848052>online Leninist who doesn't understand the Hobson-Lenin's concept of imperialism, exhibit #39498284902Protip: imperialism as Lenin meant it implies multiple world powers competing for secondary markets. China is one of them, just like the USA, Russia or the EU globally, and at the level of MENA for example, you have three big regional powers: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
>>2848274>Chinaboos will do anything except going to China to see for themselves what happens there and read stuff written by Chinese political analysts and social scientists.I noticed zero difference in the way daily life is organized in Shanghai compared to Seoul. In both cities, people work for capitalist companies like McDonalds, KFC, Uniqlo, Samsung or Xiaomi, or drive taxis for DiDi/Uber.
Perhaps the CPC has a tighter grip on the economy than the South Korea government, but the CEO of Xiaomi who took a selfie with Elon Musk during Trump's visit is a CPC member who "serve as a deputy to the Fourteenth National People's Congress for the Beijing congressional district". You could also argue that the chaebol system is equivalent to Chinese SOEs. I think South Korean workers can more easily go on strike than Chinese workers actually.
If Xi is the second coming of Mao, then Lee Jae Myung is the second coming of Stalin.
>>2848325>I noticed zero difference in the way daily life is organized in Shanghai compared to SeoulThat's because China is a capitalist economy. The question is whether or not the interests of the bourgeoisie dominate the state, and given the rigidity and harshness with which the CPC compels them to adhere to state policy and planning, I don't think this is the case. It really does seem more like an extended NEP.
>>2848334It could be a state beautocracy class against a capitalist class fighting for supremacy
>>2848334Have you ever heard about Yue Xin and the Jasic Incident? He Xiaobo and the 2016 crackdown on labor activists? The websites Utopia (wyzxwk.com) and maoflag.cc? The "curse of 35" that affect even employment prospects in public jobs?
Say what you want about the old Ziz but:
>Žižek points out the inherent contradiction within Chinese society, wherein the official state ideology of Marxism is considered a dangerous form of political subversion. >>2848339That's more or less how I would characterize it.
>>2848345I'm well aware that workers don't simply run the show in China. But all class societies operate as hegemonies, where various interests win out in various contexts, but within confines set by the hegemonic group. In China that group appears to be the CPC (or if you will, the party bureaucracy) rather than the capitalists as such.
>>2848303>Marx specifically says that no social order disappears before is has exhausted all possible forms of development. Simply put if there is a way out of a crisis through reform then the situation is not revolutionary.Reform and Opening Up arose from socialism, not from capitalism. Nonsequiter.
>China is a capitalist economy. It has private property, wage labour, generalized commodity production, and market distribution. I can accept the notion that despite this the bourgeoisie are not the ruling class, that China is some form of DotP, and that this is a transitory stage that lays the foundation for socialist construction. But looking at the way the Chinese economy is currently structured and denying that it is capitalist is delusional.Marx specifically says the character of an economic system is strictly determined by which class holds state power. Even though the Chinese bourgeoisie was eliminated by 1981, if the bourgeoisie is not the ruling class, then how can China be called capitalist? These conditions are exclusive to scientific socialists. Private property in China is not capital, it is proletarian personal property and independent private socialist enterprise. In China, wage-labour is decommodified. Capitalist wage relations—where wages are the price of labour-power, they usually fluctuate, unlike the price of other commodities, below value, not always enable the workers to satisfy even the minimum of their requirements—do not exist in Communist China, where with the abolition of the system of hired labour the law of value of labour-power has completely lost its validity as the regulator of wages as the basic economic law of socialism necessitates the maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and cultural requirements of the whole of society through the emancipation of wages from the limitations of capitalism that enables them to be extended to that volume of consumption permitted by the existing productivity of society and required by the full development of the worker's individuality where real wages constantly rise in accord with the growth and perfecting of socialist production through the law of distribution according to work that determines each worker's share in the social product by the quantity and quality of his work.
The working classes cannot sell their own labour to themselves. China doesn't have generalized commodity production, China has socialist commodity production and distribution. You are the delusional one will be saying China really is capitalist until you die and are reckoned with Marx because the success of Socialism in China will not be stopped by your incorrect assertions.
>>2848325>China is already hit by a recession, just like the West: low wages,Post real wage data since the 1970's and likewise with imperialist wage data
>>2848356>Marx specifically says the character of an economic system is strictly determined by which class holds state power. Where does he say this? He talks about the proletariat achieving state power and then constructing socialism by wresting the means of production away from the bourgeoisie by degree until it is all concentrated in the hands of the state. Elsewhere Engels says that socialism will do away with private property, anarchy of production, the wage system, etc.
>Even though the Chinese bourgeoisie was eliminated by 1981So there is no private sector in China?
>Private property in China is not capital, it is proletarian personal property and independent private socialist enterprise. Property used for commercial purposes and the generation of profits is private property by definition. These gentlement think that because they have changed the names of things, they have changed the things themselves!
>Capitalist wage relations—where wages are the price of labour-power, they usually fluctuate, unlike the price of other commodities, below value, not always enable the workers to satisfy even the minimum of their requirements—do not exist in Communist ChinaSo the wages of Chinese private sector workers are not set by their employers? They are not paid less than the value they produce? Their surplus value does not accrue to their employer as profit?
>China doesn't have generalized commodity productionSo private sector firms in China don't sell their products for a profit?
>>2848359>Where does he say this?Capital Vol. 3. An astute Marxist such as yourself must be familiar with the most basic principles of scientific socialism. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers — a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labour and, thereby, its social productivity — which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state.
>He talks about the proletariat achieving state power and then constructing socialism by wresting the means of production away from the bourgeoisie by degree until it is all concentrated in the hands of the state. Elsewhere Engels says that socialism will do away with private property, anarchy of production, the wage system, etc.Which has been accomplished. The proletariat in China has wrested the conditions of production from the ruling class, as you previously ceded, and abolished the material laws of capitalist production.
>So there is no private sector in China?The independent socialist private sector of national enterprise is guided chiefly by the basic material law of socialism, not the laws of capitalism.
>Property used for commercial purposes and the generation of profits is private property by definition. These gentlement think that because they have changed the names of things, they have changed the things themselves!I have to be scientific and correct your Proudhonism. Capital is a particular form of private property which produces surplus products in capitalism. Scientific socialists call this 'surplus value'. Capital as a relation and surplus-value as an economic category have been abolished in China because capitalists do not control the factors or conditions of production, as you've already ceded, nor do they exist.
>So the wages of Chinese private sector workers are not set by their employers? They are not paid less than the value they produce? Their surplus value does not accrue to their employer as profit?Negative to every question. Socialist wages are decreed by order of the proletariat by rule of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In capitalism, wages tend towards the minimum, and workers are robbed blind in accordance with material laws of capitalist production. In China, surplus-value is abolished, and socialist wages rise continuously in accordance with the conscious application of the material laws of socialist production. In capitalism, the social aggregate product is afforded chiefly to and distributed by the capitalist. In China, the social aggregate product is (1) allocated to agents of production such as workers, including managers of independent and state enterprises, and (2) reallocated into the forces of production, eliminating the preconditions of surplus-value.
>So private sector firms in China don't sell their products for a profit?When goods are sold and revenue exceeds cost, that return is captured by the dictatorship of the proletariat and re-afforded in accordance with the basic material law of socialist production, meaning the category of capitalist profit has been completely abolished.
Boureocracy is the universal class Hegel knew
>>2848357>imperialist wagewhat does that mean?
It means the town country contradiction will be solved
Are Dengists the Bernie bros of China?
>>2848681I am not even a Deng supporter, but even mentioning Deng in the same breath as social democrat pederasts should be a crime.
>>2848791Deng did way more damage to the Chinese revolution than Bernie did much of anything. So you're right, Deng is way worse
>>2848681no because Deng Xiaoping fought in the Chinese Revolution and Chinese Civil War as a Communist soldier, and Bernie did not fight in any revolution. Reform and opening up was a strategic and successful movement that made China more prosperous, and the American empire weaker and more dependent on China. Bernie was a failed social democratic movement in the empire.
>>2848799>Deng did way more damage to the Chinese revolution Not really. He preserved it when it could very easily have gone the way of Eurocoms and USSR.
Sex will be banned for good and finally my dumbass foid wife will stop begging me for it.
>>2847874>you outsourced all your jobs to them now you want to outsource the revolution to them too.Did I, Mr. Microsoft, working man of the west and poster on leftypol, also take a lot of new circuits of profits with my collegues in China when I restructured my industrial chain towards China/east Asia or no?
>>2847892It's 2076 now, chud, get with the program (neo-Confucianism), shut up!
>>2847963You copy pasted LLM hallucinations without citation from a Silicon Valley tech monopoly? Why?
>>2847852The localities experiment and the best results are replicated by the broader government. When facing a new problem the Chinese state is remarkably adaptable, unfortunately the centralization of their manufacturing-based economy has stifled domestic advancement and they’re suffering from a partly-self-created birth rate problem. If they can back up their economy with the same international dependency gambit America and the west ran, they’ll prove they’re not just a paper tiger and truly take power from the USA. I wish them luck, if Americans are as stupid as they seem to be they have a very good chance.
>>2850779The Chinese don’t want world domination though
>>2850780I don’t think there’s some dark conspiracy they’re involved in. They just want to be on top, and being on top in a state of anarchy between you and other nations means diplomatic and economic control. They’ve proven themselves unwilling to adequately redress the harms done by their extractive industries in foreign nations, so while I doubt they’ll commit any (more) genocides (unlike the Americans), it’s of little doubt to me they’ll continue the same neoliberal world order of debt trap economic colonialism.
>>2850785There’s basically nothing else to do if the nation state remains the basic political form, and the Chinese have no interest in going beyond that, as they are Chinese nationalists (not even a bad thing)
>>2850780>The ChineseRacial analysis isn't correct
>>2850834A schizo off the street drunk as shit off baijiu calling for the PLA to storm moscow doesn’t count, the government does
Putin will open the Oldest Vault
>>2848490That isn't including SOE executives and investors. SOEs are operated as private companies.
xi will flip the communism switch
Unique IPs: 37