/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

is it really "communism" if one great man can do all of that with no opposition

>>2896082
Dengoid hands typed this

>>2896087
he's literally criticizing mao for doing "Dengoid" things

>>2896087
Nobody would even know who deng even was today if mao hadnt fucked everything up.

>>2896082
Bird beaks typed this

>why did communism fail according to western propaganda?
i dunno OP

If it failed so bad why are they in front now

>>2896082
He didn't fail at all. His literacy programs and his programs to smash old, traditional culture were both huge successes. You could not have Dengism without Maoism, and before you go "good, Dengism was capitalist treachery", you have to remember that the alternative is China being an India tier shitshow. India, too, adopted market reforms but they've not grown half as well as China because tradition and administrative incompetence weighs everything down.

>>2896199
this
the difference between deng and gorbachev is that gorbachev dissolved the party, while deng did not. the difference between deng and yeltsin is that yeltsin's shock therapy sold off the commanding heights of the economy to foreigners at bargain bin prices, while in deng's case the commanding heights of the economy were augmented by jobs taken from the US, which shock therapied itself. the chinese revolution continues to transform chinese society. at the beginning, revolution means civil war and many people dying to bring about a socialist government. later on the proletarian revolution transforms society gradually by building productive forces. you no longer die in a trench, instead you work to build socialism. people will say that china is not socialist because it failed to abolish global commodity production. please bring about revolution in your "own" country and then spread it at gunpoint to the rest of the world if it is so easy.

Revolution and development aren't opposites. In many countries, revolution is what makes development possible because it removes the class that's actively blocking it. Landlords don't voluntarily give up land. 'Comprador' bourgeoisies don't voluntarily industrialize if their profits come from exporting raw materials and importing finished goods. China is probably the clearest example. Mao carried out the social revolution that destroyed landlordism, unified the country, massively expanded literacy and healthcare, and built the industrial base. Deng then liberalized parts of the economy on top of those foundations. Those aren't two unrelated projects. If anything, they're different stages of the same one. Deng himself never argued capitalism should replace socialism. What he argued was that markets could be subordinated to socialist state power. India is almost the mirror image. The bourgeois-landlord bloc was never fundamentally broken. Land reform was partial, caste and landlord power remained entrenched across much of the countryside, and planning had to coexist with classes whose interests ran against development. That's not "socialism failed," because the revolution never happened in the first place.

>>2896201
>Deng himself never argued capitalism should replace socialism. What he argued was that markets could be subordinated to socialist state power.
Which is a blatant lie that enabled him to do precisely what he "never argued", which is to replace socialism with capitalism.

>>2896475
He replaced extreme poverty with socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Ask yourself: is socialism a religious or spiritual ascetic movement or does it involve the development of the productive forces?

>>2896477
The “development” of productive forces in this case is being the good cop to America’s bad cop, supplying them with treats, and thwarting revolution in Nepal, the Philippines, and India

>>2896477
If socialism was just eliminating poverty then the United States is socialist.
In classic dengist fashion, you twist the definition of socialism in an attempt to excuse your blatantly fascistic system as "socialist".
History has shown that the development of productive forces is possible under socialism. The Chinese economy was growing rapidly during the last years of the GPCR.
The development of productive forces is an important aspect of socialism, yes, but it's not the only thing. Every time someone criticizes China dengoids like you always scream "Productive forces!" as if that made a country socialist. Where's class struggle? Where is collective ownership of the means of production? Where's the abolition of private property? Where's internationalism and support for other proletarian movements? The truth is China sacrificed those things in favor of "developing productive forces", and abandoned socialism alltogether in the process.

>>2896484
>poverty then the United States is socialist.

But the US is the most income gapped, poverty stricken, poverty exporting country in the entire world lol

>>2896496
The US is so rich and imperialist most of the homeless have jobs

>>2896496
China is the second most income gapped, poverty stricken, poverty exporting country in the entire world lol

>>2896502
90% of people own a house in China

>>2896503
And if it’s a shack they’re tied to because of hukuo what then?

>>2896503
Why not 100%? What could possible be more important than housing 140 million people?

>>2896512
some people dont want to own a house or are teenagers

>>2896508
One has a visible homeless and drug population, the other is Shenzhen

>>2896516
>are teenagers
I don't think the statistics include people below the majority,and even if some want to be homeless,it would be 1% at best

>>2896521
homeless =/= renting privately

>>2896516
You're missing the point entirely. You need to understand that this is not socialism. It's not a matter of if China is better than the US. Simply "not being poor" is not socialism. Nordic countries are also not socialist. I explained this already and you ignored me. Why are you purposefully retarded?

>>2896512
Because the other proles need to be disciplined

>>2896199
>you have to remember that the alternative is China being an India tier shitshow
The actual alternative was continued cooperation with the USSR and the both of them surpassing the West.

>>2896526
You're missing the point, I want a house, healthcare and a subway system. Chinese Socialism provides that materially in the largest quantities, everything else is ideological posturing and chauvinism.

>>2896532
Principles-less occidoid

>>2896532
Won't provide it to you tho

>>2896567
'Princible' mfers when you suggest the purpose of politics is to improve material conditions.

>>2896569
Il take it over being kept inna perpetual private rent trap.

>>2896528
>The actual alternative was continued cooperation with the USSR and the both of them surpassing the West.
The future we could have had.
<Instead we have leftychuds arguing about the moral principles of treats.

>>2896484
You claimed that Deng replaced socialism with capitalism. However, all China had when Deng came to power was extreme poverty. So by your analysis, socialism is just poverty. This is the classic line supported by the gang of four: that it is better to be poor under communism than rich under capitalism.

This idea that communism is poverty is not Marxist or materialist at all. It comes from religious asceticism. There is there is idea that you should take a vow of poverty and never become rich. This has no basis in Marxism.

There is no such thing as communism or socialism with poverty. Therefore there was no socialist system that was lost when Deng Xiaoping implemented his reforms.

> History has shown that the development of productive forces is possible under socialism. The Chinese economy was growing rapidly during the last years of the GPCR.
The cultural revolution which lasted a decade was a real disaster for China. During that time the national economy suffered severe disruptions, political chaos, and near-collapse. Instead of economic development, people were told to accept an anti-Marxist religious ascetic version of communism where it is good to be impoverished.

> Every time someone criticizes China dengoids like you always scream "Productive forces!" as if that made a country socialist.
I made the point about productive forces to debunk your claim that China was socialist under Mao not prove China is socialist. China is socialist for various reasons: it maintains control of the commanding heights of the economy, the rule of a communist party, advocates for socialism, etc. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the official name given by the Chinese government for its system.

>>2896483
I remember rooting for the Maoist revolutions in Nepal, Philippines, and India some twenty years ago but they all failed. So instead of accepting the failure and moving on you people now place all the blame for the failure of Maoist revolutions on China?

Success is the criterion for truth. China has proven to be a success. True you could argue that America is also a success and has eliminated a lot of poverty. However, success should viewed relative to hardship. The Americans are all fat and lazy. They had no hardship. They received unlimited resources and defense from invasion off the bat by their geography. Any slob could produce success under those circumstances.

>>2896595
>that it is better to be poor under communism than rich under capitalism
Nta but yes

>>2896595
They literally threatened nepal at gunpoint you shill

>>2896484
>If socialism was just eliminating poverty then the United States is socialist.
the united states has not eliminated poverty; it literally has millions of homeless people and literal slave labor prisoners lmfao

>>2896528
>The actual alternative was continued cooperation with the USSR and the both of them surpassing the West.
the USSR stopped cooperating with China first, Khruschev tore up all the agreements between the USSR and China

>>2896677
What agreements did Khrushchev "tear up", what did they do?

>>2896677
The Soviets bear some of the blame, but it was China that formally dissolved the alliance and then tried to come up with elaborate (and unconvincing) theoretical justification to both-sides the cold war. "Neither Moscow nor Washington" is code for Washington, which China later proved definitively by aligning with imperialism against the socialist camp.

>>2896595
Yes, dumbass. Communism is better than capitalism. That's exactly the point.
>There is no such thing as communism or socialism with poverty. Therefore there was no socialist system that was lost when Deng Xiaoping implemented his reforms.
Again, twisting the definition of socialism to your convenience. Your claim that China was not socialist just because there was poverty falls apart when you consider the fact that there is still a lot of poverty in modern China and when you consider the fact that that isn't what makes a country not socialist. I assume you don't consider Cuba, North Korea, Laos or Vietnam socialist either as there is even more poverty in those countries.
You're also implying that the only way to become rich is to become capitalist like Deng did, which is a very strange way of saying you don't actually believe in communism.
>The Cultural Revolution was a disaster for the economy
Blatant lie. See page 19 of https://www.massline.org/PekingReview/PR1984/PR1984-35.pdf
>China is socialist for various reasons: it maintains control of the commanding heights of the economy, the rule of a communist party, advocates for socialism, etc.
Dictatorship of the communist party is not the same as DOTP.
>Socialism with Chinese characteristics.
It's more of a national kind of socialism.
>success should viewed relative to hardship
Pure unadulterated idealism.

>>2896911
Also
>So by your analysis, socialism is just poverty.
Holy fucking strawman. Most obvious and retarded strawman I've seen on this website.

>>2896595
>However, success should viewed relative to hardship. The Americans are all fat and lazy. They had no hardship. They received unlimited resources and defense from invasion off the bat by their geography. Any slob could produce success under those circumstances.
>off the bat
They had to actively conquer that land, you fucking mouth-breather. They didn't just spawn in North America with complete dominion over it by default

>>2896484
>If socialism was just eliminating poverty then the United States is socialist
The united states creates poverty for millions, both domestically and worldwide, it does not eliminate it

First part is not really true - he did massively industrialize the country, improved life expectancy from 41 to 66 years, and led a population boom that doubled to 1 billion people by the end of his tenure. No other leader in Chinese history had done such a thing.

Most importantly, he reunified China (most of it) and secured its sovereignty, paving the way for its future greatness. His retarded antics are a blight on his record for sure, but saying he's a "complete failure" is going too far in the other direction.

>>2899279
> he did massively industrialize the country, improved life expectancy from 41 to 66 years, and led a population boom that doubled to 1 billion people by the end of his tenure. No other leader in Chinese history had done such a thing.

Thats because the country was already heading towards reunification by 1945. If chiang was the one that reunified the country than you would have seen simmilar industrialization, life expectancy improvements and populations booms. Especially since the usa is gonna send in lots of investments into china.
It probably wont be as rich as modern cpc china due to the obvious reasons (land reform issues, warlord issues, etc etc) But a nationalist china would have expirenced an economic boom too.

>>2899281
You’re really underestimating how incompetent and corrupt the KMT was, China would be in the same position India is in if they had won the civil war

>>2899282
The usa was also horrendeously corrupt during its industrialization. But it didn't stop the usa from industrializing and developing as it did.

I do agree nationalist china wont be as rich as modern cpc china. But unlike india, china has this broad pacific coastline which allows a straight line of trade, commerce, and investment from the usa to china. Also theres the potential japanese investment since japan is right next to china.

What you are going to get with a nationalist china is rich coastal cities while the interior is gonna be a lot poorer than modern china is.

but thinking about it, I guess to be fair with mao his achievements was creating an economy that saw development spread out more, spread to the interior. While the kmt would have saw south koreas, taiwans, and singapores in the coast. But the worst india like conditions in the interior.
I will give mao that

>>2896595
Socialism isnt just endless cancer like "growth of productive forces" or control of the "commanding heights" both of these are observed in manny systems and even prominenetly in capitalist systems themselves like norway and saudi arabia the relations of production should be at the forefront. every single passing year china has worse and worse relations of production. the single state union is bogus and useless. workers in free economic zones and horrrendously exploited.hukou reform is stalling cities and urban amenities strictly limited and provided to urban residents over rural. minories are suppressed mosques are broken down and rebuilt for no reason other than power projection petty nationalism, nothing marxist about this. empty unenforcable words of the govenment directly contradicted by the 996 working hours. supporting warlords,terrorists and criminals in isreal and myanmar border regions. and much much more.

there is no chinnese socialism its all cancerous Han-Nationalism dont try to launder this as socialism. never was never will be. any "good" china was dne worldwide has been a lucky sideeffect of its expansionist and nationalist aims. absolutrly nothing else

Can someone with a higher autism score explain to me how China's developmentalist state-led market economy and economic boom was fundamentally different from South Korea's and Taiwan's rise (aside from American support)? Both of these featured heavy state direction and intervention.

>Mao failed at everything after 1949
Just Cold War liberalism with /pol/ formatting. That doesn't mean Mao gets a free pass. The Great Leap Forward was a catastrophic policy failure: absurd procurement targets, inflated reporting, administrative coercion, and ecological stupidity contributed to a famine that killed millions. The sparrow campaign was also fucking idiotic. You don't need to deny any of that to be a communist. But some of these claims are doing impressive amounts of historical flattening.

>divided the communist world over shit that didn't matter
The Sino-Soviet split absolutely mattered. It involved real disagreements over revolutionary strategy, peaceful coexistence, relations with imperialism, national liberation, and the nature of the Soviet state. You can think Mao was wrong without pretending the dispute was some personal slap fight over nothing.

>killed more Chinese than the Japanese ever did
Deliberately provocative comparison that depends entirely on which estimates and definitions you're using. The famine deaths attributed to the Great Leap Forward are enormous, but Japanese occupation caused tens of millions of Chinese deaths when massacres, famine, disease, displacement, and war-related mortality are counted. “Mao killed X; therefore, Japan killed fewer” isn't serious historiography.

>caused china to adopt market reforms and sell out to capitalism
The Deng reforms aren't evidence of it. That's backwards in a particularly simplistic way. The post-1978 leadership explicitly argued that Mao's economic model had produced stagnation and sought to develop productive forces through market mechanisms while retaining Communist Party political control. Whether that eventually produced a capitalist restoration is a legitimate Marxist question. But “Mao fucked up → China became capitalist” skips the entire question of class power, the Cultural Revolution's aftermath, Deng's political struggle, the development of a new bourgeois stratum, and the subsequent transformation of the economy.

>>2899774
>The Sino-Soviet split absolutely mattered. It involved real disagreements over revolutionary strategy, peaceful coexistence, relations with imperialism, national liberation, and the nature of the Soviet state.
I could buy that if it didn't all culminate in a handshake with Nixon

>>2899776
There's an important distinction between why the Sino-Soviet split happened and where Mao's later strategy ended up. The former involved genuine disputes over peaceful coexistence, revolutionary movements, the USSR's political trajectory, and the Sino-Soviet border conflict. The latter involved China exploiting the US-Soviet rivalry to break its isolation and gain strategic room. You can argue that Mao's eventual “three worlds” strategy was a disastrous geopolitical turn without retroactively claiming the entire Sino-Soviet split was fake.

In fact, if you're trying to make the strongest anti-Mao case, don't use the Nixon handshake as a gotcha. Use it as the stronger argument: Mao's foreign-policy trajectory produced a situation where a supposedly anti-imperialist revolutionary state was strategically aligning with American imperialism against the USSR. That's a real contradiction worth explaining, not a meme to laugh away.

>>2899777
>There's an important distinction between why the Sino-Soviet split happened and where Mao's later strategy ended up.
Fair

>>2899777
Good post

>>2899773
As someone who studied the developmental literature, while all these states had simmilar policies theres some fundamental differences.
In south korea, the state never nationalized the chaebol. The state never truly removed the bourgosie class. While the military gov did arrest the bourgosie, nationalized the banks, and made a deal with the chaebol leaders saying they are only free if they follow the states plans, ultimately the bourg class still existed. Key industries was still under the control of private capital. And could over time resist the states demands as they became richer.

In taiwan, while key industries were nationalized by the state, they werent the national champions. They werent the export engine. Instead it was the small medium private enterprises that were the export engine of taiwan. In taiwan it was ultimately private capital that was the key to taiwans export boom

In china, its different. In china the export champions are the soes themselves. In china the key industries controlled by the state are the soes. So in china what you get is a fascinating situation where the key industries are controlled by the state. And the massive exporters are also controlled by the state. China is a lot more state controlled than sk and taiwan was

>>2899753
>there is no chinnese socialism its all cancerous Han-Nationalism
>Han Nationalism
Anti-China posters always show their ignorance and unironically just copy and paste what the intelligent agencies are propagating

>>2900015
there's literally no neighbor of china that is happy with it.It keeps trying to push into Russian Serbian territory and islands it clashes with India over Himalalayas constantly in fights with japan over territory and island chains. it over-fishes basically everywhere. even far down as south Korea and the Philippines where it uses water cannons preventing Philippine fishermen from fishing their own waters in direct violation of the 2016 international tribunal. even its "brother" socialist nation north Korea doesn't get to maintain any sovereignty over its waters.

https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainability/huge-chinese-illegal-fishing-operation-in-north-korean-waters-uncovered

all this a small snippet of the said cancerous nationalism.Barging into sovereign territories of other countries to for plunder is hardly socialist.I am sorry to take sucking take xi's cock away from you but you will have to realize that china is not coming to save you or the global left or anything like that. you will have to save yourself take actions locally etc. instead of shilling for china online

>>2900832
see also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swULKfLQ9t0&pp=ygUTczRhIGNoaW5hIG5iIHR1cm5lcg%3D%3D

and following episodes

>>2900832
>in violation of United Nations sanctions
Oh no, anyway

Hoxhaist hands typed this

>>2900832
hello mossad

>>2900841
in violation of international maritime law retard. not sanctions. you cant fish in territorial waters of other nations. Same way you cant appropriate natural resources that aren't part of your nation. nothing
prevents china fishing in its own waters

>>2900847
hello friend, please send us those Chinese cameras for our checkpoints. the palestinians are getting uppity