Socialism is anti imperialist. Anti imperialist is anti Zionist. So no. China is Zionist .
it's just retarded "MLs" who barely read any theory trying to fill the USSR-shaped hole in their heart
mao was a retarded idealist centrist uygha like Stalin tbh
I mean that describes me well but I just cope and seethe by playing map painting sims
>Why are we still pretending China is Socialist?
Because they aren't the US. That's it. There's no other reason.
Mao was part of the left he was part of the gang of 4 (which should be called gang of 5)
What makes Stalin a centrist didn't he also follow the anti revisionist line?
I think philosophically Mao's biggest mistake he made was the interpretation of the "contradiction" in Marxism. In theory, history has been pushed forward by all the struggles between contradictions. There are small struggles and there are big struggles. The small struggles push the change of quantity. The big struggles formed by those small struggles lead to the change of quality. Then society proceeds into the next stage and the circle would repeat itself in a similar form.
I don't think there will be any disagreement about that (unless you are willing to point out). But Mao took the literal interpretation by believing that having a great level of struggles over the contradictions in a short amount of time, then society would evolve much faster. While it's true that in theory the struggles will push society forward, if they are too frequent and intense, then whole society won't be able to sustain itself. In other words, the social order would not even exist but just anarchists taking over everything. There would be no achievement but just destruction and disruption.
Of course, Mao wasn't as naive as I describe because he did try to limit the scale of the Cultural Revolution, but the situation soon lost control and many opportunists who were supposed to be the target purposely escalated and broadened it into a total conflict. If we apply the chemical sense here, when the chemical reaction of molecules is so intense, frequent and unstable it's gonna trigger a massive explosion. Similarly, in physics, you can find the same phenomenon in the particle world. Since Marxism absorbed a lot of theories from natural science, it's not odd for me to borrow science to explain the nature of the Cultural Revolution.
For Deng, he may have been correct in bringing in changes, but changed too much of the system and caused big structural problems that had to be solved by later generations of leaders (corruption, growing inequality, and the detrimental effects of the influence of capital on government). Cause at the base of it, the Cultural Revolution had tremendous grassroots support and the peasants did get more benefit than disaster from it in the countryside, opposite of the cities. Or perhaps if Deng corrected the mistakes of the Cultural Revolution but didn't open the window fully to let in all the serious problems that accompanied his reforms, then that would've been better.
Mao and stalin both failed to export the class struggle to their utmost ability and both engaged in national chauvinism at times.
if you fail to push forward the class war and to develop socialism then you will find your project is degenerating and falls to counter revolutionary opportunism.
Big tent is also Bolsheviks when taking power.
Deng was center, just like Lenin and Stalin and Mao. Khruschev was left-wing.
Mao exported revolution he had a policy of promoting anti revisionist socialism no matter what. For example when working with the US to stop soviet revisionists from nuking China he was still supporting communists against the US.
It is true that Stalin had a conservative position on exporting revolution if you think this was wrong it can be viewed as a mistake but Stalin was not intentionally being a reactionary he followed a ML anti revisionist line.
Deng and Khrushchev were rightists
Lenin Stalin and Mao were or leftists
Left = correct line and construction of socialism
right = restoration of capitalism
These faggots rhetorically pulled a "well we will just beat the capitalists by being better capitalists, actually" And then they lick America's ass for decades anyways because the international capitalist system is a cartel with it's own established interests. Even if I was a nationalist retard I wouldn't call jeff bezos moving to Shanghai a victory for "China". Even if your ideology is "America bad" China is in century of humiliation mode simpering to NATO compared to when they had a communist line and were steamrolling the KMT in the 50s and putting the Americans into full retreat. Instead the leaders chose to sell their country into the imperial periphery again.
I meant to say construction of communism
Stalin and Mao were both tailists that represented bureacratic right deviations holding back the full prosecution of the revolution by the proletariat. That being said this is still false since it's muh great man theory, it was the class character of the Chinese and Soviet vanguard that was the problem.
>>953927>For example when working with the US to stop soviet revisionists from nuking China he was still supporting communists against the US.
meanwhile, in reality:
Chairman Mao: I like rightists. People say you are rightists, that the Republican Party is to the right, that Prime Minister Heath is also to the right.
President Nixon: And General DeGaulle.
Chairman Mao: DeGaulle is a different question. They also say the Christian Democratic Party of West Germany is also to the right. I am comparatively happy when these people on the right come into power.
development of socialism towards construction of communism would also work
Whether it is, or is not, is secondary to the fact that China is advancing capitalism and disturbing the workings of imperialism. China is the single most important anti-imperialist, hands down, by following what they call "socialism with chinese characteristics". They can call it whatever they want. It is a positive development for the world.
Stay in chat a min I will link you to something on Maoist Chinas foreign policy
kek did he actually say this?
Okay tbf I wanna see more proofs but I am giddy at seeing this if true
Mao funded the muhadjidiheen and the contras against communists just because they were working with the Soviet Union
I couldn't find what I was looking for.
I had an entire document explaining CPC foreign policy under Mao it had a twitter thread too.
cool, would be nice to see anyways, thanks for looking
Hey everyone ignore bs lies on Maos foreign policy.
I have just found said document detailing Mao's foreign policy etc.https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/cpc-policy.pdf
NFT bros and Dengoids are two sides to the same jewish coin
This is utter fucking bollocks, this was dengoids you absolute coping bitch
I legit think the reason it's not called the gang of five is because of whitewashing to not "taint" the image of Mao as the founding father of modern China. IIRC the Cultural Revolution up until fairly recently was an extremely taboo topic in China that was taught in schools as basically "oh there were these rowdy radicals trying to destabilize our country but we took care of it" which I'm pretty sure counts as whitewashing.>>953924
That's assuming they don't get purged if they get too "rowdy".
what a profoundly retarded thread, the only thing that keeps me from slavish devotion to china is that they refuse to turn america into an irradiated wasteland
Please respond to my reply to you in leftybritpol
Okay right I got years wrong but there definitely was support for anti-communists while mao was chairman like with cambodia, and Algeria and obviously the US
Also the Soviets did this during the Stalin admin as well. It's all national chauvinism realpolitik shit
ultroid thread ultroid thread
The People's NFTs>>953924
The People's Yemeni massacres>>953940
The People's Zionist "Anti-Imperialism"
mao died in 1976, by the later years he wasn't really in control, Democratic Kampuchea arose in 1975, Algeria i'd have to get back to you, but I'm not denying Mao made some dogshit decisions later on.
The vast bulk and most agregious support of anti communists happened post Mao however, the mujihadeen, contras, UNITA, support for Marcos, Duterte, Saudi Arabia, etc etc
meaning to bruh haven't given the thing a read yet
Take your time, thanks
Yeah fair and nuanced. I think the leader cult shit is complete cancer and obviously idealist delusion but I also engage in it sometimes myself and Mao says some pretty hilarious shit, same with Stalin. Anyways the main point I wanted to impress is that the PRC engaged in national chauvinism that contributed to the downfall of socialism
Do you know how to read?
is this satire? lol
The Chinese state does support Israel
This picture was taken in downtown Jerusalem in Israel.>this is unrefutable proof that China is enamoured with Israel
Sarcastic remarks aside. It was just a diplomacy thing, all countries do things like that unless they have hostile relations.
>>953900>So it wasn't the defeat of the KMT which signaled the victory of Socialism
Yes it was
Doesn't change the fact that China has a longstanding military, economic and technological allegiance with Israel
Israel and Vietnam have a closer military relationship.
Oh wow the famous Dengoid tactic "b-b-but what about X country????????????????"
Okay. 1) I doubt it 2) Doesn't change Chinas own relationship even if it was true.
China and Israel's military relationship includes: both supporting the Mujihadeen (which is where their relationship began) Both supporting the Contras (which happened simultaeneously) both supporting the regime in the Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, etc.
China and Israel also trade weapons, and China is currently building Israel's biggest port, along with numerous other infrastructure projects.
Dengoids here will defend this shit
>>954010>but muh vietnam
yes they are also a capitalist shithole state>which mainly comes from the fact that the U.S. wants to woo Vietnam against China so it's not criticized.
No deng beetles are more influenced by American propaganda about China
that is their whole fucking ideology. tribalism and idealism
>>954011>yes they are also a capitalist shithole state
Did you just decide that two seconds ago
>>954010>the U.S. wants to woo Vietnam against China
Pretty sure China has done a great job of doing that themselves
The Vietnamese are smart not to get hooked into any alliance.
You don't know what you're talking about. Conveniently you ignored almost everything in the OP.
Sorry I didn't read it
>>954010>which is a closer military relationship than anything China has worked up with Israel
I think actually engaging in joint military exercises a la the mujahedeen is a deeper tie than selling guns, although on the subject, this article is hilarious https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-arms-drones-and-spy-tech-israeli-weapons-aid-vietnam-s-cruel-surveillance-stat-1.9179736
Just more proof that "anti-Dengists" are obsessed religious retards.
Funny thing, Vietnam arrested an arms broker a few days ago.
>Millions of dollars worth of arms trade between Israel and Vietnam has been put at risk after an arrest warrant was issued for a key Vietnamese broker.
>Vietnam’s Investigative Police Agency of the Ministry of Public Security announced its decision to prosecute and arrest Nguyen Thi Thanh Nhan, the predominant businesswoman, alongside seven others last Friday.
>Nhan has been key in promoting and broking arms deals between Vietnam and Israel, the value of which has exceeded over $1 billion in the last ten years.
>The businesswoman was formally charged with "violations of regulations on bidding" in relation to a hospital, according to Vietnamese media.
>However, Israeli media Haaretz reported that “the real reason for her arrest was involvement in military deals," quoting an unnamed source.
>The source "stressed" that one reason for the arrest was "power struggles" between Vietnam’s prime minister, the Communist party secretary-general, the public security minister and the president, the newspaper said. https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/vietnamese-broker-israeli-arms-deal-faces-arrest-warrant
Would be dope if they ended ties and purged the porky arms dealer. Doubt it will happen but who knows.
Also on the subject of Israel in general, it is pretty hilarious that despite America continually presenting their asshole to Israel, Israel continues to sell weapons to places like Vietnam and China.
The burger, eternally cucked in every way.
What would China look like today if the Gang of Four held control?
>>954022>silence the populace
How would this work when Vietnam has the Fatherland Front, a kind of constitutionally protected civil organization, which literally exists to keep the Party in check?
Well, that is why the whole article is hilarious, Israeli's calling out human rights abuses and disappearing/torturing people etc.
There is nobody on earth with less self awareness than a Zionist. Bar none. Even the burgers are less blatant than this.
Egalitarian poverty and underdevelopment, which is to say Westoids would love it because they love far away places with poverty they can fetishize and pretend to care about. I'm not even sure such a China would be politically feasible, because it would lack wide support from the population, unlike Xi's system.
>>954053>socialism causes poverty and underdevelopment >you can either have le trickle down or le everybody is poor >le commies just don't know how le tough life under socialism was, those spoilt le babies >they only pretend to le care about le poor>socialism has never had le support of the le population >only capitalism can have le support
Thanks Mr Friedman, very cool!
uyghur that is the modern china, all you are doing and all you ever do is projection. I am not a sectarian uygha but dengists aren't leftists. They aren't even human.
it is >socialism bad but also I am a socialist
aka unpaid ciauyghur/mssuyghur post yalta world order shit
>>954058>>socialism causes poverty and underdevelopment
Embargoes and restriction of technological exchange, etc. do cause underdevelopment, you drooling retard.
>the rest of your projection and head cannon
literally every socialist experiment has had embargoes and restrictions of technological exchange, the result has not been underdevelopment, but development in the face of a mountain of hostility.
What are saying? You have to be a cuck or they might fuck your wife? Meanwhile, you're still a cuck and they are still fucking your wife
>>954076>the result has not been underdevelopment
Compared to the West? It absolutely was the case. You could compare textile, steel, etc. factories in 1991 Russia to those owned by the US and can not but come to this conclusion. And let's not start with the state of electronics, and other late 20th century conveniences.
>You have to be a cuck or they might fuck your wife?<when anti-Dengism brings out the /pol/tard in you
>>954008>the People's Zionism
China upholds the Palestinian right to a state.
how was Mao leftist? he literally discarded class struggle in his own words
>>954102>two state solution
Zionists oppose the idea that Palestinians can have their own state where they are politically enfranchised. Since China upholds Palestinian statehood, they cannot be Zionists.
>>954082>hur dur imperialists did better than periphery countries
Wow well done. Ignoring of course the fact that the imperialists started with and maintained massive advantages.
How about we compare like for like,Cuba, for Haiti, for example. Nicaragua, to El Salvador. Bolivia, to chile, the ussr and somewhere like Brazil I suppose, outcomes >poltard
Weak cope >>954102>>954113
China pays lip service to Palestinian support and get maintains economic, military and technological ties with Israel as mentioned above, long term ones in key geostrategic areas like Afghanistan and Latin America.
>>954124>imperialists started with and maintained massive advantages
And embargoes are part and parcel of maintaining said advantages, something China outwitted to the growing chagrin of imperialists.
You literally have no case. Take the L.
It’s not outwitting if you just join them, you literally have no case, take the L
If only all socialist countries could have sided with the CIA in every conflict involving socialists in the last 30 years, then perhaps there would not be a trade embargo on cuba. P sad
What? Everything I've read suggests Mao advanced
the class struggle, considering it paramount. The rightists were the ones who rejected or downplayed the class struggle in the interest of Capital.
>>954124>China pays lip service to Palestinian support
Yes and Zionist are mad about it.
China doesn't have enough long distance military projection to enforce statehood of Palestinians anyway.
If Palestine gets help it will have to be from a country much closer like Iran or something.
Reminder that it's always, always, always anglo "leftists" who are most pissed off by China.
Prove you aren't an anglo
because Chine has a unitarian party that calls itself communist and that's all it takes
The most pissed off people about the Chinese bourgeois state that I have met are Chinese communist dissidents
No they don't you dumb faggot hahaha
they send weapons and aid to israel in return for influence and the opportunity to invest. They are actively aiding the genocide of Palestinians. Actions speak louder than words.
Both the American and the Chinese glowies win out from people believing that China is communist.
Agreed we should support CIA in its crusade against China.
The CIA calls China communist and wants the American proletariat AND the Chinese proletariat to believe the current system there is socialist.
CIA, known ultras
The CIA actually did fund right deviationists
The Dengists/Tankies/Revisionists who believe the Capitalist, Imperialist, and Fascist State of Dengist China is “Socialist”, “Anti-Imperialist”, and “Marxist-Leninist” are brainwashed by Crypto-Fascist Marcyite Campism, 😂🤮! They are in desperate need of some Marxist-Leninist-Maoist praxis to get them on the Shining Path to Communism!
Like the current Chinese government
I agree that mao was a right deviation but I would need to see some further proof of that transcript
yup including int baizoudogistan
supporting the israeli state as it is equals zionism
china not only supports it with words but also economically and militarily<long live the idf, the people's army, in their struggle against palestinian imperialism!<long live zionist china in its struggle for selling weapons to saudi arabia to kill imperialist yemenis and selling weapons to israel to kill imperialist palestinians!<long live zionist communist party of china in its struggle to support sanctions against iran for israel's sake!
Nice idealism. He completely abandoned it because… He said things? Good thing I judge revolutionaries by their actions, not words.
Because it is Socialist.
What we should stop pretending about is the idea that it matters. The paradigm of the new Cold War which defines geopolitical and domestic civil struggle is not between communism and capitalism, but between “Authoritarians” and “Democrats”, which has no ideological content.
The CIA does not. The CIA calls China “authoritarian.” The present CIA is indifferent to socialism or capitalism, and only cares about geopolitical machinations. It discourages media workers and propagandists from drawing attention to state ideology and economic modes in lieu of comprehending and relating to political entities as pro/anti China. China is only ever called communist by the US agencies in the context of applying old, anti-Chinese laws which are still in effect and written during the twilight of the Cold War.
It’s actually much more common for the CIA to call China capitalist, imperialist, and neo-colonialist.
Yeh I’m sure they are mad about the capture of geopolitical objectives and their big shiny new port largest one they’ve got in lands they ethnically cleansed. >>954150
Reminder that’s it’s always people who say Anglo who don’t have a fucking clue about shit
>>954428>the CIA is indifferent to socialism or capitalism
Dengoids literally disgust me. The things they will say to defend China.
The CIA was literally purposefully invented to oppose socialism and that is all it has ever done.
If you believe otherwise you are either a knowing liar propagandising for them or simply without the facts, a noob to socialism, and should sit down shut up and listen
Hopium. The answer is always hopium.
t. calls them "jungle trots"
China didn’t create Palestine, you did. Blame yourself, not the far off Asian country with the policy of non-intervention.
It’s absolutely un-equivocally true that the CIA and the US a foreign policy and intelligence apparatus as whole has ceased to characterize its enemies as socialist and begin to characterize them as authoritarian.
Yes me I personally created Israel lmao.
Non intervention is not when you build their biggest port, trade weapons and other tech, and enter into military alliances with them alongside the CIA. Unless you are telling me
1) those things didn’t happen or 2) those things don’t count as intervention
Kek. The Palestinian liberation movement states that virtually all Israeli goods are complicit in the oppression of Palestinians, yes that does in fact apply to ports and weapons tech lmao
Oh i see well if the CIA labels something as something it definitely changes what they fundamentally do and have done since their inception.
>um China actually says it supports Palestine so… it does despite all actual material action >um… the CIA actually says it fights authoritarianism so… it does despite all the actual material action
The state of this lot Jesus
The quality of dengoids on this board actually used to be okay but it’s plummeted the further down the hole they’ve gone
2-state solution is purposefully meaningless and implicitly supports israel
The CIA will actively supports socialist and communist states where it supports it goal of containing China. It has pushed for agnosticism in regards to state ideology, and a reorientation to understanding good and bad based on friend/enemy distinctions. It is pro-Vietnamese Communism because it’s anti-China, and pro-SDF because it’s anti Syrian, pro-Maoist in SEA, pro-Baloch in Pakistan, and notably, pro-anarchist/leftcom in the US, in regards to organizations that have alarmingly narrow focus on Mainalnd China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
Yes, trade is non-intervention. The CIA is working hard to expel China from Israel, don’t worry. Palestine is your atrocity. Not ours.
>>954461>the CIA is pro Maoism in SEA
Lmao. No it isn’t. >pro Vietnamese
Again, no, it’s not >pro SDF
Because it got kicked out of Turkey. At the time Russian was also pro SDF and so was Assad. By the way the CIA has also worked with assad, and assad is not a socialist. Absolutely dog shit take. >pro anarchist/ leftcom
If you mean putting saboteurs at the anti globalisation protests etc, that is explicitly anti communist in all means, if you think they differentiate you’re a dumbass.
>>954463>ingnores the part about actual military alliances >ignored that Palestinians explicitly ask for a boycott of all Israeli goods >pretends trade is non political, as a communist
>some shit about who I am not the actual information contained in post I.e idpol
Deng cucks, staying cucked since.. idk whenever Bernie cucked and Corbyn cucked is about as long as they’ve been a “communist”
From here on out, pay attention to the number of times US propaganda organs such as the NYT, Washington Post and WSJ, and government officials and diplomats mention “authoritarian and democracy” over “socialism and capitalism”. The former will outnumber the later 100:1, conservatively.
Oh the lib papers call stuff authoritarian omg that it literally hard smoking gun evidence that the CIA supports Maoists in south east Asia and Vietnamese communism
You defo haven’t just fan ficced that out your opinion haver poop chute in an enormous coping flail
Who's "we" uygha
>>954435>Reminder that’s it’s always people who say Anglo who don’t have a fucking clue about shit
t. anglo, naturally
He’s pretending he’s Chinese but he’s an American pansexual other kin
If you use the word Anglo you are not anti idpol
True, actions speak louder than words. And Mao was a capitalist roader in actions, too, like the meeting in the pic when he joined the side of Nixon and the USA.
Can you explain what the Bloc of Four Classes was except class collaborationism?
uh it actulaly was uuh the contradictoin uuuhhhhhhhhhh
"Big tent" politics. That doesn't make Mao right-wing. The whole point of "big tent" politics was to mobilize as many as possible against the Japanese forces and later KMT. The Bolsheviks did the same thing for the overthrow of the Tsar. Curious, what is your tendency? Wrecker-ism?
Anon, the Bloc of Four Classes and New Democracy was after the Revolution and war, and it's explicit class collaborationism. What exactly do you think the Chinese flag symbolizes?>The largest star symbolizes the Communist Party of China's leadership and the surrounding four smaller stars symbolizing the Bloc of Four Classes, i.e. proletarians, peasants, the petty bourgeoisie (small business owners) and the national bourgeoisie.
Mao, Deng, there's no difference.
The point of the Cultural Revolution was to abolish the "big tent".
productive forces + materialist dialectics + art of war
>>954553>The largest star symbolizes the Communist Party of China's leadership and the surrounding four smaller stars symbolizing the Bloc of Four Classes, i.e. proletarians, peasants, the petty bourgeoisie (small business owners) and the national bourgeoisie.
Is that actually true or retconned? How tf did they get away with that shit?
Capitalist reforms spat in the face of all that and wrecked the economy, just like in the USSR. They were done just to make some party bureaucrats rich at the expense of the proletariat and socialism
>>954603>How tf did they get away with that shit?
By having right-wingers in the Party. Read the OP.
still blows my mind that mao was an anarchist at first
He was a librarian too when he was an anarchist right? Just shows that anyone can rise to power if circumstances were right
Stfu dengoid. The cultural revolution was one of the most based things to ever happen in leftism.
You make it sound as it was a significant chunk of his early political life. It was more like a second of his politically active life in the greater span of things.
all i said was mao was an anarchist at first which is a fact
It is common for many Marxists, especially today, to have gone through an anarchist phase. It's because anarchism is more accessible to the uninitiated but radically oriented, both in it being a synthesis of socialism and liberalism as well as it being theoretically less dense than Marxism, which takes years of reading, scientific study and practice to get a grip of.
Most Marxist on this site seem to have had an anarchist phase when political development threads come up.
Also add that today that heavy layer of anti-communist propaganda still lingering on from the cold war can be bypassed via anarchism.
>>954835>Marxism, which takes years of reading, scientific study and practice to get a grip of
so most people on leftypol arent marxists?
I went from vulgar anti-imperialist (more like anti-America and anti-Israel) /pol/tard straight to Marx (although I have read a bit of Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Stirner). Do I get snowflake points? Understanding dialectics and the point of communism took years though. Before that I was like "capitalism is immoral and dialectics don't matter". Now I know better. A lot of times talking to socialists online I am disappointed by their moralizing, lack of understanding dialectics or the relevance thereof and just not getting the point is to progress past capitalism, to harness the benefits capitalism has brought, without the restrictions. To self-crit a bit although my power level grows there is still a lot I don't understand. Such as why is the war in Ukraine happening, why has the West decided to destroy its economies? None of the offered explanations are satisfactory to me. It seems like an unprecedented event, where an inter-dependent world in terms of trade is suddenly teared apart over what? How does this advance the interests of the ruling classes of either side? It is a mystery to me.
instead of dialectics it sounds more like you studied dianetics anon
Yes? Must I explain the power level meme on an imageboard of all places?
it's a joke anon
do you have autism
In any discussion surrounding dialectics the chances of participants being autistic is high, anon.
Imo Hua Guofeng would have been better if he was able to heal the Sino-Soviet split.
>no universal healthcare
Literal Orientalist Qanon, 😂🤣🤮!
I’ll admit that Mao made two critical mistakes, meeting Nixon/Kissinger and not reeducating Deng in the full Dunce Cap routine, because if he didn’t make these two mistakes, China would still be Socialist.
kek true. Trust. The. Plan.
reminds me that Khrushchev once said that if he were British, he would vote Tory
I would suggest you educate yourself on the new democracy.
The purpose of the Chinese revolution, like the great October revolution, was to speed up class antagonism in china by establishing a society containing both capitalist and socialist relations, just like the Russian federative Soviet republic did for years… It was explicitly class collaborationist. The great proletarian cultural revolution was the , you know, *proletarian* revolution attempting to overthrow the burgs entirely. It failed.
>>954082<Couldn't refute the point but just attack the idea's similarity with other things
Dengoids confirmed cucks
Anyone not explicitly supporting the Axis of Resistance in Palestine is supporting Israel.
Everything is just games being played on Palestinians skin.>>954150<Idpol in 2022
Stop it.>>954461<Cia is currently pro-Maoism in SEA
No sources?>>954144<China's Gdp EIGHTY TIMES higher than Iran's one
Yeah there's no way it all they could help Palestine in their struggle.
>>955589>anglo is idpol
>>955589>The CIA will actively supports socialist and communist states where it supports it goal of containing China.
God I wish that were true.>quoting that one buzz term from the least retarded centrist nazi
Kill yourself pseud>It has pushed for agnosticism in regards to state ideology
Western imperialists are the only reason that the middle east is still theocratic instead of communist and Western intelligence agencies have been implicated in literrally every single islamic terrorist plot in the west.
Are you just larping as a mentally retarded liberal or something?
Define idpol you pants on head motherfucker
>>955634>x also bad so China socialist and Chinese state good
there you go again
Yes mao era CPC was right deviationist wrecker shit as well
You spend literally every day of your life trying to defend the cpc from criticism and calling China socialist. You're not getting paid mofo
>>955623<Essentialism is not idpol
Least retarded dengoid
Labour is about as radical as China rn lmao
Remove the anglo and the anarcho-trotskyite-liberals will disappear.
Corbyn is unironically a thousand times better than Xi
>>954952>How does this advance the interests of the ruling classes of either side? It is a mystery to me.
They could just be irrational and insane and incapable of planning anything.
Nothing to see here, just two wholesome socdems looking at eachother
All two attendees of the anti-imperialist social democrat conference
Literally true. I'm not even really interested in pursuing this line of argument, but it's chiling just how true it is.
Let's take a look at all the recognisable namefags/flagfags and those whose nationality can be deduced from their flag>>953924
I'm not 100% sure about this one, but if it's Anglo SocDem, then yes>>955141
This anon seems to be the only recognisable non-anglo ITT, but I still have doubts because many Western lefties like larping as Allende (not that there is anything wrong with that).
IMO it'd be funny if we got in contact with a member of some Trotskyite party in New Zealand (I haven't checked but I'm pretty sure they have at least one) who hates China and convinced him/her to start posting on our board to make sure that the circle is closed all the five horsemen of the apocalypse are here.
with the advantage of being able to look back at history, it seems like the mistake all communist leaders made at some time or another was to move too fast along a path which they thought was right, without treating people as people first and foremost and experimenting and taking it slow. I dont know if this is an indictment since who knows what could have been the outcome of too much caution and not enough timeliness. But for us here in the 21st century, we ought to be 100% for a scientific approach to all matters, rather than dogmatism. One good thing about Deng (even though he is very equally guilty of this idealism, or just treachery) is that he showed that a communist party can embrace privatization and markets, if it seems to be the way to success. They can't be an ultimate goal since they hold within them unavoidable pitfalls, we know this because of Marx, but it gives us space to, e.g., not force collectivization, or force a certain use of farmland, etc. No matter what, we start from where we stand now, and move rationally.
thanks anon for this post, its always good to learn some more about mao>>953923
This points to an important problem for understanding the role of a socialist party. On the one hand, it is a tool of the working people against the bourgeois establishment, on the other hand in cases where revolution wins the party has come into control of the state, and the state acts best when it doesn't try to appease or push some ideological line.
This is a problem we see in socialist countries, where the party becomes basically synonymous with the state, and is no longer fighting for the people, instead it becomes bloated with all kinds of factions in order to run the government (since it takes lots of bureaucrats), and inevitably some liberal takes control. Though i just realized i'm only thinking of russia and china, so idk if this holds…. what did vietnam and laos do? I'm not going to count cuba because for the longest time castro was the leader. They seem to be doing ok tho.
Anyways, do you think that this means there can't be a one party solution, or that the party should be more strict, or something else? I think it's good to have a one-party (basically no-party) state and to allow democracy within it, because it's the people's after all, but the socialist party of the country then should split and be actively engaged again in a grassroots way, apart from any government activity.
China is definitely not socialist or trying to move toward it.
Also yall dont have my countries flag
I'm a kiwi
>>953900>Shitty revisionists are shitty but are not a useful counterweight to the current neoliberal world order and don’t have a greater capacity for unfucking themselves
What is to be done
>>955703>King Lear is an anglo
King Lear is many things, including a glowie, but he's not an anglo lmao
of course he is
you aren't that unabashedly obnoxious and insane without being one>>955930
of course you are
Isn't he American or is the fact he voted for Joe Biden a meme
>>956052>you aren't that unabashedly obnoxious and insane without being one
Isn't King Lear American and an admitted Biden voter?
communism is when you produce and trade communist commodities rather than capitalist commodities
it's dialectical yuo see
China is more progressive (in a historical sense) than most countries are right now, I also dont think its socialism and believe the by 2050 talk when I see it, but many Anti-China socialists lack that nuance too.
What I found almost Chinas biggest lack is internationalism
Eh, I still consider them socialist, but revisionists who gave up revolutionary politics and class struggle. Still, they have the potential to at least unfuck themselves
no, that's ultraleft nonsense
real communism means building productive forces until the sun explodes
for sure, and they look to be best prepared for the big troubles that will propably define this decade
Nobody except MLkiddies think China is communist. It's not. It's primarily a capitalist mode of production managed by a communist state.
real communism is giving weapons to israel and saudi arabia
>>956230>It's primarily a capitalist mode of production managed by a communist state.
but that is communist, just not communism
That is communism.
How else do you get the Saudis and Israelis to cooperate with you instead of the US? How do you defeat the US empire without breaking the petro-dollar?
If you wanna defeat the US, what other options do you have?
It's managed by a dicatorship of the bourgeois that is pretending to be communist for reasons beneficial to capital in China and internationally.
give me a source or no
Iran is keeping the Empire busy in the Middle East with 1,2% of China's Gdp.
Sometime you have to simply face the Empire and kill the beast.
>>956223>they have the potential to at least unfuck themselves
China is revisionist. Even still, it is better for the CCP to be in power with all its flaws than for China to allow itself to be pulled back into Western sphere of influence. I think we should closely watch Xi Xinping as he is much less revisionist than some of his predecessors.
Anglo Anglo Anglo.
You are all anglos
None of you are free from the box
>>957080>I think we should closely watch Xi Xinping as he is much less revisionist than some of his predecessors.
How so? Also what control does Xi Jinping have over the affairs of China?
>>956220>What I found almost Chinas biggest lack is internationalism
Lol they are the opposite. They have been national chauvinists since day one and lost any pragmatic aiding of foreign communists or anti-imperialist forces since the 70s
you're literally an anglo until proven otherwise
Basically Chinese people believe they are socialists but fortunately White leftoids are here to tell them they are merely pretending.
Frankiy the anarchist/leftcom demand that we draw a firm distinction between ending poverty, developing a country etc. and Socialism, and that these good things are not actually part of the socialist project, should be rejected with extreme prejudice.
And (while on the subject) doing things like dedicating entire issues of your magazine to literal CIA agents should also result in exclusion. But that’s just me.
>>957161>socialism is when you believe you are socialist and call yourselves socialist
These gentlemen think that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves
>>957173>socialism is when good things happen
Long live Socialism with Prussian Characteristics and Bismarck Thought
The angloid is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a liberal, parasite, imperialist, bourgeois, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him an anglo and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”
Socialism is the development of productive forces. Socialism is the elimination of poverty.
On the contrary, you are the ones that have changed the definition of socialism to avoid giving that label, for some reason, to the most successful socialist project in world history.
Literal neoliberal LMFAO
The real movement? Wuzzat? shut the fuck up ultra
Anglos implicitly believe that socialism is a western project, and that it cannot have Chinese characteristics. For an asian country to be socialist, it must copy the practices of the west. The more of its own original ideas it incorporates, the less socialist, and the more oriental and despotic it is.
And what "original" definition of socialism are you using? Ferdinand Lassalle? lmao
Neoliberalism is when you end extreme poverty for 500 million people. What’s odd though, I haven’t figured it out yet, but for some reason, only China was able to do this despite every other country also being neoliberal. Best not to think about, though. Socialism is the cult of poverty.
Dirigisme originated in the West actually
If you ain’t poor as shit…. You ain’t a socialist! We don’t give a crap about that “development” crap here son. That ain’t real socialism unless you are eating meet twice a year—Max!
Dumb bitch China invented the administrative state and implement every form of it before your civilization learned you could shit in a hike.
>>957230>socialism is when development
Park Chung-Hee was my favorite socialist. You're just an anglo that doesn't like Socialism with Korean Characteristics
So you're not even denying SWCC is Dirigisme lmao
You will never be Chinese
You will always be American
dengists are the orientalists (usually westerners) Chinese communists don't say retarded orientalist shit about China or argue to abandon the class struggle>>957227
That graph is a wonderful example because when you compare it to the same graph ex-China, you see the ex-China version is a flat line. Every positive trend in poverty and development that neoliberals claimed was a global trend was in fact a near-exclusively Chinese trend.
go back to your fbi.gov cult ezra
No, I’m just pointing out the idea that you invented government was laughable.
lol no and the reason line go up is because the standard for poverty keeps going down
And who fuckin said that LMFAO
Fine, have it your way, China invented Dirigisme and class collaboration. Is that what you want?
had that one ready huh? lmao
there's this thing called google
dengism is mental illness as is all right wing thought
Ah yes, Chinese are actually Westerners and when they have a civilization and a system of social ethics and governance philosophy that predates the 20th century they are self-orientaliziing. Good point.
Oh why don’t they know? Socialism is when you are FUCKING POOOOOOOOR AS SHIIIT. It has nothing to do with developing social or productive forces.
it usually takes me a while to find decent sources on google. I saved some decent bookmarks at least but they were all kind of obscure like uni websites and shit
You said that randomly that, bizarrely, socialism with Chinese characteristics was invented in the West. No it wasn’t you moron lol
shut the fuck up western idealist bugman
Notice how one line goes straight down and the other doesn’t?
But it does go down though That means it's alleviating poverty and thus it's socialism, right?
Repeat after me: Socialism is poverty.
we should compile a list of phrases used by the dengist gpt bot
2.some confucian shit
3.socialism with chinese characteristics
5.china is anti imperialist
7.china is socialist
8.Whether it is, or is not, is secondary to the fact
9.I didn't say that
No, if it was socialism, the line would go up as we’ve established. Socialism is not when you stop being hungry, it’s not when you do science or art. It’s when you are poor.
We are all socialists, here, which is why we all understand that not having enough food is the best way to live. Do not confuse “growing food” with socialism.
No, socialism is when you alleviate poverty and have taxes retarded ultra. Over here we support AES like China, Vietnam, France, USA, Saudi Arabia
I'm not convinced the dengoid posters on this board aren't already gpt-2 bots tbh
I can’t help but notice China isn’t a poor agricultural economy and the people there seem like they eat the recommended, or perhaps even MORE than recommended, serving of protein a day. Why are we still pretending this country is socialist?(Ban evading idpol spammer)(User is a known right wing astroturfer upon further inspection)
>>957281>Why are we still pretending this country is socialist?
The government does stuff and they are cool and based Orientals, unlike the decadent West, so they perfectly fit the definition of socialism as dictated by Lassalle Thought. You just hate them because they don't fit your "pure" conception of socialism from ultras like Marx and Lenin.
The dude that made the claim that “the CIA supports Maoism in Southeast Asia and also Vietnamese communism” really just made that claim, reasserted it when challenged, did not post any proof then left thread.
I’m telling you bros dengoidism thought is literally fan fiction 50 shades of grey style
If class collaboration is whenever classes have their contradictions mediated through through the party, then all sucessful revolutions in all of history have been class-collaborationist, and we have no reason to suspect anything other than class collaboration will work.
Yeah, don't just regurgitate slogans. Actual class collaborationism is mediating class conflict with the intention of perpetuating it.
What would you call the Bloc of Four Social Classes
What would you call the soviet worker-peasant alliance?
I don't see the worker-peasant including the national bourgeoisie, do you?
Based and National Syndicalist pilled
The national bourgeoisie is a revolutionary class, same as the peasantry, same as the proletariat.
Yes, and the Chinese Revolution was a bourgeois revolution led by the peasantry (proto-petty boug) against the feudal and colonial elements of China, therefore them allying with the international bourgeoisie against the Soviets and them becoming the new big capitalist superpower is nothing surprising and perfectly consistent
Glad we are on the same page
Nah it's a socialist revolution, the sino-soviet split was not just the fault of the coloured people, the white people also did some national chauvenism which lead to the split.
Curious how you only blame the people that don't look like you 白左
Why would I be jealous of a capitalist state when I already live in one though
Nooooo anon capitalism constantly does this and is totally able to do so and so therefore I don't have to suspend the lens where I can blame 3rd world people for the failure of 1st world revolutionaries to achieve anything of note 😭😭
Explain to me how it was necessary for China to ally with fucking Nixon and the USA at every turn just because Khrushchev is a retard, I'll wait lmao>Nah it's a socialist revolution
No proof, no right to speak
I already elaborated why it most definitely isn't
>>957321>can't argue>hides behind idpol
You will never be Chinese
>>957322>Explain to me how it was necessary for China to ally with fucking Nixon
The USSR routinely followed a chauveniat line against it's fraternal socialist nations. PRC adjusted to this reality. If you had to defend yourself against the USSR, allowing with the US was the obvious choice.
Now was the sino-soviet split a mistake? Sure. Was it the fault of Mao and PRC alone?
Not even close.
I'm not jealous of delusional midwit burger autists that pretend China is socialist and we should abandon the class struggle and sell off communism entirely. Completely oblivious to the fact that Chinese capital doesn't give a fuck about proles and doesn't need to allow lube for proles outside of China in it's new imperial periphery in America and shit when they become the new capitalist superpower. You are not only a traitor to communism, not only wasting your life spending all your time spamming here, not only delusional and incapable of overcoming your stupidity, but you are also a fucking cuck
>>957328>>957328>Completely oblivious to the fact that Chinese capital doesn't give a fuck about proles and doesn't need to allow lube for proles outside of China in it's new imperial periphery in America and shit when they become the new capitalist superpower
Agreed, but "chinese capital" isn't in charge of PRC. The CPC is.
>>957319>all countries that have a primarily capitalist mode of production are exactly the same
Your country has been on the decline in key components of welfare and infrastructure for the past 30 years.
Unlike China which has been the direct opposite.
You are suffering from nothing more than imperial anxiety. Massive amounts of cope and denial are typical symptoms.
Chinese capital is in charge of the CPC and this gaslighting from "fellow communists" should be met with beatings and bullets
Uh no anon, A = A
This is how dialectics work.
It doesn't matter who's in charge of a process. It's just capitalism. I will be a manager in the new trot adventurist cambodia superstate
Yes it does. It is Keynsian shit done at the behest of certain segments of the bourgeoisie that directly benefit from it.
So you do admit China has a capitalist mode of production lmao
Was Japan before 1991 socialist? Was South Korea during Park Chung-hee socialist? Is Singapore socialist? Honest questions>imperial anxiety
I live in a eastern yuro shithole country you retard, meanwhile your burgershart ass corn syrup smell permeates through the screen. No amount of settler guilt will make you chinese anon
How are the bourgeoisie in charge of the CPC. How did the PRC act "10 times" worse than the USSR prior to and during the split?
I'm not a burger, retard. My country has extreme corruption, violence, death, and poverty. We can only wish we had agovernment like China's. We've been poor for decades and shit doesn't get better for my country. You're a privileged scum that preaches "purity" from an ivory tower. Kill yourself :)
However I should add: Keynes saving capitalism was much less bad for communism than China's actions which is capitalist vampirism of the former socialist system
where do you live?
>>957339>>957339>Yes it does. It is Keynsian shit
When did Keynesianism happen? What made it possible and later what made it successful?
>>957341>How did the PRC act "10 times" worse than the USSR prior to and during the split?
Oh well Khrushchev is a chauvinist fuckhead, guess I'll pull out of Vietnam and let Americans slaughter them and support the Mujahideen now
>>957340>So you do admit China has a capitalist mode of production lmao
That doesn't make PRC capitalist.
Sure if the USSR is a dangerous chauveniat nation on your borders, that makes geopolitical sense
>>957349>capitalism isn't when you have capitalism
L M A O
Who's more chauvinist in your opinion, the USSR or the USA?
And also cooperate with the CIA and save capitalism from a defeat by socialism, however revisionist. China put America on life support and nursed it back the health to get it strong enough to defeat communism
>>957349>>So you do admit China has a capitalist mode of production lmao>Sure.>That doesn't make PRC capitalist.
Have you ever read a single piece of marxist theory?
The mode of production determines the class character os the state *facepalm*
The more I argue with dengoids here the more I realize just how far this capitalist rot in the prc dates back
Mexico.>>957351>>957340>muh categorical analysis of politics<BEHOLD! A COMMUNIST COUNTRY! JAPAN BEFORE THE 1990s
No Diogenes, wrong room. Plato's academy is three boards down.
Capped and saved
I fucking hate this site lmao
desktopbro pls take more cringe pics and we'll save them for a dengist cringe thread
Arrogant and ignorant. Name a more iconic duo.>>957361
Yeah, Diogenes was based. But we're not engaging in Platonic categories here. >>957363
I knew you were a burger motherfucker
Not that anon but I think he meant China as a socialist project. Like Vietnam or Venezuela, they don't have socialist economies but they have some sort of socialist political project in power.
Base and Superstrucuter dont corralate 1 to 1
You didn't say PRC ONLY has a capitalist mode of production. You said capitalism exists within PRC.
This is a Motte and Bailey. You're using an uncontroversial statement to prove a controversial one.
feudalism had capitalism. That didn't make feudalism capitalism. That's not how it works. Your ridicule demonstrates arrogant ignorance
No you just said something retarded that displayed your ignorance and lack of understanding of marxism
The USA ofc.
But who posed a more immediate threat to PRC at the time?
If I had to guess at the time, it would be the country hell-bent on lynching every communist on Earth. You're telling me the USSR was more of a threat than this?
litterally no u.
If your claim is that if capitalism exists within a system then that system is capitalist, then you need to read more Marx, because that would make all systems since the dawn of civilization capitalism
the dichotomy inbetween the mode of production and the state isn't the dichotomy inbetween the base and the "supertoocuter"
America had fucking nukes pointed at China and was actively embargoing.and destablizing them and had just killed 10s of millions of them and their brothers.
By the late 60's in the Khrushzhev era it was totally up in the air whether the tanks that was going to roll over you were Russian or American.
I'm not saying it was a wise decision, but I'm saying that blaming PRC alone shows an obvious bias and one that's probably based on perceived racial characteristics.
mode of production and ruling class dont corralate 1 to 1
USSR had nukes pointed at China.
Yeah after China threatened to invade them. You rewlly think the USSR would use the nukes? Of course not. They were brothers, they were just having a dementia moment due to capitalist roaders
It's not that capitalism "exists within a system", it's that capitalism is unquestionably the dominant mode of production in China you dense motherfucker
Capitalism and socialism aren't defined in terms of percentages or whatever the fuck you're spouting, but in terms of class relations. China has markets, private ownership, wage-labour, commodity production, capital accumulation etc, so unless you are a socdem lib that thinks socialism is when Norway and welfare, China is capitalist without a single doubt. Why do you keep embarassing yourself?
then why were capitalist revolutions neccesarry
you didnt describe class relations but the economic mode thats a difference
The USSR never threatened China in the same way America did, even while China was actively aggravating them. That is historical revsionism
The USSR had done politics that had alienated most of the communist Bloc.
Romania, Albania, DDR, Hungary, Yugoslavia: these were all nations that were alienated by USSR chauvinism and played out the west and the east against each other.
It is lamentable that this happened, but let's not pretend that USSR policies did not play a large factor in this state of affairs.
>>957408>The USSR never threatened China in the same way America did, even while China was actively aggravating them. That is historical revsionism
Source? How many American troops were stationed on the Chinese border?
wdym? the ruling class and mode of production were both challenged by an underclass that waged evenetually successful revolutions, like with the socialist ones
No I agree with that, I also think what China did is even worse
like titoist betrayal on steroids
>>957405>China has markets, private ownership, wage-labour, commodity production, capital accumulation etc,
It also has a DotP, which means that while a capitalist mode of production exists alongside other modes of production within the PRC, the PRC is still a social project even if capitalism exists within the PRC
>>957398>that blaming PRC alone shows an obvious bias and one that's probably based on perceived racial characteristics.
Literally what the fuck are you even going on about now lmfao
You're a million times more orientalist and racist than anyone in this thread if you think non-whites can't do any wrong on account on being non-white. Allying with the biggest imperialists, racists, butcherers of communists on the planet and fighting against commies with them at every turn is absolutely a fucking horrendous thing, which, you are right, was a logical decision for China: not because they are threatened by the chauvinism of the USSR, but because they are a class collaborationist bourgeois country that acted in its logical self interest.
Okay it may have been an overcorrection, but it think it's wrong-headed to then assume that this meant that the Chinese revoltion was peasant capitalist from the start.
capitalist mode of production existed dominantly before the capitalist class had the state power
yup. never mind all the anti-revisionist non white countries
>>957417>It also has a DotP
It does fucking not lmfao, unless you think DotP is when you just call yourself one and not when the proletariat is in control.
How would the proletariat be in control of the DotP in a way that it isn't now? Should every single prole be in the standing committee? What kind of political control do you think is lacking?
what does Dotp stand for
it wasn't a correction at all, it was twisting the knife. If they weren't national chauvinist they would have supported independence among socialist nations instead of collaborating with the capitalist end boss to shatter socialism and doing their own controlling and exploiting other communist nations like Vietnam and Cambodia and Algeria etc.
no I'm saying you're blaming only one side in a comflict where both is guilty.
Suspiciously, you blame only the non-whites
>>957430>If they weren't national chauvinist they would have supported independence among socialist nations
They did that, Romania and Albania are examples of that.
Sure there are billionaires in China.
Are they in control of the CPC or does the CPC often crack down on their interests?
I think the Sino-Soviet split was two retards fighting eachother, but I didn't see Khrushchev openly allying with the imperialist in response
Why can't you accept that China showed its class character when it rubbed elbows with their pals Nixon and Kissinger? Why are you finding excuses for engaging in imperialist slaughter?
For a dotp there would need to be bloody revolution that deposes the bourgeoisie and instates proeltarian rule reapropriating capital to be immediatedely reorganized, and socialized along a planned economic socialist line of development, while defending against counter-revolution and supporting communist revolutionaries as much as possible to avoid encirclement and degeneration. If the proletariat actually rose up and did these things they would win and we would have a shot at world socialism. China with a socialist economy would instantly be the most powerful country in the world even geopolitically. They have the most industry and the most capable armed forces on the planet and have enough international assets that they could seriously improve the position of socialists world wide and find some friends.
If the proletariat is in control in China, what are they keeping billionaires over their necks for?
Also can you just drop that flag already lmfao, not that I have any respect for Gonzalofags but this is somehow even more embarassing
Like in America lol
>>957439>but I didn't see Khrushchev openly allying with the imperialist in response
He wouldn't have to, the USSR constituted it's own superpower and geopolitical pole.
They didn't have to cooperate with and fund bourgs except for the times that they did, funding the KMT and also during ww2.
Yeah, I remember when China supported this fine non-chauvinist fellow against the USSR
I sure wonder what this gentleman's opinion is on WW2 Nazi collaborator dictator Ion Antonescu
that has never happened and there's no indication that will ever happen. All successful revolutions thus far have consisted of multiple classes mediating their interests through the party.
What you're talking about sounds very nice. But that's the thing with utopianism, it all sounds very nice.
I despise you for being such a fucking kautskyist tumour
because the national bourgeoisie as a revolutionary class are necessary to keep for the meanwhile to survive in an age of capitalist unipolarity and the contradictions of capitalist siege, that's why.
The USSR made that reality bu acting like a geopolitical pole. The PRC responded to that, perhaps with an overcorrection.
this is the anglo box 📦 that treats socialism as a list of traits and not a vector of development and power.
The world was definitely not unipolar when Mao wrote the New Democracy, though they sure helped make it so when they fought to destroy the USSR at every turn with their pals in Washington
Did the Bolsheviks ally with their national bourgeoisie? Hm…
Bitch you're in the anglo pit if you think a country you admitted is capitalist is socialist lmao
Why didn't they just kill the revisionists in the USSR and stay loyal to communism themselves? Why didn't they just liquidate their own bourgeoisie after the revolution and actually build socialism? It's because they weren't fucking communists
>>957461>orientalism>anglo calling me an anglo
you could not get more baiznglou than this
>>957445>They didn't have to cooperate with and fund bourgs except for the times that they did, funding the KMT and also during ww2.
And according to you when Stalin did these things was it evil khruschevite imperialism or based socialist class collaboration with progressive national elements?
I hate these fake communists even more than capitalists that don't pretend to be otherwise. If the gestapo ever has us two in a room I am narcing on you even if it means I'm the first to get the bullet
>>957462>Did the Bolsheviks ally with their national bourgeoisie? Hm…
They did! And when they chose absolute violence over mediation and phasing out, that lead to their eventual absolute collapse. PRC took a route which was sustainable.
quote me admitting it is capitalist
>>957473>PRC took a route which was sustainable
when?>And when they chose absolute violence over mediation and phasing out, that lead to their eventual absolute collapse.
No after detente they and the socialist position internationally slid downhill while America and anticommunists continued to peacefully pile wasps into their asshole
>>957465>Why didn't they just kill the revisionists in the USSR and stay loyal to communism themselves?
What would that have looked liked.
>Why didn't they just liquidate their own bourgeoisie after the revolution and actually build socialism? It's because they weren't fucking communists
All projects that went down that route have collapsed or are extremely isolated today. It is an unscientific route that doesn't work.
>>957479>What would that have looked liked.
Getting them bumped off or removed somehow. America managed to do it to the USSR's hardliners so should have been even easier for China to do>All projects that went down that route have collapsed or are extremely isolated today
Yeah after they restored the bourgeois again. It's the opposite of what you are saying
fascism is the support for actual class collaboration, that is to say the support for perpetuating the contradiction of classes indefinitely by trying to render that relation nom-antagonistic.
It is also entirety dependent upon imperialism to survive.
If that is capitalism, then capitalism is the only road that has proven to work, I'm sorry.
the gov't having political power to directly contradict and subvert capitalism is socialism
>>957484>fascism is the support for actual class collaboration, that is to say the support for perpetuating the contradiction of classes indefinitely by trying to render that relation nom-antagonistic.
That is what China is doing>It is also entirety dependent upon imperialism to survive.
Not necessarily, see Spain. However the Chinese system will eventually be dependent on imperialism. Also post your reasoning and sources and stuff etc tbh
Just call yourself a capitalist then and no one will take offense to what you are saying
February revolution? NEP? The bourgeois elements that existed throughout the history of the USSR?
>>953900>So again, why are we still pretending China is Socialist?
China sekarang dipimpin sama sebuah partai komunis, jadi banyak ornag ynag ngira kalau China itu sosialis sebenarnya enggak
yeah just like it is an ancient germanic tradition and they might have chosen to call themselves the liberal national party
HE ADMITTED IT
WE DID IT
>>957491>That is what China is doing
Spain still had colonies and at the very least participated in western imperialism.
Lee Kuan Yew was my favorite socialist. You're just a dumb anglo that doesn't like Socialism with Singaporean characteristics.
I refuse to. Socialism is a scientific process. Whichever path can establish power away from Capital, Imperialists and the bourgeoise in that order, that ia socialism
My brother in Christ, what exactly do you think Socialism by 2050 entails? Hint: there's no eradication of the bourgeoisie mentioned anywhere, and there's no end to wage labour in sight. Almost as if the state exists to mediate the class struggle, not abolish it, curious
>>957506>Whichever path can establish power away from Capital, Imperialists and the bourgeoise in that order, that ia socialism
So China isn't socialist given that it is on the side of all three of those things
which event is this?
Only lasted a short period of time and because the planning committes were made up of like illiterate peasants and labourers with little education or access to technology and not a preplanned computer automated cybernetically planned economy like we could implement instantly in a present day revolution.>The bourgeois elements that existed throughout the history of the USSR?
Which bourgeois elementa and are they the bourgeoisie?
>>957506>Socialism is a scientific process. Whichever path can establish power away from Capital, Imperialists and the bourgeoise in that order, that ia socialism
Which is what you are rejecting in favour of abandoning the class struggle and eating sweet dengist brain worm lies.
You will never be a communist
You will never be Chinese
You will always be a burgershart
You will always be a corporatism apologist
You will always be an orientalist
>>957508>My brother in Christ, what exactly do you think Socialism by 2050 entails? Hint: there's no eradication of the bourgeoisie mentioned anywhere,
I agree the notion of socialism by 2050 is kinda ludicruos and overly optimistic and I think they should withdraw that statement. That said, even if it takes longer, the fact that the CPC has the political power to wrest away property and direcrly contradict the logic of capital is crucial.
While they currently may not walk entirely the right path, the fact that they CAN do that is crucial.
how do you know the cpc has the power to wrest away property and direcrly contradict the logic of capital and why didn't they do this?
Noone is abandoning the class struggle, it just isn't the primary contradiction facing society right now, let alone China.
>>957518>While they currently may not walk entirely the right path, the fact that they CAN do that is crucial.
If they can, why aren't they doing it?
They do this all the time. Jack Ma got sidelined. PRC is one of the few countries where capital is not concentrating and the GINI is falling. It's just going slower than you'd like.
I didn't say that.(yes you did)
Not between civilizations no
uyghur will you please do a suicide pact with me?
I will legit give you my pinky finger if you never call you or China communist ever again
>>957518>While they currently may not walk entirely the right path, the fact that they CAN do that is crucial.
You do realise this is true of any sovereign state, your bar for what comprises 'socialism' is so low that literally any monopoly on violence, any control over the state of exception qualifies, if all socialism is, is the mere existence of state power.
This dude is just a falseflagging troll. Stop feeding him, he's a midwit baiting.
Musolini type corporatism, means corporate structures taking over and becoming the state.
The Chinese system has very powerful state structures that follows the Marxist Leninist model in a lot of ways. More Power is delegated to the provincial level than is usual for ML-state. There are no corporations in existence that could take on this juggernaut. Just the CPC alone has 90 million members. Corporatism is structurally incapable of scaling up that much. Musolini's itally sucked pretty bad, that was probably already to large.
You have to be aware of the past, but if you try to explain the present in terms of the past alone, your reasoning will fail you. Present day China is very different from Italy circa 1922-1945.
Why do I still click on this thread
autism is pain uygha
>>957533>Musolini type corporatism, means corporate structures taking over and becoming the state.
Wrong. It is the state forming corporate structures comprising the bourgoise and the state-approved labour representatives while rendering all other labour organising illegal in order to tamp down class struggle and ensure the smooth and harmonious profit making of finance capital. ie. very much what china does
>>957529>You do realise this is true of any sovereign state
I am not realizing that because that is not true. It is unrealizationable.
>It is the state forming corporate structures comprising the bourgoise and the state-approved labour representatives while rendering all other labour organising illegal in order to tamp down class struggle and ensure the smooth and harmonious profit making of finance capital.
Socialist projects should just allow any old union to do whatever they want now regardless of the actual needs of the socialist economy overall?
No socialist project allowed super autonomous unions, that would have been a very bad idea.
Yeah sure, still class collaborationism
Literally every material the CPC has put out mentions "common prosperity", "getting rich together" , "national rejuvenation" etc. The state in China acts as a mediator between classes keeping both the bourgeoisie in check and also the proles from getting too rowdy, in favor of a national project to become an efficient global superpower. They're much more gentle than the West, and much better at their job, but this does not make it socialism, it's just class collaborationism plain and simple. What better comparison for it is there than corporatism?
This would be true… in an actual socialist country>inb4 China not allowing proles to organize against their bourg is proof China is socialist
>>957543>Yeah sure, still class collaborationism
If that is class collaboration, then every single successful revolution in history has done it to some degree and as far as we can tell it is unavoidable.
>>957545<inb4 China not allowing proles to organize against their bourg is proof China is socialist
Nah dw I wouldn't do that
Those were all successful revolutions yes.
Maybe less so for the English they did have a bit of a thermidor, but overall it crippled the feudal order immensely.
>lifting people out of poverty
Steven Pinkerton tier arguments
Capitalism lifts people out of poverty, congratulations for concluding capitalism is progressive as Marx did. Where your lack of understanding theory shows is thinking lifting people out of poverty is socialism. Capitalism already does that. Marx himself agreed with the assertion of Lassalle that wages in "the long run" will necessarily sustain the lives of workers. The point of socialism (as envisioned by Marx & Engels) is to SURPASS capitalism, or in German aufheben (which was translated in anglospeak into "abolish" which fails to convey the immanent dialectic implications of the word). Let's use poverty as an example. Though it is true capitalism lifts people out of poverty, what is EQUALLY true is that it keeps them in poverty through the mechanism of the reserve army of labor. In this case SURPASSING capitalism would mean employing EVERYONE; in doing so poverty automatically vanishes. This is dialectical materialism.
Western Dengoids are sheltered college kids who never experienced or studied the growths of their countries, they take it for granted. Then they see the growth of China and think this is "socialism" because look they're lifting people out of poverty while my country isn't! Except your country has already lifted people out of poverty, and the ones remaining in poverty are due to the reverse army of labor mechanism.
Fight me Dengoids.
When socialist projects create monopolistic state trade unions they use them as tools to educate workers, they don't use them to negotiate corporatist compromises with capital. At least when western european countries did tripartism the unions weren't sockpuppets for the state.
>>957554>When socialist projects create monopolistic state trade unions they use them as tools to educate workers, they don't use them to negotiate corporatist compromises with capital.
Plenty of smashies would say that this is exactly what the monopolistics state trade union does between the workers and the state. there is always some mediation. It's kinda inevitable.
The difference being when the only two actors are the workers and the state there's an argument to be made that the state must be a proletarian state and that this mediation is soviet democracy. Corporatism is not mediation between state and workers but the state mediating between (neutered) workers and capital. You're trying to act like mediation is the issue when the issue is quite clearly the bourgeoise. Corporatism is not a part of 'socialist projects' unless you include western social democracy as socialist projects. China which is economically corporatist unlike other examples of 'AES' is at best a socialist project in the tradition of social democracy (though stripped of most liberal democratic elements).
>>957564>You're trying to act like mediation is the issue when the issue is quite clearly the bourgeoise.
Why? A contradiction between the state and the people exists, just like a contradiction exists between the workers and the bourgeois. Both of these are contradictions that can and must be mediated, the contradiction between the state and the people by way of the party and the mass line, and the contradiction between the workers and the bourgeoisie through the Party and the Mass-line within the New Democracy.
>China which is economically corporatist unlike other examples of 'AES' is at best a socialist project in the tradition of social democracy
I'll take it!
Lenin was Succdem
Contradictions are not to be mediated but struggled through to the obliteration of both. Class struggle means the proletariat and the bourgeoisie fighting for supremacy, the victory of the proletariat which comprises its own self-abolition together with capital, or the common ruin of the contending classes are inevitable.The perpetuation of the bourgeoise and proletariat is by definition the continued triumph of the bourgeoisie, mediation of the conflict is simply one of the bourgeoise's methods of class struggle, of their self-perpetuation. >>957570
Long live the People's Dirgisme, we must uphold the DotP of Gaullist France and Scandinavian tripartist mass line!
Name one successful non-'social fascist' Marxist nation or project in history.
You heard of this dude called Lenin?
>>957589>Contradictions are not to be mediated but struggled through to the obliteration of both.
I agree, but the struggle will be long and must be relatively peaceful. It is not feasible to immediately abolish through absolute force the batuibak bourgeoisie, much like it is not feasible to abolish the state immediately through absolute force.
If your project is based upon the immediate and absolute abolition of both with absolutely no mediation, then your project has historically not been proven viable.>>957594
Lenin was a SocDem and engaged in class-collaborationism.
>>957539>ensure the smooth and harmonious profit making of finance capital.
if thats the case one has to wonder why they often crack down on it when they think they stop being a positive force for the economy, fucking porkies in the process. So no, very much not what china does.
>>957608>when they think they stop being a positive force for the economy,
Why'd you just answer your own question
that would mean positive for economy == positive for finance capital, which is fucking retarded assumption
>>957602>Did you hit your head or is this some whole new cope?
He literally was a SocDem, and he collaborated with bourgeois parties routinely and even had some tolerance for national bourgeois forces within the RFSR to some limited degree. Much less than Deng and Xi of course, but still, he did that.
>>957609>>957611>The economy = the bourgeoisie
>>957622>Pre 1917 and back when social democrat meant communist?
It still does in China, evidently. No other path has proven viable.
why do you repeat counter revolutionary talking points for free as a proletarian?
>>957626>why do you repeat counter revolutionary talking points for free as a proletarian?
Following the path of scientific socialism is in fact the revolutionary thing to do. It is utopianism that's a dead end for socialism.
My guy you have no clue what the fuck scientific socialism is, you literally outed yourself as a Thatcherist for all to see lmfao
Close this site, open up your favorite theory folder or website and start reading, otherwise just put on the Succdem flag and stop calling yourself a communist and we're good
Because Dengists are anti-communists with left wing debatebro characteristics
>>957608>individual capitalists are punished when they step out of line and threaten corporatist harmony and profits with their individual corruption and decadence
Wow a self-disciplined ruling class, amazing, clearly this is socialism and not capitalist corporatism.
then why are you a u(dys)topian?>>957648
although lenin would say something like "no go right ahead and go into the mud, and anyone else who wants to go with you into the mud as we march forwards hand in hand towards revolution can go right ahead too and those calling from the mud and telling us how great it is are welcome to because those that go into mud are right where they belong but do not cling onto us and try and drag us back to you while we continue on our journey"
what is socialism?
a dictatorship of and over capital
>>957648>you literally outed yourself as a Thatcherist for all to see lmfao
No I didn't. I didn't say capitalism is all that is viable. I said *if this thing* is capitalism, then capitalism is all that is viable.
History demonstrates this to be true. I don't care that it aesthetically resembles an argument Thatcher made.
That has absolutely no bearing on the truth or untruth of the argument.
What matter are which paths have proven themselves viable. Thus far, as far as we can tell, the way China constructs socialism is the only way to viably do so, so if that is capitalism, then capitalism is the only proven road to socialism.>>957655>then why are you a u(dys)topian?
I'm not. The PRC is slowly gaining primacy in the world. They're winning.
Yes, I am saying that the road to socialism is difficult and takes time and none of us will live to see it.
China is a proletarian state, that forces the bourgeoisie to collaborate at gun point. They sometimes exile, jail or execute capitalists if they try to privatize political power. It's also true that capitalists receive many privileges, but it's not like in the west where the capitalist class stands above the law or is the one that makes the rules. There is no way a bunch of billionaires can tell the politburo and the central committee what to do.
The Chinese state executive looked away when "rowdy" workers lynched a capitalist who was popularizing the idea that one generation of workers had to be sacrificed for progress. The capitalists have to go along with the plans of the communist party, and they can't interfere with social outcomes, or else they risk proletarian wrath. Bourgeois dictatorships, don't have that safety, If capitalists go off the rails shit hits the fan and societies go up in flames.
>What better comparison for it is there than corporatism?
There is no comparison between China and corporatism, this is entirely a bad faith argument. You have to be smoking really strong idealism to look at fascist Italy and go "yup that's like China"
I don't like market economies because it causes so much inequality, overproduction crisis, uneven development and much more. I would like it if China went full cybernetic socialism tomorrow. However you can't argue with their results. The CPC has been extremely successful in modernizing the country despite of all the compromises they made. Corporatists like other variants of fascism haven't managed to do anything else than ruining the countries they get a hold off.
What is even the point of arguing that China is fascist, are you trying to rehabilitate fascism as something that can work ? Or what is the agenda ?
>>957662>I didn't say capitalism is all that is viable>I said *if this thing* is capitalism, then capitalism is all that is viable.
And this thing is
capitalism, so you just said there is no alternative to capitalism you little Reaganite you. What you "think" you're supporting has no bearing on it
The central committee and the politburo are a bunch of billionaires you absolute dolt
>>957664>The CPC has been extremely successful in modernizing the country despite of all the compromises they made
Why, anon, you've finally cracked it. Modernizing their country and achieving "common prosperity" is their goal, not socialism.
>>957665>And this thing is capitalism, so you just said there is no alternative to capitalism you little Reaganite you.
"Reagan would have said this" is not an argument.
If you want to dispel the notion that there is an alternative to the route that the PRC has taken, then you need to demonstrate that.
You need to prove that there are other viable ways to do it, because if there isn't, then this is the path they must take.
dw I was joking lol but dengists really do be getting into fascist territory
so true spaghetti sis
>>957664>However you can't argue with their results. The CPC has been extremely successful in modernizing the country despite of all the compromises they made. Corporatists like other variants of fascism haven't managed to do anything else than ruining the countries they get a hold off.
The bourgeoisie of every developed country have successfully modernised their country, this does not socialism make, nor does it justify support as some great progressive force. Corporatism wasn't just practised by italy btw, look to scandinavia, france, post-war germany or singapore for other modernising corporatisms that aren't socialism and never will be.
Prove socialism can be constructed any other way
>The bourgeoisie of every developed country have successfully modernised their country
How did they do it in Europe? Did imperialism have something to do with that maybe?
How did China do it? Why wasn't India able to do the same thing?
>>957662>m not. The PRC is slowly gaining primacy in the world. They're winning.
Yeah and they are capitalist anticommunists
You think we have to enteust the fate of communism to them instead of preparing for when they are the primary contradiction?
>>957676>How did they do it in Europe? Did imperialism have something to do with that maybe?
>>957677>Yeah and they are capitalist anticommunists
And you should be thankful, they're the only viable political force than in any way can stop absolute technocapitalist disintegration neocene takeoff.
They are humanity's last best hope. You can call them capitalist all you want, without them humanity is lost.>>957679<Prove socialism can be constructed any other way than fascism
Do it. Show another way.
China hasn't been any more successful at constructing socialism than the soviets or anyone else in history so i don't see why you're acting like they're getting any more points on their method of choice.
All ways of constructing socialism so far are on pretty equal footing since none has been successful. If anything those that haven't been tested at all yet are more legitimate than those that have.
Saying 'you can't argue with results' when the results aren't socialism doesn't make a good argument for why its the best or only way to construct socialism.
>>957681>Do it. Show another way.
Indeed I will feed a free (you) directly into your web browser
Anon, if you are this adamant that only the things which currently exist must necessarily exist, then you've completely dropped the revolutionary cause and haven't even realized it. The October Revolution & USSR was a completely unthinkable event with no historical precursor, and yet if Lenin went "Sorry bros there's no alternative, Paris failed so we gotta do reformism and shit" or supported the Provisional Government like his fellow comrades Stalin and Trotsky, it never would have happened. Why keep calling yourself Communist if you insist on maintaining the present state of things, contrary to everything Marx and Lenin and the dudes you supposedly followed believed?
also>Prove socialism can be constructed any other way
We've already more than proved China is not constructing socialism, which you have admitted to be true, so how exactly is it an argument that they survived so they must be the only way forward? China survived unmolested by the Cold War because from the very beginning they were a bourgeois class-collaborationist state, as they still are.
The greatest improvements in quality of life, industrial capacity, and local purchasing power came from mass collectivizations and planned construction of industry
>>957682>China hasn't been any more successful at constructing socialism than the soviets or anyone else in history so i don't see why you're acting like they're getting any more points on their method of choice.
Yes, still existing is further than most other socialist projects have come. That absolutely nets a lot of points.
>All ways of constructing socialism so far are on pretty equal footing since none has been successful.
And none will ever be. Socialism is a process not a destination. You're thinking in rigrid checkboxes now. Dialects demand that this kind of thinking is left behind.
Lemme put it to do in another way:
what would you argument against literal utopians or anarchists be, if it is true that all socialist branches have exactly the same evidence?
How could you argue against Saint-Simon for example?
>>957689>Anon, if you are this adamant that only the things which currently exist must necessarily exist, then you've completely dropped the revolutionary cause and haven't even realized it. The October Revolution & USSR was a completely unthinkable event with no historical precursor, and yet if Lenin went "Sorry bros there's no alternative, Paris failed so we gotta do reformism and shit" or supported the Provisional Government like his fellow comrades Stalin and Trotsky, it never would have happened. Why keep calling yourself Communist if you insist on maintaining the present state of things, contrary to everything Marx and Lenin and the dudes you supposedly followed believed?
Thank you anon, needed to be said.
>>957668>Modernizing their country and achieving "common prosperity" is their goal, not socialism.
Assuming their goal is socialism, they would still need a modern and prosperous country to do it.
I'm sure that their will come a time when the Chinese socialists will have to struggle against the capitalists to keep their modern prosperity. Because eventually the Chinese capitalists will go bad and become neoliberal ghouls that suck the life out of society like in the west. But the socialists in China are in a better position than the capitalists, they are a lot more entrenched. Chances are that the capitalists will fail to destabilize China, and they will never be able to impose shock doctrine. And when they attack the proletarian class character of the Chinese state they will loose.
also all these measures dropped during capitalist reforms but it's plastered over by the bourgeois narrative
It was Stalin and Kamenev who voiced support the provisional government, Trotsky had already been calling for a second revolution which is why he and Lenin immediately came together as soon as Lenin returned to russia to push the april theses through the party.
>>957696> But the socialists in China are in a better position than the capitalists, they are a lot more entrenched.
Not true, it's literally a dictatorship by and for capitalists
>if you are this adamant that only the things which currently exist must necessarily exist
I'm not. I'm saying that if you critique that is, then you must also suggest an alternative and present some historical evidence as to why the path you're suggesting is viable. I'm not even saying your ideal project has to be around, I'm saying that you must argue how the previous centuries indicate that your route is viable.
Luckily as you've mentioned we've had a few revolutions already, and so we have data to glean from.
Surely you would agree that the projects that lead to absolute collapse are not projects that are wisely emulated, right?
I am a turd that is very slowy sliding down the stalanoid pipeline into the purifying septic tank of trotskyism from the prolapsed anus of a sucdem with marxist sympathies
Western social democracies and SWCC did have similar levels state control, but there is a big difference that makes the former not socialist and the latter socialist: imperialism and anti-imperialism. Welfare states were built on the exploitation of the third world, using the proceeds of imperialism to create class peace in the imperial core. Most of the world being in poverty while only a few European/Anglo-Saxon/East-Asian countries are prosperous and relatively equal is just as socialist as an ancient Greek democracy is democratic where a large part of people living in the polity don't have voting rights nor any other rights.
Meanwhile China was an underdeveloped country with a communist leadership and strong state control which decided to partly integrate itself into the world (capitalist) economy to acquire the necessary technology and utilise the progressive aspects of capitalism (i.e. industrial capital, which is being abandoned by the imperial core anyway). The reasons why the socialist system in China (CP rule, control of the commanding heights, preservation and state guidance of pre-industrial small propretiors) isn't destroyed by the considerable capitalist elements in the economy are the same reasons why welfare states disappeared so quickly without a major political crisis:
1. Both systems were instuted by states which on the basis of their class character very much wanted the compromise to not evolve into anything further than a compromise. In the case of welfare states not only the bourgeois nature of the political system played a crucial role, but also the military-intelligence state apparatus which was driving the Cold War and had serious concerns about socdem parties or anyone else stepping out of the line.
2. States of bourgeois or proletarian class character were able to utilise the declassing effects of imperialism to maintain their rule. Western capitalists knew that they need a social compromise to preserve social stability and win the Cold War, while Chinese capitalists understand that without the guidance of the Communist Party and strong state control of the economy they couldn't have become successful capitalists in the first place. On the surface, the state only has to remain committed to imperialism/anti-imperialism to preserve its class character and it doesn't have engage in class struggle directly (take a look at what is happening in China: https://redsails.org/this-is-a-great-struggle/
China is not a bourgeois dictatorship.
the guy you are agreeing with admitted China is capitalist and fascist and he doesn't believe socialism is possible
>Meanwhile China was an underdeveloped country with a communist leadership and strong state control which decided to partly integrate itself into the world (capitalist) economy to acquire the necessary technology and utilise the progressive aspects of capitalism (i.e. industrial capital, which is being abandoned by the imperial core anyway).
Opportunists in China sold the (not very developed) socialist system for money in their personal bank accounts (see deng's family showing up in leaks of offshore bank account scandals like the paradise papers right alongside david cameron and black water)
China was then not immediately raped by imperialism like everwhere else because it was an early sale (betrayal) while the USSR was still alive and there wasn't that much industry to export to the imperial core.>>957715
Yes it is
>>957724>wasn't immediately raped
however it did suffer the effects of capitalist restoration and foreign investment did not make up for this loss
>>957694>Yes, still existing is further than most other socialist projects have come. That absolutely nets a lot of points.
The Soviet Union existed till 1991, were they a legitimate and successful way to build socialism in 1990? How about 1980? 1950? 40? Obviously not, we're stuck in the present, that doesn't mean we must evaluate everything forever with no perspective on history or the future. British capitalism might as well be socialism by virtue of its persistent existance for several centuries now.
>what would you argument against literal utopians or anarchists be, if it is true that all socialist branches have exactly the same evidence?>How could you argue against Saint-Simon for example?
The same way i argue against 'dengism', by being a materialist who understands that there are classes with distinct interests in conflict with one another and you can't just handwave them away by having a powerful technocratic state with the right ideas mediate social harmony. You're the saint-simonian here my friend.
>>957724>the guy you are agreeing with admitted China is capitalist and fascist and he doesn't believe socialism is possible
>>957726>The Soviet Union existed till 1991, were they a legitimate and successful way to build socialism in 1990? How about 1980? 1950? 40? Obviously not, we're stuck in the present, that doesn't mean we must evaluate everything forever with no perspective on history or the future.
Yes and living in the present, we are able to analyze the past, meaning that yes as long as the USSR existed, there was a strong case to make that it was in fact viable, until it collapsed and even stronger evidence appeared to indicate that this path was not viable.
Had this been the 50's I'd never have rushed to say that the USSR was doomed to failure, even if that was the eventual result. Me saying that would have been conjecture and I would be speaking out of turn, presenting my opinion as knowledge.
>British capitalism might as well be socialism by virtue of its persistent existance for several centuries now.
Well, the British empire collapsed largely, so it wasn't. If you mean Thatcherism, then yes, that proved itself a viable path to perpetuate capitalism. It was a viable path. Social liberalism by the 70's no longer was. History indicates this.
>by being a materialist who understands that there are classes with distinct interests in conflict with one another and you can't just handwave them away by having a powerful technocratic state with the right ideas mediate social harmony. You're the saint-simonian here my friend.
Okay so if we have this idea very much in our head and understand this very very hard, then some kind of alternative to the path that has historically been taken will appear.
The harder we think about this fact, the less we have to make a practical way of making a viable political system.
Your word don't mean much.
Also, not a dengist, I think Deng was a right-communist that overcorrected too far.
Look up closed-loop workplaces. Worker are kept inside their factories in adjacent dormitories and only allowed to leave once a week. Recently they have been rioting in Apple manufactories because of even harsher pandemic restrictions
What do you think about Gulags?
>>957731>Had this been the 50's I'd never have rushed to say that the USSR was doomed to failure, even if that was the eventual result.
Some did and they were right to, their analysis has been proven to have been entirely correct.
Your perspective is not a historical materialist one, you view history, socialism, the real movement, entirely as a bystander. Paths are simply taken, causes, motive forces notwithstanding, there is no active component. History isn't over, new forms have and will continue to arise, your insistance on the immutability of the present way of things is the most non-dialectical thing imaginable.>>957739
Christ, do you have any shame?
Gulags were prisons, whatever you think of the ethical character of prison labour, they were not places you shipped off ordinary proletarians.
And you're not a Maoist either. You're just a clown.
>>957744>Gulags were prisons, whatever you think of the ethical character of prison labour, they were not places you shipped off ordinary proletarians.
Often they were. Building socialism is not pretty, never have been.
>Some did and they were right to, their analysis has been proven to have been entirely correct.
They BECAME correct in many cases. Anarchists predicted that the USSR would fall. Is anarchism correct now.
Sure, speculation and trying to calculate the future is warranted. It is even necessary to predict the correct line. If the correct line is not determined, it will lead to fall. However, the correct line must be determined through a process of rigorous historical analysis, and not be dogmatic. We must predict the future through the lens of reality as it happened.
Therefore, our suggestions must be deeply rooted in historical argumentation and demonstration.
If your proposed path has none of that, it would be unwise to take suggestions from you.
Socialism is actually liberal democracy with soc-dem style independent labor unions. Every country needs soc-dem style indy labor unions. If they don't have them then it doesn't matter how many children they feed. They will NEVER be socialists.
>>957724>Yes it is
No it isn't.
It is a good thing the MSS keeps the Maoists on a leash.
Your day will come, bureaucrat.
Here’s the deal
Reality isn’t real
Definitions aren’t real
Words aren’t real
Just say something is socialist and it both is and isn’t
During the cultural revolution there was a manager of a rural factory who raped several women workers. He was arrested but then brought back a week later because the factory could not run without his expertise.
Nice factoid, psychopath.
park chung hee and chiang kai shek thought is clearly communist
they needed expertise in raping women ?
what were they making in that factory ?
I mean its not like a certain state cap dictator from south korea did the same thing lol
The main difference between the Asian Tigers and China is, again, the question of who is in power. Why is it that no one else was able to adopt the East Asian developmentalist model outside of East Asia? South Korea and Taiwan were able to prosper because they were allowed to by the US. These two countries were and still are capitalist regimes under the influence of the biggest imperial power in history, the United States. They only used the state interventionism to kickstart their industry and avoid a pro-communist revolt. Industrial policy was discarded later in favour of neoliberalism. Both countries are struggling with severe social problems and neither of them were able to reach a level where they could start exporting capital to stave off capitalism's contradictions. South Korean workers suffer a notoriously high workload and many Taiwanese are only finding suitable job opportunities in the Mainland, in spite of Taiwan being vastly richer than most other Chinese provinces.
Meanwhile the reason behind China's rise wasn't a political concession. They recieved Western investment because Western capital needed to offload its own contradictions, and China was a perfect candidate for that because of its large, skilled and disciplined workforce and the infrastucture built before the reform. China was able to utilise this to its own ends by maintaining strong state control through which they could reappriopriate foreign industrial strength into their own domestic economy. The general aim of this was very clearly underlined by the CPC: the preservation of the socialist system in times of retreat. The PRC is showing no signs of moving towards a sudden liberalization like in South Korea or Taiwan. State control, especially in the political sense is only being strengthened.
very very good post
still no proof from this guy
how about 90% of people in China own a house you idiot westoids
ultras cope and seething at the impurity of the CPC while the workers retain assets and construct socialism, relative to the west getting dick raped by 10 billionares and asking for more cum
>socialism is when you build productive forces so that you can produce even more commodities
consider china has billions of people and that 89% number should be considered one of the greatest achievements of humanity.
Sorry but Romania is currently more socialist, the numbers don't lie
romania is fudging the numbers by only having 96.1 functioning houses in the entire country
consider that India has billions of people, ridiculous amounts of corruption, and doesn't pretend to be socialist, yet still is only a little ways behind (only 3% less.)
india has the second largest communist party in the entire world, these things are connected
also il concede that high ownership of housing doesnt = communism, I just think its typically a decent indication of if work is actually paying off for workers within society or not, socialist/AES countries tend to do better for this.
Wow so house ownership doesnt mean socialism now? What's next, government doing stuff isn't communism? Sounds like ultra shit
This is what mfs need to understand. China needs capitalist countries and corps to invest so that its industry can modernize. Socialism in one country is near impossible, so by controlling a capitalist system they can ensure a smooth transition to a more planned economy, whatever form it may take.
workers control of the gov
state nationalization of most of the economy
suppresion of capitalism and capitalist classes
one class over another
meanwhile in china:
no workers control
controlled by burecrats
all classes exist
mixed market econonmy
no worker suppression of the borg or petit borg
not even any welfare
economic planning that is simmilar to japan and sk back during the cold war
>>968307>nooo just economically isolate yourself so leftists on the internet can say you’re cool!
Look at the stats anon, Chinese people are better of now than ever before.
i do not deny anon that china is doing well and is an example of a good economy. after all i prefer fucking fredich list style economies over the liberal anglo one
but what i dont believe is china being socialist. if anything china is a really weird strange regime that follows the economic tradition of german style capitalism with a marxist leninist governing structure. aka the point is i dont view china in its current form as socialist, maybe this will change, but right now its in a weird dirigste, communist combination that can go any direction tbh
anon a gov thats based on a marxist leninist gov structure is clearly something borrowed from socialism. does this make china socialist? no it just means it kept elements of socialism, but keeping elements of socialism does not nescessarily equal socialism. as seen in my post where i typed china isnt socialist
>>968408>socialism is a mixed market economy that has a lot of private industry, where bourgesie corporations are rampant, where all classes exist together in class collaboration, where the ccp is filled with burecrats and etc
anon this is not even precondition, this is literally nowhere socialist except for the political governing structure and philosphy. But as seen in the kmt you can fucking coopt the marxist leninist structure while remaining capitalist.
like jesus christ man, i would have respected more the answer that china is merely temporarily doing capitalism and then it will go to socialist. I would have understood that
but saying china is socialist in this current stage, like lol
socialism is just organising the economy for social ends. china is already socialist. communism is a real movement, not a set of conditions that will be achieved, not a state of affairs to be established.
how about you go speak to Chinese people if you want your questions answered westoid?
China's mode of production is capitalism but the CPC is extremely good
What anon is talking about should be available from CPC statements and notices. Asking the average Chinese person about government plans in the future is like asking the average American what the federal reserve is doing, they don’t know and they don’t care. Nor would they have some secret hidden knowledge that only Chinese could know.
>>968444> Asking the average Chinese person about government plans in the future is like asking the average American what the federal reserve is doing
No it isn't>they don’t know and they don’t care
Proof?>Nor would they have some secret hidden knowledge that only Chinese could know.
average liberal universalist mindset, "those dumb Chinese don't know whats good for them, their country should just listen to us internet leftists instead who definitely know better for them"
Hoxhaists tend to be cringe on China and AES. It just comes across as dogmatism. Deng wasn’t the only prominent CPC member who supported the reforms. From what I have read of Deng's own words and seen of Deng's own actions, (and for that matter Xi as well) he comes across as a principled Marxist (and ofc there's always more for me to learn/read but you know).
#QUESTION TO THE WESTOIDS:
If deng wasn't a marxist, why did he join the CPC before it was ever remotely relevant, and fight in the Civil War for them when it would have been a thousand times easier just to join the KMT? And also if Deng was a “capitalist roader” or KMT spy, why did he not try to coup Mao when he practically controlled the army?
China isn't even imperialist, just look at how much China is impacted by unequal exchange. Minqi Li wrote an article for Monthly Review about it: https://monthlyreview.org/2021/07/01/china-imperialism-or-semi-periphery/
Advanced Encryption Standard?
Not at all what I said. I’m not calling Chinese people “dumb”, I’m just saying the majority of them (like in every other fucking country) aren’t experts on their governments policy.
actually existing socialism
>>968458> if Deng was a “capitalist roader”
Reminder to everyone that..1)
Mao never ever called Deng a 'capitalist roader'.2)
'capitalist roader' doesnt mean someone who wants or is trying to bring back Capitalism, but rather means someone who supports Soviet Economic Planning methods (which Mao thought had become like Fascism) I.e. Liu Shaoqi & Peng Dehuai.
>‘Presently Soviet Union is in the hands of the dictatorship of the Big bourgeois class, German fascist kind of dictatorship, Hitler kind of dictatorship and other such bourgeois class dictatorship, They are worse than De Gaulle'.
-Mao Zedong, 1964.
(Some Interjections At A Briefing The State Planning Commission Leading Group) https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_18.htm
Planned economies are superior yet they haven't worked out. Curious.
not enough cybernetics
Then why hasn't any Socialist state tried it yet?
And how do you account for every small fluctuation in supply and demand, or when resources go missing, turn out to be defective, etc.?
also an extra point I want to make is that what gets called 'Dengism' (The Four Modernizations) was actually Zhou Enlai's policy.
>At the latest stages of the Cultural Revolution, in 1975, Zhou Enlai pushed for the "Four Modernizations" in order to undo the damage caused by the Mao's policies. in one of his last public acts, Zhou Enlai made another pitch for the Four Modernizations at the 4th National People's Congress.One core tenet was the rejection of the previously long-held concept known as the "iron rice bowl".
I laughed but that's just it, In just a few decades look at how much China has grown, and not just by useless capitalists metric but healthy ones like the fall in poverty, growth of the middle class, the urbanization, industrialization and Proletarianization of a huge population of peasants, the list goes on
>>968580>Then why hasn't any Socialist state tried it yet?
computers were mastered too late>account for every small fluctuation in supply and demand
pseudomarkets. read cockshott
>>954045>What would China look like today if the Gang of Four held control?
It would have been overthrown around 1989 (if not sooner) in the wave of the Color revolutions that hit the Socialist world. The Gang of Four had no Economic program and saw Building Productive forces as 'Bourgeois Economism'. While the Chinese economy grew during Mao's leadership in the last year of the cultural revolution where the Gang of Four was in charge the Chinese economy contracted and got smaller by 1%. After being overthrown China would have either become a 'Liberal Democracy' or turned into a second Warring States period.
> Better to be poor under Socialism and Communism than to be rich under Capitalism.
- Gang of Four's famous slogan during the cutural revolution
Deng Xiaoping becoming the leader post mao's death was the best person who could lead China at the time.
(other than maybe Chen Yun)
also im right to point out most of the countries in this list are actually socialist (lao, china, cuba, vietnam) or are an ex-ussr satalite state; really just accenting my point here.
If communism preserved the present state of things then china is sure doing a poor job at preserving them seeing as how much they grew, progressed and developed their economy for the people, over the past few decades. You stupid fucking westoid
Reminder the main reason why liberal policies were reintroduced to China was because of the Sino-Soviet split that saw the PRC's industrialization grind to a halt
Have you spoken to a Chinese person anon, or any person for that matter
Regular people don't care that much about politics
I mean Xi himself said they have no plans of abandoning the market and returning to a planned economy, so my bet is they'll keep doing their dirigisme thing indefinitely
The way the party documents use the word "socialism" just makes it seem like Nordic socialism type SocDem shit, if even that
>>968419>socialism is just organising the economy for social ends
I will literally strangle you>real movement
the real movement to do what? I seem to recall something about the present state of things, but I'm not sure
Capitalist development =/= socialism>>969142
You have literally never read theory, and you probably haven't even read the Manifesto. You're just parroting le funny ultra meme without understanding its context in the Manifesto.
yes but this does not mean china is socialist as seen in these statistics from sk https://www.ide.go.jp/library/English/Publish/Periodicals/De/pdf/03_02_05.pdf
new middle class, old middle class, upper middle class grew a decent amount during the park era. Additionally working class also grew.(pg 204) Not only that the second industry aka industry also grew from 9 percent to 29 percent at the end of the park era. and as you can see from the data in pg 208 most of the new middle class and old middle classs fathers were farmers, which suggests social mobility(tho this is from 1990)
besides that child mortality decreased from 10.66 to 3.66 during the park era.
and if we look at these charts livelihood absolutely improved in sk does that mean sk was socialist, no
i can also bring taiwan and japan statistics too if ya wanthttps://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$ui$chart$endBeforeForecast=1979;;&[email protected]=kor;;;;&group$data$;;&frame$value=1960&extrapolate:101;;;;;&chart-type=mountain&url=v1
click the slider below to readjust the year and click options time to adjust the years avaliable. and thus if you check you will notice the poverty rate went down a decent amount
>>970005>click the slider below to readjust the year and click options time to adjust the years avaliable. and thus if you check you will notice the poverty rate went down a decent amount
the poverty rate for south korea i mean
>>969142>he doesn't understand sarcasm, let alone theory
Ok anon I think I see the problem now
>>970005>i can also bring taiwan and japan statistics too if ya want
Japan borrowed a lot from the Soviet Union in its postwar economic miracle which Worst Korea and Chinese Taipei regimes then borrowed from japan
source because ive heard this claim and im kinda interested about this
after all it seems manchuko did copy some things from the soviet union but i havent read sources proving that connection
I dont find the smiling face of mao gazing down on modern chinas retainment of the revolution cringe anon.
Still no proof from this guy, the lies goids tell themselves
the cia supported mao tho
the CIA supported everyone, even Castro got donations from the CIA.
It means nothing, have you ever heard of the phrase 'hedging your bets'?
Its the richest empire in the world, they could afford to fund both sides; it makes perfect sense as well, remain on the good side of the winner; geopolitics 101.
so the cia is everything anon
no but in the case of mao getting money from the CIA, id point to castro also getting money from the CIA during the revolution.
They took there money and turned around and then used it to kill landlords, pretty based anon ngl.
(wait did mao actually get money from the cia lol)
preface: there are better sources for this and im just stoned and being lazy right nowhttps://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-10-19-mn-6235-story.html
and in regards to the CIA and Mao; at first glance it would be absurd to suggest there is a connection but funnyily enough the founders of the CIA actually did indirectly aid Mao in his revolution through there indirect support of him during the Tibetan revolution.
Ya see the CIA, or what would later become the CIA (the US army where the agency sending in 'spies' into Tibet) had people in there reporting, and the reports (of course) where pro-mao and anti-tibet, as spy reports typically are factual and unshrouded by as much political bias it gave a pretty factual account of the situation in Tibet, mainly that of one country liberating another from feudal serfdom.
Which ended in the US gov sending some aid and money to Tibet to indirectly support Maos cause.
Some shitlibs will argue that in both cases it 'proves' that both are backed by the CIA but its a retarded arguement.
huh now this is fascinating i need to read more about it
im being a shitlib and using wikipedia but its a general overview
k thanks i shall read this
my wiki source is just to show that no, actually the CIA did not support China.
They threw some empty support at the Dali Lama to show face, but not enough to actually do anything. (kind of like Ukraine right now, haha)
Prior to the 1950s though we had British spies in there (for no reason anon, I assure you)
>Robert W. Ford, one of the few Westerners to have been appointed by the Government of Tibet at the time of de facto independent Tibet, spent five years in Tibet, from 1945 to 1950, before his arrest by the invading Chinese army. In his book Wind Between the Worlds: Captured in Tibet, he writes
">All over Tibet I had seen men who had been deprived of an arm or a leg for theft (…) Penal amputations were done without antiseptics or sterile dressings"
And Zhou Enlai was the one guy who was on Mao's side throughout the GPCR, neither being a denounced rightist nor an ultra-leftist engaging in unnecessary violence.
Why can leftypol never seem to get past the Black Book of Communism tier perspective of China under Mao?
People keep fucking claiming he did shit while he was fucking dead. They attribute Deng's foreign policy blunders to him CONSTANTLY. It is fucking ridiculous.
Mao was the origin of the sino-soviet split (in the sovietboo perspective, I don't care either way)
>>984354>Mao was the origin of the sino-soviet split [therefore Mao and Deng same]
This is reductio ad absurdum. They had completely different lines. Albania was Mao's international ally against soviet revisionism. Mao helped Vietnam during the US invasion. Deng funded mujahedeen and Pol Pot.
It is stupid shit.
>>984301>Why can leftypol never
whats that thing about proletarianizing peasants? what does it mean that division of labor is a socialization of production?
Unique IPs: 110