I don’t think it’s helpful to pretend there’s a contradiction in the definition. I’m already sick of explaining to libs that a state governed by a vanguard party isn’t claiming to have established a socialist MoP the day after the revolution.
Asked "what is communism? "
Defines a botched up version of fascism and capitalism.
Refuses to elaborate further.
MFW
Commuism is when the state takes all of your toothbrushes.
- karl marx 2003
Authoritarian communism is when the see see pee won’t let me leave my lunar habitat to go for a stroll without my space suit
Authoritarian communism is when no funeral strippers:
(I couldn’t find the Lemmy post about it so here’s an article lol)
“Party’s Over: China authorities crack down on funeral stripping” - The Guardian
Talking about china? I’d probably classify china as a socialist authoritarian state with its own brand of state capitalism. That they have feared revolution, suppress protests and simultaneously try to be seen as fair and just has probably been a good thing for citizens … unfortunately, the masses are increasingly easy to control, and incentives for good & responsive governance will likely change as a result.
Talking about china? I’d probably classify china as a socialist authoritarian state
Yes, this meme is about you.
A little rude, no?
no
Removed by mod
Over 90% of China supports their government, and it’s because the CPC is consistently improving people’s lives. There’s no desire to be at the recieving end of state violence, but for the working classes to hold it as in China.
It’s still the party though (and increasingly the upper echelons of the party) that holds power. If they can maintain high approval, they get to keep the role (without resorting to coersion and/or violence). A good way to maintain high approval is to put the needs of the people first.
The party is run by the working class, which is why it has a direct connection to the needs of the people.
Uhuh.
A friend of mine described his government/business trip to china a few years ago, and the feeling of a “bubble of power” as they were driven around by a high up party member in a black limosine (german, of course) where the driver would occasionally get out and yell at people to move, and they would very quickly clear the way. They visited farms, factories, universities and tech companies and saw all walks of life. Those black limosines are still very popular…
I think that connection to the working class is more tenuous than you believe. China still has a long way to go on the road of (edit: was “to”) socialism, and that is OK, so long as they are driving in the right direction and stay on a peaceful path. If not, the connection breaks and legitimacy will collapse.
Unfalsifiable orthodoxy
China is socialist, specifically with a socialist market economy. They take counter-revolution seriously, but overall the people in China support the system they’ve collectively made. Over 90% of the population supports the government, and that isn’t because “masses are increasingly easy to control,” it’s because socialism has worked wonders for the people of China.
Further, this meme isn’t purely about China, it’s about liberal analysis of authority. If you don’t see the state by its class character, then socialist states are indeed authoritarian just like capitalist states, but the qualitative difference is that the working class is in control of socialist authority and uses it to oppress capitalists, fascists, and sabateurs. This is “authoritarian,” but unlike capitalist authority it’s used for the working class. This applies to all existing socialism.
the working class is in control of socialist authority
Independent unions are illegal in China with only the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) permitted by the Chinese state and the Chinese Communist Party to operate. Seems to me like you got it backwards, the “socialist authority” is in control of the working class. Any who attempt to organize on their own terms are met with state repression. Your insistence that the Chinese state only oppresses capitalists, fascists, and saboteurs is provably false.
You’re confusing unions in socialism, independent of and opposed to the socialist system, with proletarian control. Unions are allowed, yes, as directly linked with the socialist system. What isn’t allowed is petty bourgeois-style unions that oppose the socialist system. The proletariat runs the party and thus the state, and as a consequence has already built proletarian unions, and dissalows those that would work against the socialist system.
Nothing I said is false, you’re just confused on the purpose of unions in systems outside capitalism, and immediately assume legally backed unions to be nefarious and bad.
If it’s not independent then it’s not proletarian. The state doesn’t crush independent unions because they’re opposed to the socialist system, but because they are a threat to the authority of the state. I believe people have a right to self-determination, and preventing workers from organizing on their own terms violates that right. The means of production should belong only to those who actually do the work of production, not private individuals and not the state claiming falsely to represent them in the abstract. I’m a syndicalist in that I believe that the purpose of unions is eventually to overthrow the hierarchy and establish a cooperative, not to settle and become a class collaborationist union or an arm of a class collaborationist state, though it is preferable to no union at all.
If it’s not independent then it’s not proletarian.
All this means is that you think the working class cannot have state power, and that the state is outside of class struggle and not within it. In reality, states exist to establish the supremacy of a class, in capitalism the bourgeoisie and in socialism the proletariat. Independence from socialism is a petty bourgeois notion, not proletarian.
The state doesn’t crush independent unions because they’re opposed to the socialist system, but because they are a threat to the authority of the state.
These are one and the same in the context of a socialist state transitioning towards communism. The political economic nature of socialism is in collectivizing production and distribution, opposing the political arm of this defeats the economic.
I believe people have a right to self-determination, and preventing workers from organizing on their own terms violates that right.
This slogan sounds nice, but ultimately just means that people should have a right to undermine socialism against the will of the people.
The means of production should belong only to those who actually do the work of production, not private individuals and not the state claiming falsely to represent them in the abstract.
Again, a working class state run by the working class is the only actual method of establishing socialism at scale.
I’m a syndicalist in that I believe that the purpose of unions is eventually to overthrow the hierarchy and establish a cooperative, not to settle and become a class collaborationist union or an arm of a class collaborationist state, though it is preferable to no union at all.
Ignoring for now that you seek a form of petty bourgeois “socialism,” the idea that a union in a socialist system is somehow “class collaborationist” for being official and supported by said socialist state requires a ton of heavy lifting on your part. You proceed from the premise that the state is outside of class struggle, impossible to be proletarian, and that somehow cooperative-focused petty bourgeois quasi-socialism is the answer.
states exist to establish the supremacy of a class
Already we’re dropping the pretense of eliminating class, which is the entire premise of communism. A system which establishes supremacy in any form could never hope to eliminate class.
Independence from socialism is a petty bourgeois notion, not proletarian.
And again you are uncritically equivocating socialism and the state. Socialism can and does exist independently of the state whenever workers collectively organize production and distribution anywhere and for any reason. Cooperatives are socialist, not petty bourgeois, because the workers themselves have collectivized the means of production. Small businesses that are privately owned are petty bourgeois.
These [socialism and the state] are one and the same in the context of a socialist state transitioning towards communism.
Always transitioning towards but never quite getting any closer and never will without the people themselves acting collectively to dismantle the state. The idea that the state will just “dissolve,” or even more ridiculously disassemble itself, is absurd.
This slogan sounds nice, but ultimately just means that people should have a right to undermine socialism against the will of the people.
Again, people collectivizing the means of production on their own terms does not undermine socialism, it undermines the state. It’s funny you suggest people acting on their own initiative undermines their own will, and not the state cracking down on them. I thought from our previous interactions that you were more reasonable than this.
a union in a socialist system is somehow “class collaborationist” for being official and supported by said socialist state requires a ton of heavy lifting on your part.
A union in any system that stops short of supplanting the boss and siezing the means of production is class collaborationist. Such a union in a capitalist republic is essentially just a bureaucratic arm of the company that serves as controlled opposition, and in a “socialist” republic is a bureaucratic arm of the state that exists to ensure the working class acts in the state’s interest. You think the latter is acceptable because you believe the state truly represents the will of the people, but I believe that only the people themselves are truly representative of their will.
Already we’re dropping the pretense of eliminating class, which is the entire premise of communism. A system which establishes supremacy in any form could never hope to eliminate class.
Nope. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production established by resolving the contradictions within socialism. States eradicate themselves by eradicating the basis of class, and this happens by collectivizing production and distribution. This can only happen under proletarian states, because the proletariat resolves the class contradiction between bourgeois and proletarian by collectivizing property. This is how the state withers into statelessness.
And again you are uncritically equivocating socialism and the state. Socialism can and does exist independently of the state whenever workers collectively organize production and distribution anywhere and for any reason. Cooperatives are socialist, not petty bourgeois, because the workers themselves have collectivized the means of production. Small businesses that are privately owned are petty bourgeois.
Cooperatives are petty bourgeois collectives of private property, not socialist property. The idea of competing small cells of worker-owners is petty bourgeois in origin and stands opposed to collectivized production and distribution.
Always transitioning towards but never quite getting any closer and never will without the people themselves acting collectively to dismantle the state. The idea that the state will just “dissolve,” or even more ridiculously disassemble itself, is absurd.
The transition between capitalism and communism is slow, long, queer, messy, and protracted. The state does not “just dissolve” or “disassemble itself,” the proletariat erases the basis of the state, class, by collectivizing production and distribution. This does not mean collapsing into fully decentralized nothingness, but collectivized production and distribution.
Again, people collectivizing the means of production on their own terms does not undermine socialism, it undermines the state. It’s funny you suggest people acting on their own initiative undermines their own will, and not the state cracking down on them. I thought from our previous interactions that you were more reasonable than this.
Moving away from collectivized production and distribution towards individualist minor collectives is undermining socialism in favor of cooperative, petty bourgeois quasi-socialism. It both undermines socialism and the socialist state, preparing conditions for capitalist states based on cooperative ownership of private property. The fact that I disagree with your framing of socialism and communism doesn’t mean I’m doing so unreasonably, this critique is as old as Marx and Engels and is elaborated on thoroughly in Anti-Dühring. For something smaller, Cooperative Property is not Socialist.
A union in any system that stops short of supplanting the boss and siezing the means of production is class collaborationist. Such a union in a capitalist republic is essentially just a bureaucratic arm of the company that serves as controlled opposition, and in a “socialist” republic is a bureaucratic arm of the state that exists to ensure the working class acts in the state’s interest. You think the latter is acceptable because you believe the state truly represents the will of the people, but I believe that only the people themselves are truly representative of their will.
When said union is trying to supplant socialism and sieze the means of production from the proletariat in favor of small, petty bourgeois cooperatives, then it is working against socialism. I trust the people to own and direct production and distribution, which is why I support socialist states, approving of them preventing small cells of worker-owners turning over public property back into private, establishing the basis of capitalism once again.
It’s a market economy too, of course, but it is capitalist because of the private capital in business. That the state also has representatives in large companies plus is often a minor investor doesn’t remove the capitalist aspect. In other countries you sometimes see unions and workers councils, backed by laws and courts serving similar roles to protect workers and limit excesses in large corporations. China has the ability to refocus its economic policies and priorities far more directly, which is quite cool when you think about the challenges humanity faces. I hope it can stay on a peaceful path.
If 90% of the population really support the government (hopefully without much deception necessary, but perhaps not so important), and the 10% aren’t being persecuted, then that’s wonderful.
The presence of private property does not mean China is capitalist, just like the presence of public property does not mean the US Empire is socialist. What matters is which aspect is principle, and the class character of the state. In China, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned, and the state is run by the working classes. No mode of production has ever truly been “pure,” and thus treating socialism like some magical, special mode of production is absurd.
Over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system, yes. It isn’t “deception,” and you keep trying to paint China as especially duplicitous and evil, which is borderline chauvanism. In China, capitalists are regularly persecuted, executed, and otherwise kept in control by the socialist state.
I think it’s important to mention that it’s not just the proportion of state owned industries in China. The finance sector is state controlled, which in a capitalist society is how the highest level decisions are made. Anyone who’s read Imperialism will recognize China as a socialist state.
Yep, agreed! That’s why I said principle aspect, not majority, and referenced the large firms and key industries, ie the commanding heights. Having a state-run bank alone isn’t socialism either, it’s important to recognize all of it, and which direction it’s going. Though, thanks for adding, if it was unclear for you then doubtless it was unclear for others!
That china is a socialist state is not in question.
We’re talking about its economic system, and I believe “state capitalism” is the right description.
That most of its major industries are state controlled and the biggest firms are SOEs doesn’t change this.
As a side note: There is still a lot of private capital slushing around in China, and many USD-millionaires. There’s still significant inequality. They still have work to do, but that doesn’t detract from what they have achieved.
I believe “state capitalism” is the right description.
If you want to focus on the pure mechanic of how surplus value is extracted in SOEs and try to make the argument that the CPC forms a nomenclatura that appropriates it then it would be still fairer to call it “State socialist” as the surplus value is distributed amongs the working class benefiting them significantly materially unlike in capitalist countries. Since it’s qualitatively a different state than the UDSSR is useful to also look at the distinguishing aspect, namely the presence of the market. Hence “socialist market economy” is the right description like other posters mentioned
As a funny counter-example: I wouldn’t call Norway a socialist state, but it does have a similar interest in many industries, commanding heights in some. It could also be described as practicing a form of state capitalism (more of a carve out in the bigger capitalist system). The difference in China is the ideology and scale and dominance of it… 60% or so of the entire economy, if I remember right. China chose to call itself a “socialist market economy” back in 1992. That’s fine, and it’s definitely nicer to say than “state capitalism with chinese socialist characteristics”. It’s a political ideological label that they own, and can even change and interpret as they see fit.
Economists will continue to prefer analytical terms.
The term “state capitalism” confounds more than it illuminates.
The capitalist mode of production is founded on the M-C-M’ circuit. The state, by contrast, is not, because as the sovereign, it is the issuer of money. It doesn’t need to make a profit from its commodities or services because it creates money by fiat[1]. Therefore the capitalist mode of production is exclusive to the private sector.
It only confuses if you decide to use a non-Leninist definition of the state. The state exists to manage class contradictions. Are the classes being managed different than in capitalist states? No, but their political class has a different character than in the west. The party is larger, more powerful, tangible and broad though still operating with bourgeois principles, interests and aspirations. The bureaucratic class sustains the bourgeois class, gives concessions to the working class, maintains a petite bourg middle class, as a project that obfuscates the capitalist class in opposition to, and exploiting, a working and toiling classes.
Is the “socialist state” withering away? No, it is growing more powerful. IMO an ideology more concerned with socialist states over socialist internationalism is the ideology of state bureaucrats, not proletarian revolutionaries. Which makes sense since the worker/peasant revolution failed in China, their politics are more Dengist than Maoist, the party even rejects the concept of class antagonism! I don’t see how they can even be considered Marxist.
The bureaucratic class uses the state apparatus to sustain the bourgeois class, while the toiling classes are fundamentally proletarian, that is, despite social democratic concessions they still have nothing to sell the capitalists but their labor. People are heavily exploited in “special economic zones”. Communal land is becoming more privatized, not less. The rural agrarian population is insular and petty bourgeois, the urban middle classes are becoming less political but more aspirational and individualistic. Housing, while abundant, is still commodified.
The party uses the state to maintain capitalist relations. State capitalist. The only thing confusing is that in our world there is always a state protecting the bourgeois class. So it’s really just capitalism, like social democracy. So maybe “party capitalist” is more accurate. I’m not too invested about slandering China, but your criticism is the same disingenuous attitude that insists “authoritarian” is meaningless. The term exists, people use it in political discourse, not engaging with it, and pretending it doesn’t exist is intentionally obtuse. No Marxist should concern themselves with epistemological word games.
“Authoritarian” can be concretely defined and understood. Overlooking the self criticism of, “it is very convenient that I refuse to believe in the existence of a verifiable phenomenon that is used to criticize me,” trying to prove the phenomenon is fake rather than engaging with it as criticism, betrays the socialist principle of ruthless criticism, as well as Marxist materialism. No one believes you except those in your own camp. It’s sectarian idealism.
I think you’re getting hung up on an artificial separation of politics and economics, you should look up a critique of this or investigate why political economy is a useful framework for analysis.
Thanks. I find it quite fascinating, despite the open hostility of some here.
The goal of socialism is not equalitarianism, but to improve the lives of the working classes and work towards collectivizing all production and distribution to satisfy the needs of all. Further, state capitalism is a better descriptor for the US Empire, Singapore, ROK, etc, not for a socialist market economy like China.
You might have to provide your definitions…
Markets are the coordination mechanism, while the ownership structure is clearly capitalist in nature, because a huge amount of capital in China is privately owned. And yes, I am aware many prefer to call their brand of state capitalism “socialist market economy” instead.
That the state owns significant amounts (and the majority in key sectors) is a good thing.
Not a goal? Economic equality does seem to be a goal of China’s socialism… Common prosperity, with a reduction of extreme inequality as one of the key tenets.
