No, the capitalist dictatorship in Taiwan that murdered all of the communists and local resistance when the KMT moved in in the White Terror isn’t anywhere close to a People’s Republic.
The CCP is exporting their version of authoritarianism, just like the US and Russian Federation are doing with their versions.
Utter nonsense. The CPC is the party in power in a socialist state, where the working classes use their authority against capitalists. The US Empire and the Russian Federation are both dictatorships of capital, like Taiwan, where authority is wielded against the working classes.
Since all three exist that is proof that all governments will go authoritarian once they have enough power. Hence, reform all governments into a single unified world government that is focused on people not power, or abolish all high level government.
Nonsense. All states wield authority, this is partially correct, but they do so in service of a definite class. In the PRC, those classes are the working classes.
Marx would agree with me here.
No he would not, Marx viewed authority by its class character, not in a liberal view that divorces the state from class struggle. Don’t invoke Marx while erasing class struggle.
You have a very strange definition of socialism. The CCP is doing their own thing that looks a hell of a lot like properly regulated capitalism. They also have created a digital scanscape and have all the big brother surveillance shit. They have teams of hackers that the state employs to constantly try to attack everyone else. They are exporting their version of authoritarianism with their tools. If the CCP were for the working class, they wouldn’t have the literal thieves that are billionaires.
Not at all. Socialism is a transitional status between capitalism and communism, where the proletariat has siezed state power and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. This is absolutely true of the PRC.
The CCP is doing their own thing that looks a hell of a lot like properly regulated capitalism.
No? Private ownership is secondary to public, and is relegated to small/medium firms, as well as highly competitive, non-critical industries like tech. The system of the PRC is typically described as a Socialist Market Economy. The commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned, while private ownership typically is found in secondary industries and highly competitive non-critical industries like tech. The CPC often has controlling shares of private companies as well, especially the larger ones. As these private firms grow, they are socialized and often folded into the public sector. This is why public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and determines the nature of the PRC’s path on the socialist road.
See also the stages of socialism presented by Chinese economists, like Cheng Enfu:
The character of the state is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whole-Process People’s Democracy is the form of consultative democracy in China. Local candidates are directly elected, and then these ladder upwards in indirect elections. The top conducts many surveys and tries to find policy from the people via the Mass Line, while practicing democratic centralism and maintaining the ability to quickly respond to changing conditions. Long-term policy change is slow but positive as consensus is built, short-term crisis is quickly adapted to as needed.
Also, it’s the Communist Party of China, not Chinese Communist Party. The format “CP_” is the internationalist form, like CPRF. “CCP” draws on western orientalist views.
They also have created a digital scanscape and have all the big brother surveillance shit.
Every existing socialist state is still a part of ongoing class struggle, and needs to develop tools to keep capitalists suppressed and prevent them from developing political power.
They have teams of hackers that the state employs to constantly try to attack everyone else.
Genuinely confused by this one, the CPC isn’t attacking everyone. They do have intelligence gathering, like all states do.
They are exporting their version of authoritarianism with their tools.
The CPC isn’t exporting socialism (or “authoritarianism,” which is a meaningless term). This is one part that Marxists sometimes do criticize China for. The CPC focuses on the development of China, and favorable relations with communist parties and existing socialist states. They do not export revolution like the USSR did.
I expect better of you Cowbee.
I don’t know what you mean by this either. I have the standard Marxist-Leninist take on the PRC, because I read a good deal of Marxist-Leninist theory and organize with Marxist-Leninists.
Then the standard ML take is actively pro authoritarian and actively acting as class traitors.
The standard ML take is the standard Marxist take, that the working classes should wield the power of the state to collectivize production and distribution and prevent capitalists from taking political power. I don’t know what you mean by “acting as class traitors,” the working classes govern China and that’s a good thing.
The fact that you don’t know about the teams of hackers that actively attack every other developed countries during Chinese timezones, is telling.
Not really. You gave no evidence of this, and I already stated that the PRC does do intelligence gathering on imperialist countries, as all geopolitical adversaries do. The CPC would be foolish not to.
I guess I have to stop thinking of you as a friend of the masses.
I don’t see why the fact that I support socialism and socialist countries contradicts me being a friend to the working classes. You never countered any of my points, meaning it’s extremely unclear what actual problem you have with socialist China at a concrete level.
If the working classes ruled the government there would be no billionaires. They are not socialists, they are capitalist reformers at best. I will admit that China at least has the balls to prosecute some of the Great Thieves, but they allow them to become Great Thieves and don’t stop the theft of the working class.
If that is the standard ML take, then ML are capitalist simps.
If the working classes ruled the government there would be no billionaires.
Why? Why do you believe billionaires exist anywhere? China has billionaires because it still has private property, and if you go back several comments you’ll see why they still have private property. China already tried to dogmatically eliminate all private property, and they ran into problems that came from vast underdevelopment. Poverty isn’t socialism, but the Gang of Four made the case that it was.
They are not socialists, they are capitalist reformers at best.
Again, I already addressed that private ownership is relegated to small and medium industries, and secondary, non-critical industries. Such an economy where public ownership dominates is not capitalist in the slightest, and further the class character of the state is critical as well. Capitalists are stripped from political power in China.
I will admit that China at least has the balls to prosecute some of the Great Thieves, but they allow them to become Great Thieves and don’t stop the theft of the working class.
The people of China allow billionaires to exist because they traded an impoverished, “purer” socialism for a dynamic socialist market economy, which came with dramatic development. Such a shift was built upon the existing socialist system, and is not a change in character but of form. As time has gone on, the PRC has developed, and so too has the Xi Jinping era become known as a “New Era,” where a qualitative shift in development has allowed a sharper turn in the direction of this “pure socialism,” only this time with more developed productive forces.
If that is the standard ML take, then ML are capitalist simps.
I don’t see how MLs are “capitalist simps” for supporting socialist countries. Can you explain what socialism and capitalism are?
Billionaires exist anywhere because the whole world sucks capitalist dick. Billionaires only exist because the workers have a boot on their necks, and greedy thieves aren’t prosecuted by the state for wage theft.
Capitalism - an economic system that allows for Private (not personal) property and says that money is the only thing that matters. It’s more complex than that, but that’s the core.
Socialism - a worker owned state that gradually abolishes all private, but not personal, property, and works towards a stateless currency-less society.
Communism - a stateless, currency-less society in which the universal safety floor doesn’t allow anyone to be impoverished, and by necessity outlaws extreme wealth as it is unhealthy. Unfortunately can only be implemented world wide at a time.
Billionaires of any type are nothing but thieves. Any country that is actually worker controlled would not allow them to exist in the first place.
Billionaires exist anywhere because the whole world sucks capitalist dick.
No, that’s not how it works. I want a concrete reason, not an analogy.
Billionaires only exist because the workers have a boot on their necks, and greedy thieves aren’t prosecuted by the state for wage theft.
Billionaires exist because private ownership exists, and private ownership exists because of definite material conditions and levels of development. The PRC could trade their rapid development for a more “pure” socialism, but this would come with the consequence of isolating itself from the world economy like the USSR was, which the CPC identified as a partial cause of the USSR’s dissolution.
Capitalism - an economic system that allows for Private (not personal) property and says that money is the only thing that matters. It’s more complex than that, but that’s the core.
Allows for? If your economy is 99% public, and 1 kid has a lemonade stand, this is capitalist in your eyes? No. The idea of “money being the only thing that matters” is absolutely untrue in China, where the huge publicly-owned industry is used to develop underdeveloped regions, implement strong infrastructure, and more, so I also don’t know what you mean by this.
In reality, capitalism is a mode of production where private ownership isn’t merely allowed, but is the principal aspect of the economy, and the capitalist class in charge of the state. This identifies where private ownership exists in relation to other forms of ownership, and the class nature of the state, both core to capitalism yet lacking from your definition.
Socialism - a worker owned state that gradually abolishes all private, but not personal, property, and works towards a stateless currency-less society.
This is true of the PRC, so I’m not sure what your problem is here.
Communism - a stateless, currency-less society in which the universal safety floor doesn’t allow anyone to be impoverished. Unfortunately can only be implemented world wide at a time.
I don’t really disagree, except that I’d add that production and distribution are run along a common plan.
Billionaires of any type are nothing but thieves. Any country that is actually worker controlled would not allow them to exist in the first place.
Let me be extremely clear: are you supporting the Gang of Four, and their “socialism is collective poverty,” against the will of the working classes? Are you incapable of recognizing the deliberate move to a more dynamic socialist market economy, where the state and the commanding heights of industry retained their class character, but private ownership was allowed in to help speed up development and integrate with the world economy?
No, the capitalist dictatorship in Taiwan that murdered all of the communists and local resistance when the KMT moved in in the White Terror isn’t anywhere close to a People’s Republic.
Utter nonsense. The CPC is the party in power in a socialist state, where the working classes use their authority against capitalists. The US Empire and the Russian Federation are both dictatorships of capital, like Taiwan, where authority is wielded against the working classes.
Nonsense. All states wield authority, this is partially correct, but they do so in service of a definite class. In the PRC, those classes are the working classes.
No he would not, Marx viewed authority by its class character, not in a liberal view that divorces the state from class struggle. Don’t invoke Marx while erasing class struggle.
You have a very strange definition of socialism. The CCP is doing their own thing that looks a hell of a lot like properly regulated capitalism. They also have created a digital scanscape and have all the big brother surveillance shit. They have teams of hackers that the state employs to constantly try to attack everyone else. They are exporting their version of authoritarianism with their tools. If the CCP were for the working class, they wouldn’t have the literal thieves that are billionaires.
I expect better of you Cowbee.
Not at all. Socialism is a transitional status between capitalism and communism, where the proletariat has siezed state power and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. This is absolutely true of the PRC.
No? Private ownership is secondary to public, and is relegated to small/medium firms, as well as highly competitive, non-critical industries like tech. The system of the PRC is typically described as a Socialist Market Economy. The commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned, while private ownership typically is found in secondary industries and highly competitive non-critical industries like tech. The CPC often has controlling shares of private companies as well, especially the larger ones. As these private firms grow, they are socialized and often folded into the public sector. This is why public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and determines the nature of the PRC’s path on the socialist road.
See also the stages of socialism presented by Chinese economists, like Cheng Enfu:
The character of the state is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whole-Process People’s Democracy is the form of consultative democracy in China. Local candidates are directly elected, and then these ladder upwards in indirect elections. The top conducts many surveys and tries to find policy from the people via the Mass Line, while practicing democratic centralism and maintaining the ability to quickly respond to changing conditions. Long-term policy change is slow but positive as consensus is built, short-term crisis is quickly adapted to as needed.
Also, it’s the Communist Party of China, not Chinese Communist Party. The format “CP_” is the internationalist form, like CPRF. “CCP” draws on western orientalist views.
Every existing socialist state is still a part of ongoing class struggle, and needs to develop tools to keep capitalists suppressed and prevent them from developing political power.
Genuinely confused by this one, the CPC isn’t attacking everyone. They do have intelligence gathering, like all states do.
The CPC isn’t exporting socialism (or “authoritarianism,” which is a meaningless term). This is one part that Marxists sometimes do criticize China for. The CPC focuses on the development of China, and favorable relations with communist parties and existing socialist states. They do not export revolution like the USSR did.
I don’t know what you mean by this either. I have the standard Marxist-Leninist take on the PRC, because I read a good deal of Marxist-Leninist theory and organize with Marxist-Leninists.
Then the standard ML take is actively pro authoritarian and actively acting as class traitors.
The fact that you don’t know about the teams of hackers that actively attack every other developed countries during Chinese timezones, is telling.
I guess I have to stop thinking of you as a friend of the masses.
The standard ML take is the standard Marxist take, that the working classes should wield the power of the state to collectivize production and distribution and prevent capitalists from taking political power. I don’t know what you mean by “acting as class traitors,” the working classes govern China and that’s a good thing.
Not really. You gave no evidence of this, and I already stated that the PRC does do intelligence gathering on imperialist countries, as all geopolitical adversaries do. The CPC would be foolish not to.
I don’t see why the fact that I support socialism and socialist countries contradicts me being a friend to the working classes. You never countered any of my points, meaning it’s extremely unclear what actual problem you have with socialist China at a concrete level.
If the working classes ruled the government there would be no billionaires. They are not socialists, they are capitalist reformers at best. I will admit that China at least has the balls to prosecute some of the Great Thieves, but they allow them to become Great Thieves and don’t stop the theft of the working class.
If that is the standard ML take, then ML are capitalist simps.
Why? Why do you believe billionaires exist anywhere? China has billionaires because it still has private property, and if you go back several comments you’ll see why they still have private property. China already tried to dogmatically eliminate all private property, and they ran into problems that came from vast underdevelopment. Poverty isn’t socialism, but the Gang of Four made the case that it was.
Again, I already addressed that private ownership is relegated to small and medium industries, and secondary, non-critical industries. Such an economy where public ownership dominates is not capitalist in the slightest, and further the class character of the state is critical as well. Capitalists are stripped from political power in China.
The people of China allow billionaires to exist because they traded an impoverished, “purer” socialism for a dynamic socialist market economy, which came with dramatic development. Such a shift was built upon the existing socialist system, and is not a change in character but of form. As time has gone on, the PRC has developed, and so too has the Xi Jinping era become known as a “New Era,” where a qualitative shift in development has allowed a sharper turn in the direction of this “pure socialism,” only this time with more developed productive forces.
I don’t see how MLs are “capitalist simps” for supporting socialist countries. Can you explain what socialism and capitalism are?
Billionaires exist anywhere because the whole world sucks capitalist dick. Billionaires only exist because the workers have a boot on their necks, and greedy thieves aren’t prosecuted by the state for wage theft.
Capitalism - an economic system that allows for Private (not personal) property and says that money is the only thing that matters. It’s more complex than that, but that’s the core.
Socialism - a worker owned state that gradually abolishes all private, but not personal, property, and works towards a stateless currency-less society.
Communism - a stateless, currency-less society in which the universal safety floor doesn’t allow anyone to be impoverished, and by necessity outlaws extreme wealth as it is unhealthy. Unfortunately can only be implemented world wide at a time.
Billionaires of any type are nothing but thieves. Any country that is actually worker controlled would not allow them to exist in the first place.
No, that’s not how it works. I want a concrete reason, not an analogy.
Billionaires exist because private ownership exists, and private ownership exists because of definite material conditions and levels of development. The PRC could trade their rapid development for a more “pure” socialism, but this would come with the consequence of isolating itself from the world economy like the USSR was, which the CPC identified as a partial cause of the USSR’s dissolution.
Allows for? If your economy is 99% public, and 1 kid has a lemonade stand, this is capitalist in your eyes? No. The idea of “money being the only thing that matters” is absolutely untrue in China, where the huge publicly-owned industry is used to develop underdeveloped regions, implement strong infrastructure, and more, so I also don’t know what you mean by this.
In reality, capitalism is a mode of production where private ownership isn’t merely allowed, but is the principal aspect of the economy, and the capitalist class in charge of the state. This identifies where private ownership exists in relation to other forms of ownership, and the class nature of the state, both core to capitalism yet lacking from your definition.
This is true of the PRC, so I’m not sure what your problem is here.
I don’t really disagree, except that I’d add that production and distribution are run along a common plan.
Let me be extremely clear: are you supporting the Gang of Four, and their “socialism is collective poverty,” against the will of the working classes? Are you incapable of recognizing the deliberate move to a more dynamic socialist market economy, where the state and the commanding heights of industry retained their class character, but private ownership was allowed in to help speed up development and integrate with the world economy?