this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
69 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
4334 readers
31 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
The comment identifies several features of SWCC that warrant close analysis. But the criticisms are very abstract, which may distort things.
I assume the comment is about China? I think to unpack the challenges that China is facing and it's successes and failures on the road to socialism, the criticism needs to be more specific. Otherwise, the risk is making conclusions that don't follow from the argument. For example:
The conclusion suggests the CPC isn't aware of the issues and doesn't have a plan for them. That might be the case. But it might not. We need to know more to say for sure.
Starting with such an abstract view of the country misses any safeguards, contingency plans, restraints, even faults, etc. Is it faith in rich capitalists or faith in a socialist system of socialist checks and balances?
Additionally, the level of abstraction kind of obscures the what, the why, and the how. Consider the following:
What does it mean to be a socialist state in a majority capitalist world? What has China done to navigate that world and control it's domestic capital? Why and how?
I also think I'd frame it the other way – I'd start from a more positive position, that China's officials deserve praise for building socialism. They haven't simply survived. Many other paths would have meant simple survival for the 'state'. It just seems a bit strange to frame China's development potentially deserving blame and as doing the bare minimum that it took to survive. Again, I think this stems from the level of abstraction.
Abstraction is useful but it follows from concrete analysis of detail. Otherwise, I agree that China's rise is unconventional and I look forward to seeing how it deals with the latest contradictions.