this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2025
24 points (96.2% liked)
askchapo
23019 readers
157 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So what suckdems pinky-promise but never deliver? Sounds like a big improvement
an improvement, to be sure, but state capitalism at most
State capitalism that ended homelessness and lifted 850M out of poverty and is currently on track to outperform every society in history on quality of life scales while simultaneously doing it with less waste per capita AND producing enough green tech to be the exporter of choice for the entire world.
You might say "state capitalism at most" as though it's a low form of development but it's literally the most advanced and successful form of social organization in the history of humanity. It is the leading edge of socialist experimentation.
I do not denounce their achievements, i praise them for it. But those achievements came with costs. People before had free healthcare, food needs met, and education paid for under the Iron Rice Bowl, but was that was thrown out the window for being 'too expensive', the communes allowed people to collectively live by their own means, but were broken up and the land privatized. Workers no longer owned the wealth of their labor, but were just turned into once more an exploited proletariat with the wealth funneled through to western capital and domestic capitalists. Only recently has some of their wealth actually been given back. Many were not actually in 'poverty' but didn't rely on wage labor. Of course there was indeed a disparity of development, lack of technological advancement, and others that justly necessitated some sort of capitulation to capital in order to use capital to solve it.
China, forced to 'reform and open up' were taken advantage of and capitalism was restored to prominence. I do not blame china for this, it had to make concessions to survive, i am merely pointing out that china has done this at the cost of integrating itself into capitalism instead of being anti capitalist. It cannot and will not destroy capitalism since its in its self interest now to preserve it as a massive part of the capitalist chain.
I will also say that the government could be taken control of by the anti capitalist factions and steered back to state socialism, but otherwise you will just continue to see it do nothing but increase integration into global markets and make some slight social democrat improvements.
These are vibes. ALL achievements come with costs.
We have to assess whether we want to be fully in control of our surplus value with a surplus value of 2x or whether we want to give up 80% of our surplus value and have a surplus value of 200x. The CPC chose the latter under very strict conditions of maintaining party control. The only reason that, "Only recently has some of their wealth actually been given back" is because the party maintained that control from the beginning and never let it go. They chose to grow their total surplus value instead of requiring 100% ownership of that surplus value and remaining underdeveloped. They correctly saw that being underdeveloped put them at the mercy of imperialism and that 100% ownership of surplus value under such conditions was a temporary position that would ultimately fall to imperialism.
What you perhaps don't recognize is that from the beginning Mao made it clear that the bourgeoisie were not to be completely eradicated but rather to be allowed to live within the confines set by the CPC. This was decided as part of their strategy right from the beginning. What you see as a sacrifice of principles is actually merely a matter of degree. Under Mao, the degree of bourgeoisie freedom was very small. Under Deng, the degree increased. Under Hu, the degree increased. Under Xi, the degree is decreasing. It has always been there.
China literally cannot be anti-capitalist. No nation has been able to develop industry without being capitalist in some way. The USSR had the NEP for this reason. Capitalism remains to this day an indispensable tool in the industrialization toolbox. No one has ever modernized their peasant society with out. So your requirement that China be anti-capitalist is tantamount to requiring China to remain an underdeveloped impoverished backwater until they can invent an entirely new method of modernization heretofore never discovered in the history of human society.
Instead of being anti-capitalist, China is instead anti-imperialist. And as Marxist thought has evolved, even starting with Lenin, anti-imperialism has emerged as the imperative position to have. In fact, we need more anti-imperialist countries than socialist countries right now, mostly because global conditions are unfavorable to socialist development while imperialism still reigns supreme. It is useless to have mostly communistic peasant societies that imperialism can dominate. In fact, that's LITERALLY how the colonial empires found the world in the 1500s - mostly communistic societies with absolutely no ability to defend themselves technologically, culturally, economically, or militarily. The few that were able to defend militarily through advanced guerilla warfare were relegated to living entirely at war with zero development in any other arena for decades. That is not in anyway the socialist world we need.
More importantly, imperialist cannot and will not destroy China because the self-interest of the imperial core must preserve China as a massive part of the capitalist chain. A world first for imperialism. It has never found a country that it would not destroy out of its own self-interest. China is the first.
This is just vibes and doesn't deserve anyone's time.
Did I say I didn't understand why deng made the reforms? I fully understand and state multiple times that they were a necessary concession to international capital in order to modernize. I am glad China did not follow the USSR's idiocy of reversing the Party's control of the state. Gorbachev was a liberal, Deng was a communist within a changing world. A world that no longer exists. Neo-Liberalism is in decline as is the west and america. Capitulation to capitalism is no longer the necessity it once was.
Most of the reforms I disagree with is post 1993, when the libs Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao took power. They restored capitalism, even by deng's own standards. Xi has been fixing the errors of those times since then, but seems to not restore state socialism and keep the equilibrium of a Party controlled government and a state capitalist economy.
I do realize this, you dont talk down to me, its unmarxist. Mao Zedong was following the ML line of forming a pact with the petite and national bourgeoisie for the national liberation of China. I don't disagree with this at all.
Although I would like to highlight that Mao had many excesses that had to be constantly cleaned up by Deng
Although you have several good points, this is by far the worst one. Revisionist historically and materially. Although the NEP existed, and for good reason, it was merely to heal the scars post civil war so that there wouldn't be a capitalist revolt. The purpose of this was purely temporary. Stalin saw that it was also building up new landlord and national capitalist classes, who were actively agitating against socialism and sabotaging the country. Stalin, unlike the Chauvinist Bukharin and the spineless trotsky, saw the NEP's usefulness had ended, and got rid of it. The growth of the economy without the NEP was extremely large and the development of the productive forces some of the best in history.
Saying we need capitalism is literally just liberalism. We do not need capitalism. Capitalism is not necessary for industrialization, and has several times directly hampered such goals. China getting rid of capitalism would not just erase all of their gains they have made, it would merely remove the control of Capitalists and capital investments. Of course I think it cannot be instant and there needs to be a transition period, as we can't just declare "we're doing socialist economics now" (the country would basically break down into civil war and many of their allies would scramble to defend their interests), but there should be active transition towards erasing capitalist control of the economy.
Your narrative is that of defeatism, that we cannot possibly live without capitalism and need it to develop an economy, when that is historically not true. Its also just anti-communist.
How is China being anti-imperialist currently? Even before their 'anti imperialist' foreign policy had a lot to be desired cough cough Khmer Rouge, Mujaheideen, UNITA, Ethno-nationalists in Ethiopia, Said Barre in Somolia, and SIDING WITH THE USA IN THE COLD WAR cough cough . The CPC was a anti imperialist front that kicked out the Japanese and americans from China and Korea. But now, thats just untrue? Although they are a very humanistic investor, and treats the global south with a great deal more respect than the Core, they are actively exploiting unequal exchange, inter-imperialist multipolar competition, and Imperialist profits. Don't get me wrong, they have a very different way of going about it, and are far more forgiving, due to their socialist government having some guardrails, But such things are taking place. China is a far better alternative, and gives a better deal, but that doesn't mean that capital extraction does not occur.
You decry the achievements of socialism to establish actual anti imperialist movements and nations just because it was violent? Vietnam? Angola? Algeria? Nicaragua? Cuba? Not what we needed? Although the USSR has many criticisms in its foreign policy, it was a steadfast supporter of Anti-imperialist, anti-colonial, and anti-apartheid movements. Just because they dared to build something new, dared to not capitulate until corrupted from within, doesn't mean that was a failure. This is not just revisionist but highly chauvinist, defeatist, and capitulatory. I suggest you retract that statement now, as maybe you just said it out of haste.
thats what im trying to say, its become china's self interest to maintain that system, as it is now a part of it. It wants to throw off US hegemony, but simply to throw off the hegemon. You think capitalism has somehow changed nature? That Imperialism is nice now? It is simply because China has become a part of it. The semi-periphery is now trying to replace the core. This is a process of systems.
thank you for your commentary????
Continuing from previous reply... Now that China has intermediated the value flow of imperialist exploitation, they are capable of skimming some of that value for themselves and deploying it according to their strategic aims. And guess what we see - China creating alternative financial structures within the world system of capitalism. Where do we think China got that money from? I would bet dollars to donuts that we would see a direct line between China's intermediation of imperial value flows and the lending capacity of China's alternative global financial institutions. So with the capitalists own money, that would have 100% gone straight to London, now a portion goes to Beijing. The money in London that went to maintaining imperial tribute states now in Beijing is going to the development of projects that produce slightly more autonomy and independence for those same tribute states. Here we see another just absolutely gorgeous example of the Chinese engaging in dialectics. They use the imperialists' own incentives against them not only to enrich themselves but to build the momentum that will undermine the imperialists power with their own structures.
Of course I don't decry them. I am saying that being a besieged socialist nation is not conducive to the liberation of a people. Cuba's revolution led to a shining example of what is possible, but it is unquestionable that the Cuban people suffer immensely because of their status as a besieged state. It is simply not enough to win militarily. As we saw with Yugoslavia, the USA is not too worried about the small states, especially the ones they can besiege, because once the regional hegemon is gone, they'll just go carpet bomb the smaller projects. The smaller projects, right now, are all living in a state of suspended animation while the conflict between the imperialists and the anti-imperialists plays out. If China falls, nearly every small state that is socialist will fall within 2 generations. Idealistically, I love those small projects and they contribute in their ways. But materially, I cannot say that any one of these projects was strictly historically necessary for the eventual liberation of humanity. The USSR was and China is the only project with the necessary conditions to produce outcomes that will lead to the controlled collapse of imperialism. We learned valuable lessons from all the other projects, and without China we would be drawing from those lessons while we try to find another project to work on. But we would go through a very bloody and difficult era were China to fall at this time.
That it was corrupted from within is literally exactly the defining characteristic of it being a failure. Don't be an idealist.
You've got so much good analysis, but you're still captured by idealism. I am not a defeatist. I am a Marxist. Materially, the USSR failed. It's failure was solidified the minute Kruschev took power, but that process was clearly present for many years and Stalin failed to identify the means to address it permanently. Your statement would be like if you built a tower out of legos and then it fell and I said your build process failed and you argued that your build was fine it was gravity that was the problem. The USSR was a failed socialist experiment explicitly because it could not maintain the revolution. Mao's approach to the maintenance of the revolution explicitly took this into account, as a materialist analysis rightly should. Mao's revolution also had processes that threatened the socialist project in China but so far it seems the party's solutions to managing those processes has prevented the project from failing.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying the USSR failed at every objective and showed us that socialism is a bad idea. On the contrary, it showed us just how amazing and successful socialism can be. But it still failed. That's why it's not here anymore.
Or, from another perspective, it has ALWAYS been in China's self-interest to maintain the system because it needed to become a part of it in order to survive the conditions of imperialism. Essentially we are having the 2-into-1 vs 1-into-2 debate about dialectics. From one formulation capitalism and socialism are thesis and anti-thesis and when they come into conflict they interact and produce the synthesis. From another formulation socialism emerges from capitalism and both contribute to the unity that is human society.
The question is whether or not this is the historically necessary process. Is there another way? Could China and the rest of the world fight off the imperialists who invade whenever a country nationalizes its resources? Could China chauvinistically break every country's relationship with the imperialist? Could China offer an alternative while the imperialists collectively punish nations for choosing to decouple from imperialist flows?
I agree with you about where the world needs to go, but when I look at what China is doing, I see a nation-state that is address the state of the world as it is and dialectically moving to where I think it needs to go. You seem to see an imperialist.
I gotta say, your grasp of history is far deeper than mine. Thank you for treating my response with the civility you did and for teaching me.
Just because I didn't mention the costs doesn't mean I'm ignore them.
While I agree, I still think it's difficult to conduct a thorough analysis of a contemporary revolutionary experiment. When we do analyze it, we need to do it with the understanding that we are blind to what's actually going on and we don't have complete access to the analysis of the party and its leaders. Much like we can analyze battlefield conditions, we have to acknowledge that we lack access to intelligence and we lack an understanding of the current understanding of the intelligence apparatus. This ignorance really needs to temper our willingness to move towards making judgments.
I think this is an idealist understanding of necessity and not a materialist one, and I think further along in your response we get to a particular misunderstanding that could shed light on this. Suffice to say, capitulation to capitalism is a historical process, much like capitalism is. One cannot immediately end capitulation to capitalism anymore than one can immediately end capitalism. We are discussing massive hyperobjects. They take significant time to evolve.
I think it is likely that there were overcorrections, but I still think we're not far enough away to make those judgments accurately yet. The fact that Xi came to power and is able to move the apparatus of state the way he has is evidence that there wasn't a successful counter-revolution like there was in the USSR. I don't think we can ever say they would be years or decades without mistakes being made. Mistakes were made under ever leader. The question is not whether mistakes were made but whether those mistakes were within operating boundaries of a successful revolutionary process. So far today, it seems like they were.
No, it's historical analysis. Capitalism was a necessary, not contingent, social organization that emerged from the history that birthed it. I'm not saying we need capitalism as in we have to keep some capitalism around. I'm saying capitalism has so far been shown to be a non-contingent aspect of social development to some degree or another. My hope is that after the empire falls China will contribute to the conditions that will support some other state in becoming the first ever state to develop their productive capacities without a capitalism phase. That would be wonderful, and it is likely to happen to at some point, but we are not at that point yet in world history.
Of course it has directly hampered it as well as directly supported it - it's a contradictory system! Just like socialism has both directly hampered and directly supported the liberation of the working class! Don't be such an idealist. Materially speaking, we have yet to see a sustainable social development that did not go through some form of capitalism. Maybe the DPRK pulled it off, but again, we have that pesky reality that we don't have the ability to analyze all contemporary experiments to the same extent. DPRK is too opaque for us to use as a specimen to examine and learn from outside of a few things. But it's entirely possible that they've figured out something that is truly novel and when we finally get to the point where we can analyze that society as Marxists, maybe we'll smack our foreheads with realization. But we just don't have another path today.
Of course it wouldn't erase all of their gains. What it would do is create reaction that would cause internal instability, which they cannot afford to have this decade. They are actively working to integrate Hong Kong and Taiwan and that requires maintaining sufficiently favorable conditions. Failing to integrate these subdivisions represents an existential threat to the largest most successful socialist experiment in the history of humanity. Choosing to get rid of capitalism overnight through a radically disruptive process would open far too many opportunities for the West to catalyze disintegration of the Chinese project.
Is losing 36% of its billionaires not enough in 3 years not enough? Is focusing on managing the externalities of capitalism not a move in this direction? Is increasing domestic capabilities to reduce reliance on foreign capabilities not contributing to this eventual transition? You speak as though you are an experienced head of state who has a solid grasp on what sorts of decisions make sense for a modern party to make and that you are disappointed that the CPC isn't making them. But from where I'm standing, I see watching China as an opportunity to learn, not as an opportunity to purity test.
You're just choosing to interpret my words as object-oriented instead of process-oriented. I hope I've clear that up in the above comments.
Let's be clear on terms here - imperialism is not armed conflict. Imperialism, as defined by Lenin, is far more a socio-economic process than a military one. So to answer your question, how is China being anti-imperialist:
Fighting imperialism in this millennium is not about deploy military presence (at least not yet). It's about countering economic concentration with economic distribution, replacing the dominance of finance capitalism with the dominance of productive capitalism, replacing a tributary system with national economic self-determination through the development of productive forces in over-exploited nations, the countering of spatial stratification with connective infrastructure, and countering the division of the world amongst imperialist powers through the development of sustainable coalitions that do not include the imperialists.
China is doing all of this.
Again, you are confusing something China is doing with something that is a world historical process. You seem to take the fact that China has intermediated imperialist value chains as something of a terrible thing, failing to realize that such a thing was unthinkable 100 years ago. China isn't merely doing similar actions that the imperialists were doing, China has supplanted the imperialist actors in an already extant world historical process. The United States did the same thing with England, France, and Spain - these 3 imperialists were exploiting Turtle Island until the US emerged as a liberal revolutionary state and took over the process. They didn't just do similar actions that were like what the old guard did, they took over an existing process of colonization.
In the context of our discussion, China has managed to position itself between the imperialists and the imperialized in an already extant world historical process of exploitation. In so doing, it has managed to skim off a portion of that value stream. Were it to shutdown the value stream entirely, the imperialists would need to reassert their position in the process, which would be bloody. And I've run out characters. I'll make another reply.