askchapo

Are you daft? The USSR was lost to revisionists almost immediately. The fight against the revisionist counter-revolutionaries ended when Kruschev took office in 1953. For the 30 years prior, outside of fighting for the union's life, Stalin spent almost every moment fighting the revisionists, and he still failed. He went wild with purges of all levels of intensity and still failed. Stalin was fighting to keep the revolution and he failed. That means that the USSR only had a revolutionary trajectory for what, 10 years? 15? The revisionists were obviously winning by the middle of Stalin's tenure (otherwise why would he be working so hard to purge them?)

He had won over them in the battle against the NEP, but the destruction of the USSR during WW2 killed many devoted communists, and vastly changed the situation they were in. He focused on rebuilding the eastern bloc and the USSR, to great success that lead to the 1950s "Soviet Economic Miracle".

1922-53 is almost half of the USSR's existence, what kind of marxist are you to dismiss this era as failure? In further decades the remnants of the era was the backbone of the USSR's continued success. A large portion of the Heavy Industry before the collapse was from the Stalin era.

No, you have completely misread the situation. The USSR was the very first experiment and it had the seeds of its failure right from the beginning. By the time Mao started his project, he had the benefit of decades of analysis of how the USSR failed. China understood the USSR was a failure by the time Kruschev took office.

again, Its deeply unserious to say the fall of the USSR was 'inevitable'. This isn't a fairy tale story, this is real life, theres no story arcs or 'inevitable' anything.

China is, therefore, the second experiment, and it is built on top of the analysis of where the USSR failed. I It has maintained far more Marxist foundations, it has maintained far more controls over the way it has developed, it has maintained the interest of the people far more fastidiously, it has maintained an anti-imperialist stance far more thoroughly and consistently.

and can we not criticize this current 'experiment' until its collapsed? Handle a bit of criticism, its good for you.

Its development has been pretty great, no famine while industrializing so quickly is quite interesting.

It has recently actually addressed capitalist excesses and done wonders when applying a socialist model when having to fix their results. It has done well modernizing and building up their economy. It has done well to defend its interests. It has done well to engage in diplomacy to solve problems and not result to military force. It has a great many successes, why would I deny that, where have I denied that? Before Xi though, capitalism had grown the economy but brought numerous serious problems to china, that only reviving tiny bits of socialism could treat. Lets hope they revive socialism entirely.

But the anti-imperialism part is bullshit lmao. They aren't a rabid imperialist power, sure, but theyve done no more than out compete US capitalism with their own. They gave a better deal, the nations took it, all well and good. Don't worry, the debt trap myth is definitely bullshit. But actively anti imperialist? Everyone knows thats bullshit. They actively trade with Israel, they do not supply weapons or resources to Palestinian liberation. dont type out what i know you are, I am talking about thorough and consistent anti imperialism, which is not what china nor anyone else thinks they are doing.

China supports palestine and has diplomatically pressured the US and Israel to end its attack and is definitely important as a counterbalance to the US economy, allowing many countries fighting the US to have an alternative. China is weakening the US, but not to end imperialism. This is the process of the semi-periphery having enough capital and large enough economy to start trying to fight for their own influence. China is not funding national liberation, Communist parties, or any sort of anti imperialist movement. Its diplomatically seeking to stabilize situations which may increase their influence and trade. They are not pushing, they are riding the waves. Thats smart of course, I don't blame it for that.

It could be failing too, but that would require us to compare the trajectories. If we map the decades of the USSR and the decades of China, it becomes painfully obvious that China is on a completely different trajectory.

Ah yes, and its marxist to say the development of history is set in stone towards nothing but the words of goals. It is obvious that the USSR and China are in a different trajectory. The USSR is 30 years dead. China played the game smarter and restored capitalist control of the economy while maintaining the Communist party. But the path of China is to develop itself, and to deeply integrate itself into global capitalism. That is what is happening, that is what was happening, and from what we know its going to continue to happen unless China chooses to change course.

Are you really so niave to think that once China becomes the dominant capitalist power, that it will... what? Destroy capitalism? Bring socialism to everyone? Marxists see the growing multipolar world as an opportunity to overthrow capitalism where possible while global capitalism temporarily weakens. Idealists think that Multipolar capitalism is the salvation itself.

There is simply no way to look at China and compare it to the USSR post Stalin. It's incomparable. It's an unserious position to hold.

I thought we are supposed to compare the two experiments? Is doing this unfair now? But yes, different times. China's own position is due to the decline of the USSR in the late 70s and 80s. The victory of neoliberalism, their friendship with america, and the death of world socialism saw that the best path towards continuing and thriving without a Cold War that they couldn't handle at the time, was capitulation to capitalism. Deng still set out in a way to maintain a socialist economy while allowing foreign investment, but after him there was a restoration of capitalism. In order to build socialism they must retake their economy fully into the hands of the people and the party.

China is at a crossroads

I'm pointing out Stalin because I am simply highlighting that it can be done, and it has been done before. I dont think exact replication is possible of course, nor something everyone can or should do, but a socialist economy along those lines is a definite.

I don't know why my criticisms are just seen as illegitimate though, I am fine with being wrong and would embrace it, but the more I read theory the more these concerns surface. I have dipped into Governance of China, and its quite a fascinating look. I fully believe that Xi is a devoted communist. I am critiquing the current economy, critiquing some definitions of 'development' (since development theory is made up by capitalists), and critiquing redefining socialism as prosperity. I welcome critiques, although they do hurt my pride a bit lmao, I want a socialist world more than I want to be right. I realize some of my positions are an over-correction, and I want to make clear: China is not the enemy, I just don't think they're the solution either. China is its own thing, and as an american its my position to worry first and foremost about the USA and deconstructing it. China is instrumental in unseating the power of america and undermining its influence. But the reasons for China doing that is not anti capitalism or anti imperialism, merely Multi-polar capitalist competition. Although it could very well become that.