It’s not capitalism, nor is it socialism in the traditional sense.
It’s socialism with Chinese characteristics. This is the key qualifier. It’s kinda its own thing.
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2025
24 points (96.2% liked)
askchapo
23015 readers
75 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
Would you like an essay from prolewiki?
Tl;dr: it doesn't capture the full essence of China's economy by simply calling its economy a state-capitalist or such mode of production. (unlike what others like Vidiwell might imply)
There are many major factors to take into account, such as:
Land ownership
State planning
State owned enterprises, as the commanding heights of the economy
State guided investment funds
Cooperatives
CPC ran banks and CPC bond markets
Party-commitee involvement
Extra-legal control rights (recuperation/co-option of private enterprise into the relatively more socialist framework)
Social credit score et anti-{private} monopoly laws in regulating market sector
Extra long and fancy NEP
but lenin said NEP was just state capitalism and was a very temporary measure. Making it longer kinda defeats the point.
Yep that's the joke
autism moment, the joke flew over my head and i tried to catch it
It's a very oblique and dry joke. I wouldn't blame anyone going "whuh?" 
How accurate? It's not correct, if that's what you mean. I've been compelled by the argument that it's state capitalist as defined by lenin with regards to the stages of communist development, though
I would argue it's state socialism still because there's a clear path to everything becoming state owned, but they're playing the market to get global trade a capital up. As they build their economy. Quite brilliant if you're thinking about hundreds and thousands of years into the future while still building the best situation for Chinese people today.
nah, even by deng's own requirement China has restored capitalism. He wanted capitalism restrained to foreign investment and for the public/collective sector at 90 percent of the economy, without a development of large domestic capitalism. China post deng liberalized extremely hard which has only been put to a halt by Xi. By literally any Communist definition, even by the one who started 'reform and opening up', China does not have a socialist economy, but a state capitalist or even just capitalist one. The problem is the governing structure is explicitly socialist, and governed by a communist party (although some areas are not very devoted to communism at all, and want to restore capitalism like the Shanghai clique). But still, this is at most state capitalist as the base of all things under marxist analysis is the economy.
Its hard to say they are or aren't building socialism because i see them at a crossroads. They can increase socialist reforms or increase capitalist ones. Socialist restoration is possible but needs some strong movements to get rid of the groups who restored capitalism in the first place.
I totally disagree with this analysis and so does Xi and the Chinese government. There's no reason not to trust their plan.
of course xi would disagree, but the 'chinese government' is far too wide. The USSR's party officially was building socialism but within had a liberal faction that overthrew the actual socialists and restored capitalism to a destructive effect. This is a party of 90 million people, there are definitely large factions within it with different aims. Maoists, Trotskyists, Marxist leninists, Dengists, Liberals, Nationalists, social democrats, and much more.
Xi would disagree because he is part of the faction trying to increase socialist reforms within the country, but also not rock the boat too much. He wants it dedicated to building socialism, but also wants markets to take a large part in the economy. He's stopped it from further liberalizing, definitely.
The second centenerary goal of developing a modern socialist country in all respects isn't until 2049.
2049 is 25 years away that's 9/11 til now for reference. That's why I said on the scale of hundreds and thousands of years that's clearly the direction.
sorry although i do trust the CPC way more than other governments, this just gives me vibes of kruschev's "communism in ten years". what is key is that the CPC has redefined what they mean by 'achieving socialism' to almost a capitalistic idea of industrial development and enrichment.
Industrial development is not a capitalist idea, it's a social idea. Capitalism is the mechanism by which it was achieved. The idea that societies shouldn't aim for industrial development because it's a capitalist idea is silly
industrial development also is a highly contextual term, what does it mean when a country has enough industrial development? It doesn't mean anything, its purely in relation to others. It is the development of productive forces, which can be done under socialism better than it can under capitalism. I'm saying that full 'development' is just not a good thing to strive for. Every country cannot be as 'developed' as the parasite that is the core, because if it does it would mean exploiting the resources and capital of several earths. Natural capital would not survive. We need to degrow the development in the first world since much of it exists to profit from extracting goods from the south. Without colonial extraction, unequal exchange, and whatnot many of those industries wouldn't be able to exist.
I too recognize that we do need some industrial centers in order to produce the necessary goods to effectively generate goods for the nation and people, but I just cant understand trying to become 'developed' when that just means becoming the exploiter, not the exploited. We should end exploitation and redistribute actually existing wealth back, their food back, their land back, and live just dandy without all this blood capital. Equal footing per capita.
im still learning and hammering out my viewpoints and ideology, but I cannot abide by a view that is totally class and economy essentialist, without taking in consideration of the necessary reality of solving the crisis of capitalism.
I’m saying that full ‘development’ is just not a good thing to strive for.
Full development doesn't have a definition.
Every country cannot be as ‘developed’ as the parasite that is the core
This is not China's approach. They are not trying to develop every country to the same level as the imperial core. They are trying to develop their country, the current leading socialist country, beyond the development levels of the imperial core. That's a huge difference. Why would you judge China by the standard of "should every country do exactly what you're doing?"
We need to degrow the development in the first world since much of it exists to profit from extracting goods from the south.
And what is the path to this degrowth? While you figure that out, China is worrying about the actual material conditions of a billion people, which includes far better stewardship of the environment than any country in the North Atlantic.
I too recognize that we do need some industrial centers in order to produce the necessary goods to effectively generate goods for the nation and people
Do you, though? Because in the next breath you literally say:
but I just cant understand trying to become ‘developed’ when that just means becoming the exploiter, not the exploited
So either you understand that we need industrial centers or you don't. Which is it?
Personally, I don't think we need industrial centers. I think that developing an anti-imperialist industrial center is likely the only path to full decolonization, but the process of decolonization will likely include the distribution and embedding of industrial capacities much more evenly, and technological developments will be focused on resilient and circular industry that can be distributed far and wide so avoid any centralization. The only way to get there, though, is through centralized development. This is essentially a fractal of centralization of political power under the party until such time as reactionary forces have been eliminated and governance capabilities have been distributed downward towards smaller and smaller polities.
We should end exploitation and redistribute actually existing wealth back, their food back, their land back, and live just dandy without all this blood capital. Equal footing per capita.
And how do you propose we get there? China's current strategy is to intermediate imperial commodity flows. The West is consuming no matter what. If China doesn't produce for them, they will produce for themselves or they will neocolonize another locale and do production there. The consumption is happening, the production is happening, the exploitation is happening. These are material conditions that are massive in scale and impossible to change overnight. China has maneuvered itself between the imperial core and the periphery. It now has intermediated the consumption, production, and exploitation that was already happening. It has not created more of it. In fact, through it's own social development it has reduced exploitation, but only by a modicum. Through it's lending practices, it has reduced exploitation globally, but only by a modicum. The more it intermediates, the more power it has to decide what is going to happen. The more it fights the West on principle, the less it fights the West materially.
I cannot abide by a view that is totally class and economy essentialist, without taking in consideration of the necessary reality of solving the crisis of capitalism.
China's solution to socialism is not going to be understood for many decades. We only understood what Deng was doing decades after he did it. We only understood China joining the WTO as a gambit 15 years after it joined. Not even the West understood what was going on and they had all the power to figure it out. China is playing Weiqi (Go). They are not trying to dominate the world and then impose their ideology on it. They are trying to build something truly sustainable. The current biggest threat to any sustainable society is the US war machine. China's solution to that is Seki (Mutual Life). If war is the process by which a capitalist bloc destroys the productive capacity of a competitor, than every single society that tries to develop itself into self-sufficient will be bombed by the USA. China's solution? Make it so that bombing China is equivalent to bombing the imperial core. How did they do that? They did everything necessary to attract American capital to develop their productive capacity. Now it's American and European capital that will be destroyed if the USA bombs China. But that's not enough. The West needed to become dependent on China for commodity production to ensure they would never bomb China. So China not only needed to attract imperial capital, it needed to make investment in China so much better than anything else that the West would voluntarily deindustrialize itself.
And that's exactly what happened. The USA and Europe absolutely went through degrowth over the last 40 years because they sent all their productive capital to China. And now, if they bomb China, their society will not be able to get the commodities it needs. China is safe from US bombs so long as it is better for the US to not bomb them. This is also why China has been focused on peace in the last 40 years, because they cannot be seen by the USA military establishment as a genuine military threat or the bombs will fly. So China has to be very careful to be defensively superior AND productively indispensable in order to avoid being carpet bombed.
And you know what, China could just stop there. Join the imperialist camp, collaborate with the international billionaires, sit on top of the world. But that's not what they're doing. They do not allow foreigners to run anything in their borders, they maintain an iron grip on their land reform strategy, they execute corrupt billionaires, they do not ever let private companies get big without deep integration with the state for control. They continue to educate the entire population on Marxism.
And they could stop there, and just be a rich nation that is self-sufficient and doing well for itself. But that's not what they're doing. They are building coalitions with anti-imperialist nations, they are building coalitions with historically colonized nations, they are providing an alternative to the North Atlantic financial hegemony (WTO, World Bank), they are engaging in diplomacy between long-standing enemies and brokering peace, they are contributing to the development of critical infrastructure in historically colonized nations and they are building momentum on developing national capabilities and capacity that are owned and operated by historically colonized nations.
We are never going to understand what the cutting edge of socialist revolutionary experimentation is doing. We didn't understand everything the USSR was doing the year it did - it took decades to understand what they were doing, why, and how it was working. You don't get to judge these experiments in real-time. You have to use analytical methods that require you to posit multiple hypotheses (e.g. they are doing it right. they are doing it wrong. they are disoriented and scrambling. they are fighting internal counter-revolutionary movement. etc) and then develop a historical analysis over the past N years to support your hypothesis. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of fashioning an ideal standard in a vacuum and then cherry-picking from history to show violations of our purity test or using current events to show violations of our purity test. We have to accept that we have no idea what's going on and that the "fog of war" for socialist experimentation spans at least 5 years and, if history is any guide, likely closer to 20 years.
I apologize for my recent anger, I spent a while writing up those and I got very passionate. I do believe you are a devoted Marxist Leninist, and have given serious time to formulate responses to my points which I thank you for. Although I disagree with much of your points so far, I am glad to have actual counter critique and arguments. Although its not that all the time, neither am I also lacking in areas.
This is not China's approach. They are not trying to develop every country to the same level as the imperial core. They are trying to develop their country, the current leading socialist country, beyond the development levels of the imperial core. That's a huge difference. Why would you judge China by the standard of "should every country do exactly what you're doing?"
I cannot argue with this. My position wasn't established very well. I am still developing my analysis. My concern is just taking more than can be regenerated, or trying to reach western style 'developed' status. Everyone with a car, a suburb house, countless commodities for personal use, and the like. I do not think such is sustainable nor necessary. Who really needs their own car? Not many, with a well developed public transport system (like china has, in fact they have the best one in the world). It is a mindset that had the USSR biting off more than it could chew, without realizing that the standards of the west were sustained by Imperial profits. China took a piece of the pie in such profits and many sections of its government want to do something similar. Although from my view its not the ones in charge currently. I hope they are unable to take a leadership role.
And what is the path to this degrowth? While you figure that out, China is worrying about the actual material conditions of a billion people, which includes far better stewardship of the environment than any country in the North Atlantic.
I do not blame China for providing for its citizens, I of course think its a necessity and one that the PRC under Xi has handled very well. Especially with the green campaigns and future economic development massively investing in green energy and environmental friendly development. But you don't need capitalism for this. Cuba has some of the highest living standards in the world even while blockaded due to their socialist economy. They were able to develop a large medical sector, many productive forces, and such while on an 8 hour work day and without removing their socialist protections.
Most of what I mean is that a lot of capitalist development around the world doesn't serve any purpose and we could do with doing a massive cutting down on it. The crisis of overproduction is building and is already at levels that are devastating. I don't blame china of course, or its economy, as the main force behind this is western capital. I just see it as necessary to solve overproduction, something capitalism is unable to do. Something Capitalism always tends towards.
Just because the red social democracy has some successes, doesn't mean that capitalism somehow doesn't exist when you succeed.
industrial centers
the confusion over this is solved simply: there must be a balance. I do not blame china for this, but even if the west dies such a view of constant growth and development cannot continue.
China's solution to socialism is not going to be understood for many decades. We only understood what Deng was doing decades after he did it. We only understood China joining the WTO as a gambit 15 years after it joined. Not even the West understood what was going on and they had all the power to figure it out. China is playing Weiqi (Go). They are not trying to dominate the world and then impose their ideology on it. They are trying to build something truly sustainable. The current biggest threat to any sustainable society is the US war machine. China's solution to that is Seki (Mutual Life). If war is the process by which a capitalist bloc destroys the productive capacity of a competitor, than every single society that tries to develop itself into self-sufficient will be bombed by the USA. China's solution? Make it so that bombing China is equivalent to bombing the imperial core. How did they do that? They did everything necessary to attract American capital to develop their productive capacity. Now it's American and European capital that will be destroyed if the USA bombs China. But that's not enough. The West needed to become dependent on China for commodity production to ensure they would never bomb China. So China not only needed to attract imperial capital, it needed to make investment in China so much better than anything else that the West would voluntarily deindustrialize itself.
The only people who had no idea what china was doing or why are people who have no idea whats going on, namely the west. The west thought that capitalism = becoming western democracy and capitulation to them.
Yes, that is what i'm saying. China integrated into global capitalism in order to avoid capitalist encirclement. It has made global capital interest its own interest. It will not destory something that is so deeply tied to it, even against its own interest. They are massively increasing exports in order to have a trade surplus, to the massive detriment of their internal consumption. @xiaohongshu@hexbear.net has many good posts on the subject. China will not change capitalism being the dominant economic system.
I never said that china would become the next US, they are a different type of hegemon, but one that engages in capitalist exploitation all the same. Far more sensible, far more humanistic, far more diplomatic, far better deal, but only in relation to the US.
And you know what, China could just stop there. Join the imperialist camp, collaborate with the international billionaires, sit on top of the world. But that's not what they're doing. They do not allow foreigners to run anything in their borders, they maintain an iron grip on their land reform strategy, they execute corrupt billionaires, they do not ever let private companies get big without deep integration with the state for control. They continue to educate the entire population on Marxism.
They do not want to be subsumed into western capitalism, they are an emerging economy that wants to establish their own influence. They are taking a state capitalist approach to growing their economy with western capital investment and growing their national capitalists.
I dont know what you mean by foreigners run anything in borders?
Land has been privatized, large rent speculation companies exist and contribute to rising prices.
Again, state capitalism, just because the state exists within the economy, doesn't mean it doesn't serve capitalist interests. Again, Deng thought that private ownership of any more than 10 percent of the economy would definitely signal that reforms had failed and capitalism had been restored.
their education on marxism is lacking, as many people who enter the party learn about marxism leninism just to move up in the party while still being just liberals. The Shanghai Clique is an example of this. Many people don't have a very complex definition of socialism when asked. Some is better than none, but don't say some is all.
And they could stop there, and just be a rich nation that is self-sufficient and doing well for itself. But that's not what they're doing. They are building coalitions with anti-imperialist nations, they are building coalitions with historically colonized nations, they are providing an alternative to the North Atlantic financial hegemony (WTO, World Bank), they are engaging in diplomacy between long-standing enemies and brokering peace, they are contributing to the development of critical infrastructure in historically colonized nations and they are building momentum on developing national capabilities and capacity that are owned and operated by historically colonized nations.
this proves very little, there is a tenious alliance between emerging capitalist economies to fight thehegemon
We are never going to understand what the cutting edge of socialist revolutionary experimentation is doing. We didn't understand everything the USSR was doing the year it did - it took decades to understand what they were doing, why, and how it was working. You don't get to judge these experiments in real-time. You have to use analytical methods that require you to posit multiple hypotheses (e.g. they are doing it right. they are doing it wrong. they are disoriented and scrambling. they are fighting internal counter-revolutionary movement. etc) and then develop a historical analysis over the past N years to support your hypothesis. Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of fashioning an ideal standard in a vacuum and then cherry-picking from history to show violations of our purity test or using current events to show violations of our purity test. We have to accept that we have no idea what's going on and that the "fog of war" for socialist experimentation spans at least 5 years and, if history is any guide, likely closer to 20 years.
This is irrelevant. Of course things become clearer over time, but that does not mean critiquing china is wrong because we haven't had the big surprise yet! I am not holding them to a pure standard, I am critiquing them for the existence of a state capitalist economy and their revision of the definition of 'building socialism', among other things. I am holding them to the standards of their own leaders and thinkers, not a vaccuum at all. This is just nonsensical dismissal. Critical support has no meaning to yall anymore does it? I am not a china hater, but that doesn't mean I am just falling in line waiting for 2050 to suddenly have them turn around and say 'this is socialism now'. Market Socialism is not the savior ya'll think it is, or do i have to show yugoslavia as an example.
Although i would like to point out that they have redefined 'socialism' to prosperity. Although building prosperity is very important, it shouldn't be what socialism is primarily.
How do you define prosperity except as the end of scarcity and the proliferation of abundance? That is exactly what socialism is aiming for.
we literally cannot handle abundance. The world has a limit on natural resources that capitalism is ruthlessly exploiting for profit. The crisis of overproduction is looking to reach levels that are impossible to imagine. Producing more, making more, doing capitalism more, and such should not be the aim of socialist societies. We cannot end scarcity, we can only ration it fairly so that all have enough. We live in a world of finite growth, what makes you think that more growth will solve scarcity when it is its cause? China is not the one i blame for this primarily, as it is western economics and ideas that they have adopted, but socialism cannot continue this path. We need to end overproduction, speculation, financial capital, capital investment competition, and a 'forever growth' mindset. We cannot grow forever, we cannot just exploit everything around us continually, on earth, in the solar system, in the galaxy, in the universe, forever and ever just to sate the nonsense of 'post scarcity'. This is the mindset of a capitalist, making the workers into the capitalists is not an end goal. Workers should own their profits but that does not mean they should become petite bourgeoisie.
Socialism aims for the control of the means of production by way of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism is the destruction of imperialistic capital relations. Socialism is the freedom from speculation, renters, and volatile venture capital. Socialism is the destruction of capitalism, capital accumulation, and capitalist relations. Making it simply about economic growth is insanely revisionist and exactly what led to previous socialism's destruction. Socialism should build up means of production in a manner that compliments the needs of the people in an area, it should give everyone food and housing, and should allow for workers to have the time to enjoy time with their family and communities. This does not mean making everyone own a business. This does not mean everyone becomes the standards of the economically fat and bloated western parasite.
I get temporary concessions, I get the need for foreign investments, i get the need to modernize and try to fight off capital, but we cannot beat them at their own game without just becoming them. We cannot become better at capitalism without just becoming more capitalist.
its deeply saddening to see communists just become kautskyites, bukharinists, and just capitalist economists because they just refuse to believe in anything more than that. We built socialism once, and we lost it to revisionists, but we can build it again.
we literally cannot handle abundance
This is nowhere near close to being proven. The planet has demonstrated enormous capacity for energy cycles. What we cannot handle is abundance built on extractive processes. We must build abundance from regenerative processes. Regenerative processes have produced eons upon eons of trillions upon trillions of organisms, all participating in systems of dynamic equilibrium.
It is deeply saddening to see communist just become Malthusians.
The world has a limit on natural resources that capitalism is ruthlessly exploiting for profit
This is a misrepresentation of the world's limits. The world is a system, not a bank. The limits are not on natural resources, which all still exist on the planet. The limits are limits on systemic processes, and capitalism is exploiting those processes for profits in a contradictory way. If you think the world just has reserves that we'll deplete, you're thinking about it in a way that will lead to incorrect conclusions.
The crisis of overproduction is looking to reach levels that are impossible to imagine. Producing more, making more, doing capitalism more, and such should not be the aim of socialist societies
I agree. But of course, China remaining completely underdeveloped does absolutely nothing to address this. Had China not "reformed and opened up" all of that production would be happening in the imperial core or in some other part of the empire's colonial holdings. Don't imagine that individual nations have any direct control over production volume. Production is a historical process that follows its own logic. China can no more stop it than the USA can.
We cannot end scarcity, we can only ration it fairly so that all have enough
We have already ended scarcity of the most important things. We ended scarcity of many of the most important things easily 80 years ago.
We live in a world of finite growth, what makes you think that more growth will solve scarcity when it is its cause?
I don't think more growth will solve scarcity. I think more growth is going to happen regardless and I would rather have that growth under the control of a communist party that is populated with people who have been studying Marx for 6 generations than have that growth under the control of the empire. We don't live in a world of finite growth. That's ridiculous. Growth has never stopped on this planet. The problem with humanity is that it stopped operating within the boundaries of regenerative system flows and instead chose to pursue contradictory growth. These contradictions will cause their system (society) to collapse in various way at various times with various consequences. The solution for human society is to bring it back within boundary conditions of its host ecosystem and resolve the contradictions. Resolving those contradictions takes social development - literally the evolution of human society. We are currently deeply enmeshed in a historical process of extractive growth and it cannot be stopped just because you say so. We will either find a way to stop it by evolving our society or our ecosystem will force us to stop on terms we do not choose.
We cannot grow forever, we cannot just exploit everything around us continually, on earth, in the solar system, in the galaxy, in the universe, forever and ever just to sate the nonsense of ‘post scarcity’. This is the mindset of a capitalist, making the workers into the capitalists is not an end goal.
No argument there.
Workers should own their profits but that does not mean they should become petite bourgeoisie.
Argument here. Profits should be abolished. Workers shouldn't own them because they shouldn't exist, nor should the concept of ownership over such things. Workers should contribute to social surplus and social surplus should be distributed by universal consent.
Socialism aims for the control of the means of production by way of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
This is not an end. This is the means. Through the process of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat eventually abolishes itself because it abolishes all class distinction. The goal is not the proletarianization of all people, it is the end of class entirely, and therefore the end of the proletariat.
Socialism is the destruction of imperialistic capital relations. Socialism is the freedom from speculation, renters, and volatile venture capital.
Socialism is the liberation of all persons, human and non-human.
Making it simply about economic growth is insanely revisionist and exactly what led to previous socialism’s destruction
You're arguing against a ghost. No one said socialist is solely about economic growth. But arguing that socialist projects must abandon economic development if it requires participation in the world historical processes of capitalism is a purity test that can never be satisfied. There is not a single serious Marxist that has ever refuted the position that the new society must necessarily be built from the old one and therefore will retain much of the old society's trappings until it can develop past them. Only purists, originally white Western purists, but now purists who have been poisoned by these idealist positions, hold these positions.
Socialism should build up means of production in a manner that compliments the needs of the people in an area, it should give everyone food and housing, and should allow for workers to have the time to enjoy time with their family and communities.
That is EXACTLY what we see in China.
This does not mean making everyone own a business
Who, exactly, is arguing this (except Titoists)? Certainly I am not. You are arguing against ghosts.
This does not mean everyone becomes the standards of the economically fat and bloated western parasite.
Again, sounds a lot like Malthus. No one is saying that everyone should be elevated to the level of excess in the West, but no one is anywhere near close to that standard. No one. It is no one's goal. And the more you argue that everyone who is going to resist imperialism must live under forced austerity to meet some idealist standard, the more your position becomes indistinguishable from the imperialist who demands austerity from the position of dominance. China is literally no where near hitting the levels of excess of the USA or Europe. Stop acting like they're driven by jealousy or ignorance. Stop being an orientalist.
I get temporary concessions, I get the need for foreign investments, i get the need to modernize and try to fight off capital, but we cannot beat them at their own game without just becoming them. We cannot become better at capitalism without just becoming more capitalist.
Sounds like you don't get temporary concessions and you don't get the need for foreign investments and you don't get need to modernize. Sounds like you've got vibes. Having China join the WTO was a master stroke of gamesmanship. Having China become literally unbombable by absorbing most of the world's productive capacity and capabilities was absolutely brilliant. Getting the West to deindustrialize and degrow without even realizing it for 40 years was goddamned genius. Your position is indistinguishable from Hoxha at this point. You are confusing individual national choices with world historical processes. You are confusing your willingness to make concessions as a single person and zero context with the willingness of a century-old communist party's willingness to make concessions. These are not the same.
its deeply saddening to see communists just become [...] capitalist economists because they just refuse to believe in anything more than that.
You do realize that communists are by far the most knowledgeable capitalist economists in the world, right? Marx knew more about capitalism than probably anyone of his period. Studying and understanding capitalism is literally the requirement for being able to understand world historical processes that make communism possible.
We built it once, and we lost it to revisionists, but we can build it again.
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?)
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.
China is, therefore, the second experiment, and it is built on top of the analysis of where the USSR failed. 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. 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.
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.
This is nowhere near close to being proven. The planet has demonstrated enormous capacity for energy cycles. What we cannot handle is abundance built on extractive processes. We must build abundance from regenerative processes. Regenerative processes have produced eons upon eons of trillions upon trillions of organisms, all participating in systems of dynamic equilibrium.
It is deeply saddening to see communist just become Malthusians.
This is a misrepresentation of the world's limits. The world is a system, not a bank. The limits are not on natural resources, which all still exist on the planet. The limits are limits on systemic processes, and capitalism is exploiting those processes for profits in a contradictory way. If you think the world just has reserves that we'll deplete, you're thinking about it in a way that will lead to incorrect conclusions.
I guess misreading me to be an eco fascist is very... cool i guess...
I'm not talking about energy cycles, I'm talking about simple Natural Capital. No matter what system we need to extract natural capital. We are over exploiting for simple profit production with very little recycling. For the past 250 years we have annihilated nature and its processes, our farming has depleted the soil, new mineral deposits slower to find, the earth is very finite. Just saying it'll regenerate some in a few eons does not at all pertain to the conversation when we've long passed the point where we're exploiting faster than nature can regenerate. Multiple times over in fact. Are you defending this just because you want to defend china? You really don't need to, just point out china's investments into green energy.
I agree. But of course, China remaining completely underdeveloped does absolutely nothing to address this. Had China not "reformed and opened up" all of that production would be happening in the imperial core or in some other part of the empire's colonial holdings. Don't imagine that individual nations have any direct control over production volume. Production is a historical process that follows its own logic. China can no more stop it than the USA can.
Have I refuted that? like... ever? I'm simply saying that China's economy is State Capitalist, and that China restored Capitalism. These are true to theory and true to the considerations of what socialism is or isn't even for deng himself.
We have already ended scarcity of the most important things. We ended scarcity of many of the most important things easily 80 years ago.
through overproduction we have ended scarcity of goods, but increasing resource depletion. Of course a simple redistribution of many things would end scarcity, but again our current production is driving the earth towards extinction. Although I would say food, housing, and basic needs we can agree on for this. Although destruction of the meat industry would be required.
I don't think more growth will solve scarcity. I think more growth is going to happen regardless and I would rather have that growth under the control of a communist party that is populated with people who have been studying Marx for 6 generations than have that growth under the control of the empire. We don't live in a world of finite growth. That's ridiculous. Growth has never stopped on this planet. The problem with humanity is that it stopped operating within the boundaries of regenerative system flows and instead chose to pursue contradictory growth. These contradictions will cause their system (society) to collapse in various way at various times with various consequences. The solution for human society is to bring it back within boundary conditions of its host ecosystem and resolve the contradictions. Resolving those contradictions takes social development - literally the evolution of human society. We are currently deeply enmeshed in a historical process of extractive growth and it cannot be stopped just because you say so. We will either find a way to stop it by evolving our society or our ecosystem will force us to stop on terms we do not choose.
I'm glad we agree. When have I said that the CPC is the same as the USA?
You say that i'm wrong about finite growth and restate my point the next sentence. But that last system really makes me question why you think an evolution of capitalism is the next phase, although a workers dictatorship controlling production would be overthrowing it, not evolving it. I'm not saying to stop it because I say so, criticism from a Marxist Leninist perspective being demeaned as such is highly reductive to any conversation. I don't think people here know what critical support actually means anymore.
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.
ah yes Mao's very serious deduction of "the USSR under Khruschev is the same as Hitler's Germany". Mao then proceeds to cope by integrating with global capitalism and splitting world socialism. Mao then proceeded to throw the country into chaos multiple times while deng cleaned up all his messes. Although that's too dismissive. The Great Leap Forward was necessary due to Kruschev cutting off economic aid to the PRC, and the cultural revolution was a decent effort to get rid of revisionists before it became ultra-left. After both Deng had to fix up China so that the economy didn't collapse. Khruschev definitely had his hand in splitting the communist movement, but Mao was just as opportunist. Kim Il Sung had the best perspective on this...
And although the USSR under khruschev sowed the seeds of its defeat, it still had a socialist economy until the mid 80s. You aren't judging the USSR but spitting on it.
Argument here. Profits should be abolished. Workers shouldn't own them because they shouldn't exist, nor should the concept of ownership over such things. Workers should contribute to social surplus and social surplus should be distributed by universal consent.
I agree.
You're arguing against a ghost. No one said socialist is solely about economic growth. But arguing that socialist projects must abandon economic development if it requires participation in the world historical processes of capitalism is a purity test that can never be satisfied. There is not a single serious Marxist that has ever refuted the position that the new society must necessarily be built from the old one and therefore will retain much of the old society's trappings until it can develop past them.
Building prosperity, redefining socialism as the building of wealth, is literally changing the focus to economic growth. Again, I have stated multiple times that socialism should build productive forces, but that doesn't necessitate building capitalism???? Capitalism is quite new, and productive forces can be built without it. There is a period of transition of course, we've seen it in every socialist society, but just continuing capitalism is not transitioning, its just continuing capitalism. China even admits toward preserving capitalism even when they reach 2050, and beyond it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be pleasantly surprised if I'm proved wrong, but that would require the CPC to take a different route than the one they're on.
Only purists, originally white Western purists, but now purists who have been poisoned by these idealist positions, hold these positions.
Lenin, Stalin, and Deng... famous crackers. I am just suggesting that we should fight for more than just capitalism with some red guard rails.
You are misrepresenting me totally so you can dismiss me, I question if you're really a Marxist in your mind. I merely have criticisms, and am fully willing to rescind them if I am proved wrong. You have made me rethink some of my positions and make different ways to express them... but you seem to just be throwing labels on me and then attacking those labels instead. Stop twisting my words.
That is EXACTLY what we see in China.
Again, capitalist in nature, but with the socialist government for now being able to direct it. The economy is the base of all analysis, and that base is capitalist in the PRC.
You do realize that communists are by far the most knowledgeable capitalist economists in the world, right? Marx knew more about capitalism than probably anyone of his period. Studying and understanding capitalism is literally the requirement for being able to understand world historical processes that make communism possible.
I... do? But theres a difference from analyzing capitalism to build socialism, than to analyze capitalism to... do capitalism better. Of course we must understand capitalism, and us marxists are the best at that. I never... said otherwise? Again you're treating me like a liberal for having criticisms of maintaining a state capitalist system.
Who, exactly, is arguing this (except Titoists)? Certainly I am not. You are arguing against ghosts.
The CPC definitely has quite a large faction that supports this way of thinking, and actively forces concessions for more liberal reforms. "Follow the party, start a business!". Also there is a large encouragement of petite bourgeoisie and national capitalist forces as it is seen, as through a state capitalist model, as duty. Arguing this doesn't exist is arguing against reality.
Part 1, reply continued in next comment.
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.
I personally think China is socialist for the record
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.
I do not denounce their achievements, i praise them for it. But those achievements came with costs.
These are vibes. ALL achievements come with costs.
thrown out the window for being ‘too expensive' [...] 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is just vibes and doesn't deserve anyone's time.
These are vibes. ALL achievements come with costs. A brazen dismissal of facts. You mentioned achievements, but did not highlight in any way the costs of such achievements. This is china under Xi using socialism to fix the problems that reform and opening up brought. I think Xi started heading down a correct route, and it is very likely it might continue heading down such a route, but a marxist analysis must be even and leave no stone unturned.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is just vibes and doesn't deserve anyone's time.
thank you for your commentary????
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.
These are vibes. ALL achievements come with costs.
A brazen dismissal of facts. You mentioned achievements, but did not highlight in any way the costs of such achievements.
Just because I didn't mention the costs doesn't mean I'm ignore them.
This is china under Xi using socialism to fix the problems that reform and opening up brought. I think Xi started heading down a correct route, and it is very likely it might continue heading down such a route, but a marxist analysis must be even and leave no stone unturned.
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.
Neo-Liberalism is in decline as is the west and america. Capitulation to capitalism is no longer the necessity it once was.
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.
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 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 nation has been able to develop industry without being capitalist in some way.
Although you have several good points, this is by far the worst one. Revisionist historically and materially. [...] Saying we need capitalism is literally just liberalism
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.
Capitalism is not necessary for industrialization, and has several times directly hampered such goals.
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.
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
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.
there should be active transition towards erasing capitalist control of the economy.
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.
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.
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.
How is China being anti-imperialist currently? [examples of armed conflict]
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:
- Issuing bonds in Saudi Arabia in USD
- Taking a leadership role in BRICS
- Creating economic flows that reduce the impact of imperial sanctions
- Creating alternative institutions to the World Bank and IMF
- Extracting profit from its intermediation of imperial value flows and deploying that profit into the BRI to deliberately develop the nations that have been historical over-exploited
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Just because they dared to build something new, dared to not capitulate until corrupted from within, doesn’t mean that was a failure.
That it was corrupted from within is literally exactly the defining characteristic of it being a failure. Don't be an idealist.
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.
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.
thats what im trying to say, its become china’s self interest to maintain that system, as it is now a part of it.
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.
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.
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.
