Meh. China's bureaucracy does things that look suspiciously like capitalist accumulation and imperial expansion from the outside. You don't need to have your brain fried by Adrian Zenz to look crosswise at a rising Superpower stacked full of bureaucratic hierarchy and think "This probably isn't going to end in Stateless, Classless Society like we were promised".
It's still extremely naive to sit within the western Imperial Core and throw shade at actual fucking Communists, however far off the mark you think they've landed. Particularly when most of your information is getting filtered through western media.
tbh i dont think bureaucratization is irriversable in China like it was in post Andropov USSR nor nearly as gerontocracized and monolithic. At least it hasnt expanded its scope and corruption in the Xi years (the opposite really) and there is progressively more focus given in local party grassroot actions. Not any revolutionary shift but enough to keep things more balanced for now. And even if its not gonna end in communism probably its overtaking of the US globaly opens the doors for other projects to try and do so in their own ways without them getting invaded/couped and destroyed by the dominant power. Also inside China itself, its much more likely for avid communists and wings of the party like that to gain significant influence and change the course of the party and country towards the left than it is for that to happen in western liberal democratic systems so you never know. Xi's administration was a non radical but noticable step towards the right direction, maybe the next one is even more so if Xi plays his cards and influence and party running right ,it may as well slip back into more neolib revisionism
Oh, definitely. And then there's the more-obvious benefits - the resilience to western external pressures, the near-elimination of poverty, the huge boom in infrastructure development and accompanying economic improvements, the leaps in science and technology - that echo the USSR's heyday.
Setting aside the politics, China Good. But is it Marxist? I don't know. I think that's going to be something only time will tell.
China Good. But is it Marxist?
A related, and maybe more interesting question is: "Could a committed Marxist come to power in China?" Whatever one thinks of China today, is there a path from here to a good end state that wouldn't require revolutionary change?
I think the answer is yes, and that by itself is a huge improvement on most countries.
Could a committed Marxist come to power in China?
:xi-lib-tears:
I think the answer is yes, and that by itself is a huge improvement on most countries.
That's true enough.
China surpassing the US under Xi would be a huge boon for his wing of the party and a blow to the right wing.
It’s still extremely naive to sit within the western Imperial Core and throw shade at actual fucking Communists
How would you say someone is actually communist or not? Is it enough to call oneself a communist?
How would you say someone is actually communist or not?
A lot of what westerners kick and scream about China doing amounts to "they're not paying us rents!"
From the fight over IP to territorial control of the provinces, Chinese people are consistently telling western imperialists to GTFO.
This also happens to be why Putin has sent DC into fits for over twenty years. Despite overthrowing the Russian Communist Party, Americans did not succeed in capturing the Russian lands or the productive labors their peoples.
That, I think, is a necessary precondition for any kind of Communist state. It's the defining characteristic that separates a Commune from a Plantation.
I think it's hard to dissect what's going on inside China, and whether the labor value of the proletariat is truly coming back to them in any meaningful quantity. But from the outside, they're keeping the claws of expropriative Westerners off their backs.
That's got to count for something.
But opposition to imperialism is something that Iran also does, and Iran bans communist parties and flogs striking workers. It's not enough to simply be opposed to the West. Even Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was opposed to the Anglos and went to war with them.
Ironically, many of these "ultra leftists" inexplicably turn into socdems when it comes to the domestic politics of their own countries
organizing reading groups and posting is the only acceptable praxis. anything else is either ultraleft adventurism or social-democratic fascism
social-democratic fascism
There's definitely a strain of "Stalin did nothing wrong but AOC's a fascist" leftist that I don't see building any sort of mass socialist movement in the U.S.
i like to bother M-Ls, but the fact is every tendency has their way of logically justifying our collective paralysis in the face of widespread impending doom
That's why it's so frustrating to see shit slinging (not mere criticism) directed at people at least trying to move in the right direction. No one on the left or anywhere near the left has a proven answer. If they did, the left would be a lot more powerful than it is today. So why be pissy to those who are at least giving something a go?
We should have a bias toward people who are taking action, because inaction isn't going to cut it, and no one can really say for sure if a given action is bad.
Leftcoms are usually the ones beiing referred to as ultras and they are not socdems. Ironically it is China stans who are actually socdems since they support socdem govts of China, Vietnam, Bolivia, Venezuela etc. The anarchists who decry china mostly have incoherent political views that are usually socdem economically.
Do you think that these countries are socialist because they say so? Not only is capitalism the dominant mode of production in these countries, and not only is there no independent worker movement with any real power, but also the common understanding of socialism in these countries is just state-ownership. Like all the debates in these countries are between nationalization and private ownership.
It's good that there is no "independent worker movement" given what "independent worker movements" have done to Socialist countries such as Poland.
First of all, why do you think there was discontent among the working class in Eastern Bloc states? Why is it that a country literally ruled by the working class(allegedly) would have working class people striking in it and getting arrested for it?
The fall of ""communism"" in Poland is not something I lose sleep over, as it was just state capitalism. It has no relation whatsoever to the actual socialist project, and in the future, the same opportunism of "nationalization is socialism bro trust me", will once again come up and will have to be fought against.
Ok idealist.
I don't even know where to begin, so I suggest you read a book. The idea that protests are inherently good or that a proper Socialist government would somehow be immune to discontent are pure idealist nonsense.
I don't care about whatever ludicrous purist idea of Socialism that has never existed you subscribe to, it's utterly irrelevant to history and the International Proletarian Movement. It seems like you're trying to position yourself as some Leftcom when you're very obviously just a RadLib who still believes all the bullshit you were fed as a Liberal.
The idea that protests are inherently good
Never said this.
proper Socialist government would somehow be immune to discontent are pure idealist nonsense.
What is proper socialist here? You call me idealist, but you have no material analysis of what makes a government "socialist". Is it enough to call itself socialist and have red flags? Is it enough to provide social services to everyone and guarantee employment? Is it that they nationalized everything while maintaining the capitalist mode of production?
I don’t care about whatever ludicrous purist idea of Socialism that has never existed you subscribe to,
Literally a right wing argument. Socialism hasnt existed yet so it is ludicrous.
it’s utterly irrelevant to history
What does this mean lol
and the International Proletarian Movement
Where can I contact this movement, I would like to join it. On a more serious note, there is no international movement.
It seems like you’re trying to position yourself as some Leftcom when you’re very obviously just a RadLib who still believes all the bullshit you were fed as a Liberal.
I used to be an ML actually. I used to believe eveything you believe until like 2 years ago.
No need to be sectarian. We are just having a disagreement of theory. After all, left unity is important, and we all have the same goal.
What is sectarian about having views that oppose yours? Sectarianism is when you let your disagreements get in the way of action. Whatever you or I think of China or Vietnam, it has very little relevance in your actual praxis or mine.
"China red fash state capitalism" is sectarian. Don't start a fight and then cry when you get punched.
China red fash state capitalism” is sectarian.
I didnt say red fash anywhere. That China is state capitalist is also the standard Maoist position. Do you think criticizing literally anything about China is sectarian?
Something being the standard Maoist position does not make it not sectarian lmao
I'm sure that from your point of view, "China fake socialist state capitalist" is an objective statement of fact. "Leftcoms are pathetic losers who have never affected anything in any way" is also, from my perspective, a statement of objective fact. Both, however, are sectarian.
OK can you define sectarian? I'm asking because it can be very easy to have a policy where anything that disagrees with the popular opinion becomes sectarian and banned. You just admitted that China being capitalist is the proper position for Maoists, now you are calling the same position sectarian. I never worded my views in the dishonest way you are portraying like "China fake red fash" etc. I'm having a nuanced discussion.
Maoists are known for being extremely fucking sectarian, lmao.
It's not about popular opinion. In my community, "Leftcoms are useless idiots who get off to the idea of their own intellectual superiority" would be extremely popular. It is, nevertheless, sectarian.
It's not about truth, either. Saying that Anarchists have never brought about meaningful change is true and it's also sectarian. Saying that Maoists are paradoxically obsessed with violence and being the underdog is true and also sectarian.
What is sectarianism exactly? I still don't get it. Like disagreements actually exists in the real world. Why do you think people talk about left unity all the time? I would define sectarianism as letting disagreements get in the way of real world action. So sectarianism is a real life problem. In the online world, I don't get what uncriticial left unity, and silence for the sake of unity, would achieve.
Saying that Anarchists have never brought about meaningful change is true and it’s also sectarian. Saying that Maoists are paradoxically obsessed with violence and being the underdog is true and also sectarian.
Why would saying true things be sectarian? If something is true, why shouldnt it be said? Is it that these things hurt their feelings? By this logic, claiming that USSR is socialist is sectarian, because it hurts my feelings, regardless of whether it is true or not.
You don't have to be an expert pilot to recognize a plane crash when you see one. Even if it's a plane crash "with Chinese characteristics."
Of all the plane crashes of systems and parties and movements in the world rn i doupt China is the best example, especially since they have been treading towards a less revisionist direction under Xi and the progressively neolib and corrupted administrations after Deng have came to a halt. And again even if that plane crashes or never reaches its destination it becoming the dominant one in the world means that other planes of other countries wont get shot down by the US fighter jet for trying to do socialism
real "that guy that predicts China's collapse or stagnation every year since 2002 " hours
I would agree that China is not "the best example," and I have no problem agreeing that China has accomplished plenty of good things. I personally have not encountered any good reason to believe that China is any worse than the U.S., in terms of domestic affairs, foreign policy, or otherwise. I'm honestly just tired of seeing this place ubiquitously simping for Xi and the CCP as it exists currently (I'm honestly surprised that my shitpost of a comment got any upvotes at all, and if we still had a downvote button, I'm sure they'd be greatly outweighed by now). This meme seems to literally be declaring that any criticism of the Chinese government from its left can be dismissed because it's only coming from "Western ultra-leftists" who don't understand material conditions outside of America or Europe, which is patently false. But even if it weren't, it's ridiculous to claim that Western leftists wouldn't have any reasonable standing to critique the Chinese government from its left simply by virtue of them being from the West.
This is a very lib argument, "you can't possibly understand the CCP because you are white". Like yeah, most people don't know much about the complexities of China, but people still have to work with what they have to pass judgement. And people will pass judgement, you can't not have a take on th world's newest superpower
you can't not have a take on the world's newest superpower
This is pure, uncut Western brainworms. Your "take" is bullshit if it's not informed.
I tried to turn the Tankie down to 9 for this post, but absolutely.
Who is J. Sakai anyway? I think Settlers is CIA/FBI propaganda. I've read the first few chapters and it seems like an ultraleftist critique of American leftist politics that discourages every movement in the U.S. for not being leftist enough.
Orthodox Leninists like Walter Rodney were saying that the working class in colonial countries were being bought off with colonial spoils back in the 50's. The only new thing Sakai brings to the table is their inflammatory edge.
Cool! I'm not American, I'm Irish, one of the only white countries with a revolution that wasn't purely burgieois.
What successful revolution were the current generation of Chinese leaders involved in? :soviet-hmm:
All left communists are white, this is also enough to discredit their arguments.
Very normal politics.
Successful revolution
Successful bourgeois revolution that ended feudalism. Our issue isnt that China isnt communist enough, we are the last to have this position, since we don't believe that a bourgeois state will magically become communist by itself.
why is a bourgeois state concerning itself with ending poverty, among other things?
That's what social democratic states do, they implement social programs to reduce class conflict and encourage class collaboration for a more harmonious society. Abolition of absolute poverty has been achieved by many capitalist states like Sweden or Singapore.
Off of the back of unfathomable global exploitation. Is China's (comparably) miniscule investments in Africa the entire explanation for it's poverty reduction, as is the case with every Social Democracy?
There is still exploitation in China. Do you really think the large proletarian factory working class of China is not exploited? It is through them China was able to amass such wealth.
And where is the proletariat's increasing wealth coming from?
I never said there was no exploitation.
What imperialism did Singapore or Taiwan, or even Sri Lanka engage in? Yes, Sri Lanka has similar life expectancy and infant mortality as Cuba despite being even poorer. Being able to provide decent conditions for the working class is not evidence that the government is socialist, at least in the Marxists sense. Also the idea that countries like Sweden or Norway can only provide social services due to imperialism is false. These countries are wealthy because their labor productivity is high AND they have redistributive mechanisms. The US actually has a higher average wage than Norway and Sweden, but also has higher inequality.
Sweden and Norway do engage in imperialism, in the sense of investing in foreign poor countries to exploit low wages. However, this only benefits the capitalist. The decent living conditions of the working class in Scandinavia is the result of high labor productivity of Scandinavian workers. The idea that first world workers enjoy good life because of third world exploitation is not only false but extremely harmful to the workers movement, which requires international solidarity.
Lmao you're arguing that workers in the Imperial Core don't benefit at all from Imperialism and colonial superprofits? Alright I'm out
What is a superprofit? Where is the evidence that first world workers benefit from imperialism?
Let me explain the Marxist thesis here :
-
Workers in first world are more productive, due to advanced machinery, better logistics etc. So they produce more for the same labor-hour.
-
Therefore, they can purchase more for the same hourly wage. For example, a deli worker makes $150 in a day. Now she goes to Alibaba.com and buys a bunch of stuff that costs $150 but actually took 5 worker-days to produce in China. This is the natural end result of difference in labor productivity.
-
This is not exploitation in the Marxist sense. It is undesirable of course, which is why we want to abolish the commodity-form in the first place(or at least us "ultras" want to), but it is not the "fault", to use a crude moral term, of the working class in the wealthy country. They "earned" their ability to have more, by producing more. To deny that in exchange, there is an exchange of equivalents, is to deny one of the most basic Marxist proposition.
-
