Mao himself back in the 50s was talking about how its gonna take a couple of generations at least for China to be able to even try and be a moderetely prosperous and well functioning socialist society (and thats before the USSR collapsed), its not some new revisionist claim deng or Xi came up. Lenin was saying the same about the USSR needing decades upon decades to even think about functioning in line to any theoretical description or conseption of a full socialist economy and thats without forseeing WW2 and hoping for revolutions to hapen elsewhere to help. The line of "its gonna be more or less X amount of decades before being able (materialy, economicaly, infastractualy, education wise ,class conflict wise , safety wise, stability wise whatever) to move to a next stage of socialist development" is a pretty normal and usual language in AES through history. Vietnam, Cuba, USSR , Yugoslavia , all had such language and long term projections and theorized goals.
Marx thought Britain and the US had the most revolutionary potential lol, if the empires had succumbed to proletarian revolution first, the world would be a much different place.
They still do. Why do you think they spend so much time and effort swamping us with consumerism and propaganda and building false consciousness? Despite us being a labour aristocracy, it's here where the productive forces are most developed and the contradictions most apparent (we can feed and house everyone with ease, why are people houseless and hungry?).
If the US and Commonwealth go red, it's over for the Bourgeoisie.
Agreed, what he failed to see was that revolution would occur in the colonized world first and the labor aristocracy in the imperial core would be used as a counter-revolutionary force
Pretty sure the line they're taking is that 2050's when they should've amassed enough productive forces to start the shift from late-stage form of NEP they adopted under Deng and begin socializing their socioeconomic system.
Which is the most interesting part of the process in my eyes. We're starting to see the PRC step onto the global stage and from there we'll begin to see how much they walk the talk
I'm about to read Xi's book and will post passages in /c/literature when I do. Just did Blackshirts and Reds, State and Rev, and am doing an abridged version of Capital right now.
From what I read in State and Rev, I don't see any serious abandonments China has made from Marxism or Leninism. Lenin has a lot of ideas, but constantly repeats that "the form of the revolutionary proletarian dictatorship will be determined by the experience of the proletarians" and that the primary function of the state should be it's preservation of political capital and denial of political capital to capitalists as well as massive expansions of democracy.
Which some people say isn't happening in China, but Lenin (and Marx) are materialists and only judge expansion of democracy in relation to the society/social mode of production the revolutionary state emerged from. So yeah, China emerged from feudalism with not even a bourgeois democracy and now has by comparison a hugely democratic system (which is expanding, not contracting).
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Mao himself back in the 50s was talking about how its gonna take a couple of generations at least for China to be able to even try and be a moderetely prosperous and well functioning socialist society (and thats before the USSR collapsed), its not some new revisionist claim deng or Xi came up. Lenin was saying the same about the USSR needing decades upon decades to even think about functioning in line to any theoretical description or conseption of a full socialist economy and thats without forseeing WW2 and hoping for revolutions to hapen elsewhere to help. The line of "its gonna be more or less X amount of decades before being able (materialy, economicaly, infastractualy, education wise ,class conflict wise , safety wise, stability wise whatever) to move to a next stage of socialist development" is a pretty normal and usual language in AES through history. Vietnam, Cuba, USSR , Yugoslavia , all had such language and long term projections and theorized goals.
Marx thought Britain and the US had the most revolutionary potential lol, if the empires had succumbed to proletarian revolution first, the world would be a much different place.
They still do. Why do you think they spend so much time and effort swamping us with consumerism and propaganda and building false consciousness? Despite us being a labour aristocracy, it's here where the productive forces are most developed and the contradictions most apparent (we can feed and house everyone with ease, why are people houseless and hungry?).
If the US and Commonwealth go red, it's over for the Bourgeoisie.
Agreed, what he failed to see was that revolution would occur in the colonized world first and the labor aristocracy in the imperial core would be used as a counter-revolutionary force
Pretty sure the line they're taking is that 2050's when they should've amassed enough productive forces to start the shift from late-stage form of NEP they adopted under Deng and begin socializing their socioeconomic system.
Which is the most interesting part of the process in my eyes. We're starting to see the PRC step onto the global stage and from there we'll begin to see how much they walk the talk
deleted by creator
I'm about to read Xi's book and will post passages in /c/literature when I do. Just did Blackshirts and Reds, State and Rev, and am doing an abridged version of Capital right now.
From what I read in State and Rev, I don't see any serious abandonments China has made from Marxism or Leninism. Lenin has a lot of ideas, but constantly repeats that "the form of the revolutionary proletarian dictatorship will be determined by the experience of the proletarians" and that the primary function of the state should be it's preservation of political capital and denial of political capital to capitalists as well as massive expansions of democracy.
Which some people say isn't happening in China, but Lenin (and Marx) are materialists and only judge expansion of democracy in relation to the society/social mode of production the revolutionary state emerged from. So yeah, China emerged from feudalism with not even a bourgeois democracy and now has by comparison a hugely democratic system (which is expanding, not contracting).
What sorts of questions do you have?