No no no. Capitalism is when people are rich and the richer people get the more capitalism there is. China is just State Capitalism! You stupid Leftists are too stupid to realize that Capitalism won there, too.
But also China is a Tyrannical Dictatorship of the Proletariat that needs to be neo-liberated with Free Market Reform so it can do Real Capitalism again. China is actually very bad and needs to change before it kills another 100 zillion people.
Don't worry guys, I'm going to push the communist party of china left by complaining about it on the English speaking internet
I literally only looked at the hat and assumed this was an anti-china post. The capitalists are getting sneaky
My problem with this solution will always boil down to the changing class characteristic of the party holding that leash. Deng and Xi may be able to wield the liberal mode of production to their party’s benefit, but I worry that the future generations of the CCP’s leadership who grew up and were socialized not in working class backgrounds will not have the class consciousness of the proletariat and instead act on behalf of the owning class. They’re playing a dangerous game and I hope it pays off because I’d hate to see the most successful iteration of the socialist project thus far go the way of the Soviets
Considering workers can beat their foreman to death, while the CPC supported them, and marxism is still very relevant in China Xi is cracking down on markets I’d say China is doing well
You should make some friends in China. Just because this happened doesn't mean any given worker can beat their boss to death. I don't mean to imply that the communist party isn't in control, and that it doesn't have legitimate proletarian currents, but to describe the entire nation as a dotp is analytically misleading.
What do your friends in China have to say? DOTP refers to which class is dominant and exercises power over another, not which class has liquidated the other.
Forcibly installing Communist Party agents and agitators at the board of directors at almost every private organization is a pretty good indicator of which class is repressing the other.
At worst it's a sign that a bureaucrat class is in open conflict with the national bourgeoise. And in either case that trends into the direction of those private entities ending up nationalized or expropriated private entities and subordinated into an (openly Communist) organization where their goal isn't to generate profits for its bourgeoise rent-seeking owners.
That and the fact that the Communist Party has openly begun it's process of flattening the wage gap (and is continuing to grow its gigantic housing surplus) tells me the bourgeoisie class isn't getting what it wants.
It's a good anecdote but I think the CPC wage flattening and installing Communist agitators at top-level positions in private organizations (and members of the bourgeoisie publicly stating that they expect their organizations to be nationalized in their lifetime) is the best indication that the national bourgeoise is in a very weak position.
That and the most powerful members of the bourgeoisie like Jack Ma being publically humiliated (and his projects dismantled) if not executed outright for organizing, are the best signs that they aren't in control.
China's game is to keep the national bourgeoise happy and sedate them enough from organizing as a political class, just as the United States bribed workers post WWII by making enough of them into home owners and landlords. Murdering and expropriation everything they had ala the Soviet Union militarized and motivated that class to destroy the DOTP ala Kruschev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
Wealth concentrates into the smallest number of individuals anyway (ala the 14 families in the United States), and if those dwindling numbers of potential oligarchs can't take control of the nation's mental means of production (media, culture, hegemony etc) that class is moribund as more of them lose out in the market and are slowly proletarianized (or at the very least made into precarious petite-bourgeoise managers).
Right but we’re talking long game here. China isn’t flipping the socialism button tomorrow and the risk of capitalist recuperation isn’t tomorrow either. We won’t know the outcome until a century from now
Yeah, but looking at historical trends since the Deng era, I’m hopeful
Me too, I just have concerns that the decline of the US empire offers too great an opportunity to compete for global dominance on capitalist terms and if the party decides to engage in that they’ll have to loosen that leash. Real USSR in Afghanistan hours. Will be interesting to see how this plays out over the course of our lifetimes
Which is a great metaphor, except picture a single dog-walker with hundreds and hundreds of dogs on many, many leashes. Now imagine the dogs running in different directions.
That's a terrible metaphor considering the Communist Party has >91,000,000 people and regularly jails or outright executes the most powerful members of the bourgeoisie.
very normal alliance between the national bourgeoise
The same alliance that has persisted since Mao's time
no contradictions no sir just a proletarian dotp
An organized and radical Proletariat uses their state to oppress the opposite class, do you expect international bourgeoise to correspond so openly and to share trade secrets and technologies with soviets?
any worker exploitation is totally voluntary
As if any socialist project can afford for work to be voluntary at this stage.
i’m just glad they managed to survive a century without getting the CIA treatment
Same
and managed to siphon off America’s economic hegemony.
Finally, the important part.
Turns out AES countries can’t just snap their fingers and thanos full communism into existence so long as America is still doing it’s thing.
They couldn't do it if the USA was gone, either. I'm not trying to say that the USA isn't the largest supporter of international reaction, or that communism is possible when they aren't around. What I am saying is that eliminating the usa, even entirely, won't make China communist either, or the rest of the world for that matter.
Pretending the PRC is something that it clearly is not under the guise of 'critical support' is a trade off that blinds your analysis in return for feeling good. Bad trade.
Support China against imperialist aggression
Making arguments online is not support against imperialist aggression. What do you really mean when you say this? In what way are you defending China against any kind of imperialist aggression? Unless by imperialist aggression, you mean "cia talking points", which can be whatever you want them to be, really.
