What does it mean for workers to collectively own means of production? Am I supposed to own only the laboratory I work at or everything everywhere? What if I decide to change a place of employment? Why doesn't owning it though the intermediary of the state and your representative in the communist party qualify?
I'm asking this in good faith so please don't roast me too hard, but what excatly makes China a dictatorship of the proletariat? As far as I understand the Chinese political system (which isn't very far) it's ultimately an electoral system, and though I'm sure it's more democratic than :amerikkka: I struggle to see how that could be truly representative in a society that hasn't yet eliminated class and private ownership.
Because the state and commanding heights of the economy are controlled by the Communist Party, which is the democratic centralized organization of the advanced proletariat. As soon as Mao and the communist party seized control of China’s means of production and state it became a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
You can see the proof in the fruits of their actions if you are still skeptical. The outcomes of their policies benefit the whole of society and especially the poor, pulling over a billion people out of poverty and backward peasantry. There’s a reason why China’s policies and outcome trends are the exact opposite of the West, and it’s because the government is composed of proletariat who serve the interests of proletariat and the nation as a whole. No bourgeois state operates in this manner.
China: Builds thousands of miles of public transport, spends trillions of dollars on economic development and poverty elimination, poverty decreasing, executes bourgeois who try to get out from under the thumb of the state, most green energy infrastructure on Earth, not reliant on Imperialism and colonialism to develop itself….
Bourgeois states: Transport is non-existent or decaying, spends very little on poverty elimination and instead rely on violent suppression and policing, poverty increasing or stagnant, bourgeoise act with legal impunity above the state, very little green infrastructure, reliant on Imperialism or colonialism, etc..
There’s a reason these are all diametrically opposed
Perfect answer here, better than i could have done lol :fidel-salute:
So I guess this is really what I don't understand. China is absolutely one of the most competent states in the world, and as you said their policies have led to enormously improved quality of life. But if a bourgeois state like the US suddenly started investing in social welfare it would obviously still be capitalist and undemocratic. What mechanisms for democratic governance does China have that other states lack that ensure the state and party are subservient to the people, despite the contradictions of capitalism still existing?
The US cannot start investing in social welfare because it is dominated by the bourgeoise who don’t prioritize that. If they had to made some concessions to society to stabilize it, it would be social imperialism because it is funded by American imperialist extraction of other nations. China is not imperialist, they don’t rely on foreign extraction and have managed to develop and industrialize peacefully - something no bourgeois state has ever accomplished.
No bourgeois state has ever enacted social welfare without imperialism. Capitalism requires an exploited class, if it isn’t domestic then it will be abroad (usually it’s both).
Can you find a single example of a bourgeois state that industrialized and made enormous improvements in quality of life without imperialism? China did it, no bourgeois state has ever done so. They either become part of the imperialist bloc and industrialize through blood and theft, or they wallow in poverty.
This is a super good point, I'm in the imperial core and I still forget a lot how much I benefit from colonial exploitation.
As for what democratic mechanisms exist, the PRC has a similar government, constitution and election system as DPRK and Cuba, with guiderails to ensure that no reaction ever takes hold, and Capital doesn’t purchase influence (Xi has an entire book talking about his anti-corruption policies to purge the influence of Capital from the state).
The proof is in the pudding, again all you need to look at is the 95% approval rating of the party and the unity of the nation behind them - the near unanimous support for most policies, and the responsiveness of the government to adapt when it does not match up with public opinion
I guess I need to actually read up on the political and electoral system, it's a little much to ask you to explain those to me. I guess you're right that if the people support the state (which they certainly seem to) then it by definition represents the will of the people. If anything at this point I'm just curious how they manage to be so responsive despite governing over a billion people. Thanks for taking the time to reply to me!
:mao-clap:
A_Serbian_Milf gave a great answer for you. Just wanted to say no roasting necassary for asking in good faith. We all have to learn, and theres so much disinfo as regards China and all AES. I sure had to learn and deprogram. :sankara-salute: