I thought this was really well thought out actually
That's the joke lol
But for real, China is socialist. It's just in the lower stages of communism right now which no one in the party denies. Capital is actually really effective and building up productive forces and China was cheated out of a lot of their capital by imperialists. Takes a while to recover from a century of exploitation and extraction
Sorry, "secret third thing" is a popular meme on tumblr rn, I was just riffing
I thought you were making a "third way" joke lol
Or a fascist joke
17 screenshots of text and never answers or even considers the key question. We all know why China pivoted toward capitalist development, the question is when or if it will ever pivot back.
2nd screenshot:
you can only…. If you already have developed industry
China has a well developed industrial economy. It’s been developing for half a century and has no sign of stopping. How developed does it need to be before you stop doing capitalism? How long will it take?
The first four screens aren’t exactly new information. It’s the justification used by the USSR in enacting the NEP. Y’know, the NEP that lasted less than a decade? China is well into the 4th decade of marketisation and there are no indications that it’s likely to change anytime soon - private ownership and inequality are expanding in China, not contracting.
The second half of the post, sure, I don’t think China is imperialist either (yet?). But the first half of the post is just a lot of words for “we’re building productive forces bro trust us bro we’re doing communism any second now bro” which is an argument we’ve all heard a thousand times.
How developed does it need to be before you stop doing capitalism? How long will it take?
The party has literally already answered that. They’re working towards communism by 2050, with socialism by 2035.
Most importantly, simply read the very real, detailed, material plans they have set out describing the steady path to fully socialist mode of production.
It is baffling that Westerners on the Left think that a government would go through all the trouble of portraying itself as a socialist country, with all the added threats from anti-communism and US intervention, just to be a capitalist country.
Building socialism is hard, we know this. So if the goal was anything other than building socialism that imagines a better safeguarded, more prosperous, path than former failed socialist states, why the hell would they go through all the trouble?
Everybody knows the communism by 2050 line. Like I’ve said many times, I hope all the dengists are right and it comes to pass. I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong.
(Disregarding the fact that by pointing to the “socialism by 35” line, you’re literally admitting that China is currently capitalist. Capitalism being allegedly steered towards socialism is still capitalism.)
It is baffling that Westerners on the Left think that a government would go through all the trouble of portraying itself as a socialist country, with all the added threats from anti-communism and US intervention, just to be a capitalist country.
I’d speculate because the CPC is the glue holding the whole edifice together and for the party to outwardly renounce communism would be political suicide. That would be an uneducated guess though, and I know there are countless dedicated communists in the CPC. I don’t claim to be an expert on inner-party workings of the CPC. But I know a market (i.e. capitalist) economy when I see one.
Disregarding the fact that by pointing to the “socialism by 35” line, you’re literally admitting that China is currently capitalist. Capitalism being allegedly steered towards socialism is still capitalism.)
China has capitalism but isnt capitalist. It has a mixed economy. For China to be capitalist capitalists would have to be able take control/be able to heavily influence the state in a way that benefits the bourgeoisie, which isnt the case.
They've been heavily investing in public infrastructure and eradicating poverty. They don't even shy back regulating their highly profitable tech industry, etc. China is state socialist
The country was founded on the basis of communism. The people there like communism. It's distant now but there is still memory of the Mao era and a clear understanding of what they learned about capitalism, imperialism, and feudalism in that time and before. If the party were to renounce communism it would be a denunciation of what modern Chinese society was founded on and the masses would know that.
Read "2050 China: Becoming a Great Modern Socialist Country", their goals for 2050 are just becoming fully modernized and a stable world power, absolutely nowhere do they mention ever moving away from their current model.
An economy defined by the tightist capital controls on earth and municipal led state brokered investment programs is not an economy defined by "marketisation"
China didn't go full market capitalism, it intergrated specific manufacturing sectors into the global American led capitalist market and used the resulting influx of western capital to build local industrial capacity
And the question of whether China will "pivot back" was answered in 2015 when capital controls were loosened and a trillion dollars fled the country in less then two weeks, that was the moment the Chinese capitalists forever lost their chance
They basically told the state that if given the smallest bit of leeway they would crash the country and transfer their assets back to the west, since then we've seen a resurgance of Marxtist rhetoric from the state, heavier crackdowns on the rich and an intensification of internal state investment. The 2050 project finally became real back in 2015
I think the framing of "Pivot toward capitalist" and "pivot back [to socialism]" misses the mark entirely.
First, capitalism as a mode of production is not synonymous with market development. The presence of markets and private property is not sufficient to define a mode of production as capitalism, because they both long preceded capitalism. Under systemic limitations, they existed under classical slavery and feudalism. And they continue under socialism for some time, again under systemic limitations. This does not come from Deng Xiaoping or my rectum, it comes straight from Marx and Engels:
“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”
- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme
“Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.”
- Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism
Second, what are the systemic limitations? Put as simply as possible, the limitations are a) political, defined by the class character of the state, and b) economic-systemic, defined by what ends production is oriented towards.
Before capitalism, the state was controlled by the feudal aristocracy; a bourgeoisie existed, but was not hegemonic. It was not hegemonic politically, as it did not control the state. It was not hegemonic systemically, because production, on a societal level, was not yet devoted to the accumulation of capital and profit above all else. The bourgeoisie sought capital, but the motive force of production as a whole was directed toward supporting the maintenance of the aristocracy, above capital accumulation for its own sake.
After capitalism, the bourgeoisie exists but is subordinate to the dictatorship of the proletariat; production is directed toward serving the material needs of all of society. It should be obvious a bourgeoisie exists under socialism from the very term dictatorship of the proletariat; if there were no bourgeoisie, who exactly would the dictatorship be over, be directed against? If the bourgeoisie no longer exists, if all people are of the same class and production is sufficient for all needs, a classless society has been achieved. Communism is present.
Even capital accumulation exists: the Stalin-era USSR was certainly interested in developing industry, physical capital, and in acquiring hard currency, financial capital. They wanted continuous reinvestment in production, as capital accumulation incentivises, they wanted foreign trade. But these were not ends in themselves, they were to support the development of socialism and support the needs of the people. There were markets to some extent in all periods of the USSR’s history. The Chinese economy is the same way; there were markets throughout Mao’s tenure, and they continue to exist today. Whether these things exist is a foregone conclusion (until communism). In what proportion they exist is not the best proxy for what mode of production a society is under.
That brings us to the third point, that determining the class character of the state and the dominant goal of the economy is a clearly superior evaluation of whether a society is capitalist or socialist than splitting hairs over the proportion of a planned or public sector vs an unplanned or private sector. There just is not some clear-cut, statistical line where if you have this large of private sector, then it is capitalism, or if you have this large of a state or cooperative sector, then it is socialism. It doesn’t exist, and talking about “pivoting” to socialism or capitalism based on the proportional role of the market implies it does. Capitalist countries are not more or less capitalist than others because they have more state ownership. The goal of the economy, even in the state sector, remain principally capital accumulation. I’m sure it’s clear to you that social democracies in mid-20th century Europe were not “pivoting” toward socialism just because their state sector was growing. The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie mattered, the orientation of the economy to profit mattered. The corollary to that is that Cuba is not pivoting to capitalism because its economy is 77% public instead of the well over 90% before the fall of the USSR. Venezuela is not capitalist just because its economy is still mostly private; the dictatorship of the proletariat and the goals of its development matter. China is no different.
Fourth, it does not matter if it is a one decade-long NEP or a many decades-long Reform and Opening Up. The length of time of such a market policy, devoid of context, is not relevant to determining the mode of production. Complaining that they have not yet “pivoted” is not just misguided for that goal, it is also impatient. Communism is contingent on long historical processes; it cannot be willed into being without the necessary development. Attempting to resembles the Great Leap Forward. Yes, China is more industrialized than ever, yes it is getting wealthier, but that does not mean you can just press the button and will the bourgeoisie away.
The material circumstances determined the length of the NEP; some in the USSR thought it should continue for decades, but it did not, could not, because of the international situation. You cannot separate the Great Break and the extraordinarily rapid transition to an almost entirely centrally planned, state administered economy from the impending, foreseeable onset of World War 2. The Stalin-era economy was made for war. Importantly, capitalist countries also implemented similarly drastic changes to the composition of the economy to meet the international situation’s demands. Did the USA “pivot” to socialism in 1942 and then “pivot back” to capitalism in 1945 just because the composition of the public, planned sector vs. the private, unplanned sector changed dramatically in favor of the former? Of course not. The length of the Reform and Opening period is not relevant to whether or not China is socialist: the causes, effects, and orientation of it toward communist goals are.
So China is socialist because it is a dictatorship of the proletariat and because its economy is directed to social ends. The state tightly controls capital, is unquestionably dominant politically over the whims of individual bourgeois like Jack Ma. The state was born out of revolution and has maintained its revolutionary, one-party character. When the unplanned sector exceeds its bounds, it is checked by the state and reformed to serve social needs, like happened with the education sector at great cost to capital accumulation. Social needs come first. They are unafraid to nationalize whole corporations and sectors, unafraid to challenge capital accumulation. If China had “pivoted” to capitalism it would have joined the West wholeheartedly, it would have liberalized its politics, it would not subject itself to imperialism by claiming to be socialist, it would drop its ideology and commit instead to liberal “democracy” imperialism. The vast majority of Chinese workers approve of the state and believe it to be democratic, as in representing them and serving their needs.
The enormous increase in living standards for the whole Chinese people is unparalleled in world history. It was achieved without imperialism, without slavery, without those engines that powered capitalism’s development. It has been distributed far more equitably than the large increases in societal wealth under capitalism in the 19th and 20th century. There is no longer absolute poverty in China, there is no longer food insecurity which plagued the country for millenia. Even in the US, in the epicenter of capitalism, there is more food insecurity, to completely leave aside millions starving each year in the Global South. It has been a sustained increase in wealth for all without disruption from the anarchy of production, the boom-bust cycle inherent to capitalism. Hundreds of millions of people have experienced continual improvement in their standard of living and enjoy material abundance and security unlike any of their predecessors. If you think that is capitalist, then I would wonder why you do not support capitalism. There are more in-depth, complex explanations of its system serving social needs rather than capital accumulation but this is a surface-level examination, from my memory. These facts alone I think warrant strong support.
spectacular little essay, if you did this 'surface level from memory' then you have hella memory good shit :meow-tankie: :rosa-salute:
Didn't expect to get a reply on this a month later, glad someone's still reading it.
I've been really frustrated with the lack of consensus on the left of what socialism even means for a while so here I tried to collect some of my thoughts on how you approach that question.
I, I suspect like a lot of others, first socialism defined by the left (instead of completely right-wing misunderstandings) as workers' or social ownership of the means of production, and so tried to apply that definition as an absolute to real societies. I see that commonly, all over left spaces.
I used to be skeptical of the claim I'd seen later from some MLs that no, it's defined by the presence of a dictatorship of the proletariat. This used to confuse me, and seemed like apologia for AES not being sufficiently socialist or whatever or being too fixated on what the state looks like rather than what the economy really is.
But after reading more Marx, learning more about the presence of non-socialized economic sectors in not just China but AES all over the world, and considering what it really means that every capitalist country has a state sector of some kind, and even large ones, this began to make a lot more sense to me as a definition than trying to dogmatically apply our ideal arrangement of property to entire economies in a period of historical transition. You can't take an absolute view of ownership to identify a mode of production, there has been overlap and even combination for centuries.
I won't restate much more, but it really stands out to me that my old view is ahistorical and dogmatic, and unfortunately prevalent. Obviously the ultimate goal remains complete common ownership and abolition of class, but it can't be a simple litmus test for underdeveloped revolutionary societies in real historical conditions. I want to shout this conclusion from the (online) rooftops sometimes so I'm glad you read this a month later and thought it was good or helpful. Thanks
How developed does it need to be before you stop doing capitalism? How long will it take?
There can be many answers to this.
As long as the primary contradiction of American led western military, imperialist and monetary global dominance is overcome or at least as long as China doesnt feel confident economicaly and politicaly that it can overcome a scenario of full out cold war style military and economic confrontation and decoupling from foreign capital and markets without huge impact on the economic and social stability domesticaly. Im not so confident to say that China is right now developed (and evenly developed that is enough, rich enough per capita, has enough soft power and hard military power, has enough party discipline, enough regulatory hold on capital ,ideological dedication and education and low enough corruption, is self sufficient enough or ready to engage in proxy wars and decoupling in order to attempt it. It will always be a risk for that to happen and the US will make it inevitable before China would feel ready on its own but as of now it being gradual enough and corresponding to the relative balance of economic and military ability and worldwide allies China feels it has over the US makes sense
Also it coming after China resolves its internal contradictions of uneven development and rural-urban devide ,after a relative drop of wealth polarization , after a corretion of course of the late deng to early Xi era where capital overreach, western cultural hegemony, liberalism and neoliberalism spread way too much both in the cultural and political sphere. Those fights arent done or won or even certain to be won even tho we are seeing gradual changes towards the better in those ereas. "just do more socialism" is the answer eventualy yes but the ability and uitility of doing so right now and more rapidly than they are and any attempt to overplay their hand is up in the air
please ban pictures of text. From the entire web, not just hexbear.
Love how this is explained. I don’t agree with the politics of the original author in other areas, but their points here are spot on.
Yes, I think this is Leo He Zhao. He should stick to politics in his own country and strongly examine his opinions on queer people because he is wrong on that.
Even if we ignore the question of whether or not the nature of the dominant ideology and character of the rulling organs in Chinese society and politics are capitalist and just focus on what the economic model/Mode of production is at a given point in time we have to ask. Cant historical materialism account for divergences from the simplistic scheme of primitive communism -> slavery -> fedualism -> capitalism -> socialism->communism as far as development and character of the mode of production within a given society ?( Especially if the answer to the first question is that capital doesnt dominate and control the political/governing sphere of China). Agricultural societies are described as having revealed themselves in at least three distinct modes according to marx, no reason industrial societies and especially ones that have an argument as projects towards socialism should be limited to just "they either are capitalist or socialists and if they arent socialist economicaly rn in the definitional sense they are capitalist"
In the course of history certain social and economic formations will arise that are transitory arrangements that don’t strictly fit in those definitions and you may as well judge what the goal and stage of any transition is based on what is happening in the political sphere of X country. China is an example. USSR in certain periods another. You can have what is in character a non-capitalist project that was forced or chose to contain many or even most of the forms associated with capitalism economicaly due to the geopolitical ( US unipolarity and imperialist global dominance) and material necessities (starting point and economic situation in China in the 70s and 80s) thatarose. In that sense that they couldnt have survived and arived in their current position ,as a project of 1.4 billion people with a non capital controled political sphere, without opening up to large scale capitalist and market forms. And that is true even if you almost lost it and gave way too much power and influence to capital and liberalism. So when they ,slowly but increasingly, demonstrate that their economy can work and is working in imprtant scales and decisions with different laws of motion than their capitalist contemporaries combined with an analysis of their political sphere, it shows that there is the capability,trend and will to arive at something foundementaly different than capitalism.
If the character of the chinese economic formation fits only within the definition of capitalism we should also be certain that the Chinese economy is running with the same laws of motion as some capitalist economies elsewhere on earth, be it neoliberal, social democratic etc and we do have similar cultural and historical parallels around it to compare. We have to look for the falling rate of profit, for the chronic overproduction and financial meltdowns, for the anarchy of capitalistic production exasterbating ,for private wealth accumulation and profit being the absolutely dominant motive and engine of macro decisions and regulations ,financial capitalism at such a scale manifesting distinctly as imperialism, progressive social and economic polarization etc
