They straight up use the same old red scare arguments that the far right use against them lmao
Like holy shit have some self-awareness.
Motherfuckers saying eat the rich and then calling Mao a genocidal monster for eating the rich.
Can't make this shit up.
Removed by mod
China has let some billionaires invest in their development. I don't see a plausible way around that. But I live in the US and I can tell you that China is definitely not a bourgeois dictatorship. That's why they're an official enemy. They're having tremendous success.
Is Russia not a bourgeois dictatorship?
Yes, it is. But unlike China, that's not why Russia is an official enemy. Russia is involved in a competition between capitalists*. It happens all of the time. It's part of how capitalism works.
*We know from the recent experience of the early 90s what will happen to the people of Russia if NATO prevails, so even in a fight between capitalist nations you can pick a side. This definitely isn't a 2-way street.
Removed by mod
It's the reason that the relationship developed the way that it did which is different (China only became an enemy by being a success outside of the imperialist order, while Russia was a never fully defeated enemy which desired to join the imperialist order but was unallowed without greater concessions/poverty to the imperialists). You're thinking in simple metaphysical categories. Rod_blagojevic (hopefully) means that China isn't a bourgeois dictatorship which is why SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT has led to its enemy status. Russia is a bourgeois dictatorship which is an enemy because of its RESISTANCE. It's the process which is determinant and the category which provides the frame within which the process is understood.
Compared to the more immediate and brutal failures that left anti-communists (particularly in western / NATO countries) are willing to celebrate and laud as "true socialism", they're definitely "successful."
The Soviet Union is dead and gone, but during the decades it existed it made significant achievements in material development and improving living standards for their people. China may have become more capitalistic, but they've still got one of the highest home-ownership rates in the world, they aren't so beholden to the capitalists that they won't kill them for breaking Chinese laws, and their "greatest sustained increase in life expectancy in recorded history" is still holding up.
Any effort that takes power is more successful than one that doesn't, one that takes power for ten years is more successful than one that has it for ten months, etc.
All of the real-world examples of "Actually Existing Socialism" that we could draw from at this point in history could be considered failures in some regard or another -- the left is plainly not running the world right now, we lost the Cold War to the capitalists -- but it's useful to look at who got farther (further?) than the others, and who got absolutely massacred and sent into a dark-age of reaction almost immediately.
Broadly, I'd agree with your post, but I'd ask
Which countries are these? And what relevance is there bringing them up as I am not one of these anti-communists. I just don't think hierarchical systems will ever recant power, and bureaucracies have a noted tendency to grow themselves (inspectors inspecting inspectors, writing reports which will never be read, ect.) so I am not sold on hierarchical bureaucracies being anyone's salvation.
The entire point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is that the power lies in the hands of the proletariat (the overwhelming majority of people) via democratic mechanisms. Marxists do not desire for a benevolent king to rule and then one day abdicate the throne. There is furthermore no desire for anyone to recant power themselves, as the "withering away of the state" refers properly to the withering away of class distinctions as the proletariat, through its control of the state, destroys the bourgeoisie over time until there is no bourgeoisie and therefore no proletariat (nor any other classes) and therefore there is no living tool to mediate non-existent class antagonisms, i.e. no state. There is no abdicating anywhere in this process, only the minority who are oppressed by the state being pushed further and further out of existence as a class until they exist no more.
Bureaucracy is a real problem, but wringing one's hands about how it "grows itself" rather than investigating why it grows and how it can be combated is essentially a form of defeatism.
Be an anarchist, I don't care, but don't be one out of ignorance.
Where has a state ever withered away?
Completely? Never, that would be "communism" and it's essentially only achievable once the world order is socialist as, aside from issues of capitalist encirclement, if a country is one big co-op, that doesn't prevent them from having class relations with the global proletariat, and it turns out that co-op country is a petty-bourg country.
Partially? All the time. Other people have linked to you about land ownership in China and I'm sure you've heard about the seizing of private hospitals in Cuba and so on. It's a process that none of us are going to see the end of, though we see progress frequently (and if we didn't, that would indicate a serious problem).
When did Cuba seize those hospitals? Was it during the initial wave of transition, or significantly later? With China, the argument here is that there seems to be much backsliding in the proletariate's ownership of the means of production, and the reintroduction of landlords.
Edit: Also, I'm not sure how "China actually owns the land under the landlord's building and so the state is the real landlord" is functionally different that taxes, but maybe I'm missing something important.
The initial wave, but I probably don't need to inform you about the ridiculous degree of development in Cuba's medical system that is still ongoing and still oriented towards free services, public interest, and supporting the health of the third world at least throughout Latin America and Africa.
Like a lot of things about China's laws, this is kind of complicated and you're better off doing your own research rather than idly speculating or asking some asshole on the internet (me), and this is on top of property law already being a complicated subject in general but as an example:
Ownership of private property is at the mercy of public interest, so should a conflict arise between the two the owners can simply be told to kick rocks (though they are entitled to monetary compensation), which is a significantly stronger version of Eminent Domain compared to, say, America.
Furthermore:
The range of durations is from 70 years for a property of personal residence to 40 years for commercial use.
I will drop this ever-relevant article from Red Sails
https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
deleted by creator
I was meaning to post something like this but you beat me to it, and honestly did better than I could do off the cuff. Whatever you want to call what China is doing, it is certainly not a Western capitalist country.
Removed by mod
"I don't like these statistics and essays, check out this animated show where
because that has more tangible reality to understand real conditions by"
The show has a fantastical premise, but is a slice of life about Su Moting's daily struggles to pay her rent, buy the treats that let her continue working her mind numbing job, and how that cycle only repeats endlessly. There's an episode in the show literally about how Ting is so poor a curse that causes poverty doesn't work on her, and another about how she'd rather relive the same Sunday over and over again than have to go to work 5 days a week. This is media being created in the SEZ for the chinese market. If you don't see how something like that wouldn't be created by a person who wasn't living under capitalism, I don't know what to tell you.
If she can still pay her rent, that seems like an anemic curse.
Anyway, you'll get different phrasings of this, but the phrasing I will use here is that markets are not synonymous with liberal capitalism and neither is poverty. I don't see what the insight of a cartoon vs, I don't know, looking at the non-zero number of malnourished people who are still in China.
One major difference that might be left unsaid (idk, I haven't watched it) is that if she got evicted that doesn't mean she'd be out on the street unless she chose to be. Legally, she should have some home address (most likely where her parents live) that is designated as her housing in such a case but, critically, if she does not have any such place (like if her family is dead and she owns no house) she would be given housing by the state. She may not want this housing due to its location or some other issue (and "itinerant" homelessness is very common in some Chinese cities), but that's significantly different from being forced onto the street in the manner that people in America are.
Removed by mod
define and name a single succes then , because if china is no success ,.... what can be ? ( you are not allowed to bring imaginary examples)
Maybe there are no successes? This has to be an option in any reasoned analysis. Maybe there is a critical flaw with the state socialist system that bends toward liberalism ~one generation after coming into existence. Maybe, as Kropotkin theorized, the continued attachment to currency dooms any fledgling socialist project. Idk.
there are also Coward Angloid Anarchokids less valued then medicine and so cowardly smug that think that they are qualified to judge foreign Revolutionary Nations....
deleted by creator
deleted by creator