I wouldn't even say that the Chinese Communist Party was only paying lip service to Communism, Capitalism must be fully developed and matured for Communism to replace it. While the Americans are letting Capital forces run amok, the CPC is developing capitalism to be a system that they will later be able to remove and replace.
What bullshit idealism is this? Capitalism does not magically lead to communism! It is not a linear progression, it is not some upgrade. Capitalism does not essentially differ from feudalism, or ancient slave-owning societies, etc. except for in details. The fault line lies between exploitative socio-economic systems, that arose during the Neolithic and constituted a paradigmatic shift from seeing nature as a resource to be exploited to seeing humans themselves as a resource to be exploited, on the one hand and cooperative socio-economic systems on the other. There is no natural law that automatically enables a "phase transition" from the one to the other once we arrive at the capitalist iteration of the exploitative socio-economic paradigm. So the question here is: is the CPC actively working towards shedding the exploitative nature of its economy? If the answer is yes, then it is measurably moving towards socialism, if the answer is "I don't know", "maybe later", "let's just wait and see" then that's functionally the same as no movement to everyone but the innermost party insiders.
Read my other reply. And I have never said that capitalism will magically lead to communism, what I said is that capitalism must be used to develop productive forces until communism can replace it just like how feudalism was to mature before capitalism can replace it.
And it's pretty strange to say that Capitalism is not fundamentally different from feudalism because there is exploitation. I suppose then all states are the same because they have laws.
To extend a little bit, the French Revolution cannot have happened in the 8th century, and Marx would not have written Das Capital had he not studied the industrial revolution brought about by British capitalism.
Capitalism must be fully developed and matured for Communism to replace it.
Does this mean that the revolutionaries of years past were wrong to push for communism? Should they instead have become capitalists and try to "fully develop" capitalism?
Maybe I worded it wrong. But productive forces of a society must be adequately developed for communism to take hold. What this means, and what the revolutionaries of the past has done is to seize the state to take control of the development of the productive forces. I'm saying is that the CPC is using certain elements of capitalism to acquire the capital to develop while maintaining enough state control in the economy to dictate the direction the economy will develope.
I wouldn't even say that the Chinese Communist Party was only paying lip service to Communism, Capitalism must be fully developed and matured for Communism to replace it. While the Americans are letting Capital forces run amok, the CPC is developing capitalism to be a system that they will later be able to remove and replace.
What bullshit idealism is this? Capitalism does not magically lead to communism! It is not a linear progression, it is not some upgrade. Capitalism does not essentially differ from feudalism, or ancient slave-owning societies, etc. except for in details. The fault line lies between exploitative socio-economic systems, that arose during the Neolithic and constituted a paradigmatic shift from seeing nature as a resource to be exploited to seeing humans themselves as a resource to be exploited, on the one hand and cooperative socio-economic systems on the other. There is no natural law that automatically enables a "phase transition" from the one to the other once we arrive at the capitalist iteration of the exploitative socio-economic paradigm. So the question here is: is the CPC actively working towards shedding the exploitative nature of its economy? If the answer is yes, then it is measurably moving towards socialism, if the answer is "I don't know", "maybe later", "let's just wait and see" then that's functionally the same as no movement to everyone but the innermost party insiders.
Read my other reply. And I have never said that capitalism will magically lead to communism, what I said is that capitalism must be used to develop productive forces until communism can replace it just like how feudalism was to mature before capitalism can replace it. And it's pretty strange to say that Capitalism is not fundamentally different from feudalism because there is exploitation. I suppose then all states are the same because they have laws.
To extend a little bit, the French Revolution cannot have happened in the 8th century, and Marx would not have written Das Capital had he not studied the industrial revolution brought about by British capitalism.
Does this mean that the revolutionaries of years past were wrong to push for communism? Should they instead have become capitalists and try to "fully develop" capitalism?
I hope you can see how absurd this take is
Maybe I worded it wrong. But productive forces of a society must be adequately developed for communism to take hold. What this means, and what the revolutionaries of the past has done is to seize the state to take control of the development of the productive forces. I'm saying is that the CPC is using certain elements of capitalism to acquire the capital to develop while maintaining enough state control in the economy to dictate the direction the economy will develope.