Having crushed the opposition in Hong Kong, China is moving against Taiwan. The island's military is in bad shape and it's unclear how the U.S. will respond.
"china is socialist" mostly boils down to vernacular. Do you mean "china achieved socialism"? In that case no, and they wouldnt claim that. Do you mean "is china a socialist state"? Well that also boils down to vernacular. A state ruled by a socialist party which upholds certain socialist ideology and undertakes the development of socialism? Sure thats certainly been part of its history and continues today. If we can't refer to states which are ruled by socialist parties as simply "socialist states" because they havent achieved socialism we're just playing a dumb game of vernacular. If you wish to learn about China read contemporary chinese marxists perspectives on it like Minqi Li or Hao Qi. Theres certainly different party lines represented within the communist party, and liberalism has certainly had its influence over the polity over the past decades, mostly during the 90s. It varies.
I'm from Romania. I come across people that say Romania was communist (it wasnt, but you can refer to it as that, but its just dumb arguments over vernacular). I come across people that say Romania wasn't socialist (more dumb arguments). I come across arguments of people saying Ceausescu wasn't a Marxist (this is just dumb chauvinism). I come across people who say Romania is still socialist (these are just morons). Its tiring that people focus so much on arguments over vernacular. The reality is that a "socialist society" is not a utopia, class contradictions only then begin to even start being addressed, exploitation continues, hard working conditions continue, etc. No country that has ever achieve socialism has ever been able to do anything but undertake a series of plans to address certain ills in modern society and work towards a better society, with varying degrees and often lots of failure.
Westerners focus on these other places because its easier than actually undertaking the enormously difficult task of achieving something similar here, and indeed many want to point to certain failures and downsides to socialist states and say well if things are like that I dont want to bother with that at all. And thats fine I mean what are you gonna do? But in reality this is how things are, it cant be perfect and there will be downsides and you arent the first to question or think about these things or conceive of what you think are better ways to do things, and theres reasons things didnt go different in these places. I dont know the answer to what the "right way" really is because it depends so much on the country and people there of course.
The question isn’t whether China has achieved socialism, because it clearly has not, even by the admission of the CPC. Right now, capitalist production, which largely replaced the planned economy won in the revolution, dominates in China, and the ostensible plan is to transition away from capitalist production in the future. It’s hard to say that the working class owns or meaningfully control the means of production in China, unless you also believe that the Chinese state, with its economic influence and participation, itself represents the democratic control of the working class.
In my opinion, this is no longer the case in China, and the state is generally functioning to prop up and maintain capitalist production and control. From the perspective of the working class, the most desirable subjugation of the capitalist class is the ability to expropriate, own, and exclusively control the means of production, from which flows the ability to do rational economic planning and development, lessen the workload for workers, provide essential goods and services, and so on. The planned economy that existed in China after the revolution was a step forward for the working class, albeit on shaky footing, and has since been clawed back.
The planned economy and expropriation of the capitalists is also an example of class contradictions being addressed in a fairly immediate way. Compare Lenin talking about the “immediate” tasks of the Russian revolution, which inherited a much smaller and less developed economy than present day China, as he saw them in October 1917:
“The Soviet Government must immediately introduce workers' control of production and distribution on a nation-wide scale.”
“It is necessary to nationalise the banks and the insurance business immediately, and also the most important branches of industry (oil, coal, metallurgy, sugar, etc.), and at the same time, to abolish commercial secrets and to establish unrelaxing supervision by the workers and peasants over the negligible minority of capitalists who wax rich on government contracts and evade accounting and just taxation of their profits and property.”
These steps, which China has moved away from, are the first steps towards building socialism; they are immediate tasks, not future goals.
And this meme that “western” socialists have no legitimate reason to focus on the Chinese working class is just silly. The working class in China is one of the most powerful in history and indispensable for building socialism internationally, their victories are our victories and their defeats, our defeats.
Transitions can go either way and it’s certainly not moving in the direction of workers’ control of the commanding heights of the economy, and this is plainly obvious if you have paid any sort of attention to the last 40 years of history.
But you’re talking about “national bourgeoisie” like you’re Mao making a theoretical error in 1948, so I doubt you’re grappling with anything resembling reality.
To say the capitalist class controls the country isn't correct in any way. Theres certainly differing party lines but capitalists and the rich do not hold any sort of control over the party or the country's policies, though id say their influence has certainly grown since the reforms, Minqi Li's critiques and analysis is certainly correct in that. To argue over whether china is socialist or not is just dumb and only ever seems like a game of vernacular. Every chinese marxist writes about the development of socialism in China, every other marxist thinker that writes about China does the same. This dumb argument is petty and i dont care for it, like I said, if you care about China read contemporary chinese marxist perspective on it. If you haven't than you can't tell me you actually care about understanding China.
"china is socialist" mostly boils down to vernacular. Do you mean "china achieved socialism"? In that case no, and they wouldnt claim that. Do you mean "is china a socialist state"? Well that also boils down to vernacular. A state ruled by a socialist party which upholds certain socialist ideology and undertakes the development of socialism? Sure thats certainly been part of its history and continues today. If we can't refer to states which are ruled by socialist parties as simply "socialist states" because they havent achieved socialism we're just playing a dumb game of vernacular. If you wish to learn about China read contemporary chinese marxists perspectives on it like Minqi Li or Hao Qi. Theres certainly different party lines represented within the communist party, and liberalism has certainly had its influence over the polity over the past decades, mostly during the 90s. It varies.
I'm from Romania. I come across people that say Romania was communist (it wasnt, but you can refer to it as that, but its just dumb arguments over vernacular). I come across people that say Romania wasn't socialist (more dumb arguments). I come across arguments of people saying Ceausescu wasn't a Marxist (this is just dumb chauvinism). I come across people who say Romania is still socialist (these are just morons). Its tiring that people focus so much on arguments over vernacular. The reality is that a "socialist society" is not a utopia, class contradictions only then begin to even start being addressed, exploitation continues, hard working conditions continue, etc. No country that has ever achieve socialism has ever been able to do anything but undertake a series of plans to address certain ills in modern society and work towards a better society, with varying degrees and often lots of failure.
Westerners focus on these other places because its easier than actually undertaking the enormously difficult task of achieving something similar here, and indeed many want to point to certain failures and downsides to socialist states and say well if things are like that I dont want to bother with that at all. And thats fine I mean what are you gonna do? But in reality this is how things are, it cant be perfect and there will be downsides and you arent the first to question or think about these things or conceive of what you think are better ways to do things, and theres reasons things didnt go different in these places. I dont know the answer to what the "right way" really is because it depends so much on the country and people there of course.
The question isn’t whether China has achieved socialism, because it clearly has not, even by the admission of the CPC. Right now, capitalist production, which largely replaced the planned economy won in the revolution, dominates in China, and the ostensible plan is to transition away from capitalist production in the future. It’s hard to say that the working class owns or meaningfully control the means of production in China, unless you also believe that the Chinese state, with its economic influence and participation, itself represents the democratic control of the working class.
The question of whether China is “socialist” is really the question of which class controls the Chinese state. And that is truly an either/or question: According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of “order”, which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes .
If it is a state controlled by the working class, it is also a state for the subjugation of the capitalist class.
In my opinion, this is no longer the case in China, and the state is generally functioning to prop up and maintain capitalist production and control. From the perspective of the working class, the most desirable subjugation of the capitalist class is the ability to expropriate, own, and exclusively control the means of production, from which flows the ability to do rational economic planning and development, lessen the workload for workers, provide essential goods and services, and so on. The planned economy that existed in China after the revolution was a step forward for the working class, albeit on shaky footing, and has since been clawed back.
The planned economy and expropriation of the capitalists is also an example of class contradictions being addressed in a fairly immediate way. Compare Lenin talking about the “immediate” tasks of the Russian revolution, which inherited a much smaller and less developed economy than present day China, as he saw them in October 1917:
“The Soviet Government must immediately introduce workers' control of production and distribution on a nation-wide scale.”
“It is necessary to nationalise the banks and the insurance business immediately, and also the most important branches of industry (oil, coal, metallurgy, sugar, etc.), and at the same time, to abolish commercial secrets and to establish unrelaxing supervision by the workers and peasants over the negligible minority of capitalists who wax rich on government contracts and evade accounting and just taxation of their profits and property.”
These steps, which China has moved away from, are the first steps towards building socialism; they are immediate tasks, not future goals.
And this meme that “western” socialists have no legitimate reason to focus on the Chinese working class is just silly. The working class in China is one of the most powerful in history and indispensable for building socialism internationally, their victories are our victories and their defeats, our defeats.
The capitalist class and the national bourgeoisie do not control China.
At one point they did not, but now they do.
Transitions can go either way and it’s certainly not moving in the direction of workers’ control of the commanding heights of the economy, and this is plainly obvious if you have paid any sort of attention to the last 40 years of history.
But you’re talking about “national bourgeoisie” like you’re Mao making a theoretical error in 1948, so I doubt you’re grappling with anything resembling reality.
To say the capitalist class controls the country isn't correct in any way. Theres certainly differing party lines but capitalists and the rich do not hold any sort of control over the party or the country's policies, though id say their influence has certainly grown since the reforms, Minqi Li's critiques and analysis is certainly correct in that. To argue over whether china is socialist or not is just dumb and only ever seems like a game of vernacular. Every chinese marxist writes about the development of socialism in China, every other marxist thinker that writes about China does the same. This dumb argument is petty and i dont care for it, like I said, if you care about China read contemporary chinese marxist perspective on it. If you haven't than you can't tell me you actually care about understanding China.
deleted by creator