if they continue to call themselves marxist and use marxist language, is there any action that will stop you guys from liking them? how long can lip service cover for being openly part of a capitalist system? Would a communist state allow its population to work grueling factory jobs making products for a western imperial country? and without having an independently controlled union? their elite accumulates massive capital.
and like whatever you think theyve objectively changed course since the days of mao. If you like china now i dont see how you can also like maos revolution with any amount of coherence
this lifted out of poverty stuff is bullshit too, its the exact same argument capitalists use, the idea going through the stages of capitalist development is an objective improvement to the world. Capitalism creates poverty. China gets richer and someone else has to get poorer, its just how it works if youre still working on the concepts of rich and poor. As they "develop "they outsource lower profit jobs to other countries and now they have the shitty jobs with no leverage. Without a rejection of capitalism poverty is completely unchanged.
I mentioned above that the MDGs moved the baseline year back in a manner that claimed China’s gains against poverty during the 1990s, which had nothing at all to do with the MDGs. If we take China out of the equation, we see that the global poverty headcount at $1.25 actually increased during the 1980s and 1990s, while the World Bank was imposing structural adjustment across most of the global South. In 2010 (the final year of the MDGs' real data), the total poverty headcount excluding China was exactly the same as it was in 1981, at just over one billion people. In other words, while the MDGs lead us to believe that poverty has been decreasing around the world, in reality the only place this holds true is in China and East Asia. This is an important point, because China and East Asia are some of the only places in the developing world that were not forcibly liberalised by the World Bankand the IMF. Everywhere else, poverty has been stagnant or getting worse, in aggregate.
These poverty lines suggest that global poverty is much worse than the official narrative would have us believe. Most analysts recognise that the $1.25 line is too low, but it remains in favour at the World Bank and the UN because it is the only line that shows any progress against poverty – at least when you include China. Every other line tells the opposite story.
thats wrong though, cause the development is usually much slower and more lopsided and in China qol, height, hdi have all improved drastically
China gets richer and someone else has to get poorer,
economics is not a sum zero game lol, humanity as a whole has been getting "richer" per capita and net wealth wtf are you talking about
buildling schools in Xi'an doesnt hurt you lol and Chinas built a lot of fucking schools and hospitals and provides for its citizen, and now thats imperialism too because you decided its impovrishing someone because???
if you say debt trap diplomacy i will not respond to just entry level cia shit
capitalism is absolutely a zero sum game, somebody has to be the bottom for there to be a top. if there is no rich and poor there is no capitalism.
Saying humanity has gotten wealthier per capita and that this is good is inherently capitalist logic, the line going up doesnt mean anyones life is improved. There were non capitalist areas colonized and made to be capitalist, like tribes or whatever, and get jobs, and now they have more money (before they had zero money) but theyre lives are shit.
And they do collect interest on third world countries, thats a fact, whatever youd like to call it. because again theyre capitalist and thats what every capitalist country does
im not really saying that hurt anyone, its not a totally good-evil situation. But like mark zuckerberg built a hospital. its not a pass and there are other reasons to do it
also, who ever said that Marxism = pushing the "destroy all capitalism button" and having Utopia automatically built to replace it?
Marx literally says that the next stage of productive development would be born from the womb of capitalism & have all its birthmarks
Lenin and Engels both suggest that state capitalism is the initial stage of socialism
Mao himself said that this stage of socialism would take a long time and be fraught with many obstacles including the choices between "capitalist-road" and "socialist-road" and that class struggle would itself be a protracted and drawn own affair
Just because you think PRC needs to do it a certain way, doesn't mean you're right or that your "criticism" means anything in light of their history & trajectory
You're correct. All they did is take 300 million rural peasant farmers who live off the grid, stuck them in factories, gave them a meager stipend (hey, they technically were earning ZERO before that), and used this as justification to say "brought 300M out of poverty".
800m and guess what in my 3rd world coutnry id fucking love to have the majority of the people go from being literally the wrecthed of the earth to office workers whose domestic consumption is the largest in the world and shit in a generation lol
yeah im a victim of not wanting to see my neighbors die of prevetnable disease, window dressing fuck off lol
i want my community to be better, i want peoples needs to be met and their leisure to be greater, not to project dead russian thinkers from a centrury ago
if you find a way to both im on board, but i care about material reality, not fantasy
well im not going to completely sign off on that, i mean the farmers didnt really live off the grid either they had shitty feudal lords and stuff. im not a maoist either, but life in china definitely improved for a lot of people after his revolution.
I mean, if "80 hours a week of hard labor to funnel 99% of revenue into the top 0.1% of capitalists" is your kind of revolution, well we'll agree to disagree.
President Xi just this year jailed a billionaire for 18 years for mouthing off online lol
Dictatorship of the proletariat & mass line are both alive and well within PRC, you're just not going to admit that they're doing far better than the US at both capitalism & socialism lmfao
The fact that billionaires exist at all should be a bigger point of contention for you. But if one ritual sacrifice is enough to keep you glommed on to their team, have at it, Capitalist 2.0.
State capitalism is the initial stage of socialism
The lower stage is born from the womb of capitalism and has all its birthmarks... that's literally what Marx wrote
If a country and a People had to pass some dupe's purity tests online, then I think the revolution & any workable alternative would've been snuffed out long ago
yeah i mean its absolutely not lol, im just objecting to what youre saying about the farmers. but i do agree with the point that yeah more money on paper isnt neccesarily better.
and like whatever you think theyve objectively changed course since the days of mao. If you like china now i dont see how you can also like maos revolution with any amount of coherence
why not lol?
also are you just discovering that dengists and maoists dont believe the same things? i like socialist states that exist and serve the people and china does, sure they use markets and companies to do so but they use them not vice versa
its that they believe radically different things, like the companies are still making a profit. if they couldnt use the chinese people for profit theyd shut down. the philosophies of mao and deng are in direct conflict
what are you talking about? im saying its incoherent to like mao and deng at the same time cause they directly conflict. wtf does that have to do with the diversity of thought in china
Yes, it's completely tribal. Americans in capitalist prisons are victims of a system, but those stricken to Communist gulags must have done something to deserve it.
ok so are there more prisoners per capita in america or china?
surely that should give some indication of how delusional this line is, i get it you hate states, good for you welcome to the 20th century its states buddy, you cant abolish 1 state at a time,
I'm not "praising" anything other than to say that this is in keeping with Marxist-Leninist tendency
Lenin "expanded "socialism" and the period of the DotP into a much longer historical stage, during which the proletariat's struggle with the still-vibrant bourgeoisie would require a more intense struggle with the full weight of state power under Communist Party control being directed at the capitalist classes. Throughout this period, the restoration of capitalism would be a constant threat and the Communist Party could use any means necessary to destroy the capitalists' social, economic and political power."
When I hear that CPC executes billionaires & jails them for posting cringe & pursues their Superyachts in the East River... then I know state capitalism for a Communist just hits different
I don't really think having billionaires is keeping in line with Marxist-Leninist tendency. I'll support China's state capitalism in the same way that I'll support social-democratic politicans in the US, but it's important to acknowledge that they're just creating a less shitty version of capitalism. Capitalism's internal contradictions are still vibrantly alive in China, there's still a bourgeoisie whose existence relies entirely on the state. I might just be misunderstanding you, but saying it "hits different" seems to be minimizing the current flaws China has. While its less flawed than the West, it's still highly flawed and deserves criticism, imo.
"during which the proletariat’s struggle with the still-vibrant bourgeoisie would require a more intense struggle with the full weight of state power under Communist Party control being directed at the capitalist classes. Throughout this period, the restoration of capitalism would be a constant threat and the Communist Party could use any means necessary to destroy the capitalists’ social, economic and political power.”
what about this doesn't apply to what you've just said?
the “historical period of socialism” is fraught with the choices between a “capitalist-road” and there is still “the danger of capitalist restoration”
there are still classes, class contradictions, and class struggle
Mao literally writes all of this, and says that this phase covers a “considerably long historical period”
nothing about what you’ve written means that state capitalism isn’t the first step in the initial stage of socialism, lol
y es, it’s completely tribal. Americans in capitalist prisons are victims of a system, but those stricken to Communist gulags must have done something to deserve it.
if they continue to call themselves marxist and use marxist language, is there any action that will stop you guys from liking them? how long can lip service cover for being openly part of a capitalist system? Would a communist state allow its population to work grueling factory jobs making products for a western imperial country? and without having an independently controlled union? their elite accumulates massive capital.
and like whatever you think theyve objectively changed course since the days of mao. If you like china now i dont see how you can also like maos revolution with any amount of coherence
forcing 800 million people back into poverty
this lifted out of poverty stuff is bullshit too, its the exact same argument capitalists use, the idea going through the stages of capitalist development is an objective improvement to the world. Capitalism creates poverty. China gets richer and someone else has to get poorer, its just how it works if youre still working on the concepts of rich and poor. As they "develop "they outsource lower profit jobs to other countries and now they have the shitty jobs with no leverage. Without a rejection of capitalism poverty is completely unchanged.
The neoliberals are lying and simply taking credit for China's success.
thats wrong though, cause the development is usually much slower and more lopsided and in China qol, height, hdi have all improved drastically
economics is not a sum zero game lol, humanity as a whole has been getting "richer" per capita and net wealth wtf are you talking about
buildling schools in Xi'an doesnt hurt you lol and Chinas built a lot of fucking schools and hospitals and provides for its citizen, and now thats imperialism too because you decided its impovrishing someone because???
if you say debt trap diplomacy i will not respond to just entry level cia shit
capitalism is absolutely a zero sum game, somebody has to be the bottom for there to be a top. if there is no rich and poor there is no capitalism.
Saying humanity has gotten wealthier per capita and that this is good is inherently capitalist logic, the line going up doesnt mean anyones life is improved. There were non capitalist areas colonized and made to be capitalist, like tribes or whatever, and get jobs, and now they have more money (before they had zero money) but theyre lives are shit.
And they do collect interest on third world countries, thats a fact, whatever youd like to call it. because again theyre capitalist and thats what every capitalist country does
OK then who did China hurt by building hospitals and schools lol?
im not really saying that hurt anyone, its not a totally good-evil situation. But like mark zuckerberg built a hospital. its not a pass and there are other reasons to do it
also, who ever said that Marxism = pushing the "destroy all capitalism button" and having Utopia automatically built to replace it?
Marx literally says that the next stage of productive development would be born from the womb of capitalism & have all its birthmarks
Lenin and Engels both suggest that state capitalism is the initial stage of socialism
Mao himself said that this stage of socialism would take a long time and be fraught with many obstacles including the choices between "capitalist-road" and "socialist-road" and that class struggle would itself be a protracted and drawn own affair
Just because you think PRC needs to do it a certain way, doesn't mean you're right or that your "criticism" means anything in light of their history & trajectory
Real materialist hours
read some history buddy
You're correct. All they did is take 300 million rural peasant farmers who live off the grid, stuck them in factories, gave them a meager stipend (hey, they technically were earning ZERO before that), and used this as justification to say "brought 300M out of poverty".
800m and guess what in my 3rd world coutnry id fucking love to have the majority of the people go from being literally the wrecthed of the earth to office workers whose domestic consumption is the largest in the world and shit in a generation lol
Well yeah. This is exactly what I mean. You're a victim to the window dressing.
yeah im a victim of not wanting to see my neighbors die of prevetnable disease, window dressing fuck off lol
i want my community to be better, i want peoples needs to be met and their leisure to be greater, not to project dead russian thinkers from a centrury ago
if you find a way to both im on board, but i care about material reality, not fantasy
deleted by creator
thanks i didnt know about that
well im not going to completely sign off on that, i mean the farmers didnt really live off the grid either they had shitty feudal lords and stuff. im not a maoist either, but life in china definitely improved for a lot of people after his revolution.
I mean, if "80 hours a week of hard labor to funnel 99% of revenue into the top 0.1% of capitalists" is your kind of revolution, well we'll agree to disagree.
billionaires get executed in PRC
President Xi just this year jailed a billionaire for 18 years for mouthing off online lol
Dictatorship of the proletariat & mass line are both alive and well within PRC, you're just not going to admit that they're doing far better than the US at both capitalism & socialism lmfao
The fact that billionaires exist at all should be a bigger point of contention for you. But if one ritual sacrifice is enough to keep you glommed on to their team, have at it, Capitalist 2.0.
State capitalism is the initial stage of socialism
The lower stage is born from the womb of capitalism and has all its birthmarks... that's literally what Marx wrote
If a country and a People had to pass some dupe's purity tests online, then I think the revolution & any workable alternative would've been snuffed out long ago
doing better at capitalism and socialism lol. talk about a galaxy brain
PRC is the only major country growing at the moment
so, yes
It's not the CPC's fault that you haven't read Marx
yeah i mean its absolutely not lol, im just objecting to what youre saying about the farmers. but i do agree with the point that yeah more money on paper isnt neccesarily better.
why not lol?
also are you just discovering that dengists and maoists dont believe the same things? i like socialist states that exist and serve the people and china does, sure they use markets and companies to do so but they use them not vice versa
its that they believe radically different things, like the companies are still making a profit. if they couldnt use the chinese people for profit theyd shut down. the philosophies of mao and deng are in direct conflict
youre telling me that chinese people have complex thoughts? and they dont all share the same political vision? god this almost sounds like a democracy
what are you talking about? im saying its incoherent to like mao and deng at the same time cause they directly conflict. wtf does that have to do with the diversity of thought in china
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes, it's completely tribal. Americans in capitalist prisons are victims of a system, but those stricken to Communist gulags must have done something to deserve it.
ok so are there more prisoners per capita in america or china?
surely that should give some indication of how delusional this line is, i get it you hate states, good for you welcome to the 20th century its states buddy, you cant abolish 1 state at a time,
You're the one that brought up the US. I think they're a bigger shithole than China. But that's your prerogative to defend.
Yes, PRC is doing better than the US socially & economically & from a public health perspective
Almost like state capitalism can be used toward the general welfare & improving social development
Should we be praising state capitalism? China's obviously better than a neoliberal hellscape, but isn't that a pretty low bar to be set?
I'm not "praising" anything other than to say that this is in keeping with Marxist-Leninist tendency
Lenin "expanded "socialism" and the period of the DotP into a much longer historical stage, during which the proletariat's struggle with the still-vibrant bourgeoisie would require a more intense struggle with the full weight of state power under Communist Party control being directed at the capitalist classes. Throughout this period, the restoration of capitalism would be a constant threat and the Communist Party could use any means necessary to destroy the capitalists' social, economic and political power."
When I hear that CPC executes billionaires & jails them for posting cringe & pursues their Superyachts in the East River... then I know state capitalism for a Communist just hits different
I don't really think having billionaires is keeping in line with Marxist-Leninist tendency. I'll support China's state capitalism in the same way that I'll support social-democratic politicans in the US, but it's important to acknowledge that they're just creating a less shitty version of capitalism. Capitalism's internal contradictions are still vibrantly alive in China, there's still a bourgeoisie whose existence relies entirely on the state. I might just be misunderstanding you, but saying it "hits different" seems to be minimizing the current flaws China has. While its less flawed than the West, it's still highly flawed and deserves criticism, imo.
"during which the proletariat’s struggle with the still-vibrant bourgeoisie would require a more intense struggle with the full weight of state power under Communist Party control being directed at the capitalist classes. Throughout this period, the restoration of capitalism would be a constant threat and the Communist Party could use any means necessary to destroy the capitalists’ social, economic and political power.”
what about this doesn't apply to what you've just said?
the “historical period of socialism” is fraught with the choices between a “capitalist-road” and there is still “the danger of capitalist restoration”
there are still classes, class contradictions, and class struggle
Mao literally writes all of this, and says that this phase covers a “considerably long historical period”
nothing about what you’ve written means that state capitalism isn’t the first step in the initial stage of socialism, lol
deleted by creator
you said theres no difference and im pointing out a difference
downvote but no response nice