Fidel was actually a huge China stan, even into his twilight years. They can't praise Cuba while calling China capitalist because Fidel went on record saying that 2000's China is socialist.
Based on what I learned in high school it's basically the idea that (1) in the same way that government control plays (and has to play) a role in capitalism, market can also be allowed to play a role in socialism (社会主义也有市场 "socialism also has markets"), especially since (2) socialism at its beginning stage needs development (发展才是硬道理 "development is the actual hard rule"), where market can be used to "unleash the productive forces" and improve the people's livelihoods.
Two into one is collaborationist garbage, we need one into two permanent revolution struggle sessions forever fuck those birds
Will they ever get tired of endlessly repeating the same strawman talking points?
Concidering how I can read a book by Lenin from more than a century ago and still come across the same arguments I see now?
I get a feeling even when we achieve Communism there'll still be people bringing up this stuff.
thinking a chinese president did an okay job is THE. BIGGEST. STAIN. ON. THE. LEFT.
sorry i couldn't read past that part what a fucking joke
Maybe someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me, but wtf is with the love for Dengism?
"THE CARICATURE OF DENG AS A TYRANT IS UNFAIR" -Henry Kissinger in WaPo, August 1st 1989
Milton Friedman referred to Dengist reforms as "the most hopeful period of the Chinese experiment" during his second visit in 1988. -Two Lucky People: Memoirs
Y'all keep some weird company
I'm heavily critical of Deng, as are even many "Dengists" here, but Deng's program still fits within a socialist framework, even if I think using capitalist accumulation to drive a Socialist transition in an undeveloped country to be playing with fire, and his criticisms of Marx and use of Chicago-school economics utterly wrong-headed. And that's before we get to the whole Pol Pot debacle.
If we call China capitalist, we'd also have to call the Soviets under the NEP capitalist and Vietnam as it stands capitalist. The truth of the matter is probably more "a capitalist driven economy under socialist direction and a DotP, used to get to a point where Socialism can survive without engaging in siege tactics".
Which, again, I'm not a fan of but is a consistent ideological position, and one Xi seems to be transitioning back towards a more Socialist economic framework. So critical support is warranted.
If we call China capitalist, we’d also have to call the Soviets under the NEP capitalist and Vietnam as it stands capitalist.
Bingo. Understanding historical context is what separates the western anti-communist lib(eral)-left from serious socialists of any flavor. The October Revolutionaries didn't intend for socialism to be built from the ground-up in a peasant-based feudal society but as a spark to ignite a world revolution. The goal was to topple the bougeoise, create proletarian governments, then have the more industrially developed socialist states aid in the uplifting of the less developed socialist states.
Obviously that didn't happen and those Revolutionaries, followed by the scant few that were also successful, were left as economically feeble fledgling states surrounded by the most heinous vampiric empires drooling at the plans they had to carve them up like a Thanksgiving turkey.
Arguments based off of the facts of the historical context and material conditions I can get, regardless of my agreement or disagreement, but these kinds of ignorant sophistry rubs me in the same wrong way as when a chud starts bellowing how nazi germany was a socialist state.
Modern China is not the USSR immediately after the Tsar. The material conditions are different. And the USSR didn't have billionaires. Relatively privileged party officials, but no billionaires. I don't see how allowing the proliferation of billionaires in any way aids in the development of a country toward socialism.
https://www.amazon.com/Soviet-millionaires-Reg-Bishop-Reginald/dp/B007XCMNDA?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_marketplace
Have you read this book?
Edit: wait.. so I said that there were no soviet billionaires and your response is a single book titled Soviet Millionaires? I can't even find a review of this book. Does this pass as research?
One of the parent comments was literally
these kinds of ignorant sophistry rubs me in the same wrong way as when a chud starts bellowing how nazi germany was a socialist state.
Please tell me you're joking or trolling me
EDIT 2: WHY WOULD YOU LINK TO AMAZON WHEN YOU CAN LINK TO THE ENTIRE TEXT FOR FREE?
Edit 3: you should read that pamphlet. The notion that wealthy collective farmers have anything in common with the transnational billionaire class of our neoliberal capitalist hellworld is absolutely laughable
Go read some of Deng's books then. I'm not having this argument.
“a capitalist driven economy under socialist direction and a DotP, used to get to a point where Socialism can survive without engaging in siege tactics”.
Could you expand on that more?
It seems to me that the proliferation of billionaires with close ties to party officials - or are party officials themselves - not only further entrenches capital, but frustrates the ability to escape the siege.
This is exactly my critique. In addition to the risk of wholesale capitalist capture of the state.
Yeah so then how does this still fit within a socialist framework? It's a strategy which is likely to directly contribute in aiding it's class enemies. Assuming that hasn't already happened.
I do have critical support for CPC but not on socialist grounds. But rather on the grounds of challenging the hegemony of American liberal capitalism, with an eye toward leadership on climate change and lifting billions out of poverty. But I'm not convinced that they're moving toward socialism. Maybe you can recommend some literature which could convince me?
I'm far, far more convinced that we are desperate to be hopeful for anything that looks like progress for humanity and justice for the working class .
These comments were made in the belief that the reforms would end up weakening China and allowing the west to tear it apart and divide the spoils essentially, its not something that can indicate the actual character of the reforms.
I like Xi a lot more than Deng. I think Deng went too far in a few places, and Xi seems to be fusing Deng and Mao.
China isnt doing any genocide, and their imperialism is nowhere as bad as the West, these criticisms of China from the left rarely go into the heart of the matter. China is a capitalist country. That's it. So you can stan for capitalism with a red flag if you want to.
