Holdouts and Dengism

So I was reading a Jacobin article on Miguel Diaz, the new president of Cuba, and it outlined a number of serious issues facing the Cuban economy.

jacobinmag.com/2018/06/miguel-diaz-canel-bermudez-castro-cuba


It also got me thinking about a problem confronting the socialist movement that seems insurmountable without a more or less simultaneous worldwide revolution, that of capital flight. Many of Cuba's problems stem from the fact that it just doesn't have the cash to pay better wages or repair infrastructure, and being a socialist country, it obviously will have a hard time attracting any foreign capital. Similar problems can be seen plaguing Venezuela, as foreign capital flees the country, leaving the economy in shambles. China on the other hand managed to make huge strides in development and poverty reduction by liberalizing, but at the cost of its dictatorship of the proletariat.

This appears to be a unique challenge facing the remaining socialist holdouts or any third world countries hoping to establish socialism. Developed countries have enough of an existing capital base, or at least a far larger one, to make this a less pressing issue for first world socialists. However countries like Cuba or the DPRK appear to be caught in a trap, with their choices being either abandon socialism or slowly decline into ruin.

So I asked the question, is it possible to temporarily re-introduce capitalist economy without destroying proletarian democracy? In my view, there are certainly some measures that could be take to seriously cripple the return of bourgeois rule even as capitalism returns.


It seems to me that with these measures in place, a country such as Cuba may be able to attract foreign capital, address the issues crippling its economy, and then eventually make a graduated return to socialism, first through market socialism and state capitalism, and eventually through the cybernetization of a planned economy. What do you guys think? How can Cuba find a way out of their predicament? Can a capitalist economy cooexist with a genuine DotP?

Attached: 578.PNG (1200x1202, 1.32M)

Other urls found in this thread:

dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf
housingfinance.org/uploads/Publicationsmanager/Caribbean_Cuba_HousinginCastrosCuba.pdf
fresnoalliance.com/homeless-in-cuba-not-likely/
en.people.cn/92824/92845/92869/6439952.html
china.org.cn/english/DAT/214784.htm
nytimes.com/2018/04/13/business/china-communist-party-foreign-businesses.html
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9365099/Chinas-incoming-president-Xi-Jinpings-family-has-wealth-of-hundreds-of-millions.html)
cbsnews.com/news/usa-china-income-inequality-economic-research/
youtube.com/watch?v=NzJhT2AVaEs
youtube.com/watch?v=tV7Oa-0NDE
ft.com/content/6e012f42-1dae-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6
youtube.com/watch?v=tV7Oa-0NDE8
tapatalk.com/groups/formercommunists/cpgb-ml-s-reply-to-the-lies-and-slanders-of-the-cp-t517.html#p3878
thenational.ae/world/asia/xi-jinping-tells-chinese-billionaires-to-play-by-the-rules-1.709443
xinhuanet.com/english/2017-09/30/c_136651533.htm
forbes.com/sites/raykwong/2011/07/25/friends-dont-let-friends-become-chinese-billionaires/#6a11150c2dda
business-standard.com/article/international/any-chinese-billionaire-may-fall-warns-xi-jinping-to-investors-118030200150_1.html
archive.is/OEhBP
medium.com/@wolf.aldrich/three-questions-about-china-and-the-communist-party-of-china-7056e40b40f3
workers.org/2015/07/21/china-rising-wages-and-worker-militancy/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You know capitalist powers won't allow such investments in those countries unless they bend over all the way, right?

The issue is that it is impossible to reintroduce capitalist mechanisms above the level of even the petit-bourgeois without falling prey to anti-socialist forces. Allowing the return of a bourgeois class spells doom for any socialist state. It has consumed China and Vietnam. What Cuba needs to do is domestically increase productivity and thus income for the government from taxation. There are a few ways of doing this in a socialistic manner:
Cooperativising the lower rungs of service industry would be a good first step, as the impacts of increased productivity in those sectors would help drive economic growth: especially as Cuba opens itself up towards the tourism economy (which in itself, is not actually anti-socialist and it can be used to debunk anti-socialist myths). This then generates income for the government from taxes (especially from money brought in by tourists) which will allow for it to invest in infrastructure.
Another effort that can be undertaken is actually the Laotian model. Now Laos did the opposite of what many expect: instead of opening up its economy to the bourgeois in exchange for loans to generate growth, it made fiscal changes to access loans to develop its national institutions. As a result of this, mostly due to Laos being a DotP with a strict Leninist party, it was able not only to increase the quality of its education, infrastructure, healthcare et al but do so under budget and well exceeding plans. And since it had not allowed a bourgeoisie into the country, but instead implemented some mild auestiety off the bat (most of the negative effects of which were offset by the investment the austerity was making sure would occur) and thus have allowed for easing off as the plans come to true fruition. Now it would be harder for Cuba to do this, but if we are lucky some friendly socdem governments might be elected in the West v soon so this could come to pass.
However, these are short-medium term, what Cuba needs to do long term is simple and I bet everyone is waiting for me to say it; introduce Cybernetics. Cuba still has a command economy, especially with regards to industry. Introduction of cybernetics into the commanding heights of the economy would drastically increase efficiency and allow it to better spend its resources. Ask any Cockshott fan in the Cockshott thread why.
In short, Cuba must a) coopertivise lower-level service sector enterprises free under government regulation, not direction, b) acquire credit for investment in institutions directly and prevent a debt trap by introducing austerity initially and easing off rather than the other way around c) introduce cybernetics in secondary and non-agrarian primary industry above a certain size.

Capitalists are opportunistic. They will invest wherever there is money to be made.


True, but to my knowledge these countries never implemented the kinds of measures I suggested, apart from maintaining a large state sector. Also they weren't particularly democratic to begin with, meaning that there was no real way for workers to check the powers of the bourgeoisie once they had taken control of the party.


Can you elaborate? What exactly did they do in terms of "fiscal changes"?


So now I'm confused, did the Laotians liberalize their economy partially or not? If not, what exactly did this austerity entail?


Broadly speaking I agree with you, however I worry about the dangers posed by borrowing rather than simply attempting to attract foreign capital, which admittedly has its own dangers. The question then is why has Cuba not done this? Surely they must be aware of both the Laotian model and Cockshott.

This is a really interesting topic with a lot of hard questions. I'm not nearly smart or knowledgeable enough to know what the solution is. Based on my knowledge, Cuba needs reform if they don't want to stay poor as shit forever, and try to deal with the problems you listed. I don't agree with ML's in 1st world countries who insist that Cuba is fine and that you're an imperialist tool if you think they have problems that need to be dealt with, when a lot of Cubans don't feel that way. I don't know if adequate reform without capitalist restoration is possible in the current situation though.

I think it's possible to maintain a dictatorship of the proletariat in a capitalist economy for a certain time, like the USSR during the NEP. I think it's less likely to work in the case of Cuba.

I'm definitely not sure about this, but I believe that if you want to attract foreign capital on a large scale then strong unions, social safety nets (funded by high taxation), workers rights, etc. all have to go. You mention Venezuela, and isn't that a perfect example? They introduced pretty mild social democracy and their national bourgeoisie absolutely flipped their shit and attempted a military coup and have been trying to fuck over the government ever since. Not even social democracy is allowed to exist in poor countries.

Also, even if capitalist reforms to attract foreign capital while maintaining a robust social democracy is successful, you run into the classic problem/contradiction inherent in social democracy and reformism. If the state become reliant on the profits generated in the capitalist sector to maintain all that nice social democracy stuff, then the government is forced to pursue "business friendly" politics (doesn't matter if the president is a hardcore ML). The capitalist sector gains power over politics immediately and after a few years the government is going to be run by capitalists completely, and at that point a transition back to socialism is extremely unlikely.

Everything would be so much fucking easier if the Soviet Union still existed.

Attached: 1.png (563x732, 344.18K)

Deng Xiaoping is accelerationist gang

Attached: 5c2969603b71b3dd79d549cc590b6c5ee65e7ed7.png (960x480, 292.78K)

DENG WAS RIGHT

Attached: DHzHoEjWAAIOuaQ.jpg (1200x840, 258.69K)

This is a definite risk, however it seems to me that wise investment on the part of the Cuban government would be able to deal with this problem. If Cuba were to spend the revenues from foreign investment on development projects not only of infrastructure, but industry, then they could eventually begin increasing their exports and pocketing the money directly. If they were to, for example, re-invest revenue from foreign capital into expanding their industrial base they could become a center of manufacturing and thus sell their goods to the west directly. This could also be used in tandem with the borrowing scheme outlined here The same is also true of the issue of attracting foreign capital while maintaining workers rights. Cuba is a small country, they don't need investment on the scale that China did, and so they may be able to squeeze by on relatively limited foreign investments, tourism, austerity (in the form of turning SOEs into co-ops) and a clever borrowing plan. Obviously I don't have the numbers to predict how feasible such a scheme would be, but from what I can tell as an outsider, they would have to pursue a plan somewhere along those lines.

...

I think the fact of the matter is, Cuba needs to introduce some special economic develpement zones (like for tourism and such) in order to obtain capital, to buy investment and help develop productive forces.
But not a single Cuban factory should be privately owned, just use the earning in this special zones, were some kind of private economic developement is permitted (but as I say in the form of tourism mainly) to develop the rest of your economy.
About were maybe Cuba should focus, this investment, Cuba really needs to step up it's agricultural sector, as they are highly dependent on foreign assets, for food safety (wich they have but as I say thanks to trade with other countries)
Also they need to secure their electrical independence, maybe wih this capital accomulated, sign up with a Chinese state firm to finish developing the Nuclear plant that was never completed after the fall of the USSR, wich could provide up to 15% of the energetic needs of the country.
And overall push for an improvement of economic planning such as it has been suggested by other people on this tred (by introducing computers, etc)
Still I see here some people think Cuba is kinda doing bad and such, and whilst they could be doing better no doubt. The Cuban economy is in it's best moment since 1990, the quality of life (measured by lots of statistics such as life expectancy) is steadely growing, as well as in terms of GDP, and even the agricultural production I've talked before, also their dependence on the Venezuelan aid in form of oilo, is fastly decereasing (last year it was stopped by lots,and still the Cuban ecoenomy grew)
I think that with Diaz-Canel Cuba has a great future ahead as he is a compromised Marxist-Leninist, that will defend it's country and the revolution, it is also kinda exciting to see what an introduction of new technology into planning and life in a socialist country will be.

Attached: Fidelposting.png (769x1025, 761.68K)

who knew capitalism was incompatible with socialism, this is the logical conclusion of a post-ussr world

i doubt foreign investers will invest in coops

Honestly this just reminds me of the arguments presented by that retarded Dengist in the last Cuba thread. It's not that Cuba isn't struggling, but you're greatly exaggerating it and also offering an incorrect solution. Cuba is not decaying, it is not stagnating, it is constantly improving.

Attached: cuba welfare ecology.jpg (850x522, 196.02K)

I'm not talking about coops, but about tourism and fully private bussineses (but only temporal concessions) in speciall zones,
I'm not talking about direct foreing investment in agriculture or industries, but about the Cuban goverment using the money won in this Special economic zones, to develop productive forces in agriculture and industroie, as they will have the cash needed to purchase the machinery and resources needed.
I think this is the way Cuba is going right now

Yeah this, Cuba could be doing better but their economy and quality of life has been improving constantly since 1993

Cuba sucks because of the embargo, plain and simple. The US has its hegemony backing its actions, so it doesn't have to play fair; it can bully Cuba as much as it pleases, and would only relent if Cuba became a neoliberal shithole instead of an M-L shithole.

If you control finance you control the movement of capital. I'm not up-to-date on Cuba's finance sector though.
IMO - if the economy is already socialized then there's no point in reverting to capitalism. To do that means to privatize things and go through another period of primitive accumulation like what happened in the USSR. China has allowed this to happen in a controlled fashion by holding onto big enterprises while letting the small ones dissolve or merge with capitalist enterprise. (Because even when the Chinese do something wrong they do it smart.)

Like the other poster said, Cuba needs to continue developing along socialist lines but also implement modern ideas like cybernetics. Implementing market reforms will simply fracture the economy and increase internal contradictions and conflicts.

Nice one, CIA

Attached: CUBAFREE.png (702x820 387.9 KB, 74.05K)

I mean by liberal standards.

Your points are all right and Valid.
Deng Xiaoping realized the same when he looked at China. China was not in a good state. There was widespread Poverty,low wages, GDP was stagnating.

He instated the reforms while holding on to the DoTP and the Main socialist mode of production. Same thing applied for Vietnam after decades of wars that ruined the country.

If the reforms didn't happen those countries would soon be ranover by Imperialism and would drop socialism once and for all.

You can read on Deng Xiaoping Theory here btw: dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com

Look I think what Deng did was kinda needed (we can discuss if it went to far), but comparing Cuba today to China in the 70s makes no sense, it would make no sense to reintroduce makets in Cuba to the degree than China, in Cuba life quality, and the economy has been constrantly rising since 1993, also the productive foreces are much more developed than in China were.
Although it shoudl be improved, it makes no sense to change Cuba's planned economy for foreign investement and markets , specially considering the weak position Cuba is in, were capitalists trying to revert the revolution would have hugge support by the USA.
Cuba maybe could introduce some foreing investment in tourist ventures, but mostly needs to keep improving economic planning.

Attached: China ultras.jpg (719x960, 68.65K)

Hey that's a cool paper and all, but the sources are literally just World Bank and IMF. It would be good to have a source from Laos or at least from someone in academia who is an expert on the subject.

I would imagine lots of people on Zig Forums, including myself, are curious about Laos as we all know next to nothing about this country.

Reforms, of course, always need to be put forward while considering the state of the productive forces and development of the country. Cuba could use some special economic zones, for trading with america or other countries, for example

The problem is with Special Economic Zones, it's extremly hard to stop capitalism from pouring into the country. China under Deng only had SEZ, nowadays you can found a basic bitch capitalist business pretty much everywhere in China. Business regulations aren't even that much more restrictive than in your usual western European country.

The DPRK had SEZ and managed to keep capitalism out of their main country, but even them are wagering recently, with commodities brought into the economy from China, and increasing joint-venture companies within the country (the whole story about the "money men" in North Korea seems to be bullshit though).

One problem is that two currencies, one capitalist, one socialist, are extremly hard to coexist with one another. To regulate the flow of foreign wages into the country, the Cuban government has to literally take away the wages of workers working for foreign investors, and pay them out with their domestic currency according to their own wages (regulated by the All-Union Council with the state, same for every respective industry as it is usually done in all ML states, even in China and Vietnam for the SoE) - in practice, because those foreign wages are higher, these workers feel often robbed of their fruits of their labor and no amount of Marxist theory about surplus extraction can change that. Recently, under Raul, there have been proposals to merge the exchange-Pesos with the domestic-Pesos, but this would be horrible for socialism: People would basically starting to accumulate money, MCM' would be in full effect, and as a consequence, the planning authorities would be completely neutered as a thorough influence and be degraded to mere "guiding systems", like it was in so many capitalist states in the second half of the 20th century (South Korea, Japan and India come to mind).

Cuba does try to pursue to preserve socialism by transforming the centrally planned economy into a decentrally planned economy, giving more cooperatives influence in the planning process, how successful this actually is going to be is an open question. I remain sceptical, with this much grassroots capitalism currently springing up in the country.

Well, I think they could develop such zones but nopt for industries or agriculture, but tourism, in order to obtein the currency needed to trade with capitalist countries.
But there is not need really of economic zones for trade with capitalist countries, I really suggest you read the 10th chapter of this book (Towards a New Socialism) to look on how trade with capitalist countries could be posiible in socialist countries even without even the use of currency .so Cuba as the USSR used to has it easier as they still use it)
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

Attached: Chinese 4 d chess.jpg (1350x951, 131.03K)

The US embargo obviously still hurts, but Cuba isn't nearly as isolated as the DPRK, for example. The fucking EU has it's own Cuba-EU relations center, and Cuba can trade with much of the rest of the world.
Feel free to enjoy Haiti

Thank you, I'll look into it!

Thanks Leninhat, I've been wanting to find some theory by the Dengster for a while now.

I personally reckon that the anti-poverty campaign in China is motivated by a Socialist ethos. I'm willing to give them a chance.

Attached: e80df66f4468f11cf22f2c154bba321435b7cbedc10d68e591ef00de56cad404.png (600x750, 400.42K)

That is why I'm calling about controling the kind of investment possible in such zones (industries, agriculture and finances banned of course) just use it for tourist ventures , were the cash recieved from this foreign investment is used by the cuban state to trade the resources and machinery needed for developing the productive forces, but as I say this being done by the state, not by direct foregn investment in this productive forces,such how it happened in China.

I think "Chinese socialism" has some good points, but Deng was absolute shit. He was totally aligned with US foreign policy. Fortunately the CPC has backed off from his treachery.

No Problem!


Deng's foreign policy was shit, yes but his theory helped to save Chinese Socialism and laid out the way for underdeveloped/3rd World countries to achive the advanced stage of Socialism

Why do people do this? I can't count the amount of memes that I would have saved if I didn't cringe this badly at the font.

Those are working class memes you boujje fuck

Attached: SAD LENIN.jpg (250x267, 11K)

Comic sans is the only proletarian font

I was able to find English sources for all of these except for eliminating homelessness. Do you have a source for that claim??

very good post. sums up some of the problems that cuba faces.

Cuban constitution guarantees the right to live in a house,if you have nowhere to live the state provides a house (same as it was in the USSR and other socialist countries)
Here are some english articles on no homelesness

housingfinance.org/uploads/Publicationsmanager/Caribbean_Cuba_HousinginCastrosCuba.pdf

fresnoalliance.com/homeless-in-cuba-not-likely/

...

Hey Leninhat. I've been coming round to the "Chinese Model" insofar as economics is concerned (not a fan of the ML political system however). My remaining mental block is the lack of direct or even indirect control over the workplace by the chinese worker. I understand why chinese firms have to operate under market principles, but I don't understand why it's necessary to run state enterprizes like dictatorships. Otherwise I have little problem with the Chinese model economically.

bump

China sees their Market as temporarily it is used to boost productive forces and will perish when those standarts are met (2050 is the goal).

So the SOEs are very important they guarantee the workers the MoP and they make up the main socialist mode of production in China. Workplace democracy in this sector is happening through the All China trade union wich already made a Operating collective agreement with more than half of all Chinese Buisnesses. There is also the Staff and Workers’ Representative Congress wich is active in all layers of the Chinese economy especially in the SOE 's but in the Big Private corporations too. In additon to that, there are also CPCh Cells in every Private enterprise with over 100 Workers, that takes a big part in the direction the Buisness heads and puts pressure on the Manager.

I've compiled some links for you wich you can read if you want to learn more

SWRC
en.people.cn/92824/92845/92869/6439952.html

Trade union
china.org.cn/english/DAT/214784.htm

CPCh Cells in Buisnesses
nytimes.com/2018/04/13/business/china-communist-party-foreign-businesses.html

Attached: Screenshot_1.jpg (521x324 25.89 KB, 31.58K)

forgot flag

Attached: laughing anime girl.gif (480x270, 1.58M)

Yes.

Attached: Deng_Xiaoping_billboard_01.jpg (2692x1576, 3.41M)

real motherfuckin proletarian state hours

Attached: gu-xi gang.jpg (563x732 407.28 KB, 344.18K)

someone post the poster of deng where mao's portrait is covered by balloons

you won't stop posting the same pics won't you?

First pic doesn't really matter since those are 100 billionaires out of a 3000 members parliament with some reserved for non communist parties and There are also priests in the NPC but you don't see people calling it a theocracy.

second pic
what matters is what Xi Jinping is actually doing, not his wealth. There have been wealthy supporters of socialism, most famously Frederick Engels.

I don't think it's much more relevant to the socialist character of China than if one were to point to the privileges enjoyed by Soviet leaders as "proof" that the USSR couldn't have been socialist.

His family is rich, therefore he has money. "No assets were traced to Mr Xi himself, his wife Peng Liyuan, or their daughter. There is also no indication that Mr Xi helped to advance his relatives' business, or of any wrongdoing by Mr Xi or his family, Bloomberg said." (telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9365099/Chinas-incoming-president-Xi-Jinpings-family-has-wealth-of-hundreds-of-millions.html)

With that being the case, the argument becomes a moralistic one of "having a lot of money is bad," even though if Xi practiced asceticism I doubt his politics would be much different.

third pic
cbsnews.com/news/usa-china-income-inequality-economic-research/


You post these time and time again and we have the same debate time and time again.

no

nice digits

Would Engels have kept his property under socialism? Could you even call that socialism?

Attached: marx pepe.png (549x413, 71.95K)

bumpy

You got too indoctrinated by Ismail. I agree with you that the assumption of many leftoids that China = basic bitch capitalism is wrong, but you cannot say China is a socialist society, come on

The truth is in the middle dude

Attached: cuba ball.png (1080x1620, 339.62K)

thanks


Idk if he would the point still stands though.


Ismail is right in every way but he isn't the only one who introduced me to Chinese Socialism my party also had lots of Articles on China and I did some researching myself. Ismail got me hooked on it but didn not intoctrinated me in any way

I don't care if there is no nepotism involved. Xi supports the whole capitalist class.

Reasons to Support China 1/3
youtube.com/watch?v=NzJhT2AVaEs
Market 'Socialism' - The USSR and China
youtube.com/watch?v=tV7Oa-0NDE

How? By fighting them?

ft.com/content/6e012f42-1dae-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

I know the CPGB-ML positions on China but the second link isn't working :(

pardon me
youtube.com/watch?v=tV7Oa-0NDE8

ffs, meant to also type:
it's less adressing you, just felt like sharing this as general input on the issue

Thank you!
I didn't know the CPGB-ML speaks at Chinese Events and Political Asseblies and I dind't know China recognizes this small party and works well with them! Really cool from the CPCh that they work with Communist parties all around the world and don't care about the size or importance of them!

I also compiled a big reading list with Articles on China (with two really big Reading lists in it but some aren't included in those) I can post it if you want but it isn'T really well organized and it is in german with some German links in it

they also attend meetings such as the "International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties", interestingly the CPGB-ML doesn't participate there however
i recon they don't care for a parties size and power since that's always a temporary matter

CPGB-ML wanted to join but the CPB denied the Access and the mebership wich is why they didn't got in. Here is the answer of the CPGB-ML to that
tapatalk.com/groups/formercommunists/cpgb-ml-s-reply-to-the-lies-and-slanders-of-the-cp-t517.html#p3878

That was an interesting read, fuck unjustified sectarianism withink MLs
Thanks!

What fight? There's still billionaires.

No Problem!


You see this also in the development of Billionaires in the CPCh and the NPC


_

According to the Hurun report, which tracks the fortunes of China’s wealthiest people, the number of renminbi billionaires who will be attending next week’s sessions of the country’s new parliament and a parallel advisory body has fallen to 153 from 209 in the 12th National People’s Congress, which sat from 2012 to 2017."
ft.com/content/6e012f42-1dae-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

Also in it isn't very uncommon that Millionaires get kidnapped or just vanish for some time before coming back. Sometimes they just die in Accidents and this happens very regulairy- Almost once in a month a Billionair dies in China. More than that they get visits from the CPCh and vanish.

In this case the CPCh arrested the CEO of a big Insurance buisness and just nationalized it
and this isn't the only istance of that happening.

thenational.ae/world/asia/xi-jinping-tells-chinese-billionaires-to-play-by-the-rules-1.709443

China wages a big war against Billionaires and you can see that.

xinhuanet.com/english/2017-09/30/c_136651533.htm

forbes.com/sites/raykwong/2011/07/25/friends-dont-let-friends-become-chinese-billionaires/#6a11150c2dda

business-standard.com/article/international/any-chinese-billionaire-may-fall-warns-xi-jinping-to-investors-118030200150_1.html

archive.is/OEhBP

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (605x899, 575.3K)

the absolute state of the "worker's party"
And as someone mentioned in another thread a while back, power isn't distributed equally among party members.

that is the growth of workers

the majority of the CPCh is farmers wich makes sense since China's revolutionairy subject where peasants not the industrial workers

also

...

...

Interesting how most of the criticism of the CPC in Zig Forums is literal ad-hominem and whataboutism, while supporters are at least trying to provide research and some arguments based on marxism.

It's like how the board's stance on the DPRK was at first openly hostile. I guess this board will also warm up to the CPC over time.

How? You think it's an ad-hominem to point out that Xi Jinping is a hundred-millionaire and a bunch of people in the NPC and the party are literal billionaire capitalists? If you're a Marxist it's highly relevant to look at the class composition of the people in the party and government, as one point of the investigation into the class character of the Chinese state.

Attached: lenin hat porky.png (370x398, 106.19K)

Attached: canwefixit.jpg (600x562, 43.15K)

Got to keep the guillotines sharpened somehow.

Have you ever considered that perhaps Socialist states need to be self sufficient so that they can produce for themselves and trade for the rest? Yknow, perhaps they, need to be selfsufficient so that, ykno, can continue to be selfsufficient outside of Capitalist dependency.

Yes, which you would immediately acknowledge by reading the very definition of ad-hominem on any dictionary.

I didn't bother to read the rest of your shitpost.

This Jacobin thonk piece reads like it's from the New York Times. I question the usefulness of statements like people have to get by with a budget of X per day in societies that allocated many things and services at subsidized prices or for free.
You need natural resources, means of production, people with the skills. Not necessarily capital.
Cash comes out of a printing machine.
Being a country that stigmatizes slave owners, it will have a hard time attracting slave owners. Be clear in your language. If you mean that Cuba desperately needs to import particular technology it can't create on its own, then say that.
Venezuela has incompetent politicians making regulations that invite corruption, whether there are ebul foreigners in the country or not. Again, what does it mean, "fleeing capital"? If it means machinery being dismantled and brought out of the country, that's a problem. If you just think about habbenings in money accounts, it really isn't that important.
At least of the level of half or a quarter?
>Impose political restrictions on the bourgeoisie (…) barred from voting
There WILL be international ruling-class backlash against that, so you might as well go full Stalin.

>What Cuba needs to do is domestically increase productivity and thus income for the government from taxation.
Upside-down view. The government doesn't need an income to buy what's the island, it already owns the stuff. It doesn't need to tax to obtain its own currency, the currency comes out of a printer. You can think of the currency the government gets via taxation as going straight into the shredder. Taxation is thus an anti-inflationary activity. People having tax debt gives people an incentive to obtain the currency.


I guess Special Economic Zones with vastly different rules than the rest of the country are better than doing a smaller rule change for the entire country which might then go over a tipping point.

You should have.

wtf i'm a dengist now

Attached: socialism (2).jpg (488x862, 160.59K)

That in not entirely correct from my observations. Capitalists are power-savvy, they invest with control as long-term objective.

What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this in the past. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people’s material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People’s Republic was that we didn’t pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Poverty is not socialism, still less communism.

Attached: 220px-Deng_Xiaoping_and_Jimmy_Carter_at_the_arrival_ceremony_for_the_Vice_Premier_of_China._-_NARA_-_183157-restored(cropped).jpg (220x277, 11.45K)

Could you explain this?

It was before the split because we didn't purge liberal and redditor elements yet

That didn't work in Stalinist Russia or Dengist China though. Those two eras saw capitalists investing in those countries with huge capital and technology tranfers while the countries reaped the benefits.

Is this pasta right? Part 1
The Communist Party of China is the vanguard both of the Chinese working class and of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation. It is the core of leadership for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics and represents the development trend of China’s advanced productive forces, the orientation of China’s advanced culture and the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people. The realization of communism is the highest ideal and ultimate goal of the Party. Constitution Of The Communist Party Of China
What does the CPC think it’s doing? The CPC uses a lot of specialised language which is impenetrable at first, but it becomes very familiar once you know what everything means. The core idea behind a lot of what the CPC does is the idea of the primary and advanced stages of socialism. Primary-stage socialism is characterised by underdeveloped productive forces, which themselves prohibit the development of advanced social relations. Advanced-stage socialism is characterised by highly-developed productive forces and material abundance. As Marx eloquently put it in The German Ideology: it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse To summarise, the project of socialism is advancing society towards communism, and the prerequisite of this advancement is an advanced material-technical base. This is especially the case for countries such as China, which was kept in chronic underdevelopment as the part of legacy of imperialist plundering. This isn’t at all a new idea, it’s just a more concrete articulation of preexisting ideas that you’re probably already familiar with. For example, at the 1st Zhengzhou Conference, when asked about the necessity of commodity relations in the construction of Chinese socialism, Mao responded by reaffirming that China was in the initial stage of socialism. Stalin talked about it at length in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4
This brings us to the next question. Can the CPC actually pull it off? Can the CPC actually pull it off? If we think of primary-stage socialism as a transitional stage, like the NEP, will the CPC actually be able to make good on the implicit promise they’ve made to 1.379 billion people? Here’s my take: absolutely. The SASAC (China’s State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, which answers directly to the State Council) has a state monopoly in every important industry sector — here are a few: aerospace airlines, aluminum, architecture & design, automotive, aviation, banking, chemicals, coal, cotton, electronics, engineering, forestry, heavy equipment, gold, grain, heavy machinery, intelligence services, iron, materials, metallurgy, mining, non-ferrous metals, nuclear energy, ocean shipping, oil, pharmaceuticals, postal services, rail, salt, science and technology research, ship building, silk, steel, telecoms, travel utilities Not only do they own all of these critical strategic sectors — out of the twenty largest companies in China, all twenty of them are controlled by the SASAC, or by local governments (with the exception of Noble Group, which is based in Hong Kong). This evidently puts the PRC government in the same position as the USSR in the twenties with the New Economic Policy, where the state retained control over the heights of industry. The key difference between the two is that although the USSR from 1921–1928 had no comprehensive system of economic planning, the Chinese government has been using Five-Year Plans ever since 1953. Another difference is that the Soviet state had nowhere near this amount of leverage. Combined with modern information technology and an extremely pervasive technical infrastructure, this ultimately puts the CPC in a much, much stronger position than the CPSU when it comes to entering into the advanced stage of socialism, and in the end, towards the realisation of world communism. To summarise, the CPC has not deviated from Marxism-Leninism, and has faithfully and successfully carried out the task of socialist development. The PRC is a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the backbone of the Chinese economy continues to be socialist state planning. Furthermore, the CPC is in an excellent position to carry out the long-term goal of attaining advanced socialism. But a word of caution is necessary: the bourgeoisie is active in China, and it is actively working to overthrow the socialist CPC. Calls for multiparty liberal bourgeois “democracy” are ever-present, and the next economic crisis will bring the contradictions that characterise modern Chinese society to the foreground. The PRC’s socialist character does not render all of our work null and void , dwarfed by the unprecedented magnitude of Chinese socialist construction — instead, it’s a good reason to stand with China, stand with the Chinese people, and to work even harder to realise communism on a global scale.

In Marxist terminology, capital isn't a term for means of production in a general ahistorical sense (e. g. abolishing capital doesn't mean to destroy all means of production). So movement of capital isn't meant in the general sense of physical machinery being dismantled and moved elsewhere (such a procedure happening under communism won't be called movement of capital), it refers to money moving between accounts, and that money being linked with control over physical means of production.

The post you reply to didn't work in Stalinist Russia? Could you be more specific?

oof, I fucked up the formatting

Very good stuff, saved.

Source?

Attached: China.png (1276x1400, 383.07K)

source for that

medium.com/@wolf.aldrich/three-questions-about-china-and-the-communist-party-of-china-7056e40b40f3

Sorry, The text is not mine, I just posted it here to hear Zig Forums's opinion.

Firstly, thank you for The sources.
Secondly I know that many people on Zig Forums doesn't like you very much, but imo it's good to hear a different opinion about this topic, and your posts really changed my view on modern day China, and got me interested in the topic. Thank you again, and keep up the good work!

Attached: ef10e225c3f42ec7679fec9b56d32ad3f986fbdda28f252b6c07d4e44b0dabcd.jpg (200x200, 10.29K)

I forgot what i was replying to in your post tbh. But in russia stalin imported technology using short term loans from the west secured on favorable terms due to the great depression and even so he played the capitalist games with timely payments gotten on grain extraction from the countryside, so even SU was playing by the capitalist logic of balance of payments, capital accumulation etc. without which industry could not have been built. Same for China under Deng if i'm not mistaken.

have fun with ur inflation

You don't understand what he's trying to explain. You don't need money to do anything in a planned economy because you don't rely on private capital accumulation - which then leads to inflation if the state decides to print money to compete.

Thank you for your kind words!

I'am happy that my Posts here helped some Anons!

workers.org/2015/07/21/china-rising-wages-and-worker-militancy/

Seriously fuck offf