Was it Xi Jinping? I think people agreed that he was in some ways "more" socialist than his predecessors, but that isn't saying much. Xi hasn't made the party any more working class, he isn't going to roll back private property, markets or generalized commodity production in any way (in fact, the Chinese state's passive-aggressive reaction to Paul Cockshott's works being translated into Chinese implies that the CPC is somewhat threatened by the sort of Marxism that does call for these things), workers still have essentially no rights, I haven't seen any evidence China is supporting socialist revolutionaries abroad, so on and so forth. All I've seen him do is arrest a few corrupt porkies and promote the idea of this "Chinese Dream", a prosperity ideology lifted almost wholesale from the American Dream, but a little more socdem (which many people seem to have mistaken for socialism). Other than the purely superficial, is there anything concrete the CPC is doing that hints at a real Marxist program, or is this merely the tendency of some Western socialists to basically jerk off to any strongman who isn't a complete neoliberal Western puppet?
What started the "CPC is socialist" meme?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
workers.org
thenextrecession.wordpress.com
thenextrecession.wordpress.com
xinhuanet.com
twitter.com
That it organized the economy in such a way that 90 % of it is state/publicly owned?
...
TBH nations like Australia and Sweden are more Capitalist than the USA.
According to this:
en.wikipedia.org
Public sector employment 50% at most in China.
And, besides, socialism isn't SOEs.
Once again, I'd love to hear just one actually socialist policy the CPC are pursuing.
Hardmode: it can't be something you'd say is just succdem reformism if people like the Democrat Cops of America were behind it instead
...
You forgot your leftcom flag.
Xi Jimping is an ultraleftist that is fucking China the same way the gang of four did, destroying the progress made by mao and Comrade DENG XIAOPING with his idealist ultra approach.
He is what Lenin denounced in his book "Left wing Communism an infantile disorder"
You forgot your argument
That is just not true though
oh hell yeah fuck me up fam
Well marxist economists write it like that so …
Could you link some works explaining this?
well that's new.
And they're wrong. Only like 50% of the population is employed by the state tops.
fuck off
uh huh, sure
more like impossible-mode:
China is socialist, tho. Historical developments of economic and political systems are not homogenous. Marx specifically outlines this in capital vol.1 around the end of the book.
Don't bother. Most of this board are brainlets that hardly red any theory at all. Maybe some Chomsky and a few quotes from Marx.
Fuck.
Literally the only reason why you guys defend this shit is because the organization in charge calls itself the “Communist Party”, but you can’t provide any evidence that they’re functionally different from succdems at the best of times when they’re not outright neoliberal. I’m not disputing that Xi has brought some steps in the right direction, but has brought just as many steps in the wrong direction which you fuckers just drink the coolaid on because muh bid daddy strongman.
:DD
Because, unlike succdems, they realize this is not the finished product, this is not their final goal. They talk about this all the time.
Why are there so many morons up there? Hurr durr they aren't full on moneyless luxury gay space communism utopia or "they didn't achieve communist utopia in a few decades therefore they are just porky."
Absolutely pathetic. Where do you get such a mindset form?
Only some one who knows nothing of the organizational structure of the communist party of China and Chinese politics in general could possibly say something like this.
The party is headed by democratically elected officials who represent specific regions of China; representatives voted in by the people themselves.
Yes, again, the party is and has been corrupt but the ever expanding influence of capital and the bourgeois does not make that any less of what it is; this is a class conflict waged across the globe And again: Economic and political developments are not homogenous.
Thee Chinese economy is run by the government which is run by the people. Even the private enterprises are still subjugated to the will annd demands of the communist government.
It’s okay for them to not be full communist if they’re moving in that direction.
Which they aren’t. You can’t even name a concrete way that they’re moving in that direction. Nothing suggests that they’re moving away from state capitalism, even Xi’s “Chinese Dream” is just state capitalism with succdem characteristics.
Whit every step. Massively improving living conditions and productive forces. Getting more and more public services on track.
"The Report makes a fundamental political conclusion that the principal contradiction facing Chinese society has evolved, although China remains in the primary stage of socialism. As Chinese socialism has entered a new era, what we now face is the contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life. After nearly 40 years of development since reform and opening up began, major changes have taken place in two aspects of the principal contradiction facing Chinese society. First, China’s productive forces have improved overall, and now the prominent problem is that our development is unbalanced and inadequate. Second, not only have the people’s material and cultural needs grown, their demands for a better life are becoming greater with regard to democracy, rule of law, fairness and justice, security, and a better environment. The evolution of the principal challenge facing Chinese society marks a historic shift that affects the whole landscape and creates many new demands for the work of the Party and the country. Nevertheless, the evolution of the principal challenge facing Chinese society does not change the basic dimension of the Chinese context – that China is still in the primary stage of socialism, nor does it change China’s international status as the world’s largest developing country."
"we must also build on this achievement to embark on a new journey toward the second centenary goal of building a modern socialist country. This is our strategic vision for developing Chinese socialism in the new era: becoming a moderately prosperous society, move on to basically realizing modernization, and then turn to making China a great modern socialist country in every dimension."
In the first stage of 2020-2035, we will build on the foundation created by the moderately prosperous society with a further 15 years of hard work to see that socialist modernization is basically realized. This means China’s goal of realizing modernization will be reached 15 years ahead of the original plan. In the second stage from 2035 to the middle of the 21st century, we will, on the basis of having basically achieved modernization, work hard for a further 15 years and develop China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful.
applying a new vision of development and developing a modernized economy; improving the system of institutions through which the people run the country and developing socialist democracy; building stronger cultural confidence and helping socialist culture to flourish; growing better at ensuring and improving people’s wellbeing and strengthening and developing new approaches to social governance;
Without reform and opening up, there would be no Chinese socialism, and the flourishing China we see today would not exist. After the 18th National Congress, we incorporated comprehensively deepening reform into the “Four Comprehensives” strategy, and pushed forward all aspects of reform with a swift and steady pace, thus achieving striking results and injecting the progress of all of our endeavors with powerful momentum. However, we must also be conscious of the fact that both the evolution of our undertakings and the continuation of reform are processes to which there is no end, for the progress of our endeavors on all fronts demands that reform be carried to a deeper level across the board. This is what I meant when I said that reform is always in motion and never reaches a point of conclusion. Comprehensively deepening reform remains the fundamental impetus for upholding and developing Chinese socialism in the new era. As we voyage through the new era, all Party members must adapt to the progress of the Chinese socialist cause, keep a firm grip on our overall goals of improving and developing the system of Chinese socialism and modernizing China’s governance systems and capacity, and oversee the advancement of reform in all fields and facets. We will persistently drive theoretical, institutional, technological, and cultural innovation along with other innovations in various fields, be resolute in completely eliminating outdated thinking and rooting out the ills in our systems and mechanisms, and break through the barrier of vested interests. In these ways, we will provide our efforts to achieve moderate prosperity and embark toward our next objective of becoming a modern socialist country with a powerful push forward.
In world history, of the countries and regions that have already modernized, the majority did so in nearly 300 years following the Industrial Revolution. However, in the space of just one century, China needs to complete a process of modernization that took place over the course of several centuries in developed countries. This is a transition not only of extraordinary speed and scale, but also of extraordinary breadth, depth, and difficulty. Therefore, it is an essential requirement and historic task of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era that we strive to become a moderately prosperous society and a great modern socialist country with resolve and tenacity.
It says literally nothing. They want to advance “reform”, what reform? Nothing specific, only vagueness. Am I supposed to be impressed by him using the word “socialism”? He probably means “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”, ie- mixed market state capitalism
These are steps taken by every capitalist power.
Take that hat off and pick up a book fgt
Socialism is when le goberben't owns the means of productions and uses plans. It is just the baby stage of socialism because they still use the market for allocation of commodities.
But zie pure gommonists aren't able to oonderstand
Ebil gommonist yellow people party isn't real socialist because they didn't establish a communist utopia with the productive forces developed on par with Somalia.
Only khmer rouge is real gommunism because they abolished money and any kind of property in a month. That is why they were so great.
It says nothing if you're an illiterate idiot. They clearly state that they were developing the forces of production because China was 3 centuries behind the west. Now they caught up and became the 2nd biggest economy in the world, soon to be 1st. They will now start improving the living standard of their people to be on par with an average western state.
When they will achieve this, they will make a leap from the baby "state capitalism" step towards a more socialist society.
You are probably also a history moron so one has to explain to you that China has been a major power since almost ancient Egyptian times, but especially since Roman times. They lagged behind in the 19th century and they have only now eliminated most of this. Chinese leaders don't view time from year to year, but in decades and even centuries. And they made a step back in order to survive and get the possibility to move socialism forward. By the end of the century they will be the unchallenged global socialist power. Then they will also slowly start to export socialism to the world to destroy the society governed by nationalist states, replacing them instead with a world socialist order.
They mentioned exactly zero actual socialist reforms they wanted to put forward and, as I pointed out before, the “socialism” they’re referencing is “Socislism with Chinese Characteristics”, which for them means mixed market state capitalism.
I’ve asked for one, just one concrete way in which they’re moving towards socialism, and all I’ve gotten is derided for my lack of faith and vague shit that could quite possibly aid in socialist development if you look at it sideways and squint and use a lot of imagination.
I do like the accusation that I’m racist and then an appeal to ancient oriental wisdom in the same breath, though.
The progress of the preceding period (1949-91), which had not been exactly slow, compares with the rapidity with which the whole of China’s national economy, and with it Chinese banking, progressed during this period (1991-2018) in about the same way as the speed of the mail coach in the good old days compares with the speed of the present-day automobile which is whizzing past so fast that it endangers not only innocent pedestrians in its path, but also the occupants of the car. In its turn, this finance capital which has grown with such extraordinary rapidity is not unwilling, precisely because it has grown so quickly, to pass on to a more “tranquil” possession of colonies which have to be seized — and not only by peaceful methods — from richer nations. The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?
CPC is socialist
The point is socialism is not enough
Those are two totally different things; like I said you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
No u
They are Socialist and are moving forward to an advanced socialist society with extremly high developed productive forces. Both Public and Private Enterprises are forced to work to this goal since it is the goal of the Government and the Five Year plans outline these goals. Moving torwards Socialism isn't nationalizing Private non MoP Industries, you have a wrong Perception of Socialism, the thinking that more Nationalizing equals more Socialism is wrong. To expect from Countries with heavily underdeveloped Productive forces not to accept foreign investment in order to develop them is very Childish. It favors a Socialist society with a backward but 100% public owned economy with hunger,Poverty and stagnation over a Socialist Society with developing Productive Forces but a Private Sector wich is forced to work in favor of Socialism, and wich doesn't even consist of any MoP. Everytime China's economy grows and their Productive Forces grow they move closer to Socialism, only if they still hold onto the DoTP and the heights of the economy (MoP). Socialism with Charachteristics doesn't mean exactly a mixed economy, it means, for the Chinese, that they adapt Socialism to the specific Material conditions China has, since those are the underdeveloped Productive Forces it meant in Deng times, letting a private Sector flourish so the Productive Forces could be developed. It isn't a other vision of Socialism it means adapting it to your conditions, wich isn't anything Revisionist, it is perfectly consistent with Marxism. Soviet Socialism was also Socialism adapted to Soviet conditions same in Cuba,Germany,Vietnam, etc
Ever heard of capital accumulation?
...
They have pursued absolutely no socialist policies.
Been reading this thread very closely and haven't seen any concrete moves towards adopting socialist policy.
I get the idea behind trying to become an unchallenged superpower so that socialism can flourish and therefore enforce other nations to play along, which would cause lasting change under a global economy extremely hostile towards growing socialism.
However, what is a single socialist policy that isn't a mixed economy? So far, these comments are just promises of socialism which could be understood to be a way to placate the masses. Why should we trust multi billionaires to turn their nation socialist when it would go against their own vested interests?
He said that last year, more than 90 percent of new jobs were created by private businesses.
xinhuanet.com
The claim that the Chinese economy is over 90% state owned is completely false (not that over 90% state ownership would necessarily be synonymous with a socialist mode of production anyway).
This board really has changed a lot. I'm pretty much a ML, and I was here when everyone bought into the "leftcoms are super intelligent and well read theory wizards, let's become leftcoms and suck each other off" meme and it was absolutely insufferable, but as this board has become more openly hostile to non-ML's, the quality of the board has gone way, waaayyy down. There haven't been any polls on this but seems like about 30%-40% of the board now believe China is currently a socialist country, which is absolutely laughable. I am sure most of these new "ML" posters are migrants from r/communism or something because they are a bunch of totally illiterate retards.
China is socialist.
So they are in a perpetual process of building socialism, hmm…I've heard something very similar before :DDDDDDDDDD
Also to those attempting to cite Margs :DDDD can bolitical superstructure be ahead (more advanced :DD) of the relations of broduction? :DDDDD I dunno guys, my dialectics is a bit rusty :DD pls no bulli :DD
Bet I'd is ismail :D:D:D
this, stop with this "billions of exploited workers, dis is de brice of communism" bullshit. it is a misreading of marx and the development of productive forces doesnt mean socialists should institute capitalism to push the plot along
Good post
Ismail isn't even a Hoxhaist.
Why such a brainlet. That is all you have to say? Really?
Is that all you have to say?
This WOULD be seemingly a contradiction of the CCP's communist ideology until you realize the CCP does not claim this to be Socialism and instead calls this "Primary stage socialism"
What we see here is a "Social Market Economy" AKA a Highly Regulated and Monitored Market economy allowed to exist to build Productive forces and encourage technological progress in the PRC which will be essential for building socialism at a later point
Well sorta except the PRC has not yet even achieved a highly developed form of capitalism much less socialism
Meanwhile the USSR by the 60s had built a industrialized technologically modern Socialist economy and the focus instead moved to building communism
"Primary stage of socialism" obviously implies that it is a form of socialism, which it isn't.
Why can't you just call it what it is, capitalism? A market economy, where there's private property operated for profit, a bourgeoisie, a proletariat, commodified labour, all which exist in China, is a capitalist economy. State regulation does not make an obviously capitalist economy somehow non-capitalist. The ruling party calling itself communist does not make an obviously capitalist economy somehow non-capitalist.
Lenin was completely honest about how the NEP was a capitalist stage of development. Not a "socialist market economy" or "primary stage of socialism" or any of these euphemisms that the CPC and their online defense force uses.
Well, not anymore. He was.
It's kinda annoying when you prove that ultra-left Hoxhaism-Stalinism is wrong - and the man goes to the opposite side, becoming right-wing Khrushchevite.
Very much this.
I Admit it is quite misleading but its important to understand these things
The Main difference between the capitalist (Yes i admit it is) Market that exists in the PRC and the Capitalist model that exists in the rest of the world is that the Chinese Capitalist Market is kept under the foot of the DoP and the CCP
In Effect "Primary stage of Socialism" is Simply the PRC's Analogue of NEP cranked up to 10 to catch up to the Capitalist world and its investment colonies in Asia (Taiwan Japan SK etc)
okay now you're talking out your ass. he literally considers Khrushchev to be an incompetent and hypocritical leader. he's more of a "Brezhnevite" if anything but even then he doesn't consider Brezhnev all that great as either.
Literally the only reason that people call Ismail a "Khrushchevite" (Which is dumb since Khrushchev was just a M-L himself) is because he dosent believe the Stalinboo shit anymore about Stalin = "100% Good"
Khrushchev = "100% Ebil"
That at least makes you more honest than most of the Dengoids I've interacted with on here and other online left spaces.
I'm still not convinced that China is a DotP. Xi is extremely wealthy (way wealthier than any Soviet leader could dream of), there are more than 100 billionaires in the National People's Congress, and many of China's richest people (some of the richest people on the planet) have good relationships with the CPC. If China is a DotP it sure doesn't look like one.
This is technically correct, but the point that that user was trying to make was perfectly clear.
Your credibility just reached negative levels.
Ive stated this dozens of times in other threads but here goes again i guess
Cornman for all his faults did not change the Political or Economic Structure of the USSR in enough of a significant way to cause it to cease being M-L in Rhetoric or Societal / economic organization
Why should it matter? He embraces Khrushchev's theory, even if he rejects his practice. Ismail doesn't recognize the essence of Khrushchev's Revisionism. That's what makes him Khrushchevite.
Brezhnevism is not a separate ideology, it's a less radical version of Khrushchev's Revisionism. It is a Social-Democracy stuck in Socialist state.
Firstly, he DID change political structure.
Secondly, you fail at theory. ML is an ideology. What you meant to say is that economy remained Socialist (despite a lot of effort spent by Khrushchev to make it Liberal).
Either way, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC BEING DISCUSSED
Khrushchev did change theory, and it is theory we are talking about.
Are you one of these people that claims that any socialist state that existed after 1953 wasnt socialist?
In what Major ways?
Did he Give up the Vanguards power?
Did he Abandon DemCen?
Did allow Liberal elections?
Where in any theory is this written? How do you differentiate? Retarded fucker.
How do you know? Did the CNN or The New York Times report on the ebil Xi billionare dictator who is destroying his people?
Marx wrote that the most advanced capitalist states will move towards socialism. China ain't the most advanced capitalist state yet. And we have seen what happens in badly developed capitalist states when you force things before the material conditions are right.
Then everyone should wait before Germoney becomes gommunist? I dond get id :DDDDDDDDD
t. Menshevik
Is it feasible or good to raise the standard of living (and rates of consumption) of 1.4 billion Chinese to catch up with Western standards? What has it got to do with socialism? This obsession with economic growth is an environmental disaster.
No. Also you really need to learn how to read. I clarified the opposite.
This is shaping up into yet another "discussion" that requires from me to explain Marxism, Soviet history, structure of Soviet Union, all the reforms of 1953-1961, ideological and political changes, and do it in an exhausting detail - that would take multiple books to compile - while you will be gloating and shitposting like an utter retard all the way.
If I learned anything, 12-year old kids on the internet are invincible - and you clearly seem to be the one, since you either have no intentions of arguing honestly, nor you seem know anything about the topic.
So, until you explain me my position properly, until you explain me the essence of Khrushchevite Revisionism - the one you should know, if you are trying to argue against it - I'm surrendering. You won this. There was no revisionism. Communist movement split for no reason, Soviet economy started stagnating because Planning doesn't work, and USSR fell apart because West won Cold War.
Stop whining, I'am happy that more Anons learn from Socialist China. When I started posting not even one user was on my side on these threads but now it seems that more and more people realize that China is socialist (maybe my posts where what conviced them, if that was the case I would be very happy.) I'am glad that I helped people here
I use the Hoxha flag cos I probably would've sided with Albania back in the 70s, but I still think China is a socialist state despite all the reforms.
So you agree that China is not in fact socialist then?
I didn't say or imply any of those things, you retarded Dengoid.
read hoxha
A clear sign of the degeneration of Zig Forums.
I want remind dengcucks and add this that all this was done in an underdeveloped semi-feudal country and not in a developed socialist state.
At the Twelfth National Congress comrades who had made mistakes were handled with circumspection. After the downfall of the Gang of Four, the comrade in charge of the work of the Central Committee at the time clung to a “Left” political line and put forward a wrong ideological line known as the “two whatevers”. As I have said before, if Chairman Mao had still been around, he would never have accepted that line, because it was not in conformity with Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. For one thing, if the “two whatevers” had been followed, I would never have come back to work. I came back in July 1977, nine months after the Gang of Four had been smashed. It was then that I was allowed to attend the meetings of the Central Committee. After my return, I put forward the idea that the essence of Mao Zedong Thought was seeking truth from facts, and that gave rise to a debate about whether practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. At the time, some people opposed the debate. In June 1978 I delivered a speech about this ideological line at an all-army conference on political work. Later, when I was on my way back from a visit to your country, I made similar speeches in the three provinces of Northeast China [Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning].
After about one year of debate, at the end of 1978 we convened the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee. At that session we criticized the idea of the “two whatevers” and put forward instead the slogan “We must emancipate our minds and use our heads.” We declared that we had to integrate theory with practice and proceed from reality in everything we did, affirmed that practice was the sole criterion for judging truth and reestablished the ideological line of seeking truth from facts. It was after we resolved the question of the ideological line that we were able to formulate correct new policies. These include, above all, the policy of shifting the focus of our work to economic development, but also rural policies, policies on foreign relations and a complete set of policies on building socialism.
Wherever I went in the three northeastern provinces, I stressed the need to concentrate on economic development. In a country as big and as poor as ours, if we don’t try to increase production, how can we survive? How is socialism superior, when our people have so many difficulties in their lives? The Gang of Four clamoured for “poor socialism” and “poor communism”, declaring that communism was mainly a spiritual thing. That is sheer nonsense! We say that socialism is the first stage of communism. When a backward country is trying to build socialism, it is natural that during the long initial period its productive forces will not be up to the level of those in developed capitalist countries and that it will not be able to eliminate poverty completely. Accordingly, in building socialism we must do all we can to develop the productive forces and gradually eliminate poverty, constantly raising the people’s living standards. Otherwise, how will socialism be able to triumph over capitalism? In the second stage, or the advanced stage of communism, when the economy is highly developed and there is overwhelming material abundance, we shall be able to apply the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. If we don’t do everything possible to increase production, how can we expand the economy? How can we demonstrate the superiority of socialism and communism? We have been making revolution for several decades and have been building socialism for more than three. Nevertheless, by 1978 the average monthly salary for our workers was still only 45 yuan, and most of our rural areas were still mired in poverty. Can this be called the superiority of socialism? That is why I insisted that the focus of our work should be rapidly shifted to economic development. A decision to this effect was made at the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee, and it represented an important turning point. Our practice since then has shown that this line is correct, as the whole country has taken on an entirely new look.
Are you actually implying China was a fully developed socialist economy in 1976?
Mao himself had still allowed market elements to exist under the theory of "New Democracy" (A National bougie class and Market economy allowed to exist in favor of development)
Kek and he still had the gall to call anyone else revisionist.
lol
I got banned for this over night when I was sleeping but now, when I woke up, my ban is gone I would like to know what the reasons for this ban where
It is completly in Line with Lenin, quite the opposite of revisionism
And you’ve yet to distinguish how China is any different from any other authoritarian capitalist “Asian Tiger” economy. Lenin certainly didn’t intend for NEP to continue for 40 fucking years and after the point that their industrial capacity well exceeded that of any other fucking country.
Well China is a Socialist State wich found itself in position of underdeveloped productive forces and thus, like the USSR did, engaged in Market Reforms in order to overcome those and develop to an advacned Socialist society
China is nod socialist :DDDD and ids more developed than USSR in 1920's :DDDDDDDDD
Still waiting for a positive argument for that part.
The USSR went from revolution to NEP to central planning. The NEP was a short transition and it wasn't as good as you Dengists claim it was. China went from central planning to NEP. It's revisionism plain and simple and the Chinese equivalent of the dissolution of soviet socialism. Privatization of state assets, the creation of new oligarchs etc.
China is not like the USSR in any way or form, it's like the post-soviet states.
Pic is a bit rude, man. This is a board for polite people. We humiliate, kill, and send each other to gulags after the revolution :DD
Now why would we do that?
nyet comrade, we won't get gay luxury space communist overnight.
Some people will have to be…umm…re-educated :DDDD
we can get rid of dengoids right now, but they might be useful in the short-run
When did China have Central Planning?
I mean, it is revisionist af, but AFAIK it never actually had proper Central Planning.