Why does the Communist Party of China have literal capitalists in its ranks?

Why does the Communist Party of China have literal capitalists in its ranks?

Attached: 137.jpeg (916x660, 89.04K)

Has anyone actually done research in into the percentage of capitalist in CPC? From my knowledge they allow ones that don't question the authority of CPC, others aren't allowed.

Because they read their Marx and realized that they cannot go from feudalism straight to socialism without going through a capitalist stage. That was Russia's mistake and China's early mistake.

Engels was a literal capitalist. Anyway, the reason they do so is because it would be counterproductive to exclude a huge percentage of the most powerful in society from the political process for ideological gatekeeping. If they were excluded they'd organise themselves in liberal parties and shill for liberalisation.

The Chinese bureaucracy has to walk a delicate line where they keep production just socialized enough to maintain their own existence while keeping their national bourgeoisie just happy enough that they don't overthrow the state.

One of the ways they did the latter is by allowing capitalists into the party. Make no mistake, however, the bureaucracy can't strike this balance forever. If they want to survive as a managerial caste, eventually they will have to escalate the class war against the capitalists or else risk the capitalists seizing state power.

This is spectacularly incorrect and completely ignores the historical and class basis for both fascism and the modern Chinese state.

It's certainly not substantial enough to characterize the CPC as a bourgeois party.

Because they are capitalists, and they merely larp as socialists to save face, the party elite are more comparable to an aristocracy than anything else.

I unironically think this is true.

Attached: sdin123.jpg (1080x1729, 436.72K)

Kys

Just like the USSR they stopped being communists long before they like to admit

Attached: 1404562487576.jpg (720x473, 56.45K)

Because in everything but name the CPC are the Social Democrat with Authoritarian Characteristics Party of China.

The USSR had some of the highest growth rates in the world for a long period of time. They went from a feudal backwater to a superpower almost overnight. (you know shit’s fucked in a thread when the only guy defending the USSR is a trot)

You are unironicly a neoliberal.

The middle of your pic is missing Chinese Billionaires riding on the productive forces. And what in the fuck is the last one supposed to be? It's somehow worse than the top one.

So what's a Zig Forums approved business to start?

Attached: party-business-robot.jpg (1600x900, 235.27K)

Catboy farm

Brotherhood of assassins cooperative

Meme factory

Attached: cover5.jpg (954x726, 205.72K)

This is such a bs justification. Even if this is true (its not, see USSR from 1945-1965) than why not simply do something like the NEP. There is absolutely no reason to give up control of the commanding heights of the economy to private capital even if some market mechanisms may be necessary in the the short run. I think Deng wanted to do something like an enhanced and longer term NEP (he was a big Bukharin fan), but it's pretty clear that things have gotten out of control at this point and China has regressed to a version of Capitalism with a large amount of state ownership, intervention, and cronyism. It's pretty similar to post-war Japan and South Korea which were in no way socialist.

Fuck off you Mensheviks, read Lenin and Trotsky.


Lol I am also Trotsky adjacent, idk how we're the only people defending the Bolshevik line here. Where are the ML's?

Why would you expect them to be here?

Attached: c4567.png (1200x1202, 1.4M)

...

CAPCOM GANG

Leftypol still has some very incoherent stances


Pick two.

No shit. This is not a board for one political alignment. If it did somehow develop a single stance on everything, then it would be time for it to die.

My stance is that China is dubious as fuck and I'll believe their sincerity in socialism as a goal only after it has happened. And further that it is not a smart way as Stalin has shown us a proven and effective way to build up with out heavy capitalist development. However it is, in theory, legitimate, and thus anyone within the party who does believe in the idea of using capitalism to develop further can legitimately consider themselves a communism as it does not violate historic materialist principles.

Attached: DuwKz49W4AAYFRs.png (360x254, 88.42K)

Good posts, friends.

While I am in no way a Dengist and completely condemn the path China has taken, these figures are misleading.

Many "private" companies in China are, for all intents and purposes, state run.

It's not incoherent to have two different stances regarding two different countries. The reason Deng was forced to open up was because China wasn't - and still isn't - able to feed itself or supply itself with enough energy. The USSR had massive natural resources and space for agriculture, which allowed it to sustain a relatively self-sufficient planned economy, for China this is absolutely not an option especially after the Sino-Soviet split and then consequently the dissolution of the USSR.

Most of the "Dengist" parties don't advocate to copy the Chinese model for their own country.

what?
Sounds like liberalism to me

For what reason does this necessitate local capitalists though?

those same state run companies are also now experiencing a declining rate of profit from engaging in market capitalism which is going to drive the system into crisis

If you create SEZs you obviously have Chinese capitalists coming in too. Almost all of the Chinese capitalists have made their wealth in the coastal regions.

Wait, there are beside the CPC actually parties, which call themself "Dengist"?

No, which is why I put it in quotation marks, but there are a few parties that praise the Chinese model. They claim that "Dengism" isn't a thing and Deng just continued the path of Marxism-Leninism applied to Chinese conditions.

Internet leftists are so demoralized and have no actual understanding of the proletariat being the objective force capable of overthrowing capitalism that they resort to defending a thoroughly capitalist state which brutally suppresses its workers and is arming itself for ww3 just because this capitalist state run by billionaires calls itself communist.

Fuck all of you and I hope you die in a forest fire.

(you)

That still doesn't answer my question. Let me re-phrase it.

Let us assume that under one model, of "state capitalism" developing towards socialism, the entire state assumes the direct ownership of the entire means of production of the entire country, renting it to its own populace for the sake of production, and claiming some amount of surplus from what is produced, and then it is reinvested back into the country.
Compare this to creating a class of individual capitalists who each individually manage their own set of affairs while still remaining "loyal" or at least subservient to the party. I'll even presume that they do not attempt to subvert the party.

Comparing state capitalism to individual capitalists, the individual capitalists have each a fraction of the reserve of liquid capital of the society, they are not coordinated towards building up better systems, they are going to be engaged in competition with one another in accordance with the profit motive, which is inherently a wasteful process. How is this a superior system? What is the benefit gained from fractioning the society's surplus and wasting it internally on the market? Even if they're forced to open up to other societies it seems that they'd be better able to develop industries if they were capable of coordinating and collectivizing the entire society's surplus to put towards larger, better organized projects.

Considered from another perspective, difficulty or organization of scale aside, how is it not a superior system for the CPC to act as a state-wide total monopoly as a semi-conventional business? Even if they absolutely need to open themselves up to trade with other countries and even the imperialist west, how is it not better to prostitute the labor force by acting through the CPC directly rather than by acting through individual capitalists?

And if we do look at it as a question of party subversion this only looks even worse.

It is a superior system but the CPC needed to make concessions to foreign capital back in the 80s to attract capital investment in the first place. Now it would cause social upheaval to bring the private capitalists back under control. It was a bad choice made for medium term survival but introduced many challenges for the CPC today. The next 10 years are crucial for them.

Thank you.
Was there actual pressures from foreign trade to allow the creation of individual native capitalists? I can understand why there would be allowances for Chinese citizens to serve as labor in factories owned by foreign investiture on foreign capital but I can not see an advantage to natives being allowed to become capitalists.

Video game studio.

Stop making it seem as if it was a "regrettable necessity", when the CPC is literally encouraging the expansion of its domestic capitalist class.

Well, ask yourself this: How do you attract foreign investment while simultaneously barring your own citizens from engaging in business? Do you just declare the SEZs to be off-limits for Chinese citizens?


I agree that the next 10 years are probably the decisive moment for the CPC to turn the ship around or to degenerate even more. I'm refraining from fast judgements because I honestly have hard to predict what's going to happen. I used to have my anti-Dengist phase, then I had my pro-Dengist phase, and now I'm just curious and mildly sceptical as to what is going to happen. Everything that comes out of China seems to contradict itself, it's honestly easier for me to assess the DPRK, a significantly more closed up state.

By acting to engage in business through the party itself? You could still effectively rent out chinese labor to work on foreign capital. Where do domestic capitalists come into being necessary in this?

They all produce for exchange.

They don't want the capitalist class to be a threat to their rule so they've absorbed them. They are communist in name only.