It was basically what Mao himself did, he also allowed a private sector. In my opinion Maoists often care more about the "road to socialism", "the revolution after the revolution", constant purges and cultural revolutions and struggle against the bureaucracy than establishing a full socialist mode of production without loopholes, because according to MLM Stalin's mechanistic understanding of dialectical materialism was falsy applied in the USSR: A full collectivized socialist mode of production did not prevent the degeneration of social relations within society or within the party, it did not make the victory of socialism evident. Instead, Maoists argue, there needs to be a continuous struggle both ideologically within social and party elements as well as a material struggle, so Maoists advocate to overcome both the state capitalist economy (but some small businesses are a-okay) as well as constant revolutionary rejuvenation.
This isn't Dengism, not only is the scale of free enterprise proposed by the Maoist Party much smaller, Dengism allows hyper-capitalists into the party and proposes to work with them. Dengism fetishises productive forces as a means to overcome even class differences as long as the CPC is in power. This is also juxtaposed to Maoism which wants to build communal structures independently of the development of the productive forces, in that way they are left-wing of Lenin, and got criticised by the Soviets to put the cart in front of the horse. The Maoist doctrine sees the revolution as a wholesome, continuous endeavour, it doesn't end with the victory of the vanguard party, it continues as in communes being built alongside the national bourgeoisie or the petit-bourgeoisie to push further and further into socialism. The idea to collectivize and then slowly building up productive forces Brezhnev-style is rejected as an incorrect line as it produces an ossified bureaucracy and drowns the revolutionary vigor and enthusiasm.
Are you Vietnamese, what's the state of Vietnam right now, I used to (or well still am I guess) be a online english teacher for some Vietnamese school and from most of the students I have taught (ages between 20-50) it sounds like they all feel shit for having to work for foreign companies even though they pay much more. One Engineer guy said he can't say no to overtime since he works for a Japanese firm and that more often than not has to give up any sort of overtime payment.
Can any Xiaboo here tell me about the Communist Party’s plan to retake control of private enterprises by 2050? Apparently Xi mentioned something about it during a speech earlier this year.
Then why did you link it to him? There's nothing in that article about dynasty building either.
Elijah Garcia
The base in China is socialist. There is capital, there is exploitation and private property, but it all operates under central planning. The key difference between China and say the US, is that the capitalists are controlled by the government and not the other way around. There are efforts within the party by the neoliberal fraction for a more liberal push, but with intra-imperialist tensions rising, production will be more focused on self-sustainability vs commodity production and the debt market. Key industries in China, like the military-industrial complex, are government-owned. Now the question is, how easy would it be for the party to return to its "roots". I think the closer we get towards a global collapse of capitalism, the bigger the need for central planning will become and if the neoliberal fraction within the party hasn't seized power by then, chances are material conditions will push towards socialized production. Will China export revolution though? Maybe it would set up proxy parties in countries where it has invested largely on infrastructure and has some political pull, but you can never know. We can see they played a part at preventing the coup in Venezuela, so shielding countries from US intervention might be enough to give socialist revolutions a chance to survive
Andrew Mitchell
The Nazis were directing what every private firm should make in 1945. Was that socialism? You can't control capital, you dunce, it has no master and serves no one. The CPC's bullshit mental gymnastics trying to explain how their cookie-cutter bourgeois economy is socialist was totally unnecessary. All they had to do was claim they had reverted to the DoTP phase. Unfortunately, any fool can see even that is a lie.
China is a place where Marxist ideas are heavily tolerated and used to justify regime policy. That is as far as it's communism goes for now.
Cooper Baker
No, because the Nazis directed capital in favour of a selected few monopolies that propped them up. Fascism is the last-ditch effort of capital to stay in power, it is propped by capital and serves capital. There is nothing remotely similar with the situation in China. If the CCP truly wanted to return to capitalism, they would do what the CPSU did.
Hot dialectical scientific analysis my dude. I see that you approach the subject after not only understanding its multi-faceted aspects and the internal contradictions that drive it, but also being fully aware of the material conditions that gave rise to them. Either that or you read a wikipedia article/saw a youtube video
