What exactly is wrong with this?

What exactly is wrong with this?

Attached: 01f9715d6d7957cda075ee02845a17b287637e0618bc1ca6e1b78d9c8744cca8.jpg (1200x840, 258.69K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Nothing, what people fail to get is that China has SOCIALIST markets, SOCIALIST wage labor, SOCIALIST capitalism, etc.

A major supporter of Mao is sort of a half-truth because what happened if he didn't supported Mao? There was no room for dissent. He was also "paramount leader," not "prominent" as if it were a democracy.

He opened the doors to targeted investment in which strategic sectors were to remain either in chinese hands or in foreign-chinese associations, whereas the World Bank for example recommended that countries opened their doors to foreign investment and markets in a hands-off approach.

What most people forget is that he actually didn't touch the socialist mode of production in China, it is still intact today, he just opened up spaces for foreign investment - which of course reciprocally influenced the "socialist" part of the economy, but that's another story.

It's capitalism and the one child policy didn't work out given the cultural bias towards boys in China.

The one child policy was badly inplemented, it should have been implemented with mandatory vasectomies instead of the everything-but-vasectomies mess they ended up doing.

You're gonna have to elaborate on that one for me.

How would they have decided who got them and who didn't?

nothing, developmental capitalism is completely ok
it is also capitalism, with capitalist relations of production and results in capitalist politics and capitalist class conflict, by now the CPC is fully class-collaborationist for example
while there are communist elements in the party, the revolution will come from the place it always does - the proletariat.
central planning or whatever form of 'socialist' economy is not an end to itself, the practical effects are what matter. note that despite flag I'm not shilling for capitalism or even markets as some sort of given or superior system but saying that under a lot of conditions they can be an effective way to expand production even more efficently than a planned system. if the 'household responsibility system' creates more of an agricultural surplus than the planned-economy or collective agriculture model then the one that produces better results should be adopted, superficial ideological opposition be damned.

but user, why has public ownership of 'socialist' companies been in rapid decline since the start of the Dengist era? or that the Chinese government officially as well as practically has accepted the primacy of market forces over planning in economy starting in 1993? in 2007 two thirds of economic output in China was by private companies, and this trend towards a larger private sector has continued. how do these private companies operating in an entirely capitalist system maintain a socialist mode of production?

There are new articles talking about how many girls in China are actually being "identified" now, since to bypass the one child policy many people just ignored it by turning a blind eye, gaming the system etc.


What's there to elaborate? Under Mao, a socialist industry and the such was erected. Enterprises produced for need and the communes of Maoist China are well known. What I'm trying to say is that Deng didn't touch any of that. He didn't privatize anything or whatever. All he did was setting up Special Economic Zones for foreign investment and leased land - something that's still in existence in China, you can't buy land, only lease it from the state. However, now the private investment makes up 50% of the entire Chinese economy. Make of that what you will.

Yeah, well, "socialist ownership" continues to be 50% in China and even in the "state capitalist" mode of production, that means, companies where the Chinese state has more than 50% shares, the state controls the "heights of the Chinese economy", as the Chinese government puts it.

They don't, socialist MoP can exist simultaneously with a capitalist MoP. This is actually orthodox Marxism and Leninism - the problem is, as you pointed out, the overwhelming dominance of market allocation, e.g. the dominance of commodity production and the valorization of goods produced by the "socialist" sector of the economy. So yeah, I don't think the means of production which are owned by the state are actually really "socialist", whether or not they are part of a "socialist mode of production" can be discussed, the CPCh argues that the law of value does not actually dominate this sector, as it is largely unprofitable, however, the constant push to make the SoE more profitable (in a capitalist sense) can be interpreted as capitalism corroding of what is left of socialism.

now these are chinese characteristics
Someone might draw a line of causality between these two.
something something value form, embryo of capitalism etc. kommissar I swear I'm not a leftcom

Sort of like Khrushchev after Stalin, then.

Attached: nikita-khrushchev-russia-us-ambassador-relations-basketball-soviet-union.jpg (2400x1592, 1.43M)

it's very strange how "marxist-leninists" are now defending china's NEP-style state-capitalism as Real Socialism.

i want to go back to the bearenstein universe tbh

it's not strange at all just watch Jason Unruhe debate with Muke about Marxism, they're ok with Capital circulation, commodity production, Capital running things as long as it's used by a pseudo "red" state. They like Unruhe don't understand Marxism. Socialism = Communism for Marx. So Marx while not an anarchist he is closer to minarchism as long as the workers are the ones running their own lives than authoritarianism by a goverment. Besides Marx says that proletarians and laborers should always have a democratic voice in the matters, yet Stalin silenced most of these. USSR was doomed from the start just took the form of the Empire it captured in the end.

Marxism comprehends that the "dictatorship of the proletarian" is more akin to The Paris Commune than anything else. Soviets were not even close to that… Militarily superior than the Paris Commune of course yes, but they were an Empire and behaved just like one.

Marx wasn't very specific about how to achieve things either he even said it varies from country to country, so things tend to get fucked up by the interpretation of others (Lenin in this case). Maybe he should have got some advice from Bakunin, Bakunin was right all along. But one has to be humble enough to listen to the advice of others, in this case he wasn't too bad. What happened, happened and it ended in the form it was necessary.

Attached: mls in a nutshell.png (1022x769 212.05 KB, 601.09K)

Marxism casts itself in the role of observer, of god in a lab coat, it can never harmonize this role of observer, with being observed itself.

>socialist capitalism

true that. like all sciences.

Worker control in the PRC hasn't changed within in the state industry since the communes proved themselves to be failures. You still have an all-Union council like in the USSR, you still have all the worker participation in communal councils, etc. - as I said Deng didn't touch that. Where worker control is non-existent is obviously the private industry, control by common people can only happen through the CPCh, which function like staff associations in Western countries. A situation that's actually better compared to the early 2000s, the liberal era under Hu Jintao.

I love how you and also this guy conclude that I'm a Dengist. I am not. I don't know how you can read the second paragraph of my post and think I am an all-out China apologist. The fact you instantly put me into this corner shows that a honest discussion about China is feared amongst the radical left, by both the Dengists and the anti-revisionists. It's not that black and white and China is, and no matter how much you hat them, is one of the most interesting societies on the planet from a Marxist perspective.

What the fuck has an autistic TWist, who doesn't even support China, have to do with anything here? Are your politics defined by e-celebs?

No, USSR didn't have a MCM' cycle, sorry

Only happened in the agricultural/foreign trade sector in the USSR and wasn't generalized. Most of the economy had no commodity production by Marxist terms. Read Stalin.

Clearly in-kind-indicators dominated economic planning in the USSR and not value-indicators (read: Not the law of value).

Autistic semantic mongering, Marx spoke about a revolutionary phase, first stage of communism, second stage of communism, etc. - really who gives a crap how you call things? Content matters, not form.

Read what he wrote about it, Marx wasn't a mutualist ffs

Read Lenin, read Stalin, MLs say the exact same thing (for which we get attacked for, but then again apparently we also get attacked for it if we don't say it).

Nigga please.

Attached: 000230163085-9t2z20-t500x500.jpg (500x500, 45.8K)


you're a tankie who everytime the ussr gets mentioned gets triggered af and can't do anything but respond all salty. I did that because I knew I was going to get a reaction from you without fail. The Soviet Internet Defense Force in full force lol.

Your post was bad, that's all. It didn't take me much effort to respond to it.

It's an upgrade to Maoism.
Not that it was a difficult task.

China's "unions" are an absolute joke and don't do anything to actually help the working class. They're akin to state mandated unions in fascist countries.

Also relevant paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/01/31/real-problems-of-socialism-and-some-answers/

He sucked Nixon's dick pretty hard.

Attached: 0a926a9f3b8e67e01779d124c885f905d087133868607b073904ec48bd4f014e.jpg (1000x2500, 461.18K)

You have obviously never touched a single book by Marx. Makes sense because you're a huge revisionist for Soviet-Indochinese banana republics, must be all the Agent Orange residue melting your brain.

I agree, but there are differences in content as well as form.

Marx predicted three phases:
1. The revolutionary period
2. Lower communism
3. Higher communism

MLs tend to identify step 2 with socialism and step 3 with communism. Let's ignore the names and focus on substance.

The first phase, the revolution, involves the workers overthrowing the bourgeoisie politically and expropriating them economically. This period, with all its upheavals and changes, achieves a system of socialized production and ownership. Capitalism ends. The second stage is the beginning of a new society. (What Marx called the lower phase of communism.) Even in this lower phase Marx described a society that operated based upon planning and labor credits. He discusses this at least once in Critique of the Gotha Programme and in a passage of Capital volume 2. At this point producers may receive labor-credits representing a share of consumer goods which they can now draw upon. They are not paid wages. In the higher phase of communism the principle of receiving labor-credits is no longer necessary. You take what you need. The law of value is entirely abolished and all older legal, social, and economic forms have disappeared.

Based on Marx's understanding we didn't even reach the second phase. The USSR went further than any other country, as far as I know, but they didn't realize Marx's vision of lower communism at all.

And this is why I think the line "socialism means transitional phase" is not only semantically incorrect but revisionist. It implies that Marx or Engels or even Lenin believed that a capitalist society would need to pass through some kind of decades-long transitional society inbetween capitalism and communism. Marx didn't seem to believe that at all and there is no reason to believe it unless you imagine that society is starting in conditions of semi-feudalism or minimally developed capitalism. Then it becomes clear that some kind of long transition will be necessary to achieve socialism. This is, I think, the situation that 20th century socialist states found themselves in. This is why Dengism recognized that the only possible course for China was to develop productive forces.

tl;dr 20th century socialist states were all state-capitalist hybrid societies.

No they were just capitalist, they were only "revolutionary" in the bourgeois sense since many of these countries originally lacked capitalist economies and were feudal before their revolutions. This is in line with historical materialism since communism can only occur in developed capitalist nations.

tl;dr 20th century "socialist" states were revolutionary bourgeois states that abolished feudal economies.

reposting chinese documentary

the best mao meme

Attached: the weak should fear the strong mao sparrow.jpg (607x608, 249.43K)

I think you completely missed the joke.

He died before he could read Cockshott

Attached: communism not possible in the 1960s.PNG (1078x608, 616.59K)

Fucking rude. Nobody should have to risk clicking such a link, even if it is to the supposed movie.

t. never read a Bookchin.

sorry senpai, chinese sites often still use flash