This thing they call “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” has as much in common with Marx and Engels’ idea of Communism as a Big Mac has with a plate of hummus.
While this is true it is not because China has deviated from socialist theory, including that of Marx and Enfels. China is a dictatorship of the proletariat as described by Marx and Engels as the necessary precursor to communism. It is also taking a very specific strategy towards imperialism that involves special economic zones, or capitalism zones, in order to build productive forces while also coupling the well-being of imperialist countries to China’s ability to produce.
Communism will never be achieved by a state and no state has ever expected to do so. The idea that any country ever could use a category error, it means a person doesn’t understand the term at all as used by Marx a d Engels. It is, by definition, stateless, and could only happen after all states are eventually abolished. But again, being practical people, they expected this to happen through a long process of struggle with dictatorships of the proletariat being what socialists first formed and could use to overturn the capitalist order
Not communist obviously, since there’s still very much a state and class division. But socialist because the state primarily serves the workers, with the stated goal of striving towards communism.
Now whether it’ll stay that way or not, we’ll see. Deng’s reforms have given liberals too much power after all; there seems to be an active class war happening in the Chinese state.
I find it’s useful to select more descriptive terms than use the literal dozens of varying definitions of ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. The terms by themselves can be so vague that I can truthfully state this - “communism is the goal of communism!” A communist society, for example, is different from a communist party or a communist state (aka. Marxist–Leninist state), which are only parts of the communist movement and the communist school of thought. Obviously no-one looks at the PRC and sees a stateless, classless society, but that’s an understandable (albeit condescending) interpretation of when people say “China is communist”.
(Pinging @xnx@slrpnk.net as I’m also replying to their comment)
Nobody said they achieved Communism, just that they are authentically working towards it through Socialism.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism-Leninism applied to the PRC’s present productive forces and material conditions. They have not reached Communism, but they are firmly on their way to full socialization of the economy. The only way you could think they have abandoned Communism as a goal is if you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and therefore have never studied Historical Materialism.
The reason it’s painfully obvious that you haven’t studied Historical Materialism is because you clearly believe Communism is something that develops through decree, not degree, that the goal of Communism is to immediately socialize all production. This is absurd, and Utopian. Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning. If the productive forces aren’t ready, then Communism can’t be achieved without struggles.
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
What happened in China, is that Mao tried to jump to Communism before the productive forces had naturally socialized themselves, which led to unstable growth and recessions. Deng stepped in and created a Socialist Market Economy by luring in foreign Capital, which both smoothed economic growth and eliminated recessions. This was not an abandonment of Communism, but a return to Marxism from Ultraleft Maoism.
Today, China has over 50% of the economy in the public sector. About a 10th of the economy is in the cooperative sector, and the rest is private. The majority of the economy is centrally planned and publicly owned! Do you call the US Socialist because of the Post Office? Absurd.
Moreover, the private sector is centrally planned in a birdcage model, Capital runs by the CPC’s rules. As the markets give way to said monopolist syndicates, the CPC increases control and ownership, folding them into the public sector. This is how Marx envisioned Communism to be established in the first place! Via a DotP, and by degree, not decree! The role of the DotP is to wrest Capital as it socializes and centrally plan it, not to establish Communism through fiat.
I didnt say they werent working towards it tho. i said they arent communist and i listed obvious examples they are not distributing power and money equally nor horizontally
They are led by Communists that are working towards Communism along Marxist lines. What do you mean when you say they aren’t Communist? That they haven’t achieved upper-stage Communism?
Not the commenter but tbh some see it as a continuation of Lenin’s ideology which broke away from Marxist lines
Lenin started something like a reactionary coup of the concept, forming into a fundamental shift. Sure it can be explained by the situation if one wants to have justification for it
While Lenin claimed to apply Marxism, he introduced significant changes to diverge from Marx’s vision.
Lenin didn’t break away from Marxism, he returned the broader Communist international to Marxism from opportunism and revisionism, and then applied Marxist analysis to his present conditions.
Workers own the means of production through the state, it’s on its way to communism in a step later described as socialism after Marx and Engels deaths.
Not even after their deaths, Marx already acknowledged dictatorship of the proletariat as the practical way after first proletarian revolution, Paris Commune experiences.
Neither are correct. Your phrase is correct, but that specifically refers to post-scarcity, Upper-Stage Communism, not Communism itself. Communism is essentially a global, fully socialized republic devoid of private property, after classes have been abolished and Capital finally fully wrested and incorporated into the public sector.
The “needs” of Upper-Stage Communism are also wants. It largely doesn’t matter, Marx wasn’t a Utopian, he didn’t advocate for Socialism out of any moral reason, but by analyzing where Capitalism was developing.
They literally don’t have free healthcare or schools. I have a very close friend from China. It’s a very capitalistic and conservative society from what I hear. Monopolies and conglomerates are rife.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism-Leninism applied to the PRC’s present productive forces and material conditions. They have not reached Communism, but they are firmly on their way to full socialization of the economy. The only way you could think they have abandoned Communism as a goal is if you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and therefore have never studied Historical Materialism.
The reason it’s painfully obvious that you haven’t studied Historical Materialism is because you clearly believe Communism is something that develops through decree, not degree, that the goal of Communism is to immediately socialize all production. This is absurd, and Utopian. Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning. If the productive forces aren’t ready, then Communism can’t be achieved without struggles.
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
What happened in China, is that Mao tried to jump to Communism before the productive forces had naturally socialized themselves, which led to unstable growth and recessions. Deng stepped in and created a Socialist Market Economy by luring in foreign Capital, which both smoothed economic growth and eliminated recessions. This was not an abandonment of Communism, but a return to Marxism from Ultraleft Maoism.
Today, China has over 50% of the economy in the public sector. About a 10th of the economy is in the cooperative sector, and the rest is private. The majority of the economy is centrally planned and publicly owned! Do you call the US Socialist because of the Post Office? Absurd.
Moreover, the private sector is centrally planned in a birdcage model, Capital runs by the CPC’s rules. As the markets give way to said monopolist syndicates, the CPC increases control and ownership, folding them into the public sector. This is how Marx envisioned Communism to be established in the first place! Via a DotP, and by degree, not decree! The role of the DotP is to wrest Capital as it socializes and centrally plan it, not to establish Communism through fiat.
Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning.
I’m sure I’m way out of my depth here, and it’s been over a decade since I studied this stuff in school… But this seems incredibly naive? As we’re seeing now, that environment is far more ripe for fascism, or some type of neo-feudalism.
I’m dramatically simplifying things for the sake of a Lemmy comment.
First, fascism is just Capitalism in decline, it isn’t meaningfully separate from Capitalism itself.
Secondly, when I say that Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because of Capitalism’s mechanisms working towards monopolist syndicates ripe for planning, that doesn’t mean Marx wasn’t also revolutionary. Such central planning and socialism can’t take place without revolution, because the proletariat needs to gain supremacy over Capital, which is impossible electorally.
No you don’t get it, 99 million members of the Communist Party of China don’t actually understand Marxism. A guy who’s lived his whole life under the dictatorship of capital is the only true arbiter of what real Marxism looks like.
Power maybe, but any Chinese person who is capable enough to rise through the ranks of the Party would make far more money working in the private sector. Most of the rank and file work regular jobs in addition to their Party responsibilities, and even Xi Jinping - who lives in a nice house in a gated community - has got nothing on top level politicians elsewhere in the world (or top level donors to their political campaigns).
They don’t need it though, China already had a very robust traditional passenger rail network which is the primary reason many of these high speed lines are hemorrhaging money: people aren’t willing to pay the increased cost for a high speed ticket
This thing they call “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” has as much in common with Marx and Engels’ idea of Communism as a Big Mac has with a plate of hummus.
Edit: western dengists, man.
While this is true it is not because China has deviated from socialist theory, including that of Marx and Enfels. China is a dictatorship of the proletariat as described by Marx and Engels as the necessary precursor to communism. It is also taking a very specific strategy towards imperialism that involves special economic zones, or capitalism zones, in order to build productive forces while also coupling the well-being of imperialist countries to China’s ability to produce.
Communism will never be achieved by a state and no state has ever expected to do so. The idea that any country ever could use a category error, it means a person doesn’t understand the term at all as used by Marx a d Engels. It is, by definition, stateless, and could only happen after all states are eventually abolished. But again, being practical people, they expected this to happen through a long process of struggle with dictatorships of the proletariat being what socialists first formed and could use to overturn the capitalist order
Wrong.
Is China State Capitalist?
The workers dont own the means of production. Its not communism
Not communist obviously, since there’s still very much a state and class division. But socialist because the state primarily serves the workers, with the stated goal of striving towards communism.
Now whether it’ll stay that way or not, we’ll see. Deng’s reforms have given liberals too much power after all; there seems to be an active class war happening in the Chinese state.
I find it’s useful to select more descriptive terms than use the literal dozens of varying definitions of ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. The terms by themselves can be so vague that I can truthfully state this - “communism is the goal of communism!” A communist society, for example, is different from a communist party or a communist state (aka. Marxist–Leninist state), which are only parts of the communist movement and the communist school of thought. Obviously no-one looks at the PRC and sees a stateless, classless society, but that’s an understandable (albeit condescending) interpretation of when people say “China is communist”.
(Pinging @xnx@slrpnk.net as I’m also replying to their comment)
Nobody said they achieved Communism, just that they are authentically working towards it through Socialism.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism-Leninism applied to the PRC’s present productive forces and material conditions. They have not reached Communism, but they are firmly on their way to full socialization of the economy. The only way you could think they have abandoned Communism as a goal is if you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and therefore have never studied Historical Materialism.
The reason it’s painfully obvious that you haven’t studied Historical Materialism is because you clearly believe Communism is something that develops through decree, not degree, that the goal of Communism is to immediately socialize all production. This is absurd, and Utopian. Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning. If the productive forces aren’t ready, then Communism can’t be achieved without struggles.
In Question 17 of The Principles of Communism, Engels makes this clear:
What happened in China, is that Mao tried to jump to Communism before the productive forces had naturally socialized themselves, which led to unstable growth and recessions. Deng stepped in and created a Socialist Market Economy by luring in foreign Capital, which both smoothed economic growth and eliminated recessions. This was not an abandonment of Communism, but a return to Marxism from Ultraleft Maoism.
Today, China has over 50% of the economy in the public sector. About a 10th of the economy is in the cooperative sector, and the rest is private. The majority of the economy is centrally planned and publicly owned! Do you call the US Socialist because of the Post Office? Absurd.
Moreover, the private sector is centrally planned in a birdcage model, Capital runs by the CPC’s rules. As the markets give way to said monopolist syndicates, the CPC increases control and ownership, folding them into the public sector. This is how Marx envisioned Communism to be established in the first place! Via a DotP, and by degree, not decree! The role of the DotP is to wrest Capital as it socializes and centrally plan it, not to establish Communism through fiat.
Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism, and read Marx himself before you act like an authority without even understanding Historical Materialism.
I didnt say they werent working towards it tho. i said they arent communist and i listed obvious examples they are not distributing power and money equally nor horizontally
They are led by Communists that are working towards Communism along Marxist lines. What do you mean when you say they aren’t Communist? That they haven’t achieved upper-stage Communism?
Not the commenter but tbh some see it as a continuation of Lenin’s ideology which broke away from Marxist lines
Lenin started something like a reactionary coup of the concept, forming into a fundamental shift. Sure it can be explained by the situation if one wants to have justification for it
While Lenin claimed to apply Marxism, he introduced significant changes to diverge from Marx’s vision.
Lenin didn’t break away from Marxism, he returned the broader Communist international to Marxism from opportunism and revisionism, and then applied Marxist analysis to his present conditions.
Workers own the means of production through the state, it’s on its way to communism in a step later described as socialism after Marx and Engels deaths.
Not even after their deaths, Marx already acknowledged dictatorship of the proletariat as the practical way after first proletarian revolution, Paris Commune experiences.
Wrong, and it’s clear you read none of the links above. Especially this one: https://archive.ph/DwD1n
And when was a requirement for communism?
A stateless, classless, moneyless society. How can a class own something then?
Absolute nonsense.
Communism is from each according to their ability, to each according to their want.
And it’s a centuries long process.
I thought it was “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”?
Wants and needs are often conflated but the outcomes of each phase would likely look incredibly different.
Neither are correct. Your phrase is correct, but that specifically refers to post-scarcity, Upper-Stage Communism, not Communism itself. Communism is essentially a global, fully socialized republic devoid of private property, after classes have been abolished and Capital finally fully wrested and incorporated into the public sector.
The “needs” of Upper-Stage Communism are also wants. It largely doesn’t matter, Marx wasn’t a Utopian, he didn’t advocate for Socialism out of any moral reason, but by analyzing where Capitalism was developing.
They literally don’t have free healthcare or schools. I have a very close friend from China. It’s a very capitalistic and conservative society from what I hear. Monopolies and conglomerates are rife.
This is completely false. If you’re uninsured, a visit is less than ~5 USD per doctors visit, and about ~20 USD for a specialist visit.. If you’re insured, as 95% of the population in China is, then visits are free. It also has a very low cost per capita, since public health is socialized, not privatized.
Primary school is completely free, and college has tuition fees just like any other country.
Got any more of “I heard it from a friend?”, that people can upvote to affirm their racist biases?
Lord of Lemmy, what makes you think I am racist?
Removed by mod
The white mans burden lies heavy on the redditors.
Western ultra-leftists, man, an infantile disorder. They fear the scroll.
My favorite trope has to be western leftists confidently talking nonsense about China.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism-Leninism applied to the PRC’s present productive forces and material conditions. They have not reached Communism, but they are firmly on their way to full socialization of the economy. The only way you could think they have abandoned Communism as a goal is if you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and therefore have never studied Historical Materialism.
The reason it’s painfully obvious that you haven’t studied Historical Materialism is because you clearly believe Communism is something that develops through decree, not degree, that the goal of Communism is to immediately socialize all production. This is absurd, and Utopian. Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning. If the productive forces aren’t ready, then Communism can’t be achieved without struggles.
In Question 17 of The Principles of Communism, Engels makes this clear:
What happened in China, is that Mao tried to jump to Communism before the productive forces had naturally socialized themselves, which led to unstable growth and recessions. Deng stepped in and created a Socialist Market Economy by luring in foreign Capital, which both smoothed economic growth and eliminated recessions. This was not an abandonment of Communism, but a return to Marxism from Ultraleft Maoism.
Today, China has over 50% of the economy in the public sector. About a 10th of the economy is in the cooperative sector, and the rest is private. The majority of the economy is centrally planned and publicly owned! Do you call the US Socialist because of the Post Office? Absurd.
Moreover, the private sector is centrally planned in a birdcage model, Capital runs by the CPC’s rules. As the markets give way to said monopolist syndicates, the CPC increases control and ownership, folding them into the public sector. This is how Marx envisioned Communism to be established in the first place! Via a DotP, and by degree, not decree! The role of the DotP is to wrest Capital as it socializes and centrally plan it, not to establish Communism through fiat.
Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism, and read Marx himself before you act like an authority without even understanding Historical Materialism.
I’m sure I’m way out of my depth here, and it’s been over a decade since I studied this stuff in school… But this seems incredibly naive? As we’re seeing now, that environment is far more ripe for fascism, or some type of neo-feudalism.
I’m dramatically simplifying things for the sake of a Lemmy comment.
First, fascism is just Capitalism in decline, it isn’t meaningfully separate from Capitalism itself.
Secondly, when I say that Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because of Capitalism’s mechanisms working towards monopolist syndicates ripe for planning, that doesn’t mean Marx wasn’t also revolutionary. Such central planning and socialism can’t take place without revolution, because the proletariat needs to gain supremacy over Capital, which is impossible electorally.
Does that clear it up?
sure man, the world’s largest Marxist party, led by a man with a doctorate in Marxist studies, has abandoned Marxism. That’s SO true boss.
No you don’t get it, 99 million members of the Communist Party of China don’t actually understand Marxism. A guy who’s lived his whole life under the dictatorship of capital is the only true arbiter of what real Marxism looks like.
errrrmm, actually all 1.4 billion citizens of the PRC are brainwashed and can’t think for themselves. ever think about that, you dumb commie???
Most party members are in it for the money and power lol
China understander has logged on lol
Power maybe, but any Chinese person who is capable enough to rise through the ranks of the Party would make far more money working in the private sector. Most of the rank and file work regular jobs in addition to their Party responsibilities, and even Xi Jinping - who lives in a nice house in a gated community - has got nothing on top level politicians elsewhere in the world (or top level donors to their political campaigns).
Removed by mod
[Citation needed]
I have connections in the CCP
This is like saying that Iran is following the exact system envisioned by Mohammad because Khamenei is a scholar or whatever.
Removed by mod
They don’t need it though, China already had a very robust traditional passenger rail network which is the primary reason many of these high speed lines are hemorrhaging money: people aren’t willing to pay the increased cost for a high speed ticket
Hemorrhaging money 😂 These high speed lines are owned by the state, which has infinite money. It can charge as much or as little as it pleases.
Infinite money? Is that why the factory workers are all paid great salaries and have the best working conditions?
Do you think you’re being clever?
Do you think you’re proving they have infinite money or great working conditions?