Cowbee [he/they]

No? Marxists generally believe socialism can and does exist, and has existed thus far. The minority of Marxists believe it hasn’t.

No?

I don’t see what you mean. The means of production and who own them are both political and economic inherently.

I mean the means of production and distribution.

Capitalism as a mode of production is only a few hundred years old. It’s essentially a mode of production where private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and capital owners control the state. Before capitalism was feudalism, and before feudalism came slave societies, and before those came tribal communalism.

Human nature is incredibly malleable and depends most upon how we produce and distribute, how we live and how our environment shapes us.

Good on Cuba. Solidarity with the Cuban revolution and the Cuban people against the imperialists.

The key issue here is that China isn’t a colonizing country. It’s not because I’m cherry-picking, it’s because it simply doesn’t fit into the category of colonialism or neocolonialism, or imperialism. I agree with you in saying that colonialism only serves to impoverish and destroy the lives of a large number of working people, that’s why when we analyze how BRI has lifted 40 million people out of poverty, thousands of infrastructure projects, and tens of billions in bilateral trade, this is delivering entirely different results from how the west treats the global south.

Secondly, I want to address the idea of “true communism.” Communism is not a mythological, holy form of being, it’s the process of bringing about the communist mode of production and distribution through socialism, the transition between capitalism and communism. It isn’t some religious or moral creed, but a material mode of production. Socialism in real life has warts, problems, and struggles, just like any existing system does, yet only countries building socialism seem to be held to this sense of religious purity by westerners.

Finally, regarding Lenin. Lenin’s calls for revolution against imperialism, colonialism, and the capitalist class to bring about socialism isn’t tyrannical at all, except from the perspective of imperialists, colonizers, and capitalists. Without class analysis, we ignore that the flipside is the existing tyranny of the imperialists, colonizers, and capitalists. Trading the dictatorship of the few over the many to the dictatorship of the many over the few who had absolute power in the prior system is the same way capitalism was brought about from feudalism, and is a natural human progression.

I talk about communism and socialism a lot. I care deeply about organizing for a better world, and I enjoy discussing it with others. That’s it.

No? Only 2 are from China, one is from the Philippines and the other is from a Statesian organization. All of my points are from the perspective of a Marxist-Leninist, and they’ll be similar to CPC stances as the CPC is Marxist-Leninist as well. I don’t see how I’m lacking in nuance, I clearly believe what I say and have no interest in lying or presenting a position I don’t feel has sufficient evidence just for “balance.” Your comment is projection because your accusations fit the west far more than they fit China, and that’s based on hard evidence.

This is pure projection.

China is not debt trapping poor African nations. We can see that this isn’t the case when we can observe countries in BRI engaging in rapid development and industrializing, and this is confirmed by China forgiving tons of debt. The goal of China isn’t to make countries reliant on them, or to earn money from debt, it’s because China gains personally through mutual development. Here are some articles debunking the “debt trap” myth:

• Five Imperialist Myths About China’s Role in Africa

• China debt trap? PH an ‘expert in bad loans,’ Locsin says

• Deborah Brautigam Debunks the Chinese Debt Trap Theory in New Research Paper

• China’s Debt Relief for Africa: Emerging Deliberations

There are many more examples I can use. China isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their own heart, but because they stand to gain from mutual development. A more developed global south means China is less reliant on the US Empire as a customer, provides new avenues to facilitate trade, and creates more markets for customers. The west harvests the global south for cheap labor and resources, and we can see hard comparisons in data between BRI participants and those imperialized by the west to see fundamentally different results.

I never did that, though. I explained that China has billionaires because they still have private ownership in secondary small and medium firms. This isn’t permanent, however, it’s a consequence of existing at a definite state of development. As these firms grow, they are folded into the public sector. Explaining the temporary existence of billionares in the transition between capitalism and communism called socialism is not a defense of the permanent and justified existence of billionaires that right-wingers try to do to justify capitalist economies where private ownership is principal.

Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy, and the working classes control the state. It’s socialist, and you haven’t disproven the prior claims nor are you willing to provide what you believe socialism to be so we can compare China to your vision. You haven’t backed up a single claim of yours. You also haven’t explained what “right-wing talking points” I have, and now you’re inventing points I never made, such as the point about refrigerators. If you want to see a communist defense of China, scroll back a few comments and actually read what I wrote instead of lashing out relentlessly.

China’s inequality is shrinking, though. The urban/rural divide is being addressed through comprehensive social programs, including the aforementioned poverty eradication program but also including massive expansions in infrastructure and new jobs. Personally, anti-communists I’ve interacted with tend to hate both China and not believe it to be socialist. They can never seem to explain why, though, and nearly all major existing Marxist organizations recognize them as socialist for the reasons I gave.

Sure, I can’t make you make a coherent point, I’d just rather you do so we can have a discussion, rather than a series of me bringing good sources and information to the table and you shouting at me and defending ableism. I don’t see what you gain from any of this, all you’ve done is legitimize me.

If I were an anti-communist, I’d be suspicious of you being an alt of me meant to legitimize my points by providing no meaningful counter and giving me every opportunity to coherently explain my points.

Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Do you disagree with this? Is this an example of circular reasoning, or instead an acknowledgement that socialism is about working class control and socialized production?

Neoliberalism on the other hand focuses on low taxes, low government spending, and privatization of formerly state owned and run industry wherever possible. Given that China’s government spending is massive, the backbone of the economy is made up of massive SOEs and other publicly owned industries, and taxes aren’t exactly low, I don’t see how any of this applies to China.

I already explained, further, how China isn’t at all exploiting others. Trade and partnership with China over the US results in reduced poverty. For example, BRI has lifted 40 million people out of poverty, thousands of infrastructure projects, and tens of billions in bilateral trade. This is not imperialism in any capacity, it’s mutual cooperation for mutual benefit.

And you top it all off with an ableist attack, unsurprising.

You didn’t answer my questions in any capacity. Please, explain what you believe socialism to be, and where you got that idea from. Explain how China is “neoliberal” beyond the vanishing presence of rural poverty. China is not underdeveloping or imperializing the global south, I explained many times why they aren’t and you ignored the sources and arguments entirely simply because I already was prepared to talk about them.

All you’ve mentioned is that you’ve seen poverty, which I already explained why it exists, and you’ve already explained why you believe it will go away eventually. We both know China is working to remove this with massive social programs. You have not once explained how China is “neoliberal,” nor what you believe socialism to be. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, I hate neoliberalism like what Reagan and Thatcher installed, and neoliberalism is lightyears away from China’s Socialist Market Economy.

Please, explain what you believe socialism to be, and where you got that idea from. Explain how China is “neoliberal” beyond the vanishing presence of rural poverty.

The charts represent what’s actually happening on the ground. The urban/rural divide is one of the biggest problems for China, this is correct. The origin of the issue is in China’s rapid development, which left the countryside lagging behind. However, thanks to their socialist system, they’ve already taken concrete steps towards addressing this.

Purchasing Power in 2022 was 25 times higher than 1978. The gap between rural and urban development has long been acknowledged and is already something worked on. The famous poverty eraducation campaign, which lifted 800 million people out of absolute poverty, was focused on just that. Read The Metamorphosis of Yuangudui to see what that looks like in practice.

What separates social democracy from socialism? In social democracy, private ownership is the principal aspect of the economy, and capitalists control the state. In socialism, it’s public ownership that is principal, and the working classes that control the state. I won’t retread old ground here, other than to remind you that China’s economy is overwhelmingly state-driven:

China does indeed have billionaires, because they still have private property for the small and medium secondary industries. This, however, is not a permanent fixture of the economy, as no economy is static and unmoving. As these firms grow, they are folded into the public sector, advancing socialization of the economy. What do you believe socialism to look like? How can a neoliberal ecomomy be dominated by public ownership, the working classes, and central planning?

China being socialist has nothing to do with the name of the party in control, and everything to do with the mode of production and distribution in China. Rather than a neoliberal paradise, it’s closer to a nightmare for neoliberals. This editorial from The Guardian explains it quite well, actually:

But Xi’s support for mixing private and public ownership structures was purely pragmatic. It had value, he said in another forum, because it would “improve the socialist market economic structure.” Xi’s assessment is echoed by Michael Collins, one of the CIA’s most senior officials for Asia. “The fundamental end of the Communist party of China under Xi Jinping is all the more to control that society politically and economically,” Collins argued earlier this year. “The economy is being viewed, affected and controlled to achieve a political end.”

…

The party’s overarching aim, though, has remained consistent: to ensure that the private sector, and individual entrepreneurs, do not become rival players in the political system. The party wants economic growth, but not at the expense of tolerating any organised alternative centres of power.

…

“[Capitalists] act as if they are being chased by a bear,” wrote Zhang Lin, a Beijing political commentator, in response to these comments. “They are powerless to control the bear, so they are competing to outrun each other to escape the animal.”

How then, does China’s economy work? Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy. This means that public ownership governs the large firms and key industries, and is what is rising in China, as private ownership is kept to small and medium non-essential industries. No system is static, meaning identifying the nature of a system depends on identifying what is rising and what is dying away. Cpitalists are held on a tight leash, and are prevented from gaining political power as a class. The reason private ownership is allowed at all is because China has very uneven development due to their rapid industrialization, and private ownership does help with filling in gaps left by the primary aspects of the economy like SOEs.

The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:

The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.

I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.

China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principal aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes and the state, run along the lines of a common plan, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:

The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.

Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.

In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized.

Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.

China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.

Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.

In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.

To call China “imperialist” or “capitalist” is to either invent a fantasy of China or to not understand imperialism, capitalism, or socialism. China isn’t a utopia, it’s a real socialist country.

No problem! Yea, it can be very difficult, searching in English for example always props up results for NYT, CNN, Fox, etc, and we know how biased these sources are when it comes to, say, Palestine. Understanding how China works is going to be very important going forward.

Equal opposition to all states just shoots yourself in the foot, though. Should we focus on dismantling Cuban and Palestinian statehood with equal measure to the US Empire? If your goal is anarchism, shouldn’t you be focused on the bigger obstacles to that goal?