China today?

[Red Panther]

I'm just wondering what people think about China today. I don't know much about it myself but I don't think the human rights abuse helped it's image. Tibet also scarred China's reputation.
So, do you consider China communist and what do you think about China itself?

[Queercommie Girl]

I consider China today to be a highly deformed worker's state that is on the brink of political and social counter-revolution. In a sense China today is similar to the USSR during the late 1980s, except quantitatively it is actually even more deformed.

I also think anyone who does not recognise that China today is highly deformed and on the brink of capitalist restoration is not a genuine socialist. I'd rather work with people who are anti-China because they consider China to be a completely capitalist state (even though I don't personally take this view) than those who think China today is still "basically ok" and a healthy socialist state.

[Invincible Summer]

I consider China today to be a highly deformed worker's state that is on the brink of political and social counter-revolution. In a sense China today is similar to the USSR during the late 1980s, except quantitatively it is actually even more deformed.

I also think anyone who does not recognise that China today is highly deformed and on the brink of capitalist restoration is not a genuine socialist. I'd rather work with people who are anti-China because they consider China to be a completely capitalist state (even though I don't personally take this view) than those who think China today is still "basically ok" and a healthy socialist state.

What about those who are anti-China and think they are the last powerful vestige of Communism? I've met more of those than the archetypes you've described.



I generally agree with Iseul on this one... China isn't really socialist anymore, just a highly authoritarian state capitalist country.

[Queercommie Girl]

What about those who are anti-China and think they are the last powerful vestige of Communism? I've met more of those than the archetypes you've described.



I generally agree with Iseul on this one... China isn't really socialist anymore, just a highly authoritarian capitalist country.

Externally I defend the People's Republic of China as a deformed worker's state against Western imperialism.

I did explicitly say "people who are anti-China because they consider China to be a completely capitalist state", rather than anyone who is "anti-China", which would include anti-Chinese racists, imperialists and right-wing scumbags of every type.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well, i defend china form imperialism(as i do the DPRK, Cuba and Iran) but the political scene is very interesting. internationally, they are seriously acting independently which the US does not like one bit.

Internally, there is a left-wing movement, but im not a fan of Wen, he just recently said they are going to continue the reforms...

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, i defend china form imperialism(as i do the DPRK, Cuba and Iran) but the political scene is very interesting. internationally, they are seriously acting independently which the US does not like one bit.


That is an indirect objective implication which happens to be partially "progressive" of the nationalist contests between China and the US. It's only a by-product.



Internally, there is a left-wing movement, but im not a fan of Wen, he just recently said they are going to continue the reforms...Thing is though, even much of the "left-wing" in the contemporary CCP leadership is still more to the right economically than New Labour is in the UK.

[Rusty Shackleford]

That is an indirect objective implication which happens to be partially "progressive" of the nationalist contests between China and the US. It's only a by-product.

Thing is though, even much of the "left-wing" in the contemporary CCP leadership is still more to the right economically than New Labour is in the UK.
what about the maoists?

[Red Panther]

And what do you think about the human rights issues in China? Is it as bad as it seems or has it been hyped up by Western countries as a flaw of "communism"?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Well, on the isse of tibet. The free tibet movement is led by the US and the Dalai Lama who want to bring about the independence of Tibet and something like 20% of all chinese territory around tibed should also become part of tibet.

its an imperialist project.

when the dalai lama ruled tibet, the people were subjected to harsh and very outdated feudalistic systems.

also, India, which has invaded china before, is backing the free tibet movement, and even allows for the Dali Lama to live there.

Tibet nowadays is semi-autonomous.

[thälmann]

china is a capitalist country on the way to an imperialist superpower...

[FreeFocus]

China is an authoritarian capitalist state engaging in serious imperialist crimes in Tibet and Xinxiang. There's nothing communist about China and the fact that the two are still conflated does little except embarrass us and box us into a corner. It doesn't help that there are still socialists who claim that China is socialist, even in the face of obvious capitalist policies, expansion, and abuse of workers. It's quite remarkable, really.

[The Vegan Marxist]

china is a capitalist country on the way to an imperialist superpower...

hahaha, you have a strange way of using the term capitalist & imperialist.

China is by no means a capitalist country, & to claim they're bent to form themselves as a imperialist country is just as laughable. What is it? It's still a Socialist country. The majority of the means of production in China is not privately owned, rather it is collectively owned between the workers & State. Now, I'm pretty sure we can consider China as revisionist, though revisionism doesn't mean that capitalism has been restored, now does it?

[Queercommie Girl]

what about the maoists?

You mean Maoists like the MCPC?

Yes I work with the MCPC. In fact, I'm a supporter. However, the MCPC is not part of the "CCP leadership". Actually the radical Maoists in China are explicitly criminalised and are thrown into prison by the revisionist state.

Of course, there are still genuine socialists (to some extent at least) among the grassroots layers of the CCP. But again they have no real power and are not part of the leadership bloc.

[Vampire Lobster]

China is an authoritarian capitalist state engaging in serious imperialist crimes in Tibet and Xinxiang. There's nothing communist about China and the fact that the two are still conflated does little except embarrass us and box us into a corner. It doesn't help that there are still socialists who claim that China is socialist, even in the face of obvious capitalist policies, expansion, and abuse of workers. It's quite remarkable, really.

It just proves how some people really tend to care more about the raging erection they get when they see the red flag waving. The more cliché and obnoxious you get with your communism, the better a communist you obviously are. Cool shit beats actual analysis; that's Internet communism 101 for you, kids!

[The Vegan Marxist]

I consider China today to be a highly deformed worker's state that is on the brink of political and social counter-revolution. In a sense China today is similar to the USSR during the late 1980s, except quantitatively it is actually even more deformed.

I also think anyone who does not recognise that China today is highly deformed and on the brink of capitalist restoration is not a genuine socialist. I'd rather work with people who are anti-China because they consider China to be a completely capitalist state (even though I don't personally take this view) than those who think China today is still "basically ok" and a healthy socialist state.

Iseul, I respect that you realize better than most on this forum that China is still to this day Socialist. Though, they are revisionist, & are on a dangerous path to Capitalism. But your support for "anti-china" people is a bit troubling if you ask me. Are you stating that you support imperialist actions against China or internal liberal protests like those that we witnessed during the failed Tiananmen Square coup? Should we not protect what's left of Socialism in China? Have you even paid attention to the worker strikes that's been supported by Hu Jintao & the Left wing section of the CPC, & long term wise have all been successful strikes?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

hahaha, you have a strange way of using the term capitalist & imperialist.

China is by no means a capitalist country, & to claim they're bent to form themselves as a imperialist country is just as laughable. What is it? It's still a Socialist country. The majority of the means of production in China is not privately owned, rather it is collectively owned between the workers & State.

What is your source for the fact that the "majority of the means of production in China is not privately owned, rather it is collectively owned between the workers & State"?

What do you mean "collectively owned between the workers & the State"? Is the state, then, separate from the workers, as seems to be the implication in that -- or do the workers control the state as well? If not, who does control the state? (And don't the PRC's capitalists, given their social power, play a role in that process?)


Now, I'm pretty sure we can consider China as revisionist, though revisionism doesn't mean that capitalism has been restored, now does it?

I'd still like a source for the preceding claim, but socialism, if it means anything, is a system with democratic control by the working class; mere nationalization and control by the state alone is not the same thing as socialism.

[gorillafuck]

what about the maoists?
There are not any Maoists whatsoever in CCP leadership. I don't know where you got the impression that there were.


The majority of the means of production in China is not privately owned, rather it is collectively owned between the workers & State.
What are some statistics on this and how exactly do state owned enterprises function? Because obviously public ownership can still be operated in a for-profit way, such as public universities in the United States.

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul, I respect that you realize better than most on this forum that China is still to this day Socialist. Though, they are revisionist, & are on a dangerous path to Capitalism. But your support for "anti-china" people is a bit troubling if you ask me. Are you stating that you support imperialist actions against China or internal liberal protests like those that we witnessed during the failed Tiananmen Square coup?


I think I made it very clear that I defend China as a "deformed/revisionist worker's state" against imperialism. I would only work with "anti-China" people if they are "anti-China" from a leftist/socialist direction, not just any kind of "anti-China" people.

Sections of the Chinese capitalist class are calling for the CCP to give up political power. Basically they are calling for a bourgeois colour revolution. I also oppose these.

Tiananmen is much more complicated however. The MCPC's official position is actually that Tiananmen was intrinsically a mass socialist movement, not a counter-revolutionary coup. Personally I think both progressive and reactionary elements were present during the movement.



Should we not protect what's left of Socialism in China? Have you even paid attention to the worker strikes that's been supported by Hu Jintao & the Left wing section of the CPC, & long term wise have all been successful strikes?I wouldn't use the term "support". The strike leader of the recent Honda strike is actually a radical Maoist, and he is explicitly calling for the re-structuring of the trade unions in China so there is more grassroots democracy. Until the trade unions are actually restructured in China, I take whatever the CCP leadership says with quite a lot of salt.

I don't judge people by what they say, but by what they do.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, on the isse of tibet. The free tibet movement is led by the US and the Dalai Lama who want to bring about the independence of Tibet and something like 20% of all chinese territory around tibed should also become part of tibet.

its an imperialist project.

when the dalai lama ruled tibet, the people were subjected to harsh and very outdated feudalistic systems.

also, India, which has invaded china before, is backing the free tibet movement, and even allows for the Dali Lama to live there.

Tibet nowadays is semi-autonomous.

I think class rights over-rule national rights.

A worker's state literally invading and conquering a feudal or bourgeois state isn't necessarily wrong at all in my opinion.

In principle the only kind of "Tibetan independence" movement I'd support would be a genuinely proletarian one. If it's a feudal or bourgeois independence movement, there is no way I would support it. For Marxists national rights aren't unconditional.

[The Vegan Marxist]

What is your source for the fact that the "majority of the means of production in China is not privately owned, rather it is collectively owned between the workers & State"?

What do you mean "collectively owned between the workers & the State"? Is the state, then, separate from the workers, as seems to be the implication in that -- or do the workers control the state as well? If not, who does control the state? (And don't the PRC's capitalists, given their social power, play a role in that process?)

I'd still like a source for the preceding claim, but socialism, if it means anything, is a system with democratic control by the working class; mere nationalization and control by the state alone is not the same thing as socialism.

I'll present all my information here, 'cuz I get into too many talks about this on the forum anyways, so I hope you like reading.

Workers interests being protected by the CPC: http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/how-the-communist-party-of-china-safeguards-workers-interests-during-crisis/

A lot of people will point out the fact that police have been known at striking against working class protesters in China. This is true, there are police clashes between the working class/peasants & local authority within those provinces, though can we correctly connect them to the CPC as ordering such assaults? And even if so, we're not hiding the fact that there's a sign of bureaucracy within the CPC. Look at Venezuela! Although Chavez & his party are working as hard as they can under the interests of the working class & peasants, the bureaucrats within the Venezuelan government still allow the oppressing clashes between police over workers - workers who I might add are in support of Chavez.

In fact, I would ask for you to show me where these workers that are fighting against the private industries are in opposition with Hu Jintao & the Left wing of the CPC. Hu Jintao & his people within the Left wing have been fighting for the interests of the working class, as you can see through the Marxist-Leninist post that I pointed out, in which you inevitably disregarded through an unnecessary attack.

I also find it necessary to point out the fact that Socialism is not defined whether police are clashing with workers, or if the workers are still in class struggle. As both Comrade Mao & Comrade Stalin have pointed out, class struggle remains even while under Socialism. Socialism is defined through the ownership of the means of production, which I've correctly pointed out is being collectively owned between the workers & the State of the majority of the economy. The fact that signs of class struggle are present does nothing in showing whether China is socialist or not.

Now, since you're interested at where I get my statistics at where I correctly point out how the State-owned enterprises work, go here:

http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/

This is the Chinese statistical yearbook. Though, to warn you, if you're using anything other than Internet Explorer, you won't be able to access this site for some weird reason. So before you click this, make sure it's through Internet Explorer. What this shows is where the Chinese people work, which I've already stated is the public sector by the vast majority. As you can clearly see, the biggest single category is the township and village enterprises, which are definitely socialist enterprises.

There's also these:

http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66102/6290205.html

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-03/16/c_13212790.htm

This shows in great length the continued role in planning the Chinese economy.

When it comes to the State & its role in Socialism in accordance to the working class, these articles suffice so far in explaining such:

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/socialism-and-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat/

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-chinese-economy-in-1978/

When it comes to the difference between those that are actually for the working class in the CPC & those that are predominantly right-wing, this some-what new article helps point out where members of the CPC are now cracking down against corruption within the Party & government agencies:

http://www.idcpc.org.cn/english/events/100711.htm

Zeekloid, a fellow comrade from this forum then decided to ask me about this issue:


Just so you know, I am not positive of the amount of state v. private ownership in China in statistics (and I concede you were right that it is not neoliberal), but what I know is that China is a member of neoliberal trade organizations like the IMF and WTO, has a substantial portion of their economy privately owned (even if it is not over half), and before Ju took power had a strong tendency to increasingly privatize more and more of the economy in the interests of the emerging Chinese bourgeois. Also, how exactly do state owned parts of the Chinese economy function specifically? Banking in China is mostly state owned (the 4 biggest companies are), but it's policies are determined by market forces and profit motives.

In which I then responded here:


Very good questions. This is actually a big topic on China.

First, you have to distinguish among township & village enterprises, state owned enterprises, & private companies in which the state is the largest shareholder, because they all function a bit differently.

The township & village enterprises - which employ vast numbers of Chinese - are run by the township & village, & are basically under the control of the local authorities, local party branch, etc. They're autonomous. They were started in order to provide jobs to local people, & that's still their major reason for being, although to do that they can't lose money. Any profit is basically at the disposal of the township.

The state owned enterprises are pre-1978 survivals, & what has become of those through a merger process & a process of enormous growth. They answer to the central government, & in particular a central government organ that supervises state owned enterprises.

They are considerably autonomous, & have corruption problems. They provide good jobs for their workers & they also contribute a part of their profits to the public purse.

They are also often used to implement central government policy in many ways. Some of them develop strategic areas of the economy, such as energy, telecommunications & defense. All of them support local welfare & development projects. &, for instance, when China had a large surge in unemployment due to the world economic crisis, they got orders to hire a bunch of people, which they did.

What they do with their profits is complicated. They can't always reinvest it usefully in their own enterprises, so some of them have become conglomerates. They were also involved in real estate speculation, until they got orders from the central government to divest themselves of real estate holdings.

The private companies in which the state is the major shareholder are I think pretty diverse. Some of them function in a way not too unlike an SOE. Others, such as Lenovo, exist as a vehicle for China to expand its technical capabilities, & so long as they are advancing Chinese industry in the most technological areas, the central government may not care much what else they do. Still, they are reputed to take relatively good care of their workers.

Banking in China is more or less all still state controlled. Its role is to support development, &, through the planning role that banks have in any economy, to make sure it moves forward in a rational & sensible way.

The purpose of joining the WTO was to get foreign market access. At the time, that was about as clear as can be.

China still makes five year plans. You can find Hu Jintao's reports on them on the chinaview.cn website.

I hope all this answers your questions. Though, I'm sure I'll be hearing more. I can also point to you to other people as well that are far more qualified than I about this topic as well if you'd like. Either way, again, hope this helped answer your questions.

[Queercommie Girl]

Frankly, I'd be more supportive of Hu Jintao if he actually stops sending my MCPC radical Maoist friends to jail...:crying:

When a state that has Maoism as the cornerstone of its socialist constitution starts to throw radical Maoist revolutionaries into jail en masse, well then there must be something wrong with this state...

Ultra-leftists may argue that Cuba today is also revisionist, but at least in Cuba radical supporters of Castro are never arrested.

There is a fundamental difference.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I'll present all my information here, 'cuz I get into too many talks about this on the forum anyways, so I hope you like reading.

Workers interests being protected by the CPC: http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/how-the-communist-party-of-china-safeguards-workers-interests-during-crisis/


It doesn't really address what I'm getting at. The MarxistLeninist WordPress blog that you are linking to says things like



Under the effect of various measures, China’s registered urban unemployment rate was controlled at 4.3% in 2009. The number of China’s trade union members grew to a new record high. By the end of 2009, the total reaches 226 million, with an increase of 14.173 million, of which 7.983 million are migrant workers.

Despite these achievements, China still faces many problems in safeguarding workers’ interests, as the global financial crisis will not be over in the foreseeable future and there’s long way ahead for China’s urbanization.

1. As workers’ wage remains low relative to other kinds of income, the percentage of total wages in national income keeps declining. Currently total wages accounts only 30% or so of national income.

2. Many employers do not sign labor contract with workers or refuse to abide the contract. 30% -40% of urban employment personnel are “disposable workers”. 60% migrant workers do not have labor contracts. Random dismiss and wage arrears phenomenon is prevalent.

3. The legitimate right to leave hasn’t been effectively implemented and compensation for working overtime is low. Among the 145 million migrant labors working outside their neighborhood in 2009, 89.8% worked more than 40 hours. Workers working overtime can only get 20% -30% of the statutory compensation.

4. The ratio of employees covered by social security insurance is low. Insurance premiums comprised of basic pension, medical and unemployment insurance account for an average 28% of total wages, with 11% paid by individual worker. The rate is too high for enterprises and workers to take part in the insurance scheme.

5. Corporate safety and health conditions do not meet national standards. As a result, workers are frequently injured and suffer from occupational diseases.

6. Coordination mechanisms of labor dispute have not been established or incomplete within most enterprises. Among 13 million companies in China, more than 10 million small and medium enterprises have not established collective bargaining mechanism for wages.

However, it still insists that workers' interests are being "protected." Well, workers' interests are similarly "protected" in the West. On that note, the post claims that
It is proved by practice that, in a capitalist market economy based on private property, the government, as the representative of capitalists’ interests, will not stand in the position of the working class and actively participate in the protection of workers’ rights. As a result, workers’ interests can only be maintained and improved through improving the bargaining power of workers, ongoing strikes and other kinds of struggle initiated by trade unions.

Yes -- and so what? China, like the West, has all of the phenomena of a struggle between two economic classes as described above; the article even maintains that the growing number of union workers (for some reason, just 226 million out of a population of 1.2 billion) is a positive indicator in such circumstances. Well, true enough -- but so what?

After all, the American government has outlawed child labor and has created laws regulating working conditions. These steps were progressive and assisted the workers, but the government passing these limited measures was by no means a workers' government. The American system allows union membership; the days of the Pinkertons are long gone, but the capitalist economy is still here. All that is entirely irrelevant.



A lot of people will point out the fact that police have been known at striking against working class protesters in China. This is true, there are police clashes between the working class/peasants & local authority within those provinces, though can we correctly connect them to the CPC as ordering such assaults? And even if so, we're not hiding the fact that there's a sign of bureaucracy within the CPC. Look at Venezuela! Although Chavez & his party are working as hard as they can under the interests of the working class & peasants, the bureaucrats within the Venezuelan government still allow the oppressing clashes between police over workers - workers who I might add are in support of Chavez.

Didn't really care to bring that point up, but I wouldn't call Venezuela a socialist state at this point either. Its political system may be progressive, but its economy is still capitalist. I suppose some people could, if so inclined, suppose that China is a Venezuela-like "capitalistic workers' state" -- perhaps even something like Bolshevik Russia under NEP.

But you go further -- what you've said above is something else entirely:


China is by no means a capitalist country, & to claim they're bent to form themselves as a imperialist country is just as laughable. What is it? It's still a Socialist country.

Now, you can list as many progressive things about China as you like (or do that for America, Mexico, Brazil, Britain, or France), but doing so does not amount to showing that it the country is actually a socialist one. Socialism means ownership by the workers -- and not merely nationalization, the presence of trade unions, and so forth.

And incidentally -- there are many opponents of Chavez running things "on the ground" at the sub-federal level, whereas China is, to all effects and for all purposes, a one-party (CPC) state. (Yes, I know that there are a couple of very minor "ally-parties" that trail the CPC's lead.)


In fact, I would ask for you to show me where these workers that are fighting against the private industries are in opposition with Hu Jintao & the Left wing of the CPC...

Why are you asking me this? I am American, and was trying to probe you with some questions.

How would you expect me to show that or anything else to you?


Hu Jintao & his people within the Left wing have been fighting for the interests of the working class, as you can see through the Marxist-Leninist post that I pointed out, in which you inevitably disregarded through an unnecessary attack.

And who is Hu Jintao fighting? If merely people to the right of him (naturally), it doesn't mean that China is a socialist country -- just as China doesn't become a fascist, libertarian, or free-market country when Hu Jintao fights people to the left of him. The fact that Obama sits slightly to the left of Dick Cheney doesn't mean that he is a socialist, as Teabaggers love to claim. What was my unnecessary attack? (Unless you're simply referring to my skepticism about China's "socialism" in general, I certainly never -- by any means -- intended to make any such attack on you or anyone else.)


I also find it necessary to point out the fact that Socialism is not defined whether police are clashing with workers, or if the workers are still in class struggle.

Then why are you bringing it up, rather than telling us what socialism actually is, and how well the definition applies to a state like modern China?


As both Comrade Mao & Comrade Stalin have pointed out, class struggle remains even while under Socialism. Socialism is defined through the ownership of the means of production, which I've correctly pointed out is being collectively owned between the workers & the State of the majority of the economy.

The theory of the "aggravation of the class struggle under socialism" is a very poor contribution. The point of socialism is to abolish class; the capitalists are expropriated, so no class struggle in the classic sense can occur. The only "class struggle under socialism" coherent with this basic premise of socialism is the idea of a kind of struggle with the remnants of the old possessing class -- and, I suppose, perhaps their reactionary allies among people in general. The formulation "class struggle under socialism" was used by Stalin and Mao, but that is really only supposed to be an ideological (political) struggle. You aren't actually supposed to have workers fighting means-of-production-owning capitalists.


The fact that signs of class struggle are present does nothing in showing whether China is socialist or not.

The fact that "signs of class struggle" in China amount to workers fighting actual capitalists -- rather than remnants of the expropriated capitalist class (a la the USSR and Mao's China) is telling you something.

For brevity's sake, I won't further reply at length to some of the less direct parts of your post, since socialism is actually supposed to mean the abolition of classes as such.

Unless you yourself accept a not-so-subtle type of revisionism, you surely agree that you can't have socialism with capitalists. (I hate calling people revisionists, but I seriously doubt that Marx or Engels imagined the workers leaving the capitalists in charge of their economy, since the whole point of socialism was the abolition of class relations.) But, however progressive or un-progressive China may or may not be, it does have private enterprise and capitalists. (Including billionaires -- and these, of course, are pretty powerful capitalists).

We thus have a clear syllogism of the form 1) if a, then b; 2) not b; 3) therefore not a.

We can be generous to the PRC and call it a progressive capitalist state or something else, but it is obviously not a socialist country. The reasons why it isn't are pretty clear.


Now, since you're interested at where I get my statistics at where I correctly point out how the State-owned enterprises work, go here:

http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/statisticaldata/yearlydata/

This is the Chinese statistical yearbook. Though, to warn you, if you're using anything other than Internet Explorer, you won't be able to access this site for some weird reason. So before you click this, make sure it's through Internet Explorer. What this shows is where the Chinese people work, which I've already stated is the public sector by the vast majority. As you can clearly see, the biggest single category is the township and village enterprises, which are definitely socialist enterprises.

Fortunately, I do use Internet Explorer -- however, your site only brings up a long list of menus that give us some access to various statistics, and I'd rather not waste a lot of time exploring it. Could you help out by letting me know which option I should select to get the desired data for private sector vs. public sector employment?

I don't mean to be a pain, but since you seem to be saying that you've seen the stats, you'd be the ideal person to ask.

[gorillafuck]

Vegan Marxist, can you direct us a bit around those sites? It just gives lists that say nothing and it is difficult to navigate.

How about you just say the relevant statistics and source them to the exact pages where you found them? That would be much simpler than just throwing out some less-than-easy to navigate websites and saying "here ya go".

And TheMarxistLeninist blog just listed described horrible working conditions and said that there are a very very large amount of companies within China, with a few redeeming factors. I'm confused why you posted that...

[Queercommie Girl]

China is an authoritarian capitalist state engaging in serious imperialist crimes in Tibet and Xinxiang. There's nothing communist about China and the fact that the two are still conflated does little except embarrass us and box us into a corner. It doesn't help that there are still socialists who claim that China is socialist, even in the face of obvious capitalist policies, expansion, and abuse of workers. It's quite remarkable, really.

You mean "imperialist" like dis-possessing landlords and capitalists?

Killing some big Lamaist landlord or anti-women anti-LGBT Islamic fundamentalist religious national bourgeois isn't a "crime" in my book.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, i defend china form imperialism(as i do the DPRK, Cuba and Iran) but the political scene is very interesting. internationally, they are seriously acting independently which the US does not like one bit.


While I certainly oppose the demonisation of Islamic Iran by Western imperialism, I think it is fundamentally mistaken to put Marxist states like DPRK or Cuba (whether deformed, revisionist or not) into the same category as Islamic states like Iran.

Sorry, but Marxists need to maintain some degree of ideological and philosophical purity, and close associations with theocratic states isn't conducive to this aim.

In a sense yes, I think Marxism politically does function a bit like a "religion", because it's an entire world-view of the universe, nature, humanity, society, economics and politics, not just political economy. I don't think we should consider "infidels" like Muslim theocrats to be equal to proletarian states like DPRK or even the PRC, however deformed or revisionist.