The Marxist-Leninist website on Market Socialism in China

[RedMarxist]

this should be interesting. According to the marxist-leninist website(check it out) 'they' claim China's Market Socialism is a correct path towards futhering socialism and proletarian 'democracy' and revolution.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/a-question-of-state-revolution-china-market-socialism/#more-6627

This is the website that claims Stalin was a hero, that North Korea is a legitimate socialist nation worthy of recognition, and China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and N. Korea are "proletarian democracies" that continue to fight imperialism.

Read the article for yourselves comrades.

[Die Rote Fahne]

this should be interesting. According to the marxist-leninist website(check it out) 'they' claim China's Market Socialism is a correct path towards futhering socialism and proletarian 'democracy' and revolution.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/a-question-of-state-revolution-china-market-socialism/#more-6627

This is the website that claims Stalin was a hero, that North Korea is a legitimate socialist nation worthy of recognition, and China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and N. Korea are "proletarian democracies" that continue to fight imperialism.

Read the article for yourselves comrades.

Too busy doing this -> :laugh:

[Commissar Rykov]

North Korea a legitimate Socialist State? Well they lost me there. The view on China is a nice joke though.

[Return to the Source]

That's actually my blog that the Marxist-Leninist linked too. I thoroughly appreciated them reposting the article, but it originated on Return to the Source (http://return2source.wordpress.com/). I wrote it.

[Savage]

just wiping the vomit off my keyboard

[Thirsty Crow]

That's actually my blog that the Marxist-Leninist linked too. I thoroughly appreciated them reposting the article, but it originated on Return to the Source (http://return2source.wordpress.com/). I wrote it.
Wow, you did a mistake here in claiming this pile of shit to be a product of your brain.

[Property Is Robbery]

That's actually my blog that the Marxist-Leninist linked too. I thoroughly appreciated them reposting the article, but it originated on Return to the Source (http://return2source.wordpress.com/). I wrote it.
If you legitimately wrote it could you please explain to me why you believe this, it's beyond me.

Edit: Where did hear this shit?

Cuba is the closest to being socialist but Laos and Vietnam? DPRK? How is Juche, Marxism at all? Comrade Deng Xiaoping? How are you not restricted? You belong in OI.

[Spartacus.]

Wow, you did a mistake here in claiming this pile of shit to be a product of your brain.

There is really no need to insult other people just because they have illusions about the present state of the affairs in China. Many others also share them, per example, those who believe it is possible to move from capitalism to communism without a transitional phase, yet we are not laughing at them.

And the Chinese problem is not the fact that they are using some market mechanisms in order to develop their country (Lenin also did it, as well as Cuba), but that the workers there have long ago lost the state power.

[Thirsty Crow]

There is really no need to insult other people just because they have illusions about the present state of the affairs in China. Many others also share them, per example, those who believe it is possible to move from capitalism to communism without a transitional phase, yet we are not laughing at them.

Now, have I done so? Did I engage in personal insults?
You could only conclude that I did so if you equated the person in question with his/her writings. However, I did not even imply such an operation, meaning that I'd inslut the writing and the political position, but not the person.
And I'm not laughing either. It's really sad that a "communist" might fall for such obviously flawed ideas.

Oh yeah, and another thing: many of those who share these kinds of illusions have had a tremendous chance to revise their view through debate with comrades who know better. And guess what, they didn't do so. So there's no reason for me to respond to recycled bullshit in any other way than claiming it to be utter bullshit.

[Spartacus.]

Now, have I done so? Did I engage in personal insults?
You could only conclude that I did so if you equated the person in question with his/her writings. However, I did not even imply such an operation, meaning that I'd inslut the writing and the political position, but not the person.
And I'm not laughing either. It's really sad that a "communist" might fall for such obviously flawed ideas.

Claiming someone's writing to be a "pile of shit" is quite a rough language, and although it is not really a personal insult, it is still really sad that a "communist" might fall for such obviously disrespectfull language toward his comrade (who is, according to the number of his posts, still a new member)


Oh yeah, and another thing: many of those who share these kinds of illusions have had a tremendous chance to revise their view through debate with comrades who know better. And guess what, they didn't do so. So there's no reason for me to respond to recycled bullshit in any other way than claiming it to be utter bullshit.

Perhaps he didn't have a chance, considering the fact that he has joined this forum only a month ago, so there is really no need to play a smarthead and use rude language for someone's thoughts without contributing anything constructive to the disscussion and pointing to the mistakes of his ideas.
Would it be so hard to explain to him that in today's Chinese "socialist" paradise, each year a million people dies due to the lack of healthcare, some half a million perishes as a result of overwork and workers are so desperate that they are commiting suicide by jumping through the windows at their workplaces, and then ask him does he approves of a "socialist" countries that commit such atrocities?
That wouldn't have taken you too much effort, but would have made your post look argumentative and wouldn't make other people feel insulted by your rudeness just because they have brought forward an idea that is naive and unfounded in reality. :)

[Wanted Man]

this should be interesting. According to the marxist-leninist website(check it out) 'they' claim China's Market Socialism is a correct path towards futhering socialism and proletarian 'democracy' and revolution.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/a-question-of-state-revolution-china-market-socialism/#more-6627

This is the website that claims Stalin was a hero, that North Korea is a legitimate socialist nation worthy of recognition, and China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and N. Korea are "proletarian democracies" that continue to fight imperialism.

Read the article for yourselves comrades.

What does this have to do with learning? Doesn't look like you're trying to "learn" anything about this.

Anyway, it's a pretty common line of argument, that the whole development in China at the moment is actually going to lead to ("more advanced") socialism. But it takes a pretty big amount of doublethink to get to that point. When this development takes place in such a profound way, then of course it will also trickle through into the political level (of course, the current development is already a very conscious political decision, but still coupled with "socialist" justifications - how long will that last?). When, exactly, will the CPC decide that it's been enough, and now we're going to "build socialism" from what we've been creating over the past years? To this there is no answer.

Good article on this from the KKE: http://mltoday.com/subject-areas/socialism-today/the-international-role-of-china-1125.html

In consideration of that, I wonder where exactly the guy from Return to the Source gets off talking about what "Marxists-Leninists" should do, and that anyone who disagrees must be a Trot. This debate on China will go on in the M-L movement for a long time, but if you think that this leads to some fundamental contradiction, then it seems clear to me who the real Marxists-Leninists are, and then the other guy can start openly supporting Dengism. "Long live the universal contributions of Deng Xiaoping to Marxism-Leninism!" :lol:

[dernier combat]

Many others also share them, per example, those who believe it is possible to move from capitalism to communism without a transitional phase, yet we are not laughing at them.
I assume here you are referring to anarchists and certain other "libertarian socialists". The reason why we anarchists etc. oppose the idea of a transitional "state" is because we view the state as something different to (most?) Marxists (or is it just the Leninists? I forget). The former tend to view it as a hierarchical body (with decision-making authority concentrated topmost) that maintains class rule (as in the case of any sort of minority class, e.g. the bourgeoisie), whereas the latter don't explicitly consider the hierarchical nature of the institution, viewing the state as just a body that maintains class rule. In the end, it's all just semantics within the context of the DoTP; some would call it a state and others wouldn't. We still observe a transitional period between capitalism and global communism: the period in which the working classes all across the globe overthrow the global bourgeoisie and gain power.

[Struggle]

This article is quite frightening to read to say the least.

The author has obviously accepted the idea what can only be accepted by the deluded; that the Chinese government still has Communist aims and that they are trying to achieve that by employing Capitalism. This view is a whitewash of history, showing absolutely no analytical skills for understanding China today, and a clear viewpoint which should and will only scare others away from Socialism.

The Chinese Leadership as it is has absolutely no motive of implementing Socialism or achieving Communism. All evidence suggests this.

Let us for a moment accept the viewpoint that the Chinese Government is ‘using Capitalism to achieve Socialism’. If this was the case, like the Bolsheviks, the government would put a heavy emphasis on Marxism and the study of Marxist economics, regardless of whether they are using Capitalist market forces to achieve Socialism or Communism. The opposite is the case. For a student studying economics in China, the student only needs to study Marxism for 5 hours throughout his entire time spent in university. - Does this sound like a society which is trying to achieve Socialism?

The Chinese government has absolutely no intention of building a genuine Socialist society, and to say otherwise is delusion and fantasy.

[Return to the Source]

And once again, it's quite clear that no one actually read the article. Phrases like "it's quite clear that..." or "that pile of shit" or the request, "please explain what you mean" all indicate someone who did not actually read the article. They opened the page and maybe skimmed the first few paragraphs but as soon as it became clear that the article challenged some of their fundamental assumptions about China, they accused it of having no evidence--"showing absolutely no analytical skills for understanding China today"--even though actually reading the article would guide a reasonable human being to reach the opposite conclusion.

Thus far, I haven't read anyone on any forum where people have posted it or on any of the six blogs that have reposted it who actually offers a critique of the arguments. Ironically, they offer no evidence for their baseless assertions, and do not respond to a single actual argument made in the entire article. That's adorable.

[Kamos]

And once again, it's quite clear that no one actually read the article. Phrases like "it's quite clear that..." or "that pile of shit" or the request, "please explain what you mean" all indicate someone who did not actually read the article.

By that logic, you didn't read their replies either. http://sampforum.hu/Smileys/DarkB/trollface.png Also, it is news to me that China's market colonisation of Africa is a fine example of socialism. By that logic, the USA is also socialist.

[RedMarxist]

I read the whole article. It was well written and argumentative. Yet, I really don't agree that market socialism practiced in modern China is the same as Lenin's NEP. When will China actually start building socialism? When?


Also, North Korea in my opinion is a tragedy and freak of nature. The only reason it exists is because Uncle Joe wanted it to.

For information on Soviet culture, way of life, government, etc. I HIGHLY recommend reading 'The Red Flag: A history of Communism'(its on amazon or at your local bookstore). Its neutral and shows us how communism under the Bolsheviks was distorted and autocracised from the very beginning due to a whole host of problems, not to mention the failure of the Hungarian, German and Italian revolutions in the 1919-20 period, as well as idealism on Lenin's part. He essentially resorted to outright violence and autocracy to maintain control of the nation, hence all future communist rebellions(China, Vietnam) would follow the Bolshevik's ruthless example of oppression.

Although I am A Leninist-Maoist, I'm at least not blind and capable of realizing that China abandoned socialism, that North Korea is a festering soar in the backside of the Left, and that nations like Vietnam continue to violate human rights. In my opinion, Leninism/Maoism is the most successful(and one of the few actually practiced) communist ideologies. Anarchism in my opinion is too decentralized, Stalinism is a big joke(remind me how Stalin is a HERO The Marxist Leninist.com), Left Communism is an infantile disorder, and so hell I'll stick with Lenin and pals(excluding Stalin).

sorry for that rant, but had to get it all out.

[Property Is Robbery]

And once again, it's quite clear that no one actually read the article. Phrases like "it's quite clear that..." or "that pile of shit" or the request, "please explain what you mean" all indicate someone who did not actually read the article. They opened the page and maybe skimmed the first few paragraphs but as soon as it became clear that the article challenged some of their fundamental assumptions about China, they accused it of having no evidence--"showing absolutely no analytical skills for understanding China today"--even though actually reading the article would guide a reasonable human being to reach the opposite conclusion.

Thus far, I haven't read anyone on any forum where people have posted it or on any of the six blogs that have reposted it who actually offers a critique of the arguments. Ironically, they offer no evidence for their baseless assertions, and do not respond to a single actual argument made in the entire article. That's adorable.
Please answer my question. Where did you learn what you wrote? It's simply not based on facts.

[Property Is Robbery]

Left Communism is an infantile disorder
lol that's original

[KC]

Dude it's The Marxist-Leninist, they're aligned with the FRSO (frso.org), one of the most batshit insane orgs in the country. This is no surprise.

EDIT: Just read the thread:


And once again, it's quite clear that no one actually read the article. Phrases like "it's quite clear that..." or "that pile of shit" or the request, "please explain what you mean" all indicate someone who did not actually read the article. They opened the page and maybe skimmed the first few paragraphs but as soon as it became clear that the article challenged some of their fundamental assumptions about China, they accused it of having no evidence--"showing absolutely no analytical skills for understanding China today"--even though actually reading the article would guide a reasonable human being to reach the opposite conclusion.

Thus far, I haven't read anyone on any forum where people have posted it or on any of the six blogs that have reposted it who actually offers a critique of the arguments. Ironically, they offer no evidence for their baseless assertions, and do not respond to a single actual argument made in the entire article. That's adorable.

You're claiming that these states are socialist, there's basically no argument to be made against you that's worthwhile because of how crazy your positions are. And comparing restoration of capitalism in China with NEP is a joke because the only thing they have in common is "capital". The conditions that brought them both about are completely different, they are completely different in every single way possible. Yet because their appearance is similar (i.e. development of capital in a country), you think it's a valid comparison. It makes no sense.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Although I am A Leninist-Maoist, I'm at least not blind and capable of realizing that China abandoned socialism, that North Korea is a festering soar in the backside of the Left, and that nations like Vietnam continue to violate human rights. In my opinion, Leninism/Maoism is the most successful(and one of the few actually practiced) communist ideologies. Anarchism in my opinion is too decentralized, Stalinism is a big joke(remind me how Stalin is a HERO The Marxist Leninist.com), Left Communism is an infantile disorder, and so hell I'll stick with Lenin and pals(excluding Stalin).

If you're a Maoist you should know that there's no such thing as "Stalinism", that it's just a bourgeois/revisionist name for Leninism and that Mao upheld Stalin as a great Marxist-Leninist. I doubt Mao shared your opinion on the DPRK either -
HA7_NkoStGk

[RedSunRising]

If you're a Maoist you should know that there's no such thing as "Stalinism", that it's just a bourgeois/revisionist name for Leninism and that Mao upheld Stalin as a great Marxist-Leninist.

I agree with you however the largest Maoist groupings in the United States tend to damn Stalin with faint praise while dragging his name through the muck (RCP, Kasama....MIM actually had a pretty good estimate of Stalin), so that people think they can be "Maoists" without upholding the USSR of Stalin's time (which is seen as too authoritarian, to against "fun").

[Red Future]

I read your article Return to the source and will state that I respectfully disagree with the developments that you mention ,the CCPs revolutionary role is over in my view and it is as well known Communist in name only - Not even the CCP leadership mention Marxism anymore.

[Commissar Rykov]

I read your article Return to the source and will state that I respectfully disagree with the developments that you mention ,the CCPs revolutionary role is over in my view and it is as well known Communist in name only - Not even the CCP leadership mention Marxism anymore.

Indeed, though I am extremely disturbed that anyone would uphold the CCP or the Modern PRC as socialist. I am pretty sure Deng Xiaopeng buried those ideals a long time ago.

[caramelpence]

One of the things I find really puzzling about Brezhnevist groups like FRSO and the PSL and the CPGB-ML in the UK is how they keep their ideological contradictions from totally unravelling. It seems incredible that they can seriously argue that there should have been unity between the socialist countries during the Cold War when the PRC and the USSR were experiencing continuous border fighting and were literally on the verge of having a full-fledged war at the high point of the Cultural Revolution - it seems that the only way anyone would be able to take the prospect of reconciliation seriously in that context is by totally ignoring the significance of the split or by seeing it as the simple result of misunderstandings, rather than a deep-rooted clash between two rival ruling classes. Similarly, I find it hard to understand how someone can celebrate the Cultural Revolution whilst at the same time rejecting the view that the Soviet Union had become "capitalist" and "fascist" (qua Mao) and honestly thinking that contemporary China is a socialist society. At least the Chinese government itself is fairly consistent in that it condemns the Cultural Revolution in strong terms and has an even-handed account of Mao's contributions and mistakes, but for these groups I actually find it admirable that they can maintain a worldview that seems so full of internal contradictions.

******

As for the article, it displays an astonishing degree of ignorance.

Firstly, Mao and the CPC did not think that the bourgeoisie had been eliminated as a class in 1949 because the revolution that took place in that year was supposed to be New Democratic rather than socialist, which meant that the national bourgeoisie was supposed to be part of the bloc of four classes that would lead the revolution and that the expropriation of private property was supposed to be limited to comprador or bureaucratic capital. These were not mere slogans as they actually had an impact on CPC policy - in particular, the emerging party-state restrained workers who wanted to push for improvements in wages and working conditions, and pursued closer relationships with individual leading capitalists, often by offering them official posts, especially when there was a chance that they would relocate their enterprises to Hong Kong or some other location. This understanding of the PRC's history is made explicit in documents that represent the perspective of the post-CR leadership generations on the history of the state and party, like the 1981 resolution on party history, so why it is so blatantly ignored in this article is unclear.

Secondly, it erroneously states that Mao died in 1975, when he died in 1976.

Thirdly, it erroneously states that Deng Xiaoping was Chairman of the CPC - he wasn't, he held the position of Vice-Chairman despite having de facto power, and the post of Chairman was abolished and replaced with General Secretary in 1982.

Fourthly, throughout the article there are arguments that betray a total lack of intellectual honesty and respect for falsifiability. For example, when the author recognizes that there is widespread concern in China about the level of income inequality, they cite this as positive evidence of the existence of socialist values and institutions in China, without explaining why this is so, or what conclusions we should draw from the fact that there are other countries, with inequality levels similar to those in China, where populations exhibit the same kind of concern. This style of argument is not about honestly coming to terms with the facts, it is about trying to bend the facts to suit the conclusion or interpreting the brute facts in such a way that there is no scope for any alternative argument.

Fifthly, the argument contains underlying tensions if not outright contradictions. A large part of the argument is spent showing that the state still has a key role in the Chinese economy, only for the author to subsequently point out, quoting from Deng, that whether a society is socialist or not does not depend on the relative balance of markets and planning. This logically means that the prevalence of state ownership cannot in and of itself make China either socialist or capitalist (which is true because the defining characteristic of capitalism is the dispossession of the producers and the alienability of labour power rather than whether prices can move freely in a market or not) and that there must be some other crucial factor. There is no explicit recognition of what this crucial factor might be.

Sixthly, and following on from point five, given that state ownership alone cannot, by the author's own logic, show that China is socialist, the only way they actually come close to putting forward a more direct argument (i.e. showing what the crucial factor might be) is by specifying the alleged ways that the Chinese government has sought to improve the conditions of workers. The problem here is that firstly, these reforms are totally abstracted from the broader processes and divisions of Chinese society. When the author quotes statistics relating to increases in the minimum wage, for example, there is no discussion whatsoever of current inflation rates in China or the narrowing of healthcare in the post-1976 period. In the second place, there is no attempt to show what makes these reforms, considered on their own terms, distinctively socialist or sufficient in their quantity and force to make China a socialist society. Reforms like increasing public expenditure and promises like pledges to reduce inequality are characteristic of other governments as well, but there is no real attempt to analyze the qualitative differences between capitalism and socialism as historic modes of production. Instead, it is assumed that pointing to these individual reforms is sufficient evidence and constitutive of a well-rounded argument.

Seventhly, the article exhibits a theoretically impoverished concept of imperialism, in that China not being an imperialist power is supported with reference to China's rhetoric (alongside claims about the discourse of other countries that are historically inaccurate) and the Chinese government's own account of how its loans might be used by African countries, rather than an analysis of imperialism as an historically-evolved world-system and China's role within that system.

All in all, a pretty sloppy article. Ironically, though, it does have one central redeeming feature, which is that the author is entirely correct to recognize that a communist mode of production and distribution requires a highly developed productive apparatus as its basis and that it cannot ultimately survive without this apparatus being in place. This is correct, and its practical conclusion is that communism cannot exist within the borders within one country alone, and that it requires the overthrow of capitalism throughout the world, because capitalism's productive apparatus is international in scope and characterized by relations of mutual dependency. It is precisely this argument that lies behind the Trotskyist appreciation of world revolution but the author is so unwilling to think outside of their pre-determined conclusion - that China is socialist - that they are not able to follow the ultimate logic of an important part of their own argument.

[Reznov]

I want to see the comrades thoughts and reasons as to why he wrote it before I criticize him for being a blind fool.

[RedMarxist]

yes, I know Mao saw Stalin as a good ML and had good relations with the DPRK. I just don't like the idea of liking Stalin(he was a brutal dictator, although he did do some good things) like the Marxist-Leninist.com seems to do often.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Well if Stalin was a brutal dictator then what does that make Mao then?

[Per Levy]

Well Stalin was a brutal dictator then what does that make Mao then?

fixed it^^. anyway, stalin is not the topic here, if you want to talk about stalin open thread and invite people there you want to discuss with. just saying...

[Wanted Man]

words

It's good to have you back, Bobkindles, but can you at least try to use paragraph breaks? I would probably agree with most of the post if I could read it without hurting my eyes.

[caramelpence]

It's good to have you back, Bobkindles, but can you at least try to use paragraph breaks? I would probably agree with most of the post if I could read it without hurting my eyes.

I complied with your request, but who is Bobkindles? :confused: