Is China communist?

[Nehru]

Is it, at least on some level?

Also speculatively, is China (as the sole superpower) better for the world?

[Per Levy]

Is China communist?

no.


Is it, at least on some level?

also no.


Also speculatively, is China (as the sole superpower) better for the world?

if you think another capitalist superpower is good for the world, then maybe yes. to me no.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

No it is capitalist.If China would have started,then it would be a communist state.

[Kamos]

China has been socialist only in name, at least since Mao's death.

[CommunityBeliever]

Is it, at least on some level?I suppose you could say that it is "on some level" it is communist. It is certainly more progressive then every other country in the world besides perhaps Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam.

China is dedicated to peaceful and sustainable development, it doesn't conquer countries like NATO does, and it is the oldest continuous civilisation. So I give them a some credit for that.


Also speculatively, is China (as the sole superpower) better for the world?

It would definitely been an improvement over the NATO imperialists.

[Obs]

China is dedicated to peaceful and sustainable development, it doesn't conquer countries like NATO does.
You're right, they just buy up mines in Africa to extract surplus value (http://www.sawfnews.com/Business/32806.aspx). What comrades!

[CommunityBeliever]

You're right, they just buy up mines in Africa to extract surplus value (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.sawfnews.com/Business/32806.aspx). What comrades! On the other hand, they aren't currently bombing any African countries like NATO is. NATO is still the main force of imperialism in the world today, and China isn't in it.

[RED DAVE]

Is it, at least on some level?No.


Also speculatively, is China (as the sole superpower) better for the world?No.

RED DAVE

[CommunityBeliever]

Four superiorities of China's path (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7577764.html)

The China path, namely socialism with Chinese characteristics, is better than capitalism because it has four superiorities over capitalism in terms of solving the needs of the people — especially the basic living needs of the masses.

The first one is the common prosperity. We insist on socialism because the core of socialism is common prosperity. The advanced productivity we are talking about means opening up the advanced productivity to the great masses, and the whole population of over one billion in China can make innovations. It does not mean only a few people monopolize the advanced productivity.

The development we are talking about means that over a billion people in China can share the benefits brought by development, and the fruits can be enjoyed together by the great masses. China's reform will never stop, and China's scientific development will be realized undoubtedly because they have acquired the advocacy, participation and support of the great masses.

The second one is green modernization. As the world's largest export and manufacturing country, China has a relatively low per unit GDP energy consumption, and the current pollution and emissions are mainly caused by export-orientated enterprises. China has already clearly declared that it will build a resource-conserving and environmentally friendly society. For China, taking responsibility for its over 1 billion people and their descendants means being responsible for the entire human race. China's determination to promote green modernization is unshakable.

The third one is peaceful development. Today's China is a world peacemaker and is a friendly country coexisting with other countries under the principle of equality. China understands and shows its concerns about the people in developing countries that are trapped in wars, poverty and backward states of economic development, and China has tried its best to help them.

The fourth one is the path of justice followed by China. China is the world's only country with several thousand years of continuous civilization, culture and character styles. Former Chinese leader Chairman Mao Zedong once said, "China should contribute much to mankind. Such contributions have been few over a rather long period. This makes us ashamed." The remarks are also applied to the cultural sector. If the Chinese people lose cultural consciousness and confidence amid economic development, China will lose the legitimacy of its political and economic development. If the validity and justice of China’s socialist path cannot be sufficiently described, China's cultural development will fail.

[ModelHomeInvasion]

Here's what a friend of mine had to say about the Chinese government a short while back:

"The Chinese government is hard to gauge actually. If you look at their focus, the emphasis is on rapid development and infrastructure. The censorship stuff tends to be against anti-government propaganda and things that are seen as signs of moral decay like pornography. The so-called "human rights violations" are a tossup because the country that tortures civilians with no oversight or process (not to mention the new Jim Crow that is the American "justice" system) also says Cuba is a violator of human rights.

At any rate, I'm completely for the industrialization and modernization of China.

What I'm not a fan of is "human rights" activists, especially not ones that are at least tacitly supported by the US/State Dept. Hard to be for "human rights" while you're cozying up with the greatest killing machine in all of human history. Also hard to claim you don't have a political agenda."

I agree 100% with him.

ReturnToTheSource, a dude who posts on here, wrote a pretty decent article that relates to all this titled China & Market Socialism: A Question of State & Revolution which is most def worth reading (please, ignore his lecturing on the "Laos People's Republic" in 2011).

Edit: apparently I am not able to provide links because my post count is not greater than 25. I suggest that you Google the article's title or find ReturnToTheSource's Revleft profile.

[Tommy4ever]

Not even a little bit.

As for whether it would be better if China could compete as a second superpower alongside the US. I don't know if it would necessarily be a positive thing. But the breaking of American hegemony could have some benefits - but mostly for tin pot dictators in the 3rd world who might one day soon be able to go back to the good old days of the Cold War where such people could play the superpowers against one another.

[Nox]

No, China is not communist.

Yes, China would be better off as the top superpower.

[RED DAVE]

Yes, China would be better off as the top superpower.Why one earth would you say that? Is one capitalist superpower better than another? That's liberalism, Comrade: My imperialism is nicer than your imperialsim. I think the people of Tibet might disagree.

RED DAVE

[Honggweilo]

. I think the feudal monarchs of Tibet might disagree.

fixed that for ya

[Nox]

Why one earth would you say that? Is one capitalist superpower better than another? That's liberalism, Comrade: My imperialism is nicer than your imperialsim. I think the people of Tibet might disagree.

RED DAVE

Liberal question, liberal answer.

Are you suggesting China wouldn't be a better superpower than the USA is now?

[GPDP]

As a communist, I'd much rather do away with the whole concept of a capitalist-imperialist superpower altogether, thank you very much.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Four superiorities of China's path (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7577764.html)

The China path, namely socialism with Chinese characteristics, is better than capitalism because it has four superiorities over capitalism in terms of solving the needs of the people — especially the basic living needs of the masses.


:laugh: You're having a laugh! They can't even solve the basic needs, and they don't want to - they're capitalists. Isn't it wonderful to have poorly paid labourers working 14-hour days? Isn't it wonderful to have widespread poverty? Isn't it just wonderful to have private capitalists getting wealthy off the backs of the Chinese working class?


The first one is the common prosperity. We insist on socialism because the core of socialism is common prosperity. The advanced productivity we are talking about means opening up the advanced productivity to the great masses, and the whole population of over one billion in China can make innovations. It does not mean only a few people monopolize the advanced productivity.

Common! Prosperity! Surely you jest, sir! Productivity advances that benefit the capitalists, yes, what is this garbled mess of nonsensical rubbish? Only a few people control the machinations of industry, either as corrupt government officials or private capitalists. Common prosperity, tell that to the impoverished peoples of the countryside, tell that to the countless millions who do not afford health care - because it is not free - tell that to the old people who have seen their pensions obliterated, tell that to the migrant labourers that flock the cities from the countryside looking for work! China has an income inequality on par with the United States! Common Prosperity, you must be joking.


The second one is green modernization. As the world's largest export and manufacturing country, China has a relatively low per unit GDP energy consumption, and the current pollution and emissions are mainly caused by export-orientated enterprises. China has already clearly declared that it will build a resource-conserving and environmentally friendly society. For China, taking responsibility for its over 1 billion people and their descendants means being responsible for the entire human race. China's determination to promote green modernization is unshakable.

Why does it have a low energy consumption I wonder... might it be because the country isn't very rich and the GDP is still overall low? The fact that China does some posturing vis a vis wanting to be energy efficient and "green" only reflects the capitalist adaptation to their own perceptions of environmental problems. Mind you that, despite all their green-talk, air-pollution standards are low and emissions are extremely high.


The third one is peaceful development. Today's China is a world peacemaker and is a friendly country coexisting with other countries under the principle of equality. China understands and shows its concerns about the people in developing countries that are trapped in wars, poverty and backward states of economic development, and China has tried its best to help them.

Just as it was wrong when the Soviet Union preached peaceful co-existence, it is utterly reprehensible that any leftist can want to defend something like "peaceful development", which in the case of China internally reflects what - that's right, pacification of social forces resulting from the inequalities of capitalism, and in the global perspective reflects the Capitalist Party of China's desire to trade and get a foot into new markets to feed and support its expanding capitalist and imperialist machinery. China's interest in "backward states" and thwarting poverty extend only insofar as they can benefit from raw materials. It is not a coincidence that the Chinese offered investment to rebuilt the railways of Angola that were originally built by colonial forces in order to export the nations raw materials. This is what China too, is interested in. It is not an humanitarian mission, it is not to bring an end to capitalism, not to spread equality; it is to extract, to enrich itself. It seeks to help where it benefits itself, just like any other capitalist country. There is a rivalry with the United States only insofar as they are competitors on the capitalist market.


The fourth one is the path of justice followed by China. China is the world's only country with several thousand years of continuous civilization, culture and character styles. Former Chinese leader Chairman Mao Zedong once said, "China should contribute much to mankind. Such contributions have been few over a rather long period. This makes us ashamed." The remarks are also applied to the cultural sector. If the Chinese people lose cultural consciousness and confidence amid economic development, China will lose the legitimacy of its political and economic development. If the validity and justice of China’s socialist path cannot be sufficiently described, China's cultural development will fail.

Justice? Where's the justice to the oppressed people's of China today? It's certainly not in something championed by the Capitalist Party! And even if we were to recognise Mao as leading China onto a socialist path, it has long since veered off that path. It is now on the path of capitalist development, and there is no doubt about this.

[Tommy4ever]

Liberal question, liberal answer.

Are you suggesting China wouldn't be a better superpower than the USA is now?

Why the fuck would China make a better superpower?

This statement makes no sense.

[RED DAVE]

fixed that for yaI think that before you justify China's imperialist conquest of Tibet, you need to justify it. You are using the exact same justifications that the US, for example, has always used to invade and occupy other countries.

And the imperialist occupation goes on, even under private capitalist (as opposed to state capitalist) Tibet.

RED DAVE

[Rafiq]

The Chinese state is just as much of an enemy to the proletariat as the American state.

[00000000000]

"What I'm not a fan of is "human rights" activists, especially not ones that are at least tacitly supported by the US/State Dept. Hard to be for "human rights" while you're cozying up with the greatest killing machine in all of human history. Also hard to claim you don't have a political agenda."

That's like saying one type of murderous and repressive state is better than another because it's comparatively killed and repressed fewer people.
Irrespective of it's origins / name / stated intents - any state where citizens are killed by agents of the state or where free-thought and opinion is surpressed is wrong (from China to the USA and everything in-between)

[Honggweilo]

I think that before you justify China's imperialist conquest of Tibet, you need to justify it. You are using the exact same justifications that the US, for example, has always used to invade and occupy other countries.

And the imperialist occupation goes on, even under private capitalist (as opposed to state capitalist) Tibet.

RED DAVE

I could, but you know very well that there's a shitload of topics on that subject, so i wont bother.

might i also add that the imperialist division/deviding of china through ethnic and feudal comprador warlords milked china for centuries? Every fucking ethnic group can reach out to a specific point in time and claim land on cultural basis. But thats not the marxist definition of imperialism, which is political-economic (like the Irish, Palestinian question for example) . And as far as i know, whichever way you look at it, the arrid unresourcefull and unurbanised autonomous province of Tibet is not of any economic value (There is major GDP flow from China to tibet, not the other way around). Its only of strategic geo-political value to the US and India. Call China what you like, but stop playing the dubious ethnic/cultural card. Self-determination of the oppresed is something else then self-determination based solely on culture. And sure some Chinese defend their right to Tibet out of nationalist/cultural reasons. But its still alot better of then turning it into another asian US puppet-regime

[Obs]

I could, but you know very well that there's a shitload of topics on that subject, so i wont bother.

might i also add that the imperialist division/deviding of china through ethnic and feudal comprador warlords milked china for centuries? Every fucking ethnic group can reach out to a specific point in time and claim land on cultural basis. But thats not the marxist definition of imperialism, which is political-economic (like the Irish, Palestinian question for example) . And as far as i know, whichever way you look at it, the arrid unresourcefull and unurbanised automous province of Tibet is not of any economic value (There is major GDP flow from China to tibet, not the other way around). Its only of strategic geo-political value to the US and India. Call China what you like, but stop playing the dubious ethnic/cultural card. Self-determination of the oppresed is something else then self-determination based solely on culture.
Be that as it may (not saying you're right, but as you said, there are tons of topics on this particular issue), China is still imperialist by definition in that it exports capital and imports surplus value. We're not even talking about working conditions in their African mines (or whatever) or the lack of workers' democracy - by the very fact that China maintains an economy ruled by a classic, private bourgeoisie, and the fact that this bourgeoisie is active overseas as well, there shouldn't even be a discussion as to whether China is imperialist or not.

EDIT: It is possible I may be misunderstanding you. In that case, please do track me down and stab me in the gut.

[Honggweilo]

Be that as it may (not saying you're right, but as you said, there are tons of topics on this particular issue), China is still imperialist by definition in that it exports capital and imports surplus value. We're not even talking about working conditions in their African mines (or whatever) or the lack of workers' democracy - by the very fact that China maintains an economy ruled by a classic, private bourgeoisie, and the fact that this bourgeoisie is active overseas as well, there shouldn't even be a discussion as to whether China is imperialist or not.

EDIT: It is possible I may be misunderstanding you. In that case, please do track me down and stab me in the gut.

That may be disputed and true in some cases, but it isnt with Tibet. East-turkestan does have an economic value, though their claims for complete independence are also reactionairy as fuck. In the same way i support Palestinian liberation, and defend libya against foreign intervention. But im not going to mouthpiece Hamas or Gadafi.

[Obs]

That may be disputed and true in some cases,
So we agree, really. I don't know an awful lot about Tibet or other peripheral regions within the PRC, so I don't have much of a stand on that matter.

[Honggweilo]

Interesting dicussion piece: A justification of the Chinese CP on their current economic and political line at the Meeting of Workers and Communist Parties (i believe this is the only thing they actually published to the international communist movement, which they usually send economic institute representatives to, in 10 years. and ofcourse it was recieved with little solidarity and understanding.)

http://solidnet.org/china-communist-party-of-china/782-11-imcwp-intervention-by-cp-of-china

NOTE: the IMCWP is a non-binding international forum, not a binding international organisation.

i especially lol'd and these bits


Some parties, due to lack of knowledge about the national conditions of China, think that China has given up Marxism and has deviated from the socialist path, and some even call China's system "authoritarian capitalism". But these accuses are not true. As you all know, China is a large oriental country with relatively backward economy and culture. China is and will be for a long time to come remain at the primary stage of socialism. There are no references in the classics on how to carry forward Marxism and develop socialism with our special national conditions. The CPC has always upheld Marxism as our fundamental guiding ideology, insisted in adapting the basic tenets of Marxism to Chinese conditions and the features of the times and tried to explore a new road for building socialism.


This ongoing crisis is but another testimony— Carl Marx is right in his judgment of capitalist economic cycle and that the capitalist mode of production is doomed to failure.

But can we rush to the conclusion that capitalism will die in this crisis? My answer is "no". What-we can say is that this crisis will accelerate the transition of capitalism to socialism. This is because that since the mid-20th century, with new scientific and technological revolution and the self-adjustment of capitalism, coupled with economic booming followed by capital expansion, the capitalist world has experienced a relatively stable and prosperous period. In the past 360 years after the English Bourgeois Revolution, the capitalist world has accumulated much experience in handling their crises. At present, threre is still room for growth in capitalist productivity and the self-adjustment capacity of-capitalist mode of production has not been exhausted.


As a result, it! will take a long time for socialism to replace capitalism. This was also embedded in Marxist thought: "no social order ever disappears before all the productive forces, for which there is room in it, have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society". A correct understanding of and response to the development of capitalism can help us obtain a scientific view of the reality and adopt right policies. I think that given — the current balance of power, capitalism will remain more powerful than socialism for a certain period to come and that socialist countries should deal with capitalist countries with both struggle and cooperation to sharpen our horn and broaden our room for survival.

Thats some bonafide slick distortion to justify your capitalist transition XD. You have to agree that this is some nifty rethoric. And apperantly, they seem to be completely conscience about what they are doing, and pretty at peace with. The current chinese leadership is drenched in machiavelian politics and economics, without any ideological moral boundries.

[Obs]

Interesting dicussion piece: A justification of the Chinese CP on their current economic and political line at the Meeting of Workers and Communist Parties (i believe this is the only thing they actually published to the international communist movement, which they usually send economic institute representatives to, in 10 years. and ofcourse it was recieved with little solidarity and understanding.)

http://solidnet.org/china-communist-party-of-china/782-11-imcwp-intervention-by-cp-of-china

NOTE: the IMCWP is a non-binding international forum, not a binding international organisation.
I think the ghost of Deng Xiaoping just had a wank in my face. brb, gonna go shower.

[Honggweilo]

I think the ghost of Deng Xiaoping just had a wank in my face. brb, gonna go shower.

revisionist ectoplasm bukkake

[Thirsty Crow]

Why the fuck would China make a better superpower?

This statement makes no sense.
Because the ruling party is the Communist Party of China.
Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

[Per Levy]

there is a interview with Li Junru, this guy: http://english.yau.edu.cn/content.jsp?pagetype=TPP_CONTENT&wbnewsid=51490&tree=1 , in the german "marxistische blätter", in that he claims that china supports economic globalization and free trade, because it would benefit everyone and would make trade relations between developed and non developed nations fairer. as he puts it, it would be a win/win situation for both.

[ModelHomeInvasion]

"What I'm not a fan of is "human rights" activists, especially not ones that are at least tacitly supported by the US/State Dept. Hard to be for "human rights" while you're cozying up with the greatest killing machine in all of human history. Also hard to claim you don't have a political agenda."

That's like saying one type of murderous and repressive state is better than another because it's comparatively killed and repressed fewer people.
Irrespective of it's origins / name / stated intents - any state where citizens are killed by agents of the state or where free-thought and opinion is surpressed is wrong (from China to the USA and everything in-between)
I addressed this briefly in the first paragraph of my post:

The so-called "human rights violations" are a tossup because the country that tortures civilians with no oversight or process (not to mention the new Jim Crow that is the American "justice" system) also says Cuba is a violator of human rights
We know that the Cuban government is not a violator of human rights, yet the US says otherwise. Why should any of us believe the accusations that US-supported "activists" make against China?

I'd also like to place emphasis on this:

ReturnToTheSource, a dude who posts on here, wrote a pretty decent article that relates to all this titled China & Market Socialism: A Question of State & Revolution which is most def worth reading (please, ignore his lecturing on the "Laos People's Republic" in 2011).

Edit: apparently I am not able to provide links because my post count is not greater than 25. I suggest that you Google the article's title or find ReturnToTheSource's Revleft profile.

[CommunityBeliever]

The Chinese state is just as much of an enemy to the proletariat as the American state.

The American empire is the world's main superpower and it leads the cause of third world exploitation. Furthermore, it spends as much on its military as almost the rest of the world, and 6.1 times as much as the PRC.

http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/military/11/country-distribution-2010.png

The American empire definitely is the biggest enemy of the world proletariat. There is no question about that.


And even if we were to recognise Mao as leading China onto a socialist path, it has long since veered off that path. It is now on the path of capitalist development, and there is no doubt about this.

Indeed, the capitalist roader Deng Xiaoping took China down the capitalist road by eliminating some of the achievements of Mao and introducing "Socialism market economy with Chinese characteristics." However, I still maintain that this path is superior to "liberal capitalism," mainly because of the four superiorities previously listed.

[citizen of industry]

I wonder what China's position would be if there was a successful revolution in the US or in one of the wealthy European nations, such as England, France or Germany. Would they still promote free-market trade and imperialism, or would they abandon "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and return to a revolutionary road. It's a thought I've had from time to time as socialist countries introduce more and more market reforms to the point of being unrecognizable as socialist countries. Are they just playing the holding game and waiting for a successful revolution elsewhere?

But, then again, being an imperialist country with a prospering bourgeoisie doesn't really do much to assist revolution abroad.

[Thirsty Crow]

Indeed, the capitalist roader Deng Xiaoping brought China off of the socialist path and introduced Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
So, capitalist restructuring following the rise of Deng Xiaoping amounts to "socialism with chinese characteristics"? That's some rhetoric you got there. And I thought that no one, not a single honest would be communist, could conclude that individual private property (let alone class private property) in its manifest forms permits the use of the term "socialism".
I mean, do you even read what you write. The CAPITALIST roader introduces SOCIALISM with Chinese characteristics. It's just ridiculous.



However, I still maintain that this path is superior to "liberal capitalism," mainly because of the four superiorities previously listed.
Your so called superiorities were demolished as pieces of demagogic rhetoric. Check out Takayuki's post, one that you didn't bother to reply to.

[Tifosi]

Yes, China would be better off as the top superpower.

You have actually worded that sentence correctly.

Yes, China's ruling class would be better off as the top superpower, because Chinese capitalists could exploit even more people than they already do.

[Liberi]

The reality is that China is not quite Socialist. In fact, China is State Capitalist which is suppressing Socialism. This is why it puts down workers strikes and had to prepare for any influence of the Jasmine revolution. In July 2009, workers at the state-owned Tonghua Steel Company in Jilin, China organized a massive anti-privatization protest. Then, in the summer of 2010, a wave of strikes swept through China's coastal provinces.

Despite historic Maoist achievements, China remained a part of the capitalist world system and was compelled to operate under the basic laws of motion of the system. The economic surplus was concentrated in the hands of the state to promote capital accumulation and industrialization. This in turn created the material conditions that favored the new bureaucratic-technocratic elites who demanded ever increasing material privileges and political power. The new elites found their political representatives within the Communist Party, and became the "capitalist roaders who are in authority in the Party" (a common phrase in China).

Mao Zedong and his revolutionary comrades attempted to reverse the trend toward capitalist restoration by directly appealing to and mobilizing the masses of workers, peasants, and students. Politically inexperienced and confused, the workers and peasants were not yet ready directly to exercise economic and political power. After Mao's death in 1976, the capitalist roaders led by Deng Xiaoping staged a counterrevolutionary coup and arrested the radical Maoist leaders. In a few years, Deng Xiaoping consolidated his political power and China was on the path of capitalist transition.

The so-called economic reform started in the countryside. The people's communes were dismantled, and agriculture was privatized. Over the following years, hundreds of millions of rural workers became "surplus" workers, made available for exploitation by domestic and foreign capitalist enterprises.

Massive privatization was undertaken in the 1990s. Virtually all of the small and medium-sized state-owned enterprises and some big state-owned enterprises were privatized. Almost all of these were sold at artificially low prices or simply given away. The beneficiaries included government officials, former state-owned enterprise managers, private capitalists with connections in the government, and transnational corporations. In effect, a massive "primitive accumulation" was completed and a new capitalist class was formed, based on the massive theft of state and collective assets. Meanwhile, tens of millions of state- and collective-sector workers were laid off and left impoverished.

[Agent Equality]

I just knew this thread would be shit as soon as I saw the title.

What you'll get is the maoists trying to defend china,
the authoritarians in the middle,
then everyone else stating the obvious that China, is in fact, not communist, but rather capitalist.

[Honggweilo]

What you'll get is the maoists trying to defend china,


i lol'd

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The American empire is the world's main superpower and it leads the cause of third world exploitation. Furthermore, it spends as much on its military as almost the rest of the world, and 6.1 times as much as the PRC.

The American empire definitely is the biggest enemy of the world proletariat. There is no question about that.


Military spending is not immediately related to the dimensions of the threat to the working class of the world. China and the United States and its allies are, and have been for a while now, been battling it out subtly with regard as to who controls the worlds resources, and China has an advantage in this regard because it has no colonial history as the European powers and the U.S. has, and has been working hard cosying up to leaderships all across Africa. Chinese investment has been the main driving force behind the "boom" that the West likes to proclaim was a great step on the road to progress in Angola by investing in raw material extraction and infrastructure for handling this, which has allowed the construction of new luxury skyscrapers for the capitalists to dwell in over in Luanda which the West thinks is the epitome of economic progress. Skyscapers of glass = economic success-story; please disregard the unfathomably enormous shanty-towns that spread for countless kilometres across the deserts.

How do you then quantify who is most responsible for third world exploitation, and does it matter? Do you measure it in who consumes the most of their exported goods and materials, then it is by far China that is the most exploitive because of its more extensive involvement. Chinese companies are involved in illegal activities, abuses, union-busting, wage-cutting and countless other anti-worker activities to, on the very least, the same extent as U.S. and European interests in both Africa and South-east Asia, not to mention the Chinese attempts to set up their own regional IMF/World Bank copy with the same kind of policies (deregulation, liberalisation, opening up to Chinese investment and involvement by sheer economic pressure), the Asian Development Bank and various similar organisations.

But there is also another aspect. Why should be quantify them? Does it make a difference if China or the United States is more of a threat to the working classes of the world? They are both - and there is no doubt about this - capitalist countries exploiting the proletariat. There are many complexities of course, and for example workers in state-owned enterprises in China has slightly better conditions than those in the private sector (but the private sector has more than twice as many people employed than the state-sector, and the private industry stands for between 70 and 80% of GDP, and privatisations have been ongoing and continue to this day, in fact after those accidents caused by political pressure I'm afraid they will try to target the Ministry of Railways). China can hardly even be thought of as "state capitalist" anymore. It's capitalism, plain and simple, and within not too long the United States might have more state-owned enterprises than China.


Indeed, the capitalist roader Deng Xiaoping brought China off of the socialist path and introduced Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. However, I still maintain that this path is superior to "liberal capitalism," mainly because of the four superiorities previously listed. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is capitalism. It's the term the Capitalist Party use to justify its own conflicting positions on The West and itself as well as playing on the historical heritage to validate its own existence. If it was admitted the party is no longer interested at all in socialism - which it isn't - it would mean it no longer serves a function, and its own role, as it sees it, as the guiding light of Chinese development, as well as plays on nationalistic sentiment about the Chinese nations "righteous appropriation of dominance", so to say, would be redundant. To preserve its own authority, thus, it relies on history and making, here and there, references to things like socialism. It is for this reason that it has not changed its name. The rank and file, which probably has a fair share of actual communists and socialists, amount to nothing and are powerless in face of the economic and political function of the higher levels of the state and economy.

[Tim Cornelis]

The American empire is the world's main superpower and it leads the cause of third world exploitation. Furthermore, it spends as much on its military as almost the rest of the world, and 6.1 times as much as the PRC.

The American empire definitely is the biggest enemy of the world proletariat. There is no question about that.

Indeed, the capitalist roader Deng Xiaoping brought China off of the socialist path and introduced Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. However, I still maintain that this path is superior to "liberal capitalism," mainly because of the four superiorities previously listed.

How does Chinese capitalism differ from "liberal capitalism" except in that the Chinese working class are now up against an authoritarian state apparatus that does not hesitate to crush them, quite literally?

[Return to the Source]

Market socialism has contradictions--like any system, socialist or otherwise--but an objective Marxist-Leninist analysis of China confirms that China is still a socialist country. This is the article I wrote some time ago about market socialism in China. (1 (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/china-market-socialism-a-question-of-state-revolution/))

The Trotskyites and left-communists who denounce China as socialist literally say that no country is socialist. If you agree that capitalism can run the gamut from major state intervention in Norway and Sweden, to corporate "free market" capitalism in the US, to fascism in Colombia and Israel, to total anarchy in Somalia--and no one disputes these are capitalist countries--then ask these detractors why socialism can't have multiple forms and serious contradictions as well.

Moreover, if you agree with Lenin and the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the slightest--even in saying it was a necessary evil to win the civil war and establish socialism--then you have to recognize that Deng's market socialism, and by extension modern China, is only the fullest realization of what Lenin hoped the Soviet Union could accomplish. Read Lenin's "The Tax in Kind (http://marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm)" and then read Deng's "Uphold the Four Cardinal Principles. (http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/China/Deng/principles.htm)" Lenin wanted the Soviet Union to go further in implementing the NEP in order to attract capital, even from Western companies, to advance the productive forces in Russia, whose backwardness was comparable to China's.

Like it or not, market socialism is 100% compatible with Marxism-Leninism, and I think it's a great way for underdeveloped socialist countries to modernize their productive forces.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Like it or not, market socialism is 100% compatible with Marxism-Leninism, and I think it's a great way for underdeveloped socialist countries to modernize their productive forces.

No. Market-socialism is not socialism whatsoever, and the NEP was never really supposed to be anything but a temporary capitalist fall-back in the wake of War Communism, but even accepting that "market socialism" is socialism, this is not what NEP was, and it is not what we see in China today. What we see is capitalism. Perhaps you would be as kind as to enlighten us here what it is about the Chinese economy and social system that is socialist?


If you agree that capitalism can run the gamut from major state intervention in Norway and Sweden, to corporate "free market" capitalism in the US, to fascism in Colombia and Israel, to total anarchy in Somalia--

I didn't know there was fascism in Israel and Colombia, does any racist nationalist government automatically become fascist or something? Not to mention state intervention in Norway and Sweden was actually pretty limited even at its height (and today are even more economically liberal than the U.S.).

[Tim Cornelis]

Market socialism has contradictions--like any system, socialist or otherwise--but an objective Marxist-Leninist analysis of China confirms that China is still a socialist country. This is the article I wrote some time ago about market socialism in China. (1 (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/china-market-socialism-a-question-of-state-revolution/))

The Trotskyites and left-communists who denounce China as socialist literally say that no country is socialist. If you agree that capitalism can run the gamut from major state intervention in Norway and Sweden, to corporate "free market" capitalism in the US, to fascism in Colombia and Israel, to total anarchy in Somalia--and no one disputes these are capitalist countries--then ask these detractors why socialism can't have multiple forms and serious contradictions as well.

Moreover, if you agree with Lenin and the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the slightest--even in saying it was a necessary evil to win the civil war and establish socialism--then you have to recognize that Deng's market socialism, and by extension modern China, is only the fullest realization of what Lenin hoped the Soviet Union could accomplish. Read Lenin's "The Tax in Kind (http://marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm)" and then read Deng's "Uphold the Four Cardinal Principles. (http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/China/Deng/principles.htm)" Lenin wanted the Soviet Union to go further in implementing the NEP in order to attract capital, even from Western companies, to advance the productive forces in Russia, whose backwardness was comparable to China's.

Like it or not, market socialism is 100% compatible with Marxism-Leninism, and I think it's a great way for underdeveloped socialist countries to modernize their productive forces.

Market socialism and Marxism-Leninism are not compatible. Have you ever read Marx' critique of... ya know, market socialism? He argued that workers would become to exploit themselves since market forces would drive down wages and increase the working day in order to stay competitive.

Furthermore, Lenin admitted that the USSR was state-capitalist under the NEP--I read somewhere at least.

Market socialism is worker cooperatives competing on the market. China is not a cooperative market economy, it's a market economy with private property and state intervention (i.e. regulated capitalism). In fact, China protects private property more than any Western country since Chinese law does not allow for eminent domain!

China is not socialist.

[RED DAVE]

Indeed, the capitalist roader Deng Xiaoping took China down the capitalist road by eliminating some of the achievements of Mao and introducing "Socialism market economy with Chinese characteristics." However, I still maintain that this path is superior to "liberal capitalism," mainly because of the four superiorities previously listed.You obviously have no idea at all what socialism is.

RED DAVE

[Mark V.]

I'm not very well read on the Chinese Revolution (and a lot of things) but I do have experience with a friend who was an exchange student from China. In his words: "After Mao died they announced "Chinese style socialism" which was really Capitalism". Plus the fact that in economics class I was able to buy stock in Chinese companies in a stock simulator, leads me to believe that China is capitalist.

[Jose Gracchus]

Market socialism has contradictions--like any system, socialist or otherwise--but an objective Marxist-Leninist analysis of China confirms that China is still a socialist country. This is the article I wrote some time ago about market socialism in China. (1 (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/china-market-socialism-a-question-of-state-revolution/))

The Trotskyites and left-communists who denounce China as socialist literally say that no country is socialist. If you agree that capitalism can run the gamut from major state intervention in Norway and Sweden, to corporate "free market" capitalism in the US, to fascism in Colombia and Israel, to total anarchy in Somalia--and no one disputes these are capitalist countries--then ask these detractors why socialism can't have multiple forms and serious contradictions as well.

Moreover, if you agree with Lenin and the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the slightest--even in saying it was a necessary evil to win the civil war and establish socialism--then you have to recognize that Deng's market socialism, and by extension modern China, is only the fullest realization of what Lenin hoped the Soviet Union could accomplish. Read Lenin's "The Tax in Kind (http://marxistsfr.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm)" and then read Deng's "Uphold the Four Cardinal Principles. (http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/China/Deng/principles.htm)" Lenin wanted the Soviet Union to go further in implementing the NEP in order to attract capital, even from Western companies, to advance the productive forces in Russia, whose backwardness was comparable to China's.

Like it or not, market socialism is 100% compatible with Marxism-Leninism, and I think it's a great way for underdeveloped socialist countries to modernize their productive forces.

O RLY (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2149908&postcount=9):


Carmelpence, among many others, will receive a response in due time.

I feel it necessary merely to post caramelpence's critique in his original words (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2118689&postcount=24):


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.

I thought we restricted Mutualists. Why are outright, double-down, Dengists-through-the-'90's, not restricted?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Is China communist? The question answers itself, since there are no countries in communism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There are no references in the classics on how to carry forward Marxism and develop socialism with our special national conditions.

Because "the classics" specifically reject the possibility of a successful revolution being limited to one self-described backward country.

"By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries—that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany." - Engels

[Lucretia]

Hmmm. I wonder how my Chinese stocks are doing...