What is China currently like?

[ArseCynic]

I've been arguing with my troll friends about what kind of system china is currently under.

We both agree that their economic system is very capitalist(but not imperialist), but we can't agree on what kind of government it has.

I've been saying that it's government is a mix between plutarchy and bourgeoisie-stalinism, but I really suck at wording things properly. what short phrase would best describe china?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

They say they have "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (aka. Market Socialism), I say they have "capitalism with authoritarian characteristics" (aka. post-socialist capitalism with a useless Communist Party left over).

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Thanks Deng Xiaoping, you managed to make the white cat just as useless as the black cat.

You are worst than Gorbachev because your experiment in revisionism actually survived.

[Tommy4ever]

Capitalist and dictatorial.

[Tovarisch]

Authoritarian Capitalism

People in China are expected to study from dawn to dusk in their young years, and hit assembly lines as soon as possible. They don't care about your needs as an individual, to them you are just a working instrument. I have friends from China, and all of them testified that life in China was shit

[Zulu]

plutarchy

Plutocracy.


bourgeoisie-stalinism,

Oxymoron.




what short phrase would best describe china?
Revisionism.

[Zav]

Plutocracy.

Plutarchy is Plutocracy plus Oligarchy, which applies here.

I would describe China as being the U.S. around 1890. The Industrial Revolution was gaining speed, the class gap widened dramatically, and there were no labor laws.

[Ostrinski]

Market capitalist economy with an oligarchic government. And yes it is imperialist.

[Rooster]

China does partake in imperialism. It has large investments abroad, such as in Africa and even in America, where they are trying to control resources. They even basically told Argentina to just become a wheat producer (I think) for it, so a sort of banana republic. It also highly exploits it's own internal work force at the expense of other developing nations and the international proletariat, decreasing the global strength of labour (if you don't work harder, we'll just ship your jobs over to China etc).

[ArseCynic]

Plutocracy.


Oxymoron.



Revisionism.


I meant plutarchy, and it does apply here like the above guy said.

I do not see how bourgeoisie-stalinism is an oxymoron.

And do not see how me asking for short and quick term is revisionism.

[ArseCynic]

China does partake in imperialism. It has large investments abroad, such as in Africa and even in America, where they are trying to control resources. They even basically told Argentina to just become a wheat producer (I think) for it, so a sort of banana republic. It also highly exploits it's own internal work force at the expense of other developing nations and the international proletariat, decreasing the global strength of labour (if you don't work harder, we'll just ship your jobs over to China etc).


I do not believe they are currently imperialist, although they will be soon.
Their involvement in africa is not imperialism. they are giving them trully fair trades for their oil(as fair as any capitalism exchange could be), and they are not in africa for capital gain, they use the resources for their use-value.

yes they technically still are capitalist assholes that exploit their workers and other citizens, but I do not see how they are currently imperialist.

[Ocean Seal]

I think that we need to stop really assessing this "authoritarian" factor. All capitalist nations are authoritarian, and it often doesn't carry that much weight with regards to the class progress. China is capitalist, it is authoritarian as is innate to capitalism. It is a second world capitalist country with decent advances for its position. It has built up a militant working class which has started fighting back against capitalism. It has lost any trait characteristics of socialism which it once held. China is not parliamentary unlike the west and political repression is significantly more severe. Because of the bravery of the Chinese proletariat however this hasn't mattered recently.

[Ostrinski]

I do not believe they are currently imperialist, although they will be soon.
Their involvement in africa is not imperialism. they are giving them trully fair trades for their oil(as fair as any capitalism exchange could be), and they are not in africa for capital gain, they use the resources for their use-value.

yes they technically still are capitalist assholes that exploit their workers and other citizens, but I do not see how they are currently imperialist.The expansion of capital into newer markets is inherently imperialist, regardless of how fair or unfair the exchange may be or appear to be.

[Grenzer]

I do not believe they are currently imperialist, although they will be soon.
Their involvement in africa is not imperialism. they are giving them trully fair trades for their oil(as fair as any capitalism exchange could be), and they are not in africa for capital gain, they use the resources for their use-value.

yes they technically still are capitalist assholes that exploit their workers and other citizens, but I do not see how they are currently imperialist.

Completely delusional.

What you just described is the definition of imperialism. There is no such thing as "fair trade" this is just liberal dreaming. The entire functioning of capitalism is contingent upon "unfair" trade, imperialism as we know it. The People's Republic of China has been an imperialist power since day one. Imperialism is a global system, not a trait that characterizes individual countries. In addition, your last sentence is a complete paradox.

I suggest reading this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/) book. It's a bit out of date, and our understanding of imperialism has expanded since then; but it's a great introduction to the subject.

[Zulu]

I meant plutarchy, and it does apply here like the above guy said.

"Plutarchy" is an awkward term and one quite redundant at that, since "plutocracy" means oligarchy of a certain type, namely, of the wealthy.





I do not see how bourgeoisie-stalinism is an oxymoron.

First of all, "Stalinism" is also a very redundant term, but even if it weren't, repression of the bourgeoisie is one of the main and features of those regimes. Such features as state property on pretty much everything and planned economy are also definitive to "Stalinism" and they obviously don't bode well for the bourgeoisie and are not upheld in today's China.





And do not see how me asking for short and quick term is revisionism.

"Revisionism" is the term you're asking for.

China used to be Maoist/Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist/whatever, and now it's something else.

If you want a more descriptive term, it's "state capitalism".

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The only term we need to describe China is state capitalist.

[derg]

I think you're making a mistake by trying to sum up the PRC in a simple phrase like this. It is more complicated than that.

Whenever the subject of the present day PRC comes up every leftist around is quick to jump to denounce it as state capitalist/authoritarian/the Worst Thing Ever. But this is simplistic and doesn't at all account for the very real differences between the economy & society of the PRC and that of the core capitalist countries.

Of course there has been a tragic counter revolution in china and deng was without doubt a tremendous shithead. However, that doesn't mean china is now 'basically America with cheaper labour and more of a police state' which is what I feel kneejerk leftist reactions often amount to. The government totally dominates the financial sector, and all major industries are state run by law. There is way more nationalised industry and financial regulation than the most 'progressive' countries of western Europe. I know nobody here is calling Sweden socialist or anything dumb like that but the point is for a bit of perspective. Bourgeois economists complain that the privatisations taking place are not really that at all as the often do not in effect allow an influx of foreign capital (conversely they often do though, as well)

I'm not suggesting the PRC is any longer a workers state but the contradictions of the state are complicated, are not the same as in the west (and not just because of authoritarianism) and a revolutionary understanding of china needs to take these nuances into account.

Idk how to resolve those contradictions but I do think china is still a target of western imperialism and should be defended from that, and that at the present juncture any overthrow of the PRC would be vasty more likely to result in a victory for neoliberalism than it would one for the masses.

[Ocean Seal]

Completely delusional.

What you just described is the definition of imperialism. There is no such thing as "fair trade" this is just liberal dreaming. The entire functioning of capitalism is contingent upon "unfair" trade, imperialism as we know it. The People's Republic of China has been an imperialist power since day one. Imperialism is a global system, not a trait that characterizes individual countries. In addition, your last sentence is a complete paradox.
Since 1949?
And while I agree that there can be no such thing as fair trade, it seems to me kind of hard to put China in leagues with Russia, the US, NATO etc. simply because they have capital introduced into their markets and if you look at China it isn't exactly their companies which are employing their workers.

[Rooster]

"Revisionism" is the term you're asking for.

China used to be Maoist/Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist/whatever, and now it's something else.

If you want a more descriptive term, it's "state capitalism".

Amazing that how every marxist-leninist state has turned revisionist. Coincidence?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Amazing that how every marxist-leninist state has turned revisionist. Coincidence?

Nope. What's amazing is how sectarian and rude you are to us Marxist-Leninists. Do you feel threatened by the fact that we do not have our heads halfway up our asses? I would like to see your ultraleftist state do better than any Marxist-Leninist state in history.

[Rooster]

Nope. What's amazing is how sectarian and rude you are to us Marxist-Leninists. Do you feel threatened by the fact that we do not have our heads halfway up our asses? I would like to see your ultraleftist state do better than any Marxist-Leninist state in history.

I'm not an ultra-leftist. And besides, is it coincidence or not? Also, ultra-leftist state? Gimme a break. Ideologies don't make revolution.

[ArseCynic]

Completely delusional.

What you just described is the definition of imperialism. There is no such thing as "fair trade" this is just liberal dreaming. The entire functioning of capitalism is contingent upon "unfair" trade, imperialism as we know it. The People's Republic of China has been an imperialist power since day one. Imperialism is a global system, not a trait that characterizes individual countries. In addition, your last sentence is a complete paradox.

I suggest reading book. It's a bit out of date, and our understanding of imperialism has expanded since then; but it's a great introduction to the subject.


They are not really in africa for capital gain, they are there for the use value of the resources they are getting. they are not enslaving the countries they go to. I agree that there is no such thing as a free trade or market.

[ArseCynic]

I don't think its really fair just to paint people as "Marxist-Leninist" or anything else like that.

I agree that marxist-leninist ideas are completely moderate and goes against fundamental values of marxism, but we should not attack people for being under the term or to place them under the term. we should attack the actual ideas, not the people.

[human strike]

Overcast.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Yes, well, i think it has much less to do with the authoritarian nature of Leninism rather than its inability to see basic social and mainly economic fallacies of capitalism which lead the comrades to react like any other human in charge over the workers' surplus.

Regarding the question "What is China?": It is obviously State-Capitalist Imperialist! Look at the strategic political moves of China within the last two decades around Africa, it's rising military spendings, heightened loaning and you see it is for Capitalist nation state exploitation of not ONLY resources, but Capital. Yes, China is in Angola - and actually (strangely enough) sends its workers to Angola to work while getting paid by - regimes that pay in western loaned sovereign Debt for China to suck it up. Why ELSE would they be building the trains and infrastructure unlike the other Imperialist nations if not for more effective Capital Accumulation? (I would like to mention here that Imperial Japan while it was State Capitalist Fascist, also helped its colonies to develop) Because unlike idiotic western capitalist Imperialists, the Chinese "Communists" monitor and understand the process. Oh yes, very much so i believe, China is State-Capitalist Imperialist that has lost all struggle for the internationale working class.