Do you consider Communist Party of China Marxist?

[Tim Cornelis]

Do you consider the Communist Party of China and the Communist Party of India, both of whom have engaged in pro-business policies, Marxist?

If not, why?

[Ostrinski]

No and I don't think (hopefully) many of us do, with regard to China. The last radical elements are long gone, they preside over the state of a capitalist power, they comprise of many members from the bourgeoisie themselves, they are actively bringing the hammer down on worker's political activity, and are for these reasons in no place to have anything at all do with the worker's movement.

Don't know much about India.

[Marxaveli]

Do you consider the Communist Party of China and the Communist Party of India, both of whom have engaged in pro-business policies, Marxist?

If not, why?

I think you answered your own question there.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think you answered your own question there.

I wasn't asking whether the Communist Party was actually communist, but whether or not it was Marxist. Mind you that Marxism is not anti-capitalistic, hence pursuing a pro-business agenda is not contrary to Marxism. So in what way was Deng Xiaoping non-Marxist when he liberalised the economy in order to "liberate the productive forces"?

It seems to me that it was perfectly in tune with Marxism to aspire a capitalist agenda in China and India (both mainly peasant societies at the time).

EDIT:

Christopher Hitchens was a socialist and Marxist for a long time, but around 2000 he became to believe that capitalism was still progressive while at the same time considering historical materialism and Marxism "accurate." This made me think, the Communist Parties of China and India may actually be both capitalist and Marxist. Hence my question: I don't see any reason to deny that these parties are still Marxist.

[Marxaveli]

I see what you are saying comrade Tim. But I'm going to go ahead and say they are not Marxist. Sure, Marxism itself isn't so much anti-Capitalist as it is a method of critiquing its flaws but still viewing it as progressive, relative to previous modes of production, but I think the general notion is that if one is a Marxist, they are also a Communist by default (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and therefore they hate Capitalism. With this in mind, it seems logical to me to hold that neither of these parties is Marxist (or Communist but in name).

[Ostrinski]

I wasn't asking whether the Communist Party was actually communist, but whether or not it was Marxist. Mind you that Marxism is not anti-capitalistic, hence pursuing a pro-business agenda is not contrary to Marxism. So in what way was Deng Xiaoping non-Marxist when he liberalised the economy in order to "liberate the productive forces"?

It seems to me that it was perfectly in tune with Marxism to aspire a capitalist agenda in China and India (both mainly peasant societies at the time).

EDIT:

Christopher Hitchens was a socialist and Marxist for a long time, but around 2000 he became to believe that capitalism was still progressive while at the same time considering historical materialism and Marxism "accurate." This made me think, the Communist Parties of China and India may actually be both capitalist and Marxist. Hence my question: I don't see any reason to deny that these parties are still Marxist.Who knows? Even if they swear allegiance to Marxism, Marxian economics, the Marxist academic method, etc., are they to be taken seriously? They wouldn't be the first entity to contort Marx in service of their own particular interests.

[Камо́ Зэд]

. . . that Marxism is not anti-capitalistic, hence pursuing a pro-business agenda is not contrary to Marxism.

Given that Marx and Engels themselves were very actively anti-capitalist, I'd have to say that Marxism can easily be argued to be anti-capitalistic in its conclusions.

[Positivist]

I think it is rather clear that the Chinese communist party isn't Marxist and isn't promoting capitalism in an attempt to create sufficient wealth or conditions which are favorable to a future socialist economy. This is pretty well demonstrated by their line that they are "market socialist" and that they have no intentions of progressing further. If you are asking if they are just a bunch of capitalists employing Marxist analysis to their benefit, than this is really non-testable without experience within party organizations.

[Sea]

This made me think, the Communist Parties of China and India may actually be both capitalist and Marxist. Hence my question: I don't see any reason to deny that these parties are still Marxist.I don't think that was tobacco you were smoking... :rolleyes:

[The Jay]

I think it is rather clear that the Chinese communist party isn't Marxist and isn't promoting capitalism in an attempt to create sufficient wealth or conditions which are favorable to a future socialist economy. This is pretty well demonstrated by their line that they are "market socialist" and that they have no intentions of progressing further. If you are asking if they are just a bunch of capitalists employing Marxist analysis to their benefit, than this is really non-testable without experience within party organizations.


They are not Market Socialist. They are simply the rulers of an authoritarian government that allows and is integrated with Capitalism. There is a big difference.

[Solidarity]

Do you consider the Communist Party of China and the Communist Party of India, both of whom have engaged in pro-business policies, Marxist?

If not, why?

No, no it's not. I mean just look at China now. Look what Mao left behind. A dump with U.S. foreign businesses coming in and basically enslaving the Chinese proletariat. Forcing them to work every hour of the week so they can make 40 cents. That is NOT Marxism.

[Sankara1983]

Not anymore, and the Vietnamese, Korean, and Laotian parties aren't either. The Maoists in Nepal are still vital, but in the world situation they will move to the right as well.

[ind_com]

Do you consider the Communist Party of China and the Communist Party of India, both of whom have engaged in pro-business policies, Marxist?

If not, why?

There exists a people's war in India by which the working classes overthrow the existing relations of production and establish revolutionary organs of people's power. This movement is opposed both by the Communist Party of India, and the Communist Party of China. So none of them can be called communists. Both of them are reactionary parties.

[Crux]

Christopher Hitchens was a socialist and Marxist for a long time, but around 2000 he became to believe that capitalism was still progressive while at the same time considering historical materialism and Marxism "accurate." This made me think, the Communist Parties of China and India may actually be both capitalist and Marxist. Hence my question: I don't see any reason to deny that these parties are still Marxist.
uh no Hitchens wasn't "progressive" or a marxist, neither are CPC, CPI or CPI(m).

[Uppity Prole]

The CPC abandoned their attempt in building a workers' state as they felt that China was too undeveloped to progress from a colonial-feudal epoch directly to a workers' state. 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics' is presented as a system in which the developmental potential of capitalism is used to make a potential worker's state viable in the future.

There are CPC theorists are fully subscribe to this line as an application of Marxism to Chinese conditions. Though in my opinion the CPC is riddled with some careerists and capitalists who would be unlikely to willingly give up the perks of capitalism when a workers' state has become viable.

I would not describe CPC as socialist or Marxist but it does contain Marxist and socialist tendencies within it.

[Zealot]

They claim to be in the "primary stage of Socialism" in order to develop productive forces, which they estimate will last until around 2050. Make of that what you will.

[Tim Cornelis]

They are not Market Socialist. They are simply the rulers of an authoritarian government that allows and is integrated with Capitalism. There is a big difference.

You misunderstood what he was trying to convey--at least I think so. Positivist was trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong) that because I say that capitalism and Marxism is not mutually exclusive, he retorted by saying the Chinese Communist Party claims China is "socialist (with Chinese characteristics) they thereby abandoned Marxism (not because they adopted capitalism per se, but because they call it socialism).


I don't think that was tobacco you were smoking... :rolleyes:

As I said before, Marxism is not anti-capitalistic. Therefore one could be a Marxist and capitalist.


No, no it's not. I mean just look at China now. Look what Mao left behind. A dump with U.S. foreign businesses coming in and basically enslaving the Chinese proletariat. Forcing them to work every hour of the week so they can make 40 cents. That is NOT Marxism.

We have established that China is not socialist and is indeed capitalist. But that's not the question at hand. Of course Marxism isn't a mode of production as you imply, it's an analytical tool to understand society. But the question then is, if Marxism is an analytical tool then why can't a Marxist interpretation lead some to the notion that capitalism is still progressive in peasant, rural, or poor societies such as India, Nepal, or China?


There exists a people's war in India by which the working classes overthrow the existing relations of production and establish revolutionary organs of people's power. This movement is opposed both by the Communist Party of India, and the Communist Party of China. So none of them can be called communists. Both of them are reactionary parties.

This amounts to mere circular reasoning.


uh no Hitchens wasn't "progressive" or a marxist, neither are CPC, CPI or CPI(m).

I didn't claim he was progressive, I stated that he claimed capitalism was progressive. I don't see why Hitchens couldn't have been a Marxist. He considered historical materialism and Marxist analysis correct, but considered capitalism progressive yet. How is that inherently contrary to Marxism?

[Positivist]

They are not Market Socialist. They are simply the rulers of an authoritarian government that allows and is integrated with Capitalism. There is a big difference.

There is a hive difference. Notice I said claims to be market socialist.

[L.A.P.]

CPI(m).

I seriously want to inquire about this regarding the Communist Party of India (Maoist). I know their politics are shitty and even once saw a Naxalite name "Egnles, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao" as the four influences (I'm thinking "um, you forgot Marx"), but I don't think it's the case where it's just some bourgeois leadership distorting Marxism into their own ideology. From what I know, their shitty politics just seem to be a result of the fact that they're peasants with literally zero education and are just fighting mining companies for their own survival. I mean, I constantly hear users complain about the Left's fascination with "esosteric" theories and how we would be better off with pissed off workers with little sense of theory (I know psycho has quote in his signature about Spanish Republicans using commonsense instead of being well-read in Marx). If that's the case, why do we knock the Naxalites? Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like it's a bit of unintentional Western chauvanism that we expect a bunch uneducated peasants to have a thorough critique of capitalism.

[ind_com]

I seriously want to inquire about this regarding the Communist Party of India (Maoist). I know their politics are shitty and even once saw a Naxalite name "Egnles, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao" as the four influences (I'm thinking "um, you forgot Marx"), but I don't think it's the case where it's just some bourgeois leadership distorting Marxism into their own ideology. From what I know, their shitty politics just seem to be a result of the fact that they're peasants with literally zero education and are just fighting mining companies for their own survival. I mean, I constantly hear users complain about the Left's fascination with "esosteric" theories and how we would be better off with pissed off workers with little sense of theory (I know psycho has quote in his signature about Spanish Republicans using commonsense instead of being well-read in Marx). If that's the case, why do we knock the Naxalites? Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like it's a bit of unintentional Western chauvanism that we expect a bunch uneducated peasants to have a thorough critique of capitalism.

Do you notice some amount of Western chauvinism in your own post as well?

[Yuppie Grinder]

OP is using the word Marxist incorrectly. The word he is looking for is Marxian. One can be a Marxian, a subscriber to historical materialism, and not be a revolutionary socialist, but if they are not wage-slavery abolitionists, they are not Marxists.
The Communist party of China is neither.

[leftistman]

I consider the CPC to be a revisionist, corrupt, power-hungry, fascist party that is only communist in name.

[Yuppie Grinder]

No self-respecting Marxist uses the word revisionism in the year 2012.

[L.A.P.]

Do you notice some amount of Western chauvinism in your own post as well?

the way I worded last sentence, I guess. what I'm trying to say is the material conditions are too different to hold the same standard of ideals. I know you're trying to imply that I'm saying "oh, these poor third-world peasants are too dumb" but you're missing the point. we're speaking of an armed group made up of people who have been deprived of the most basic necessities of life due to the Indian state's general forsaking of the rural population. it's not chauvanistic to acknowledge the fact that they don't have the same level of access to things like computers and public education, but it is chauvanist to say "sorry naxalites -despite building schools, fighting police, trying to stop mining companies from plowing your homes and all that jazz-we don't think you're Marxist enough because your political rhetoric doesn't propagate our message properly enough."

[leftistman]

No self-respecting Marxist uses the word revisionism in the year 2012.
I'm not a Marxist, nor am I a Stalinist "anti-revisionist," I used the word because I felt that it is an accurate way to describe China's disregard for Marxist principles and economics. The government has completely denounced just about anything that ever suggested it was Marxist.

[Uppity Prole]

I consider the CPC to be a revisionist, corrupt, power-hungry, fascist party that is only communist in name.

In what sense is it fascist?

[leftistman]

In what sense is it fascist?
The Chinese system of governance advertises itself as a socialist state. This is a common fascist tactic; it gets people to shout slogans and blindly accept what they are told by their government. All fascists claim to support the interests of working-class and poor people but are in reality just state capitalists. Need an example? The Nazis had prisoners at the concentration camps create products for car companies such as Ford in exchange for some of the revenue. The Chinese government has many free-trade agreements and allows the richest businesses to open ups shops in China and allows such horrendous labor practices. Don't tell me that the Chinese government is anything but fascist.

[Uppity Prole]

The Chinese system of governance advertises itself as a socialist state. This is a common fascist tactic; it gets people to shout slogans and blindly accept what they are told by their government. All fascists claim to support the interests of working-class and poor people but are in reality just state capitalists. Need an example? The Nazis had prisoners at the concentration camps create products for car companies such as Ford in exchange for some of the revenue. The Chinese government has many free-trade agreements and allows the richest businesses to open ups shops in China and allows such horrendous labor practices. Don't tell me that the Chinese government is anything but fascist.

I don't think your argument follows. Non-fascist capitalist contries also have horrendous labour practices and also claim to speak for all sectors of society.

China doesn't display some of the core beliefs of fascism such as racial supremacy, the cult of the dictator, traditional religiosity and an expansionist foreign policy, with an economy dominated by the military.

In my opinion China is state capitalist, but state capitalism does not necessarily equate to fascism.

[leftistman]

I don't think your argument follows. Non-fascist capitalist contries also have horrendous labour practices and also claim to speak for all sectors of society.

China doesn't display some of the core beliefs of fascism such as racial supremacy, the cult of the dictator, traditional religiosity and an expansionist foreign policy, with an economy dominated by the military.

In my opinion China is state capitalist, but state capitalism does not necessarily equate to fascism.
When I said fascism, I was referring to the supremely authoritarian control of the government which uses a combination of the state and businesses as a means of dominating their population which is also a core practice of fascism. It is true that China does not promote racism or religion, but some could equate it to an imperialist government in reference to Tibet(I can't offer my opinion on that because I am not knowledgeable in that subject). China does seem to have created a personality cult around their leaders all throughout their history.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think your argument follows. Non-fascist capitalist contries also have horrendous labour practices and also claim to speak for all sectors of society.

China doesn't display some of the core beliefs of fascism such as racial supremacy, the cult of the dictator, traditional religiosity and an expansionist foreign policy, with an economy dominated by the military.

In my opinion China is state capitalist, but state capitalism does not necessarily equate to fascism.

Well...not to speak about wether or not China is fascist...but there is still a huge problem with Han Chauvinism within China´s annexed territories....which reoccured after the Cultural Revolution. Officially the CPC denounces any form of ethnic annd cultural chauvinism but in practice the policies of the CPC are directed to create a huge immigration influx of Han Chinese within territories where the Chinese ethnic minorities habitualy originate from. And these Han Chinese do get preferential treatment from the local governing bodies in just about every aspect of life.

[Uppity Prole]

When I said fascism, I was referring to the supremely authoritarian control of the government which uses a combination of the state and businesses as a means of dominating their population which is also a core practice of fascism. It is true that China does not promote racism or religion, but some could equate it to an imperialist government in reference to Tibet(I can't offer my opinion on that because I am not knowledgeable in that subject). China does seem to have created a personality cult around their leaders all throughout their history.

I understand what you're saying, but the tenet you describe could also refer to many non-fascist capitalist regimes. I would not call China's control of Tibet to be one of imperialism but I would say that its war with Vietnam smacked of elements of chauvinism. In essence I would be more selective in the terming of fascism because we would end up calling half the world as such. I would argue that fascism is a particular historical formation which present-day China does not adhere to.


Well...not to speak about wether or not China is fascist...but there is still a huge problem with Han Chauvinism within China´s annexed territories....which reoccured after the Cultural Revolution. Officially the CPC denounces any form of ethnic annd cultural chauvinism but in practice the policies of the CPC are directed to create a huge immigration influx of Han Chinese within territories where the Chinese ethnic minorities habitualy originate from. And these Han Chinese do get preferential treatment from the local governing bodies in just about every aspect of life.

It would not surprise me that chauvinism would and does occur in China, just as in any other capitalist country. However I would like you to provide some detail for me if you can, in relation to your last sentence. In what particular ways do Han Chinese get preferential treatment?

[PhoenixAsh]

It would not surprise me that chauvinism would and does occur in China, just as in any other capitalist country. However I would like you to provide some detail for me if you can, in relation to your last sentence. In what particular ways do Han Chinese get preferential treatment?

Han Chauviism is actually quite prevalent. So much so that it is specifically mentioned in the Chinese constitution. It is actually very structural.

The preferential treatment stretches to every aspect of life. So it is kind of hard to give a full description of its scope. But you have to think travel visa, subsidies to establish venues, build homes and in getting all kinds of official documentation. Children of minorities are send to schools outside their region in areas where Han Chinese are prevalent in order to have them learn Han Language, Han culture and Han history as the expense of their own historic and ethnical background.

[Ocean Seal]

I wasn't asking whether the Communist Party was actually communist, but whether or not it was Marxist. Mind you that Marxism is not anti-capitalistic, hence pursuing a pro-business agenda is not contrary to Marxism. So in what way was Deng Xiaoping non-Marxist when he liberalised the economy in order to "liberate the productive forces"?


See I can't follow with the idea that marxism is not inherently anti-capitalist. It is purely a method of analysis, but one which sees the contradictions of capitalism, hence why you can't be pro-capitalist and a Marxist. As a pro-capitalist stance inevitably relies on the forever existence of capitalism. You can take positions which will develop capitalism, but ultimately, they wouldn't be consistently pro-capitalist. Since you are consciously taking those actions as a means to destroy capitalism.

Deng-Xiaoping was a non-Marxist when he liberalized the economy because he didn't liberate the means of production, he opportunistically allowed for the intervention of the imperialist powers in Chinese production--something which allowed for the nightmarishly low standards in Chinese worker care. This was (ideologically) an anti-Marxist stance because it prevented the proliferation of capital and weakened the proletarian movement in China. And of course the head of a bourgeois state cannot be Marxist in these times. Marxism requires you to consciously subvert and destroy capital, something which you cannot do as the head of a bourgeois state.

[Ocean Seal]

No self-respecting Marxist uses the word revisionism in the year 2012.
There are two proper contexts of this word. The first is to denote the difference between Bernstein and Marx, and the second is to denote the differences in the SU under Stalin and Khrushchev. I don't see why you wouldn't use this word to denote those differences. Subscribing to the view that revisionism brought down the SU is an altogether different (silly) thing.