China's claim to communism

[Catma]

Notwithstanding the actual state of China's economic structures (market-based), I was under the impression that China had officially forsaken any claim to being "communist" some decades ago under Deng. Something to do with "socialism with chinese characteristics", or whatever.

So both for my own edification and the ability to argue this point among the uninformed who say "COMMUNIST CHINA ERMAHGERD!", can anybody provide me with more details on what china claims to be these days, and when/how major changes occurred?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I think they still claim to being on the road of communism or being marxist-leninist.
A few months ago, at the congress, they officially removed Mao-Zedong Thought from their ideology.

Now I don't think marxism-leninism or Mao-Zedong Thought has much to do with communism anyways but it would be preffered if they stopped claiming they would be communists. With the name of the party being the Communist Party of China they still in one way or another claim to being communists.

[chase63]

from wikipedia:

"Socialism with Chinese characteristics (simplified Chinese: 中国特色社会主义; traditional Chinese: 中國特色社會主義; pinyin: Zhōngguótèsè shèhuìzhǔyì) is an official ideology of the Communist Party of China (CPC) based upon scientific socialism. This ideology supports the creation of a socialist market economy dominated by the public sector since China is in the primary stage of socialism.
The Chinese government maintains that it has not abandoned Marxism, but has simply developed many of the terms and concepts of Marxist theory to accommodate its new economic system. The CPC argues that socialism is compatible with these economic policies. In current Chinese Communist thinking, China is in the primary stage of socialism, and this view allows the Chinese government to undertake more flexible economic policies to develop into an industrialized nation."

Basically, I think they're saying that they are in the beginning stages of socialism, working towards communism. However, in reality it's just a market economy with state intervention.

[Emmeka]

Maoism basically always stated that capitalism was to be regulated in line with a policy of a "Bloc of the Four Social Classes" and "New Democracy", which states that the indigenous bourgeoisie of China should be accommodated to develop Chinese industrialism.

Here's a quote from Mao's On the People's Democratic Dictatorship [1949] to illustrate the point (emphasis my own).


To counter imperialist oppression and to raise her backward economy to a higher level, China must utilize all the factors of urban and rural capitalism that are beneficial and not harmful to the national economy and the people's livelihood; and we must unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle. Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it.So by their logic, there's nothing un-communist about "market socialism"

[Catma]

Ugh. That's annoying. I think I can use Mao's quote in Emmeka's post to argue at least that China doesn't claim to be currently communist.

Thank you, guys.

[ind_com]

Maoism basically always stated that capitalism was to be regulated in line with a policy of a "Bloc of the Four Social Classes" and "New Democracy", which states that the indigenous bourgeoisie of China should be accommodated to develop Chinese industrialism.

Here's a quote from Mao's On the People's Democratic Dictatorship [1949] to illustrate the point (emphasis my own).

So by their logic, there's nothing un-communist about "market socialism"

Always? Here's another quote by Mao to refute your false claim.

"The present-day capitalist economy in China is a capitalist economy which for the most part is under the control of the People's Government and which is linked with the state-owned socialist economy in various forms and supervised by the workers. It is not an ordinary but a particular kind of capitalist economy, namely, a state-capitalist economy of a new type. It exists not chiefly to make profits for the capitalists but to meet the needs of the people and the state. True, a share of the profits produced by the workers goes to the capitalists, but that is only a small part, about one quarter, of the total. The remaining three quarters are produced for the workers (in the form of the welfare fund), for the state (in the form of income tax) and for expanding productive capacity (a small part of which produces profits for the capitalists). Therefore, this state-capitalist economy of a new type takes on a socialist character to a very great extent and benefits the workers and the state." - Mao Zedong, 1953

This was the situation in 1953, and by the beginning of the GPCR, they had started to get rid of all capitalists altogether.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Ugh. That's annoying. I think I can use Mao's quote in Emmeka's post to argue at least that China doesn't claim to be currently communist.

Thank you, guys.

It must be noted that there is no such thing as a communist country in the first place.

[Emmeka]

This was the situation in 1953, and by the beginning of the GPCR, they had started to get rid of all capitalists altogether.

Yes, we can see they clearly made a concerted effort to get rid of the capitalist class. :laugh:

[$lim_$weezy]

Hey man, they tried. Failure in the end doesn't mean there wasn't a concerted effort.

[Willin']

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8yTdxyCE7PKr6HUsD_OarYq3uQh_fb AB7C8_qjP-wPbL-z2KL

My dog is a bigger communist than China. China is one of the most cruel capitalistic country on this planet even the USA imperialistic nation can compare to them.

[ind_com]

They will be buying a third of Ecuador's rainforests. Goodbye nature. :crying:

[ind_com]

Yes, we can see they clearly made a concerted effort to get rid of the capitalist class. :laugh:

So, smileys instead of quotes now?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

China. Home to billionaires and stock markets.

[Catma]

It must be noted that there is no such thing as a communist country in the first place.

Of course, but I hate making that argument.

[$lim_$weezy]

Yeah, it's more like are they "moving towards communism" or "ideologically communist" as opposed to actually "they've achieved communism" and are a country. I think most of us here know what you mean...

[Sudsy]

China`s claim to communism is not only false, it is disgraceful.

[Astarte]

Generally, as a rule of thumb you should not put yourself into a conversation or line of argument where you will be forced to defend so-called "Communist" regimes, be they from the past or present. Not because aspects of them are not defense worthy, but because no proponent of capitalism is ever forced to defend all the crimes of capitalism and imperialism for the last 500 years (so perhaps learning about the bloody history of capitalism may be your best rebuttal when faced with the alleged transgressions of so-called "Communists"). It is much easier to argue for Socialism, appropriation of the means of production and workers' control over production without having to even mention China or the USSR once. If you find yourself talking to someone who uses China or the USSR as a serious example of "how Socialism has failed" then that is a good indication that you are wasting your time, and it is time to move on.

[Emmeka]

Hey man, they tried. Failure in the end doesn't mean there wasn't a concerted effort.

Seeing as up until at least 1949 Maoists were advocating regulation of capitalism in favour of socialism and were promoting direct co-operation with the bourgeoisie, I have serious doubts that there was ever a legitimate effort to turn control of the economy from the bourgeoisie over to workers, given Mao's massive state apparatus at the time this task would have been simple - unless of course by "try" you just mean "ask the bourgeoisie politely".

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.


Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.


~Fredrick Engels, The Principles of Communism

Seems like Mao was following the basic outline given by Marx and Engels in this matter.

[Emmeka]

Seems like Mao was following the basic outline given by Marx and Engels in this matter.


"the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat"

- Engels, The Principles of CommunismI see proletarians, peasants and petite-bourgeois (specifically those who're at risk of being proletarianized and those who would side with workers), but none of this national bourgeoisie. Even on the subject of the petit bourgeoisie, Marx is pretty clear that their interests can switch between the proletariat and the haute bourgeoisie, and that we can't really always trust them:


"the petty bourgeois is made up of on-the-one-hand and on-the-other-hand. This is so in his economic interests and therefore in his politics, religious, scientific and artistic views. And likewise in his morals, in everything. He is a living contradiction."

- Correspondence with Adolf Cluss, Marx 1852Mao promoted an alliance with what he identified as the "national bourgeoisie" - the haute bourgeoisie who didn't have ties to the foreign compradors. Not the petit bourgeoisie since he clearly identifies this as the separate third element of his block of the four social classes, but the Chinese haute bourgeoisie. There is no support for this in any of Marx, Engels or Lenin's works - the theory that we should collaborate with the bourgeoisie to develop regulated capitalism in the hopes of eventually supplanting it with socialism.


"Internally, arouse the masses of the people. That is, unite the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, form a domestic united front"

- On People's Democratic Dictatorship, Mao 1949Now let's contrast that with Lenin:


"the bourgeoisie, on the whole, is now in favour of the revolution, is zealously making speeches about liberty, holding forth more and more frequently in the name of the people, and even in the name of the revolution. But we Marxists all know from theory and from daily and hourly observation of our liberals, Zemstvo people and Orvobozhdentsi, that the bourgeoisie is inconsistent, self-seeking and cowardly in its support of the revolution. The bourgeoisie, in the mass, will inevitably turn towards counterrevolution, towards the autocracy, against the revolution and against the people, immediately its narrow, selfish interests are met, immediately it “recoils” from consistent democracy"

-Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Lenin 1905

[RedHal]

if you watch their state military tv channel, the hammer and sickle is still a prominent symbol

[$lim_$weezy]

Well, there are two stages for a country like China at the time, new democratic and socialist. Having a strategic bloc of classes including the national bourgeoisie seems to me to correspond to the first stage, and then later once social ownership of the means of production has been achieved a different policy can be carried out, or even at various points during the transition to social ownership.

Edit: I should probably say I'm no expert on history.

[DROSL]

China combined capitalism and communism which gives slavery.

[DROSL]

the swastika is a hindu symbol for peace, still the nazis aren't the masters of peace.

[Emmeka]

Well, there are two stages for a country like China at the time, new democratic and socialist. Having a strategic bloc of classes including the national bourgeoisie seems to me to correspond to the first stage, and then later once social ownership of the means of production has been achieved a different policy can be carried out, or even at various points during the transition to social ownership.

Yes, this the is Maoist theory. And that's exactly what I'm trying to point out - according to Mao, there's nothing really un-socialist about allowing for capitalism, so long as you do it with the intention of eventually transitioning to socialism once capitalism has "fully developed".

If, as somebody posted earlier, the Chinese began to transition towards socialism and take the economy out of the hands of the bourgeoisie around 1953, why were the leaps towards free-market capitalism within Mao's reign during the 1970s? In 1972 the Canadians led a trade delegation to China and established the trade relationship that would open up China to the west.

This was 3 years after the official end of the Cultural Revolution which supposedly drove out the capitalists. While there were efforts to create collectives and state industry alongside the capitalists during the Great Leap Forward, there was never any effort to take control of the industry already controlled by the bourgeoisie, despite purges against capitalists elements within the political sphere.

[$lim_$weezy]

I'm sure someone else who knows more about history can answer the specific questions Emmeka brings up?

During the transitional state, means of production are pretty much in the hands of party leadership, and these people are connected to the working class/peasants/etc. The struggle against the "capitalist-roaders" must take place in this context, of the purging and fighting of them within the party and whatnot. How you can do away with them completely and for all time in one swipe is unclear, as they constantly re-arise within the party.

I don't think "fully developing" capitalism as such was ever on the table? I think helping development through for example joint enterprises was used, but "fully developed"? What does that even mean?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

China combined capitalism and communism which gives slavery.

Please stop posting nonsense, would you kindly? That doesn't even make any sense.

[Emmeka]

I don't think "fully developing" capitalism as such was ever on the table? I think helping development through for example joint enterprises was used, but "fully developed"? What does that even mean?

Essentially - China was a backwards feudal country when Mao took power, and capitalism had yet to fully develop there. As such, he argued it was necessary to allow capitalism to further develop under the supervision and regulation of the party so that China could become an industrial nation, all the while socializing society and making preparations so that eventually private enterprise could be nationalized and socialism could begin. Here's what Mao had to say on the subject:


"When it is well done, China's major exploiting classes, the landlord class and the bureaucrat-bourgeoisie (the monopoly capitalist class), will be eliminated for good. There remain the national bourgeoisie; at the present stage, we can already do a good deal of suitable educational work with many of them. When the time comes to realize socialism, that is, to nationalize private enterprise, we shall carry the work of educating and remoulding them a step further. The people have a powerful state apparatus in their hands -- there is no need to fear rebellion by the national bourgeoisie."

"The national bourgeoisie at the present stage is of great importance. Imperialism, a most ferocious enemy, is still standing alongside us. China's modern industry still forms a very small proportion of the national economy. No reliable statistics are available, but it is estimated, on the basis of certain data, that before the War of Resistance Against Japan the value of output of modern industry constituted only about 10 per cent of the total value of output of the national economy. To counter imperialist oppression and to raise her backward economy to a higher level, China must utilize all the factors of urban and rural capitalism that are beneficial and not harmful to the national economy and the people's livelihood; and we must unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle. Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it."

- On People's Democratic Dictatorship, Mao 1949

[$lim_$weezy]

Okay, I think I know what you mean by "fully developing" now, although that's not exactly fully developing...

While I don't support everything done in the Maoist period in China, I have to say that it was indeed true that industry was greatly underdeveloped at the time. In these circumstances the CCP needed industry, and getting that from the capitalists for a time was necessary, although I don't know to what extent they did it nor do I know that I would agree with that extent. The point is, it can't just be opposed on principle without knowing the actual conditions of a country and the level of industry and how that affects the lives of the people.

[$lim_$weezy]

I suggest that anyone interested in the question of revolutionary alliance should read the following, as I think it does a good job on clearing some of these things up:

http://kasamaproject.org/threads/entry/mao-s-block-of-four-classes-a-revolutionary-alliance-for-its-time

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

This again? Fair enough, I understand the sceptism about China. I'll get to it tommorow.

[Emmeka]

The point is, it can't just be opposed on principle without knowing the actual conditions of a country and the level of industry and how that affects the lives of the people.

Russia was also a backwards agrarian society at the time of the Russian revolution. This doesn't mean that Lenin said it was "necessary" to allow capitalism to develop fully so that socialism could "eventually" supplant it.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Seeing as up until at least 1949 Maoists were advocating regulation of capitalism in favour of socialism and were promoting direct co-operation with the bourgeoisie, I have serious doubts that there was ever a legitimate effort to turn control of the economy from the bourgeoisie over to workers, given Mao's massive state apparatus at the time this task would have been simple - unless of course by "try" you just mean "ask the bourgeoisie politely".
Against Mao and the CPCs best efforts, the Chinese bourgeoisie would not play footsie with them. They largely fled. And the state took over all major and most minor enterprises by the mid-50s. The "bloc of four classes" is absolute hogwash, a fantasy to justify opportunist and reformist appetites. The conditions just wouldn't allow it. I don't particularly savor defending the PRC -- I consider it a deformed (very) workers state. Although the CPC and the Chinese people fought a brave war against the KMT and Japanese imperialism, the leadership was never revolutionary marxist or communist. But even today, if you compare the plight of the plight of India versus China, and that is an apt comparison, China looks awfully good. The advantages of a planned collectivized economy not dominated by foreign capital.

[$lim_$weezy]

What on earth is this "fully developing" you keep talking about?
So China in 1949 was the same as Russia in 1917, and we should not stray from the Russian model, as long as the country under consideration is "backwards agrarian"...?

I don't think I understand Lev_Bronsteinovich's point... what's make the CCP not revolutionary Marxist or communist? The bloc of four classes was definitely a thing, most especially in the wars before the unification of the PRC...

[Akshay!]

I think we are asking the wrong question here.

Of course China's not communist. Neither has any other country been.

To me the more interesting question is - Do they want to become another imperialist power like the European states or do they want to pursue the path of USSR and support socialist movements in other countries (and, effectively, start a cold war). That's the interesting question! Obviously I don't know the answer to it, but if I had to guess I'd go with the former.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Essentially - China was a backwards feudal country when Mao took power, and capitalism had yet to fully develop there. As such, he argued it was necessary to allow capitalism to further develop under the supervision and regulation of the party so that China could become an industrial nation, all the while socializing society and making preparations so that eventually private enterprise could be nationalized and socialism could begin. Here's what Mao had to say on the subject:


It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.

I can imagine with what noble indignation a “Left Communist” will recoil from these words, and what “devastating criticism” he will make to the workers against the “Bolshevik deviation to the right”. What! Transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward?. . . Isn’t this the betrayal of socialism?

Here we come to the root of the economic mistake of the “Left Communists”. And that is why we must deal with this point in greater detail.

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order.

But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.

Let us enumerate these elements:

1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;

2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);

3) private capitalism;

4) state capitalism;

5) socialism.

Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific features of the situation.

~Lenin


It is true that in the New Democratic period that China was a state capitalist country but this was because the principle contradiction wasn't between socialized production and private ownership, to use Marx's phrase. China only had 3 million proletarians out of 400 million so a dictatorship of the proletariat was out of the question for the reasons that Engels noted. The primary contradiction at this phase was between the progressive elements of Chinese society and imperialism and feudalism. What you need to take in account is that Anti-Capitalism is wholy irrelevant at this stage because China was a feudal country. The only way that China could have progressed to socialism without regressing into capitalism was through class struggle that would establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even Mao was aware of the problems of building socialism in a pre-capitalist society. To quote Mao:


"Our country at present practises a commodity system, the wage system is unequal, too, as in the eight-grade wage scale, and so forth. Under the dictatorship of the proletariat such things can only be restricted. Therefore, if people like Lin Piao come to power, it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system."

So yes China was state capitalist for most of it's history, however this doesn't discredit Mao, rather just like Lenin realized, the only way to devlop socialism is to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat over state capitalism

Here is a good article on the matter: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/zhang/1975/x01/x01.htm

And as for the national bourgeois, New Democracy is no less class collaborationist to form a united front with the bourgeois against imperialism than Trotsky's proposal to form a united front with bourgeois elements against fascism, except I would say that Mao was better than Trotsky because the bourgeois are still a historically progressive class during the pre-capitalist period, much like they were in the French Revolution, while Germany could be described as fully capitalist. So really this whole idea of Deng being a continuation of Mao is just neglecting historical conditions and selectively choosing quotes.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

And as for the national bourgeois, New Democracy is no less class collaborationist to form a united front with the bourgeois against imperialism than Trotsky's proposal to form a united front with bourgeois elements against fascism, except I would say that Mao was better than Trotsky because the bourgeois are still a historically progressive class during the pre-capitalist period, much like they were in the French Revolution, while Germany could be described as fully capitalist. So really this whole idea of Deng being a continuation of Mao is just neglecting historical conditions and selectively choosing quotes.
Trotsky's concept of a United Front was not an ongoing/governing political lashup. The Trotskyist concept of a UF is taking joint ACTION in defense of the proletariat and the left. The uniting groups remain completely independent and are free to openly criticize each other. In Germany Trotsky advocated appealing to the mass of SPD members to join in a fight with the KPD against the Nazis. The SPD was not a bourgeois party at the time but a reformist party of the working class. The Bloc of Four Classes was an ongoing formation and a concept that is thoroughly unmarxist.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Trotsky's concept of a United Front was not an ongoing/governing political lashup. The Trotskyist concept of a UF is taking joint ACTION in defense of the proletariat and the left. The uniting groups remain completely independent and are free to openly criticize each other. In Germany Trotsky advocated appealing to the mass of SPD members to join in a fight with the KPD against the Nazis. The SPD was not a bourgeois party at the time but a reformist party of the working class. The Bloc of Four Classes was an ongoing formation and a concept that is thoroughly unmarxist.

A reformist party of the working class? Well by a class-existentialist view it was a working class party in it's composition, but what made it bourgeois was the political line that it exposed, just like by a similar token it could be argued that the British Labor Party is a working class party when it is in the bourgeois camp. Except of course he was arguing for collaboration with a bourgeois party in a capitalist party, where the bourgeois are no longer a progressive class.

And how is it "thoroughly unmarxist". Where is the dialectical materialism being employed here?

The unique conditions of the Chinese revolution required communists to look at the scientific methodology that laid behind Marxism. China, unlike Russia did not have a large enough proletariat to overthrow the state, was plagued by warlords and was being invaded by Japanese imperialists. Marx's analysis of capitalism simply didn't provide the Chinese revolutionaries with the theoretical understandings that they needed to proceed in a situation of extremely unique circumstances. So they went back the methodology behind the Marxism, the scientific method of dialectical materialism that underlies the entirety of the Marxist framework. They developed Mao Zedong thought as a philosophy of Marxism, where Leninism was developed as Marxism applied to praxis, or to put it more clearly, it was an attempt to understand the methodology and to employ this methodology to their unique circumstances.

So I ask you, in all earnestness, could the proletariat of 3 million exert a dictatorship over 400 million people while waging a civil war with warlords, the nationalists, and while fending of Japanese imperialism? Of course not, it'd be absurd to suggest otherwise. So within this very unique set of circumstances a different path had to be taken until the base for establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat could be established.

And it's important to remember that all Mao is doing is repeating Marx when he said that during the feudal stage the bourgeois are the revolutionary class, the difference lies in the fact that he believe that since both capitalism and feudalism coexisted in China, that socialism could be established. So while the theory recognizes the national bourgeois as a progressive force, it does not place them in the leading position, which is the place of the proletariat. Likewise he felt that they needed to be elimitated but could not be eliminated instantaneously but through protracted class struggle. Mao says this of the national bourgeois:


At the same time, however, being a bourgeois class in a colonial and semi-colonial country and so being extremely flabby economically and politically, the Chinese national bourgeoisie also has another quality, namely, a proneness to conciliation with the enemies of the revolution. Even when it takes part in the revolution, it is unwilling to break with imperialism completely and, moreover, it is closely associated with the exploitation of the rural areas through land rent; thus it is neither willing nor able to overthrow imperialism, and much less the feudal forces, in a thorough way

So really, let's go back to Lenin for a bit and ask the question "What is to be done?" What should have been done? In what way did they apply Marxism incorrectly?

[Rusty Shackleford]

the whole dengist line is basically predicated on the need to industrially develop china to have both the productive capacity, and also a sizable proletariat to build socialism on. somewhere i had read that the goal for china is 'to be a medium-developed economy by 2050' by allowing for a market to exist in china.


Obviously this has led to a serious strengthening of the Chinese national Bourgeoisie. And the hand of the bourgeoisie is growing stronger on a routine basis. The whole Bo Xilai case proved it. And no, the national bourgeoisie may actually have no interest in liberal democracy if it manages to totally overcome any proletarian elements in the CPC.


The thing though that one should take on is to not join the sinophobic chorus in denouncing china, even if ones reasoning is that it has a nationalist foreign policy (which it does) and is rather openly un-communist in its approach to things (which it does).

[Emmeka]

China only had 3 million proletarians out of 400 million so a dictatorship of the proletariat was out of the question for the reasons that Engels noted.

Yes, and of that a decent 200 million in the least comprising peasantry, who fought alongside the workers during the revolution, hell, even lead the actual armed struggle. Nobody questions why the peasantry were included in an alliance against imperialism. However at no point were the forces of the national bourgeoisie a deciding factor in the revolution. Their inclusion was unnecessary and happened specifically because Mao wished to regulate capitalism, not overthrow it. This was in blatant ignorance of the example of the Soviets (who established turned Russia from a backwards agrarian society into one of the most heavily industrialized nations in Europe in a period of about 20 years).


So yes China was state capitalist for most of it's history, however this doesn't discredit Mao, rather just like Lenin realized, the only way to devlop socialism is to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat over state capitalism

Really I'd like to see where Lenin suggested were should "regulate capitalism, not destroy it" because Russia wasn't industrial enough. I can produce a crapload of literature to the contrary - Lenin saying the bourgeoisie aren't to be trusted and alliance with them must not happen, that capitalism must be overthrown. Here's a good start:


"the bourgeoisie, on the whole, is now in favour of the revolution, is zealously making speeches about liberty, holding forth more and more frequently in the name of the people, and even in the name of the revolution. But we Marxists all know from theory and from daily and hourly observation of our liberals, Zemstvo people and Orvobozhdentsi, that the bourgeoisie is inconsistent, self-seeking and cowardly in its support of the revolution. The bourgeoisie, in the mass, will inevitably turn towards counterrevolution, towards the autocracy, against the revolution and against the people, immediately its narrow, selfish interests are met, immediately it “recoils” from consistent democracy"

-Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Lenin 1905


And as for the national bourgeois, New Democracy is no less class collaborationist to form a united front with the bourgeois against imperialism than Trotsky's proposal to form a united front with bourgeois elements against fascism, except I would say that Mao was better than Trotsky because the bourgeois are still a historically progressive class during the pre-capitalist period, much like they were in the French Revolution, while Germany could be described as fully capitalist. So really this whole idea of Deng being a continuation of Mao is just neglecting historical conditions and selectively choosing quotes.

I'm not really concerned with comparing Mao to Trotsky, nor did I mention Trotsky at any point. Funny how you folk seem to inject Trotskyism into any criticism. None the less you have to recognize the united front policy wasn't strictly limited to Trotsky and was the active policy of the USSR and its aligned parties worldwide during both the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War. It was deemed a priority to combat Fascism, even going so far as to prop up the bourgeois-democratic elements of the Spanish republic and forgo revolution, and to call upon British, American and Canadian comrades to join their state militaries in the fight against the Germans. I don't necessarily see how that has any comparison with a revolutionary struggle - it was simply necessary to defend against Fascist encroachment and that meant getting every helping hand available.

Yes, as Mao notes the national bourgeoisie had the potential to be revolutionary in what was largely pre-capitalist China. However - did the alliance with the bourgeoisie ever turn the tides of the conflict? No, the alliance wasn't a strategic one against the threat of imperialism. That policy was in place merely to lay the foundations for regulation of capitalism instead of overthrowing it.

[Red Nightmare]

Modern China is basically state-monopoly capitalism. Even some capitalists admit that it is not communist anymore. The workers in China have no say over the operations of production and are forbidden from forming unions. China employs slave labor for corporations that outsource jobs to China for that cheap labor. Mao would be doing barrel rolls in his grave if he knew there were Walmart stores in Beijing today.