China: Thuggish Capitalist Regime [Archive]

vengefulcraigie

4th April 2006, 18:03

If anyone calls the "Peoples Republic" of China a communist country, that person needs a kick in the groin.

China does not have a government that truly represents the working people. The so-called Communist Party officials at the national and local level collude with corporations to seize land from farmers. Party bosses turn the other way when workers are paid criminally low wages with no bargaining rights. Abuses against the environment are ignored by Beijing. Party thugs break up popular uprisings in thousands of towns and villages in the country.

China has a one-party authoritarian regime that suppresses workers rights and denies democracy to its 1.3 billion people. Actually, the capitalist factory owners and real estate moguls have freedom; everyone else lives in slavery. American corporations love China because they can pump billions into that country without any dissent from the Chinese people. If anyone dares to question policies from Beijing, punishment will be severe. American Big Business wants thuggish regimes to stamp out democracy; that's why corporate CEOs get erections thinking about China.

I'm so disappointed with China. The Chinese people deserve better. I am sure Mao is turning over in his grave.

ComradeOm

4th April 2006, 18:06

Wow I'm so glad that we have you here to remind us of that. I'll go tear up my Mao pillow slip :rolleyes:

Actually scratch that comment. Some people do need to be reminded of this on a constant basis.

Wanted Man

4th April 2006, 18:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:12 PM
If anyone calls the "Peoples Republic" of China a communist country, that person needs a kick in the groin.
People who think that there are currently any "communist countries" need that.

Syndicalista

4th April 2006, 19:22

why wont people consider a anachro-syndicalist approach to socialism?
*seigh*

Amusing Scrotum

4th April 2006, 20:44

Given the pre-revolutionary situation, I'd say the Chinese ruling class have done a decent job....the speed of China's development certainly puts the European bourgeois to shame.

However, with regard stating the obvious, you're right....China is not, and never was a society in which the working class held state power.

I don't think Mao ever figured that out....I think he honestly felt that the "Chinese masses" ruled through the Party.

However, for all his faults, in think the original poster is right when he says Mao would be "turning over in his grave" (if such a thing was possible! <_< ) with regards the most recent news I've heard from China....they might be allowing that reactionary fuck the Dalai Lama to visit, and not content with that, they're allowing the World Buddhist Forum, or whatever its called, to have its forum in China for the first time since 1949! :angry:

In my opinion, this is a straw in the wind with regards the greater change which China is going to go through within the next decade....the transition to modern-capitalism.

What I mean by this, is that the Chinese bourgeois has successfully undermined all the Eastern Religions (and their "authorities") which took part in some of the various ruling class caste systems present in China pre-revolution.

And now, after their defeat, the Chinese bourgeois seems to want to utilise them in the way the European bourgeois now utilise Christianity....to rationalise the despotism of the bourgeois.

Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of Buddhist leaders came out and praised the Chinese bourgeois as really wonderful people....the present Dalai Lama, who's in the pay of the CIA, has already directed some praise towards the Chinese Government and the countries development.

Personally, I hope they allow him into the country....and then execute his ass for crimes against humanity. :)

Originally posted by vengefulcraigie
Abuses against the environment are ignored by Beijing.

China actually has some of the most Environmentally friendly projects in the world underway at the present time....indeed my favourite Architect William A. McDonough has been chosen to design seven new cities....

Eco-designs on future cities (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4682011.stm)

So in this respect, I think the tales about massive "abuses against the environment" which are often portrayed in the mainstream media, are, well....bullshit.

Salvador Allende

4th April 2006, 21:44

Absolute nonsense. China is certainly a Socialist country. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat and Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeois. We know this, certainly if we know anything, we know this. In 1949, China completed the New Democratic Revolution and overthrow the shackles of Feudalism and Imperialism. In 1956, China completed the Socialist revolution, completing the basic transformation of agriculture and industry into Socialist co-operatives (from which base China is still run on economically). There is no bourgeois in China, sure there have been many instances of people straying to the ultra-left or ultra-right or even adopting a bourgeois nationalist view, but these instances were not the rise of a bourgeois, but errors as a result of the lack of real analysis and related from internal contradictions, many of which are now fixed and the major contradiction of China today currently being worked on (contradiction between the urban and rural workers).

The bourgeois is wiped out, they do not exist anymore. For a society to be Capitalist, it must have the means of production owned by the bourgeois, which is impossible in China. In China, all land is owned by the state and in the cities the vast majority of workers are organized into co-operatives or active in SOEs and in the countryside almost all farmers are in co-operatives. The private industry is almost always a joint-venture between Socialist and Capitalist industries and thus retains a Socialist character under Socialist law. Chen Yun said that the market in China should always be like a birdcage, "if the cage is too small, the bird will suffocate, however, if there were no cage, it would fly away."

China has entered the Primary Stage of Socialism. As all Marxist-Leninists know, the goal of Socialism is to raise the productive forces, in the 1966-1976 era many people preached that "it is better to be poor under Socialism, than rich under Capitalism" and that is a wrong attitude and one of an ultra-rightist character. Socialism is superior to Capitalism and the goal of Socialism is to advance into Communism. We all know that Communism requires vastly strong productive forces and industrialization, China of which is developing both currently. As China strives to enter the Advanced Stage of Socialism, there are many people who seek to detract from her and work on the ultra-left or ultra-right and either on-purpose or on-accident help the Capitalists by denying support and working with the Capitalists and Imperialists to undermine the achievements of Socialism.

Dreckt

4th April 2006, 21:49

I've been thinking of this: how are homosexuals treated in China? Do people accept them as normal or is it "as wicked there as it is here", so to speak? I wonder because I've actually never heard anything about the "sexual relations" in China.

So in this respect, I think the tales about massive "abuses against the environment" which are often portrayed in the mainstream media, are, well....bullshit.

But not completely bullshit. Since people have little to say about how things should look like in the future, I'd say the Party and the corporate sector are quite free to abuse the environment. Then, of course, I'm not saying all leading figures turn their backs on the environment, and some do realize that they can't just leave it as it is.

It's not massive, but it's there.

China is certainly a Socialist country. Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat and Capitalism is the dictatorship of the bourgeois.

Then would a truly proletariat dictatorship supress demonstrators - of their own class?

We know this, certainly if we know anything, we know this. In 1949, China completed the New Democratic Revolution and overthrow the shackles of Feudalism and Imperialism.

I think any leftist and any rational human would agree that China did do much better after 1949. Some would get the power, if not the communists, then the Kuomintang, etc. Just like conditions in Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam all became much better. And just like the American revolution.

There is no bourgeois in China, sure there have been many instances of people straying to the ultra-left or ultra-right or even adopting a bourgeois nationalist view, but these instances were not the rise of a bourgeois, but errors as a result of the lack of real analysis and related from internal contradictions, many of which are now fixed and the major contradiction of China today currently being worked on (contradiction between the urban and rural workers).

I disagree. The problems in China were never because of counter-revolutionaries or nationalist forces - because neither of them controlled anything. It was the Party who rules China, who set the rules and who decided what to do. The people themselves didn't do anything - because they had no power.

The bourgeois is wiped out, they do not exist anymore.

Have you ever been in Beijing? Shangai? Hong Kong? There you will find A LOT of bourgeois.

For a society to be Capitalist, it must have the means of production owned by the bourgeois, which is impossible in China.

The tell me, what is the difference between a "socialist" state and a corporation?

In a socialist society, the means of production lies with the workers. Do workers control the progress in China today? What parent would let his or her child walk around in the streets begging for money if the society is supposed to be "socialist"?

Socialism is superior to Capitalism and the goal of Socialism is to advance into Communism. We all know that Communism requires vastly strong productive forces and industrialization, China of which is developing both currently.

The Chinese "revolution" has already failed because China did not went through capitalism (as modelled in the West). And if socialism is supposed to be so great, how come they start implementing capitalist aspects to their economy? What, is something missing in socialism?

Salvador Allende

4th April 2006, 22:05

Generally within the People's Republic as a trend, homosexuals have been treated as they were in the Socialist USSR and many other areas, as decadents who are adopting a Capitalist way of thought. The trend turned in the 1980s however, to actually attempting treatment and looking at it through a scientific viewpoint. A few years ago I know a gay pride parade was broken up and many arrested, so, I can assume the current stand is a mix of viewing them as both with mental disorder and Capitalist agents. Probably viewing the majority as the former with only a few as the latter.

It should be noted that Vietnam, Laos, Korea and Cuba have similar viewpoints and despite the supposed "equality" between "preferances" in Cuba, it is still illegal to display any homosexual tendancies in public and people are still re-educated and arrested for such. The trend is not new and is quite common among Marxists and Socialist countries. The stance now being increasingly accepted in the Socialist countries is that they have mental disorders and are not "Capitalist roaders".

The problem was because of the influences of the bourgeois and the lack of analysis on the Party members and the people taking hold when contradictions were misanalysed or ignored. In 1958, China began taking an ultra-leftist road which would soon be followed by the attempted seizing of power by the ultra-rightist Gang of Four and Lin Piao. In 1977, China began the long process of countering these forces. Though many contradictions were addressed, the largest one (between the proletariat and peasantry) was not and the bourgeois agents stirred up trouble in 1989. This contradiction is now being looked at and addressed somewhat in the "Socialist Countryside" plans of the current Five-Year Plan.

As for Hong Kong, of course a bourgeois exists there. It has been under a Socialist government somewhat for less than a decade now. The bourgeois do not exist anymore. They themselves have not existed for about 40 years now, though their agents and those subscribing to their thought do occassionally pop-up, they are not bourgeois.

China's progress today goes to the workers. The GDP Per Capita will increase by 50% over the next 5-years and by all accounts the living standard of the average worker in China has massively increased and is still doing such. The people's living standard and wealth is increasing at a phenomenal level, a level which is showing the superiority of the Socialist system where the Co-operatives, SOEs are at the head followed by the joint-ventures. China went through a phase of "State-Capitalism" from 1949-1956. Mao and many others accepted this stage had taken hold following the New Democratic revolution. This state-capitalism which took hold from feudalism faded into Socialism with the completion of the basic transformation of agriculture and industry to Socialism in 1956. Who are you to say what is Capitalism and what is Socialism? Is a market equivalent to Capitalism? Certainly not, Markets existed in Feudalism and will still exist into Socialism. It is the ultra-dogmatists who insist on blindly following words and "definitions" and never transfering them into reality and work that has held Socialism back from progress. China is advancing through the Primary Stage of Socialism and is advancing their productive forces very nicely, they are doing so by "Seeking Truth from Facts" and freeing their mind of the dogmatic definitions that hindered Albania and 1966-1976 China.

Amusing Scrotum

4th April 2006, 22:23

Originally posted by Salvador Allende+--> (Salvador Allende)China is certainly a Socialist country.[/b]

Funny that....the original definition of socialism, as used by Marx and Engels, was one where the state was hyper-democratic and workers controlled their industries.

Now, in China, we have seen strikes by workers who think (rightly) that they are being fucked over....in a socialist society, this would be impossible.

You simply couldn't be "fucked over" by a form of production you control....so what's happening in China?

Originally posted by Salvador Allende+--> (Salvador Allende)There is no bourgeois in China [....] In China, all land is owned by the state [....] The private industry is almost always a joint-venture between Socialist and Capitalist industries and thus retains a Socialist character under Socialist law.[/b]

Is anyone else really confused by these blatant contradictions?

Firstly, our friend here states that there is "no bourgeois in China" and that "all land is owned by the state"....then, after that, s/he says that there is private industry in China.

Leaving aside the question of what class relationship a Government Official who runs the Nationalised Industries takes, anyone who knows anything about Marxism, will tell you that if there is private industry (means of production controlled by one class and capitalist relations imposed on the people who work in these industries) then there must be a bourgeois.

Despite the ramblings of Salvador Allende, China likely has the largest bourgeois in the world....given the size of China. And what's more, capitalists are admitted into the "Communist" Party.

Indeed the Chinese bourgeois, at times, is particularly despotic....especially when dealing with striking workers.

Socialist my arse! :lol:

Originally posted by Dreckt
I've been thinking of this: how are homosexuals treated in China?

Until 2002 (?) homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the people involved in that area of healthcare in China....as you can guess, this meant homosexuals weren't nicely treated, to put it mildly.

[email protected]
But not completely bullshit.

Not completely....but mostly. <_<

Salvador Allende
Generally within the People's Republic as a trend, homosexuals have been treated as they were in the Socialist USSR and many other areas, as decadents who are adopting a Capitalist way of thought.

Do you agree with this analysis?

Amusing Scrotum

4th April 2006, 22:25

Oh, and although I read the original piece on the Dalai Lama in the Independent. Here's a bit on it from BBC News....

Dalai Lama 'wants to visit China' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4792708.stm)

Cheung Mo

4th April 2006, 22:43

Hong Kong's government is socialist?

I see an authoritarian free market capitalist party (the Liberal Party) and an authoritarian crony-capitalist party (the DABHK) on one side and a party of Catholic reactionaries pretending to be social liberals (the Democratic Party), social liberals and social democrats who figured this out (The Frontier), and a bunch of anti-authoritarian radicals with no love for either Beijing or Western capitalism on the other.

But as my avatar and user name may suggest, I'm pretty fucking biased.

Salvador Allende

4th April 2006, 22:43

Capitalists are not admitted into the Party, there was a ban on people in the joint-venture industry. If someone works in an industry and is proficient at it, even if it is alongside Capitalists, if it is an industry with a Socialist character and they retain Communist ideals, they are a Communist. Don't forget that many good Comrades of the Revolutionary era were once classified as petty-bourgeois themself.

I will say again, China is Socialist, it is the dictatorship of the proletariat and is run by the proletariat where they own the means of production. You will notice the vast majority of all strikes and all discontent is in the countryside and repeatedly I have stated that this is the largest contradiction in China. The "Socialist Countryside" which will be created by Comrade Hu and Comrade Wen will ensure the beginning of the end of this contradiction or at least keep it from expanding into a level where the international bourgeois can try and stir up trouble.

Homosexuality is still treated as a mental disorder in China in some forms, I forget what they still maintain from the analysis, but I have heard that many have been then-classified as being Anti-Social. Nonetheless, I tend to agree with the stance on homosexuality seeing the vast majority as within the confines of mental disorders with some and many of the "homosexual rights activists" being Capitalist roaders attempting to instill a Capitalist morality.

Note: eh, Hong Kong is now part of China and though their local government is not Socialist, they are under a greater Socialist structure.

Cheung Mo

4th April 2006, 22:45

China on gay rights:

http://www.queerday.com/2005/dec/20/china_...n_festival.html (http://www.queerday.com/2005/dec/20/china_shuts_down_gay_and_lesbian_festival.html)

I can't actually find much else...

They're ahead of Stalintopia, Jesusland, and Islamistan, but behind the rest of the world.

Janus

4th April 2006, 22:48

I can assume the current stand is a mix of viewing them as both with mental disorder and Capitalist agents.
Actually, the PRC just took homosexuality off the list of mental disorders. This doesn't mean that homosexuals are totally accepted in China.

What I mean by this, is that the Chinese bourgeois has successfully undermined all the Eastern Religions
Religion isn't encouraged in China but the government now turns a blind eye towards it. Besides, if one considers Confucianism a religions then it's obvious that most leaders support it unintentionally even if they publicly denounce it.

The so-called Communist Party officials at the national and local level collude with corporations to seize land from farmers.
The local officials are elected by the farmers.

Abuses against the environment are ignored by Beijing.
How can you expect a developing nation to focus on the environment so much? It is the developing nations who have create much of the pollution and have brought the world to this environmentally sensitive point.

ultra-rightist Gang of Four and Lin Piao
Ultra-rightist? So you consider the Cultural Revolution to be an ultra-rightist program?

The people's living standard and wealth is increasing at a phenomenal level, a level which is showing the superiority of the Socialist system where the Co-operatives, SOEs are at the head followed by the joint-ventures
Maybe for the urban bourgeois but for the rural farmers, living standards have decreased significantly.

China has privatized a portion of its economy and allows people to establish private businesses, etc.

In China, all land is owned by the state and in the cities the vast majority of workers are organized into co-operatives or active in SOEs and in the countryside almost all farmers are in co-operatives.
There are no more cooperatives in the countryside, that was abolished in the late 70's.

Cheung Mo

4th April 2006, 22:53

Wow...

The PRC is nearly 40 years behind Canada and nearly that far behind the sane parts of the U.S. (If any state that gave its electoral votes to St. Ronnie can be called sane) on gay rights.

How enlightened.

amanondeathrow

4th April 2006, 22:56

Homosexuality is still treated as a mental disorder in China in some forms, I forget what they still maintain from the analysis, but I have heard that many have been then-classified as being Anti-Social. Nonetheless, I tend to agree with the stance on homosexuality seeing the vast majority as within the confines of mental disorders with some and many of the "homosexual rights activists" being Capitalist roaders attempting to instill a Capitalist morality.

Then why the hell are you on this board?

Janus

4th April 2006, 23:00

Capitalists are not admitted into the Party
They were allowed back in the 1990's. They just can't attain high posts. Besides, many people particularly students join the CPC these days for economic advancement.

Amusing Scrotum

4th April 2006, 23:03

Originally posted by Salvador Allende+--> (Salvador Allende)Capitalists are not admitted into the Party....[/b]

I wish I knew of a link on a leftie site that went into this in detail, but for now, bits from the mainstream news will do....

Originally posted by BBC News+--> (BBC News)The Chinese Communist Party in the southern province of Guangdong has made history by voting private entrepreneurs onto its powerful congress.

The entrepreneurs include local timber tycoon Liu Shaoxi, listed by Forbes magazine among China's 50 richest businessmen, China's official Xinhua news agency reported.[/b]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2000253.stm

The rest of the article confirms that capitalists are part of the "Communist" Party.

Originally posted by Tom O'Byrne
HAMISH ROBERTSON: Russia may have abandoned Communism, but it's still alive and well at least in theory in China. So much so in fact that China's president Jiang Zemin is preparing for possibly the toughest fight of his political career, by trying to let capitalists join the Chinese Communist Party.

http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/s349007.htm

This measure was passed.

Originally posted by Salvador Allende
Don't forget that many good Comrades of the Revolutionary era were once classified as petty-bourgeois themself.

I don't forget that....indeed I think it is a real pain in the arse that Marxism has been fucked up so much by radical petty-bourgeois ideology.

Originally posted by Salvador Allende
....and is run by the proletariat where they own the means of production. You will notice the vast majority of all strikes and all discontent is in the countryside....

If the proletariat owns the means of production in any meaningful sense, then there shouldn't be large scale discontent anywhere.

However, there is discontent, and this means there are classes....namely and emerging bourgeois and an emerging proletariat.

Salvador [email protected]
Nonetheless, I tend to agree with the stance on homosexuality....

Persecution of homosexuals "your thing" is it? :angry:

Janus
Religion isn't encouraged in China but the government now turns a blind eye towards it.

I hope Religion is treated even more harshly, but I think that may just turn out to be hope and nothing more....as I said, I think we may see a lot of Buddhist babble about how "great" China is over the next few decades. :(

Cheung Mo

4th April 2006, 23:06

Four legs good, two legs better.

amanondeathrow

5th April 2006, 00:23

I wish I knew of a link on a leftie site that went into this in detail, but for now, bits from the mainstream news will do....

"On July 1, 2001 Chinese Communist Party (CPC) general secretary Jiang Zemin delivered a speech recognized immediately to be of great importance. He advocated the admission of capitalists to the Chinese Communist Party"

Monthly Review (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0502cpc.htm)

Amusing Scrotum

5th April 2006, 00:39

Thanks for that link Dee's Nuts. This, I found quite interesting....

Originally posted by Monthly Review
A struggle broke out within the CPC. Inner party struggles within the CPC do not take place openly. Reports on disputes within the CPC in the press inside China are rare and in a sort of code. Even the Hong Kong press shies away from such a subject. Two letters from prominent older party figures opposing the admission of capitalists to the party began to circulate privately from hand to hand. The existence of these letters, and therefore the existence of the struggle, became widely known. But of public discussion there was none.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0502cpc.htm

As if any more evidence was needed....but can anyone imagine a socialist society that suppresses the opinions of communists?

After all, the Chinese working class will benefit from these opinions, but the Chinese bourgeois....?

Salvador Allende

5th April 2006, 01:12

Wrong, a vast majority of the agriculture is run by co-operatives. People's Communes were disbanded in the 1970s. Co-operatives are still the mainstay of agriculture. Overall the Chinese industry is 85% collective owned counting the co-operatives and SOEs with the majority of the remaining 15% being joint-ventures. As far as banks and media goes, over 95% of each is state-owned. Vietnam and China share similar figures as far as economic structuring goes.

As for the GPCR, I consider it an ultra-leftist programe, but Lin and the Gang ultra-rightists. Ultra-Rightism is generally considered to be inertia, supporting no change to the status quo and resorting to primitivism, while Ultra-Leftism is generally considered to be Utopianism. The GPCR itself was certainly an ultra-leftist, or had the trappings and facade of it. Meanwhile, the Gang glorified the uneducated and renounced most educated cadres as Capitalists, they said that Socialism was shared poverty and that the only options were poverty in Socialism or wealth with Capitalism. Certainly they were ultra-rightists influencing the future programe in Kampuchea of Angka. Chairman Hua Kuo-feng pointed out the ultra-rightist nature behind the ultra-leftist mask when he exposed them as counter-revolutionaries in 1976-1977.

I do not consider the businessmen to be Capitalists, for them to be of the Capitalist class, it would mean the creation of a bourgeois, which I think is impossible in Socialism. The Theory of Three Represents is a revolutionary Theory which states the Communist Party must always Represent the development trend of China's advanced productive forces, Represent the orientation of China's advanced culture and Represent the fundamental interests of the majority of the people. The advancement of the productive forces requires those with a large responsibility in the development of Socialism to be allowed in the Communist Party and I see nothing wrong with that so long as their work maintains a Socialist character.

In any society there are contradictions and Socialism is no different. As the proletariat advances and the country industrializes, no doubt there will be problems if the peasantry are not having their standard of living raised at a similar pace. However, the contradiction between the two has not been solved, but has increased to a dangerous point to where it was the root of the 1989 counter-revolutionaries and many riots. Hu and Wen's "Socialist Countryside" should begin to solve these contradictions.

Janus

5th April 2006, 01:19

Wrong, a vast majority of the agriculture is run by co-operatives.
No much of the land is leased to the farmers. There are few cooperatives at least in the region where I lived.

The Gang of Four were pushing the Cultural revolution so why do you consider them to be ultra-rightists?

I do not consider the businessmen to be Capitalists, for them to be of the Capitalist class, it would mean the creation of a bourgeois, which I think is impossible in Socialism
But there are individuals who own private industries in China. You have yet to defend your arguement that China is socialist.

Hu and Wen's "Socialist Countryside" should begin to solve these contradictions.
Only time will tell.

TakeBackChechnya

5th April 2006, 01:27

No country truly "for the people" would slaughter their own like Deng Xiaoping did in Tianamen Square, China is a disgusting regime worthy of more scorn than the United States or Russia, as evil as those other countries may be China's actions to suporess its people are sick. Millions are without education, they work tireless hours that would barely pay enough to buy a decent sandwich here in NJ.

One area that needs Socialism now more than ever though is Latin America and Africa, and true Socialism, no bull shit presidents giving the collected money to their economic buddies, for the people and witht he people is how Socialism should rule, unfortunately it seems there hasn't been a man or woman on Earth who is willing to avoid the tempatations of corruption and greed to better his country, Hugo Chavez maybe, but even he is becoming more of a dictator, Evo Morales is Bolivia may be the next great ruler of the area but it is too early to tell yet.

Comrade-Z

5th April 2006, 01:46

Nonetheless, I tend to agree with the stance on homosexuality....

This sickens me.

In the 21st century, this is what real communists think of those who oppose homosexuality:

CrimethInc.
Umlaut
Total Disfuckingcography

Brothers In Arms

Limp-wristed fists to the homophobes faces
Now it's time to trade fucking places
Bind and gag 'em with barbed wire
Pull their teeth with fucking pliers
Wood for the fires
Who's "unnatural," fucking liars!?
Wouldn't co-exist with us
Now you face the wrath of justice
Wood for the fires

Always forward, never straight
As we march forth against your nation of hate
Pouring out of our closets and into the night
Our bullets bear your names and we're spoiling to fight
Wood for the fires
Who's the "faggot" now, fucking liars!?
Wouldn't co-exist with us
Now you're struck down by street justice
Wood for the fires
You're the wood for the fucking fires

Arms are for hugging and for killing bigots.

Download at http://matthew0.multiply.com/music

Salvador Allende

5th April 2006, 17:23

I have defended it throughly. Socialism is the stage of development between Capitalism and Communism. Communism as a rule depends on the advanced productive forces, far outweighing the Capitalist forces. China does not have this yet, they are in the Primary Stage of Socialism, and the goal of this stage is to raise the produtive forces to advance into the Advanced Stage of Socialism and then Communism. China is doing just that. A market does not make a country Capitalist, Feudal or Socialist. A market is simply part of an economy and an economy's character is judged by the ownership of the means of production, who benefits and who is in command of the state. All of these three are the proletariat in China and hence the Market takes a Socialist character in their attempt to continue through the Primary Stage of Socialism.

Tiananmen Square is an incident which should not be glorified. It was the reaction to the contradictions between the peasantry and the proletariat going untouched and the international bourgeois were able to use the memory and glorification of the GPCR and the Gang of Four in some circles, to rouse up trouble. To prevent another GPCR and a complete counter-revolution, Teng Hsiao-ping, Premier Li P'eng, President Yang Shang-kun and other loyal comrades were absolutely forced to defend Socialism with force, putting down the counter-revolution and ensuring Socialism's survival. To support the efforts of Counter-Revolution is to renounce Socialism.

There are many co-operatives, indeed, land is leased. But, in the vast majority of cases in the countryside, they are leased to co-operatives. Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez are both bourgeois. They are bourgeois nationalists who at the moment we see taking a very progressive character in-order to free their nations from Imperialism.

Real Communists? Real Communists are ones who support real and working Socialism. I support real and working Socialism and attempt to follow the lines set forth by Marxism-Leninism and Marxist-Leninist parties. The vast majority of whom have come to a stance on homosexuality as a mental disorder or bourgeois elements through scientific analysis. I personally see no valid counter to this in Socialist circles. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has done much work in this field, but most other parties are too "revolutionary" and "politically correct" to actually analyze, take a stance and oppose their work.

Cheung Mo

5th April 2006, 17:34

I seen no need for a Marxist analysis of homosexuality if the sole purpose of said analysis is to justify the repression of sexual minorities.

amanondeathrow

5th April 2006, 20:13

China does not have this yet, they are in the Primary Stage of Socialism, and the goal of this stage is to raise the produtive forces to advance into the Advanced Stage of Socialism and then Communism.

If China is just entering the "primary" stage of socialism, then why only recently the PRC has began allowing capitalists into the party?

The vast majority of whom have come to a stance on homosexuality as a mental disorder or bourgeois elements through scientific analysis. I personally see no valid counter to this in Socialist circles.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that would even suggest the possibility that homosexuality is a "mental disorder".

I find it troubling that you have the impression that the majority of communists agree with you.

Janus

5th April 2006, 22:54

It was the reaction to the contradictions between the peasantry and the proletariat going untouched
:blink: A student revolt was a contradiction between the peasantry and workers?

There are many co-operatives
What is your definition of cooperatives? If it's a bunch of farmers working together on a farm then that's false. China no longer has that. Land is leased to individual families.

A market is simply part of an economy and an economy's character is judged by the ownership of the means of production, who benefits and who is in command of the state. All of these three are the proletariat in China and hence the Market takes a Socialist character in their attempt to continue through the Primary Stage of Socialism.
If you have ever been to China, then you will know that the means of production and the state are not controlled by the workers. If this were so, then they would benefit much more from the rising economy.

Dreckt

5th April 2006, 23:41

Socialism is the stage of development between Capitalism and Communism. Communism as a rule depends on the advanced productive forces, far outweighing the Capitalist forces.

Communism can only be achieved when the vast majority of the people agrees on it. You can not force or brainwash people into it - you must convince them with arguments, you must make them realize why communism is the best political system so far in human existance.

China does not have this yet, they are in the Primary Stage of Socialism, and the goal of this stage is to raise the produtive forces to advance into the Advanced Stage of Socialism and then Communism.

If socialism is supposed to be a better system than capitalism, once again, how come they adopt capitalist elements to their supposed "socialist" country?

Salvador Allende

6th April 2006, 01:35

Markets are not only for one system or another, nor do they determine what character a country takes. Markets existed under Feudalism and they will continue to exist under Socialism. What determines the character of these markets is the ownership of the means of production, which, in China is owned by the proletariat.

China has been in the Primary Stage of Socialism since the basic transformation of industry and agriculture in 1956. Tiananmen Square was indeed a result of the contradiction. The contradiction between the proletariat and the peasantry going unsolved caused discontent within sectors of the proletariat, youth, affected by circles of ultra-leftists who had supported the Cultural Revoltuion, sought to sow and did sew some discontent among these sectors, attempting to use this discontent to restore Capitalism.

In the current five-year plans, the average wage will increase by 60%, is this not benefitting the workers? The standard of living has drastically improved since the reforms began. How can you say the people do not benefit? I disagree in classifying those allowed into the Party as Capitalists, I think rather it represents productive forces which retain a Socialist character being accepted as part of the greater revolutionary theory of Three Represents.

The majority of world Communists are in the Communist Party of China, Communist Party of Vietnam, Workers Party of Korea and Communist Party of India (Marxist) all of whose lines support that stance of homosexuality. Hence, one can easily assume that the majority of the world's communists agree.

Socialism is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Proletariat of China, coming to power and transforming China into a Socialist nation by 1957, still holds power and thus, China is most definitely Socialist. There has been no counter-revolution by the non-existant bourgeois and China has not openly adopted a bourgeois nationalist approach nor have they begun to move against Socialism. The situation in China is one of a country in the Primary Stage of Socialism, trying to develop the produtive forces to reach the Advanced Stage and make the transition to Communism.

amanondeathrow

6th April 2006, 02:16

What determines the character of these markets is the ownership of the means of production, which, in China is owned by the proletariat.

How can the means of production be controlled by the proletariat if more and more state controlled companies are being privatized?

The contradiction between the proletariat and the peasantry going unsolved caused discontent within sectors of the proletariat, youth, affected by circles of ultra-leftists who had supported the Cultural Revoltuion, sought to sow and did sew some discontent among these sectors, attempting to use this discontent to restore Capitalism.

Tiananmen Square was by no means organized by counter revolutionaries or revolutionaries.

It was simply a student protest pushing for more freedom of expression, like what they believed was being introduced in Russia.

It is a reaction that is bound to happen in any country that claims to be socialist and does not deliver.

In the current five-year plans, the average wage will increase by 60%, is this not benefitting the workers?

Of course the standards of living will improve, any country that is developing in to a capitalist state will be better off once it reaches its goal.

However, once it has developed into to a capitalist state, its standards of living will begin to stagnate, just as they have in other capitalist nations.

How can you say the people do not benefit? I disagree in classifying those allowed into the Party as Capitalists, I think rather it represents productive forces which retain a Socialist character being accepted as part of the greater revolutionary theory of Three Represents.

Those who privately control the means of production and exploit others for profit are capitalist by definition, regardless of their productivity.

The majority of world Communists are in the Communist Party of China, Communist Party of Vietnam, Workers Party of Korea and Communist Party of India (Marxist) all of whose lines support that stance of homosexuality. Hence, one can easily assume that the majority of the world's communists agree.

Just because a dictatorship names the ruling party communist does not make it so.

The majority of those who truly understand reason and logic know that homosexuality is normal and expectable- please take your homophobe bull shit out of this discussion.

Socialism is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the Proletariat of China, coming to power and transforming China into a Socialist nation by 1957, still holds power and thus, China is most definitely Socialist.

If China became socialist in 1957, why are businesses only recently being privatized?

Wouldn't this have happened pre1957 and then reversed as China became socialist?

Black Dagger

6th April 2006, 04:25

Salvador Allende, some questions please:

What are the treatment methods used by the Chinese govt. in dealing with homosexuals that have a mental disorder? Do you support these methods?

How are homosexual capitalist agents treated? Do you support this treatment?

Do/did you suppor the breaking up of gay pride parades in China?

Thank you.

Cheung Mo

6th April 2006, 08:07

Beijing supports the reactionary RNA in Nepal.

Therefore, anybody who supports Beijing ought to be restricted.

Commie Rat

6th April 2006, 09:59

the capitalist factory owners and real estate moguls have freedom; everyone else lives in slavery

Its Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor kiddo

Janus

6th April 2006, 18:00

The standard of living has drastically improved since the reforms began.In the current five-year plans, the average wage will increase by 60%, is this not benefitting the workers?
Most workers were much better off before and the standard of living has fallen since the Jiang era particularly for the farmers. Nowadays, many of the state industries have shut down so those from the inner areas are forced to move to the major cities to accept work there. The situation for workers and farmers has fallen drastically. Just because their wages have improved a bit doesn't mean that they benefit to any great degree. Improved wages doesn't mean that the workers are no longer exploited by the capitalists in China.

What determines the character of these markets is the ownership of the means of production, which, in China is owned by the proletariat.
If it was owned by the workers, then their situation would be much better and they wouldn't have to migrate to the cities to pick up low-paying jobs just to feed their families. Anyone who has been to China can clearly see that it definitely is not a worker's state.