So is china still a communist country?

[BIG BROTHER]

I've been seeing that China does a lot of free-trade and capitalist sort of stuff, so I wonder if it is still considered a communist country. And I also if someone could explain me why has China changed like this.

[More Fire for the People]

After the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, the bureaucracy crystallized its authority over the working class and was able to become a new capitalist class made up of members of the state—hence why we use the word 'state-capitalist' to describe China. But after the 70s, and especially in the 90s, the Chinese state-capitalist sector ran parallel to a free market sector, with public-private cooperatives lying in the middle. Since the late 90s the Chinese economy has been dominated by the private sector & the private-public sector. So while China has been openly capitalist for the past two decades, it's functions and operations have been capitalist since the early 1970s.

[Red Economist]

combining authoritarian goverment and state monopoly capitalism equals fascism... it's only communist in name.

it's often forgotten but the facsists belived in 'community' the same as communists. fascism sought to strengthen the exisiting community (by Bureaucratic will power and control- to support the bourgeosise) whilst communists and socialists wanted to build a new community...

China is Fascist.

[Colonello Buendia]

The Chinese hide under a veneer of red but they're communist in name only, they're not even Maoist, Mao's great leap forward(or pathetic hop backwards) resulted in one of the most messed up "communist" countries out there, so as SRACTLM said China is Fascist and communist in name only

[Dr Mindbender]

I've been seeing that China does a lot of free-trade and capitalist sort of stuff, so I wonder if it is still considered a communist country. And I also if someone could explain me why has China changed like this.
china hasnt been communist in a long time (and arguably never has)
Reasons-
*It has embraced the free market with gusto.
*The wealth divide between winners and losers is probably greater than any country in the world (including the USA)
*It has some of the most reactionary border controls and living conditions for its workers.
*It has engaged in the economic colonialisation of Africa
*It does not speak out in solidarity with the oppressed nations of the world
*...it has even largely turned its back on its old ally, the DPRK.
*It does not speak out against the foreign policies of western capitalist nations, but encourages them.
*It is indifferent to the treatment of homosexuals and other minority groups.
*It has been swamped with big western brand names.

[Dros]

No it isn't. After Mao died, China failed to be a socialist country. Deng Hsiao-ping overthrew Mao's successors (termed the "Gang of Four") and brought the country back on a capitalist road.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There's never been a communist country. China was arguably socialist, but since Mao's death and the reforms it's capitalist.

[Dr Mindbender]

There's never been a communist country. China was arguably socialist, but since Mao's death and the reforms it's capitalist.
the soviet union was communist between 1917 and 1924.

[gilhyle]

The accurate question is whether China is a 'workers state' not whether it is a 'communist state'. I think this is a complicated question. It would only really be of importance in the event of war between China and another developing country. In theory in such a situation communists should defend the workers state rather than the imperialised country, unless there are significant reasons to do otherwise.

A second scenario where it might be relevant is an internal attempt to overthrow the state. This is more important but but since 89 hasnt been a realistic issue.

However, as an academic question (cos I dont think it is of any great immediate political significance), I think there are various options here. One could say it ceased to be a workers state when Mao died, when the gang of four got arrested, when Deng made his 1992 tour, when the monopoly of foreign trade was surrendered or many other occasions.

I frankly dont know which of those moments is the relevant moment. I think it is like a ship slowly sinking in the sea - does the last sign of the mast have to have sunk beneath the sea to say it is sunk ? I think not.

I think the fundamental question is this: to keep itself in power the bureaucracy whichhas power within a degenerated workers state, there are certain things it has to do to protect the peasatry and the working class to sustain itself. When it ceases to have to provide most of those benefits to workers and peasants, the workers state is gone. In China's case there are still some residual education and health benefits available that were made available because of the workers state. But it is now the case that in the (rapidly increasing) conflicts between workers and their bosses, the State increasingly HAS TO side with the bosses. Its no longer a policy choice on the part of a bureaucracy within a workers state fixed upon a plan to restore capitalism, it has - I think - now become the material basis of the ruling caste itself.

That it seems to me is the correct way to pose the question. Whether my answer is correct is secondary. You might agree with my way of posing the question and think that there is still a material basis for the ruling caste of resting ont he workers and peasantry. Certainly, there remains a difference between the Chinese ruling caste and that in most asian countries and that difference depends on the large mass of rural peasants on whom they rest and whom they supply to capital as a source of labour. But I think the manner in which they are based on that peasantry is no longer fundamental to their nature.

[Dros]

the soviet union was communist between 1917 and 1924.

The Soviet Union was socialist. Surely the Soviet Union did not achieve a stateless, classless, global democracy of freely associating human beings did they. Communism means the achievment of the four alls: destruction of existing production relations, elimination of those class relations based on those production relations, elimination of the social distinctions founded on those class relations, and the end of ideas grounded in those social relations. Noone has ever done that. Ever.

[spartan]

Well if you go by the American Conservative definition, that any state governed by a Communist party is Communist, then China is, by their definition, Communist!

Of course we know this not to be true, but try telling that to your average indoctrinated person on the street.

[Great Helmsman]

China is capitalist; it hasn't been following a socialist agenda since the overthrow of the Gang of Four. However I don't think they are fascist or guilty of "economic colonization".

[jacobin1949]

Sam Webb the leader of the CPUSA has provided an excellent analysis of Socialist China
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/24/1/1


PA: Many countries that have a socialist orientation are in the developing world: China, Vietnam, Cuba. Several have adopted a concept of socialism called market socialism. I know we have said there are no models, but is the socialist market economy the new model?
Socialism is not just a project of the left; it has to be a mass project of millions and of diverse social forces.


Webb: These countries are in the early stages of socialism – they are developing countries and the productive forces are at a low level – so they are employing market mechanisms to assist in their economic development. This doesn’t contradict the thinking of Marx, Engels or Lenin. Even if we were dealing with more advanced countries – take our country for example - if this were the day after, the week after, the year after, the decade after the socialist revolution, we would employ market mechanisms in the construction of the socialist economy. There was a tendency in the communist movement to expect that market relations would disappear almost overnight, in the early stages of socialism. I’m not convinced that was an accurate reading of the classical literature or a lesson that we should draw from the experience of socialist construction in the 20th century. Some socialist countries tried to make too quick a leap from one stage of socialist development, in which market relations were employed, to a more advanced stage, in which commodity-money relations were marginal, and, as a result, experienced very negative consequences.

The example that comes most readily to mind is China. At the core of Mao’s economic policies was not simply the acceleration of the pace of development, but rather leaping over whole stages. Unfortunately, China pursued that policy at a very dear price. There’s a lot of controversy now about the current economic policies of the Communist Party of China. Many people are critical, but in my short stay there (I visited about a year and a half ago), it was apparent that the opening up of the country and the employment of market mechanisms has led to the acceleration of growth. Some say there is greater inequality, and that’s true, but at the same time they are lifting tens of millions out of poverty. Simply because the Chinese are utilizing market mechanisms and inserting themselves into the global economy is not reason enough to conclude that China is moving away from socialism.

Why do I say this? First of all, no country can develop apart from the global economy? While it is no simple task for the socialist and developing countries to insert themselves into a world economy that is dominated by and structured in the interests of the most powerful capitalist countries, do these countries have any other feasible option? Secondly, market mechanisms are not by definition at war with socialist construction. Whether they are utilized and how they contribute to socialist construction of one or another country can’t be solved abstractly in the realm of high theory. It has to be answered by examining the concrete political and economic circumstances in any given country.

Finally, we should study the experience of socialism in the 20th century as well as revisit both the early literature and more recent discussions on the socialist economy before we draw hard and fast conclusions with respect to the use of market criteria and tools in a socialist society. Lenin once said (and I’m paraphrasing him here) that the economic policies of the post-civil war Soviet state had to be adjusted to the mentality of the peasants, which led to the adoption of the New Economic Policy in the early 1920s. Not only was this necessary to revive an economy that was in shambles after the civil war, but it was the glue that maintained the strategic alliance between a tiny working class and huge peasantry. This alliance, Lenin argued time and again, was the essential political requirement for the forward movement of socialism in a very backward country.

[rocker935]

try telling that to your average indoctrinated person on the street.

Heh, I have tried telling it to an average person, it doesn't work out well.

And has anyone ever noticed that a "Communist State" has got to be the world's biggest oxymoron. WE BELIEVE IN A STATELESS SOCIETY PEOPLE!!!

[BIG BROTHER]

All I have to add is thanks for all your answers, now I have to do some thinking of my own.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

China is not "communist" and never has been - communism was never attained in China or anywhere else, for that matter. However, as it has been mentioned above, socialism in China did indeed fail.

The reason can simply be explained through the existence of massive rates of surplus. i.e. in China production rates have rapidly increased as capitalism has further developed but the wages have not increased along with it. The bourgeoisie profit greatly and the proletarians starve as a result of it - definitely not "communism" or even "socialism" - but dictatorship of the bourgeoisie- at work.

What I don't understand, especially in the U.S.- "communism" is used almost interchangably with "authoritarianism" - and though china never attained communism and has been far from socialist for quite a while, the U.S. has only recently acknowledged China as a "capitalist nation". One moment the bourgeoisie is *****ing about China and the next praising them for their contribution to the global capitalist economy. It goes back to the fact that capitalist nations will support anything under the name of capitalism, if it somehow serves their interest, regardless of its effect on the proletariat.

In the early days of Putin I used to hear people say "communism" was being "resurrected". I recall going to the grocery store and an old friend of my parents was *****ing at me about it. It was the type of thing that made me almost laugh- at how greatly the american people lack true knowledge. They believe what the bourgeois media tells them to- without being consciously aware that they are too, proletarians. It seemed at the time that the bourgeois media played off of Putin's history with the KGB- and simply that was "enough" to refer to him as a "communist".

It is a meaningless word in america, just as "democracy", "liberty" , "freedom" and all the other words which definitions have been transformed to fit the bourgeois definition - far from the truth.

[kromando33]

I would say even Maoism is not socialist, it has some reactionary tendencies.

[Red October]

China is certainly not socialist, but to call it fasist is totally abusrd. Authoritarian capitalism does not equal fascism and you cannot use those terms interchangeably. Fascism is a type of authoritarianism, but not all dictatorship is fascist.

[Sleeping Dog]

gilhyle,
I hear Dana Perino is going to retire.

[gilhyle]

gilhyle,
I hear Dana Perino is going to retire.


I'll take that as an insult.......of course Im gutted.

Webb's logic misses one critical point: what fundamental social relations the state defends.

Its a no-brainer that the Government of CHina is trying to develop the country. A Government trying to develop an imperialised country may fundamentally defend capitalist relations or it may defend a Workers State. A government may adopt a NEP style policy within a workers state or within a capitalist state. China's policy is a NEP style policy (without the State monopoly of foreign trade and without the effective ban on the development of big capitalist enterprises). But that doesnt determine its class nature. Its class nature, in the case of a State which has followed the trajectory China has is determined by whether it continues to rest at all on the proletariat and the peasantry and, in my view, it has reached the point where it cannot but defend capitalist social relations.

[Dr Mindbender]

if china isnt, or hasnt ever been communist it begs the question-will it ever become communist?

Perhaps all it needs is a change of leader who follows the socialist path, in much the same way that Deng Xiao Ping started the trend towards capitalism.

[Red Economist]

china WILL be the first place to explode in the next revolutionary epoch.

it is oppressed by the capitalists who profit from the workers, it is ruled by a tryannical bureaucracy- whilst continuing to claim socialism.

the workers there are doubally oppressed- but educated in socialism...

an intresting mix- a volitile mix if they ever throught about it.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

China is certainly not socialist, but to call it fasist is totally abusrd. Authoritarian capitalism does not equal fascism and you cannot use those terms interchangeably. Fascism is a type of authoritarianism, but not all dictatorship is fascist.
yes, but definitely dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[BIG BROTHER]

china WILL be the first place to explode in the next revolutionary epoch.

it is oppressed by the capitalists who profit from the workers, it is ruled by a tryannical bureaucracy- whilst continuing to claim socialism.

the workers there are doubally oppressed- but educated in socialism...

an intresting mix- a volitile mix if they ever throught about it.

nice observation indeed, the chinnese workers know about communism because they supposely live in a communist state, but sooner or later someone will rise and lead the workers to a seccond revolution to transform china into a real communist state.

and once againg I want to thank all my comrades for giving me their opinions.:)

[Spasiba]

Well, since they have this assumption they are living under communism, that will probably taint their view of it and make them shy away from trying to bring about a communist revolution, right? If they think what they have is communism, they would never advocate a revolution for it... I think. Unless they are told the truth, and I don't know how they'd find that out. It'd be hilarious if the government has censored the Manifesto.

[philosopher84]

i think china is not a communist country ,but it is challenging capitalism.it

has had some withdrawal lately.i think it is building socialism yet,it may


make it to communism hopefully

[Kitskits]

Let's first say that the debate is about if China is a socialist country or not. I don't believe that China remains socialist since this asshole Xhiaoping (or whatever is his name, I don't care) started the reforms. What happened is that Mao warned that the bureaucracy can seize power from within the party and that's what happened. The right-wing gained control. Whoever calls present China "socialist" is insulting socialism. China is fascist.

To Krommando:

You don't consider Maoism to be socialist???

[Comrade Rage]

I don't consider China to be socialist, even though they have a few laws/systems remaining from when they were.

[crimsonzephyr]

Heh, I have tried telling it to an average person, it doesn't work out well.

So true, nobody listens and just shoos you away because your communist. They dont take any time to even try and see your stance (that will work:)).

[Ismail]

China is a state capitalist nation. You can't have a different leader change it towards socialism. Khrushchev didn't make the USSR revisionist by himself. It was the decaying politburo that made it so, with Khrushchev's group employing more and more revisionists. People like Zhdanov and Molotov were booted out, and people like Ligachev and Brezhnev were welcomed in. Hoxhaists believe that Mao's decentralization of the party caused the return of capitalism so quickly, and that Maoism is greatly flawed. The army became too powerful and was above the party, ergo Deng used it to get his way with things, just as Mao used it for the same purpose.

If you want the Hoxhaist view, look at this: http://archive.250x.com/hoxha/english/imp_rev2.html in part III: <<MAO TSETUNG THOUGHT>> - AN ANTI-MARXIST THEORY

And no, it was never Communist, as Communism is a stateless, classless society. You could argue that it was Socialist, but I'd also deny that as private property continued to exist and the dictatorship of the proletariat was never encouraged.


Perhaps all it needs is a change of leader who follows the socialist path, in much the same way that Deng Xiao Ping started the trend towards capitalism.One of the most na&#239;ve statements I've heard.

the soviet union was communist between 1917 and 1924.Second moist na&#239;ve. When Stalin became General Secretary the USSR didn't suddenly cease being Socialist. (IT WAS NOT COMMUNIST) What kind of Trotskyist are you? Not even Hoxhaists say shit like "The USSR magically stopped becoming Socialist in 1953." Socialism is based on economic conditions and cannot be easily changed without economic damages. When Lenin died, the USSR didn't suddenly change the way it operated. When Khrushchev came to power in 1953 there were actual changes in cabinet structure, but economic conditions remained the same.

[Cryotank Screams]

China is fascist

You can't be serious. :rolleyes:

[cb9's_unity]

Nearly everybody on this board will agree that China and in fact no state was ever communist. Though in truth is goes much farther. There has never been a socialist state. Yes Lenin and others have tried but one condition of being socialist is being classless.

I am no uber expert on China or even Russia but I do know enough that both of them had considerable peasantries and small proletariats when each countries respective communist party came to power. And even if i could be argued that power was in the hands of the working class the fact that there is another class (and one bigger then the proletariat) negates it from being a pure socialism.

[w0lf]

It left with Mao

[RNK]

Hoxhaists believe that Mao's decentralization of the party caused the return of capitalism so quickly, and that Maoism is greatly flawed. The army became too powerful and was above the party

Funny, considering Mao from day one stipulated that the People's Army must be under the full command of the People's Party.


And no, it was never Communist, as Communism is a stateless, classless society. You could argue that it was Socialist, but I'd also deny that as private property continued to exist and the dictatorship of the proletariat was never encouraged.

The tens of thousands of workers' and peasants' councils and communes doesn't count, I suppose.

You Hoxhaists are about as assenine as Trotskyists; "if you want to learn about Mao and Maoism... don't bother actually reading Mao's own writings; read about it in our book!"

www.marx2mao.com

[Juche96]

I've been seeing that China does a lot of free-trade and capitalist sort of stuff, so I wonder if it is still considered a communist country. And I also if someone could explain me why has China changed like this.

Good question. I think China can still be considered socialist for some of the following reasons.

1) They are governed by a party that has Marxism-Leninism as its ideology, and this party still has a monopoly on power.

2) After the revolution, China banned the practice of allowing foreigners to own land, and they eventually disallowed private property or estates. Today, this is still technically the case, although leasing is allowed.

3) The majority of their production is in the state sector

4) China initiated capitalist style reforms starting around 1980. However, the US also initiated capitalist style reforms in the 1930's, but nobody considers the US socialist or communist. Capitalist ideology governs the US and socialist ideology, as far as I'm aware, is still the official ideology in China.

[spartan]

1) They are governed by a party that has Marxism-Leninism as its ideology, and this party still has a monopoly on power.

Words mean nothing.

The Labour party (In the UK) says that it is a "Democratic Socialist party", and maybe thats what it originally was, but now they are just your average middle class free market neo-Liberal buisness party like the Tories.

You should judge China on its recent actions during the last twenty years and see if you still consider them to be Socialist, because most leftists dont.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I don't consider China to be socialist, even though they have a few laws/systems remaining from when they were.
I think the reason there is often confusion on this subject is that proletarian and bourgeois socialism are confused with being the same - when they are two separate things - dictatorship of the proletariat and the reverse, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

A country such as China, may be socialist, but the only socialism existent is that of bourgeois socialism, in which the bourgeois ruling class is still present.

Instead of proposing the question on whether or not it is socialist, a much better statement would be that socialist policy exists in the China, but the socialist policy exists under dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, without proletarian socialism, progression towards communism cannot occur, and without proletarian revolution and the formation of DotP - communism will not be attained.


the soviet union was communist between 1917 and 1924.

Yes, it is very easy to make it an issue of Stalin, isn't it? :glare:

However, you forget three details of significant importance:

(1) The USSR was SOCIALIST [communism was not yet attained - but progression was made towards].

(2) The USSR remained a socialist state onward past that period which you mention. [Did the USSR not function in the same way which it did before Lenin's death? :huh: History proves otherwise, unless you blame Stalin for the purges and take a bourgeois reactionary position that the Kulaks should have been granted some sort of exclusively privilege over that of the workers and poor peasants :glare:]. That aside, the USSR was MUCH more socialist, in the true sense of the word, than it was during the time of the Khrushchev-Brezhnev bureaucracy.

(3) There is no evidence that Trotsky could have [or would have] done otherwise - furthermore, there is no logical reason why it could be argued that way. The such is a "what if" and it is impossible for any comrade to make such an assumption while at the same time having even the slightest grasp on history.

[rebelworker]

As several people have mentioned, and far too many people ahve forgoten, Communism is a stateless, classless society. Its based upon the idea that the working class should govenrn itself, and that this can only have any meaning if they govern the economy and production.

This never happened in Russia, and one can argue that with time it got farther away from this not closer to it. And this certainly never happened in China.

The dictatorship of a party calling itself communist dose not equal communism.

[BIG BROTHER]

and as I'm seeing not only isn't china communism, but it isn't even socialist or if it is, it doesn't govern in favor of the proleriat or even the peasants.

[renegadoe]

Notice how Sam Webb, head of the CPUSA, said that after the socialist revolution here, maybe we can use market mechanisms too?

Do I even need to point out the flaw of this?

China is a neoliberal capitalist country, using "market socialism" as a new model of accumulation. More evidence that socialism is no longer a useful paradigm.

It's all or bust.

[BIG BROTHER]

Notice how Sam Webb, head of the CPUSA, said that after the socialist revolution here, maybe we can use market mechanisms too?

Do I even need to point out the flaw of this?

China is a neoliberal capitalist country, using "market socialism" as a new model of accumulation. More evidence that socialism is no longer a useful paradigm.

It's all or bust.

I'm sorry, but I quite don't understand what you're saying. Are saying that the socialist transitory period to communism isn't necesary?

[comrade stalin guevara]

who cares what china is they are the newest super power
we are communist without a nation
china is a nation without communisim
they still claim to be communist so if any chinese agents are here

FUND MY REVOLUTION PLEASE







HAHAHA VIETNAM DEFEATED CHINA IN WAR.....AND AMERICA WHOS THE SUPERPOWER

[Comrade B]

China is a pure capitalist society with some socialist aspects

You are practically owned by your country, making it one of the worst capitalistic countries on the globe right now

However, China provides everyone in their country with a bycicle, and I believe housing, as well as a few other things

They claim to be communist, but it is just a load of crap.

[comrade stalin guevara]

comrade b i thort u were a chinese agent ready to fund my revolution.
i guess i remind them that they got 2 pay more attention to there own hahaha

[Rawthentic]

and as I'm seeing not only isn't china communism, but it isn't even socialist or if it is, it doesn't govern in favor of the proleriat or even the peasants.Communism has never existed.

Socialism has, in the Soviet Union from 1917-1956 and in China from 1949-1976. The latter years ('56 and '76) do not imply that an overnight change in relations occurred, but that this is when capitalist restoration actually began.

Here are some important things that Raymond Lotta from the RCP had to say on this (note: I am not an RCP supporter): Quote:

China is no longer the society that I have been describing. It is no longer socialist. In 1976, Deng Xiaoping led a coup that overthrew proletarian rule. The capitalist roaders that Mao was leading people to struggle against won out.

The policies of this new capitalist class have led to extreme economic and social polarization. China has been turned into a cheap-labor platform for transnational corporations. Yes, some people in China have gotten very wealthy, and a new middle class is rapidly expanding. But what does all this mean for the broad masses of people? A quick snapshot:

* Factories in special economic zones subject workers to unbearably long hours, substandard food, cramped dorms, abuse of workers by managers.
* Peasants are subjected to exorbitant taxes and non-payment by the state for crops. Local governments in league with developers are involved in massive land grabs. This has sparked waves of protests by peasants.
* 200 million peasant-migrant laborers are roaming the countryside and streaming into cities in search of work, with no guarantee of job or shelter.
* Between 1995 and 2000 alone, 48 million workers were laid off from state enterprises.
* Prostitution is rampant in the cities. There is now a burgeoning world market for unwanted female babies in China.
* The disbanding of the communes in the countryside has led to the collapse of the rural public health care system. This was a major factor in the spread of the SARS epidemic of 2003. The burgeoning sex industry, the rise of intravenous drug use, and the fact that desperate peasants are now selling blood to survive have contributed to an AIDS crisis.
* The introduction of free-market practices in the countryside has meant that rural schools are now being financed by tuition and other charges. The result is that many poor villagers can no longer afford to send their children to school.
* Cities are choking on pollution; industrial wastes are pouring into rivers; forest reserves are being depleted—this is the environmental price of a reckless economic juggernaut in China that is glorified in the West.

Where Mao said, “serve the people,” Deng Xiaoping said, “to get rich is glorious.”

Capitalism has been restored in China.
This is a good article on it from the Monthly Review: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1105wu.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.monthlyreview.org/1105wu.htm)

The reality is that China was a socialist nation from the seizure of power to around Mao's death and the capitalist-roader coup (1949-1976). Upholding China now, or Deng (as the PSL do) is basically upholding the overthrow of the DoP. A society is determined by what road it is on, socialist or capitalist. Right now, and as of '76, China has been on the capitalist road. People starve in China, there is mass unemployment, there is a fucking Wal-mart for god's sake! China is a nation that is dependent on imperialism, and it was not when Mao led the CCP. A society cannot be on the socialist road and be subject to imperialist exploitation (how do you think we get all those cheap chinese products?)

What people that believe China is socialist do is overestimate the role of the base (the nationalized sector) and underestimates the role of the superstructure (what lines and policies are leading China today?) What his theory implies is very similar to the Trotkyist notion of the "degenerated workers state", that socialism can continue (more like chug on) when the state and leading class are counterrevolutionary (as they are in China).

Under socialism, the people in China were politically aware, they had everything they needed, etc. This in itself does not show that China is socialist, but it does help to contrast those conditions to today's.

Who has political power? How do they rule?

Are social changes towards socialism and communism? Not in today's China.

Land used to be collective in China, now it is privatized (and the implications can be obvious).

Almost all the productive sector's are private.

There were clear changes in the socialist social order to the capitalist one (migration of desperate peasants into shantytowns, destruction of socialized medicine, end of the "iron rice bowl," end of socialist practices in university recruitment and education, culture etc.)

For Maoists, the key question here is that of political power. The only argument that revisionists make is that there are nationalized sectors (nominally). Even then, it does defy history and we can see this by looking at the Soviet Union after capitalist restoration (mid 1950s) and how their sector was nationalized as well.

"Third world" nations have and need large state sectors because of how bureaucratic capital is operated as opposed to imperialist capital. This does not make them socialist.

[trivas7]

China is a neoliberal capitalist country, using "market socialism" as a new model of accumulation. More evidence that socialism is no longer a useful paradigm.

It's all or bust.
Are you saying that communism comes full-blown out of the ruins of capitalism? What are you talking about?

[BIG BROTHER]

woa i remember when i made this post. I have learned a lot since.:)