The fallacy that the modern PR China is socialist/building socialism.

  1. Paul Pott
    We've all seen this notion that China is a socialist country somewhere. Maybe it's time that there's a thread to put it to rest.


    Maybe you could get Grover Furr (is that his real name?) to scan some pamphlets about contemporary Chinese Marxism. Some people say that's capitalism but they do have a Communist Party in power.
    First, "contemporary Chinese Marxism" is not within the CPC but exists as a dissident intellectual trend. You've probably heard of the "New Left" in China. Much of it is not Marxism, though, but reformism and liberalism dressed in nostalgia for the the solidarity of the Mao era. Central to this is the idea that Marxism-Leninism is "dogmatic" and Mao made his mistakes (like the excesses of the Cultural Revolution, which all liberal intellectuals in China love to brood over and compare to modern "successful" China) because of this.

    As for the country itself, it is not socialist nor is it building socialism. The CPC is a party which represents the interests of Chinese capital. Just because it has 'communist' in the name doesn't change the class nature of the ruling party or the mode of production which exists under its leadership.

    Currently, China is one of the major global economic powers, and while it hasn't reached the level of development you see in the west in the economic and social spheres of life, Chinese imperialism is beginning to compete with the west for control of resources in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, as well as forming closer ties with Russia. This is the result of decades of the leadership's efforts to forge China into a great imperialist power in its own right. China is no longer a secondary power like it was in the Cold War.
  2. cliffhanger
    Ok well, first, that's from another subgroup and, second, I already told you I was joking.
  3. cliffhanger
    I guess my opinion on China is that they aren't socialist, probably never were in a precise sense, but it's pretty impressive that they've been able to develop so rapidly some significant section of their population. That's obviously a mixed story because of ecological damage, inequality and worker oppression, the enrichment and empowerment of a new elite, the corruption of the Communist Party, etc. Even the core economic story is probably misleading because there are huge imbalances, such as a real estate bubble, so at least some of the growth is a mirage. There's also the fact that there's still hundreds of millions of people who haven't seen much change in their economic position. Still, Deng said they were going to ignore class struggle and build up productive forces, and they did that. I can understand why a lot of people would feel the country's on the right track in general, even if it's not socialism.

    I think similar things are probably true for Vietnam.
  4. cliffhanger
  5. Sixiang
    Sixiang
    First, "contemporary Chinese Marxism" is not within the CPC but exists as a dissident intellectual trend. You've probably heard of the "New Left" in China. Much of it is not Marxism, though, but reformism and liberalism dressed in nostalgia for the the solidarity of the Mao era. Central to this is the idea that Marxism-Leninism is "dogmatic" and Mao made his mistakes (like the excesses of the Cultural Revolution, which all liberal intellectuals in China love to brood over and compare to modern "successful" China) because of this.
    I agree with all of your post except this part confuses me. The bold portions are the parts I do not understand. Can you provide some examples of what you mean by these "liberal intellectuals?"

    I am very confused by your label of China's "New Left." Are they all merely intellectuals nostalgic for the Mao era? Are you saying China's "New Left" are "dogmatic" Marxist-Leninists, supporters of the Cultural Revolution, or that they are liberals? What exactly do you mean by "liberal?" Are they classical liberals like Adam Smith or are you using the term in the context of U.S. politics as the sort of "social liberalism" idea?