This is a good read.
There is a pretty large socialist movement that seems to have the idea that to reach global socialism we need to defend every self proclaimed socialist state without asking any questions at all and hope they’ll get better over time.
Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic book, but the other 2 articles are 20 minutes each and Blackshirts and Reds is a full book.
Also, for what it’s worth, you have defended Zionism and believe Israel as a Settler-Colonial project should remain. Not exactly Marxist analysis, is this? Marxists hold firm that Israel cannot exist without its settler-colonialism, and isn’t a “nation,” hence the unwavering support for Palestinian National Liberation (especially the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine).
Sort of. The PRC constantly takes the least confrontational stance possible. The correct Marxist take is the One State Solution, but the PRC will always take diplomacy over conflict.
Different AES countries have different stances, the DPRK has always recognized Palestine and never Israel as an example. There’s a difference between just following AES and coming up with solutions to problems.
I love this article while also finding it frustrating. The author seems to be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, but also goes into detail about how all the ML states have devolved into capitalism. Maybe that should be taken as evidence that ML’s vanguard party is a fatally flawed concept?
Maoists are ultraleftists, they generally deviate from Marxism to an idealist, rather than a materialist degree. I recommend checking out
my comment responding to them.
The Vanguard concept isn’t flawed, it has real basis in materialist understanding. The idea that AES states have “devolved into Capitalism” is wrong as well (except the USSR into the various post-Socialist states). I recommend reading both Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. The Dengist reforms were a reversion back towards Marxism, Mao had tried to achieve Communism through fiat without enough development of the productive forces and as such there were struggles and recessions.
Public Ownership and Central Planning works best on monopolist syndicates aquired by the State, that’s the entire reason why Marxists say Capitalism creates Socialism and that the bourgeoisie produces its own gravediggers first and foremost, this monopolization into internally planned syndicates makes Socialism a natural evolution on Capitalism, not a “better society” to force into existence.
It isn’t, it has a Socialist Market Economy. Marx and Engels repeatedly stated that Private Property cannot be abolished all at once in lower-stage Communism (which modern Marxists call Socialism). The economy of China is over 50% publicly owned and centrally planned, and there is a cooperative sector as well, meaning the Private Sector is a minority. On top of this, the Private Sector is still centrally planned.
The PRC employs a “birdcage model,” where competition in the markets eventually leads to monopolization into large syndicates, which the CPC then folds into the public sector steadily as it increases control by degree.
This is exactly why I linked you the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. If you aren’t going to read Marx and Engels, and you aren’t going to study Historical Materialism, surely you can read a 20 minute article, right?
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.
I bolded the section where Mao made an error in judgement and socialized the economy dramatically before the productive forces were developed enough.
Because the PRC is Socialist, and following Marxism.
It has a Socialist Market Economy. Marx and Engels repeatedly stated that Private Property cannot be abolished all at once in lower-stage Communism (which modern Marxists call Socialism). The economy of China is over 50% publicly owned and centrally planned, and there is a cooperative sector as well, meaning the Private Sector is a minority. On top of this, the Private Sector is still centrally planned.
The PRC employs a “birdcage model,” where competition in the markets eventually leads to monopolization into large syndicates, which the CPC then folds into the public sector steadily as it increases control by degree.
This is exactly why I linked you the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. If you aren’t going to read Marx and Engels, and you aren’t going to study Historical Materialism, surely you can read a 20 minute article, right?
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.
I bolded the section where Mao made an error in judgement and socialized the economy dramatically before the productive forces were developed enough.
The idea that China was socialist under Mao but became capitalist under Deng is a common Maoist take and something that distinguishes them from Marxist-Leninists, it’s kind of in the name.
Sometimes when people call China capitalist, I half-jokingly ask if they’re a Maoist, or if they think the best policy is closer to Mao than what they’re currently doing. Of course, usually, the answer (when I get an answer at all) is no: they opposed what China was doing when it was more state-controlled and they opposed what China was doing when it did reforms and opened up to private investment, if they make moves to hold billionaires accountable to the law or to move more of the economy to the public sector, they’re bad, and if they did the opposite, that would also be bad, but if they stayed steady, that too would be bad.
Maoists and Capitalists are both at least coherent in what they think China should do, in opposite extremes: either undo the reforms and revert to how it was or take it further and become more capitalist. Marxist-Leninists tend to have more nuanced takes about adapting to changing conditions, in line with what they’ve done. But then you have this other category that’s super prevalent on Lemmy that wants to criticize China’s every move without ever offering any kind of coherent idea of what they actually want them to do, economically. I don’t even know what to call that position because it makes no sense to me at all.
https://queer-bolshevik.medium.com/the-aes-doctrine-wrong-then-wrong-now-a8666de371da
This is a good read. There is a pretty large socialist movement that seems to have the idea that to reach global socialism we need to defend every self proclaimed socialist state without asking any questions at all and hope they’ll get better over time.
Ultraleftism, found in the author’s Maoist leanings, is also dogmatic. I really like the articles Socalism Developed China, Not Capitalism as well as Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” as both help recontextualize AES from a materialist lens, specifically from the frame of Historical Materialism.
Blackshirts and Reds is a fantastic book, but the other 2 articles are 20 minutes each and Blackshirts and Reds is a full book.
Also, for what it’s worth, you have defended Zionism and believe Israel as a Settler-Colonial project should remain. Not exactly Marxist analysis, is this? Marxists hold firm that Israel cannot exist without its settler-colonialism, and isn’t a “nation,” hence the unwavering support for Palestinian National Liberation (especially the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine).
Doesn’t China advocate for a two state solution too? Even they aren’t arguing for Israel to not exist.
Sort of. The PRC constantly takes the least confrontational stance possible. The correct Marxist take is the One State Solution, but the PRC will always take diplomacy over conflict.
Gotcha, so advocating for the same solution as AES countries do is bad, good to know.
Different AES countries have different stances, the DPRK has always recognized Palestine and never Israel as an example. There’s a difference between just following AES and coming up with solutions to problems.
I love this article while also finding it frustrating. The author seems to be a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, but also goes into detail about how all the ML states have devolved into capitalism. Maybe that should be taken as evidence that ML’s vanguard party is a fatally flawed concept?
Maoists are ultraleftists, they generally deviate from Marxism to an idealist, rather than a materialist degree. I recommend checking out my comment responding to them.
The Vanguard concept isn’t flawed, it has real basis in materialist understanding. The idea that AES states have “devolved into Capitalism” is wrong as well (except the USSR into the various post-Socialist states). I recommend reading both Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the “Worker’s Paradise?” as well as Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. The Dengist reforms were a reversion back towards Marxism, Mao had tried to achieve Communism through fiat without enough development of the productive forces and as such there were struggles and recessions.
Public Ownership and Central Planning works best on monopolist syndicates aquired by the State, that’s the entire reason why Marxists say Capitalism creates Socialism and that the bourgeoisie produces its own gravediggers first and foremost, this monopolization into internally planned syndicates makes Socialism a natural evolution on Capitalism, not a “better society” to force into existence.
TIL a country with 814 billionaires isn’t capitalist.
It isn’t, it has a Socialist Market Economy. Marx and Engels repeatedly stated that Private Property cannot be abolished all at once in lower-stage Communism (which modern Marxists call Socialism). The economy of China is over 50% publicly owned and centrally planned, and there is a cooperative sector as well, meaning the Private Sector is a minority. On top of this, the Private Sector is still centrally planned.
The PRC employs a “birdcage model,” where competition in the markets eventually leads to monopolization into large syndicates, which the CPC then folds into the public sector steadily as it increases control by degree.
This is exactly why I linked you the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. If you aren’t going to read Marx and Engels, and you aren’t going to study Historical Materialism, surely you can read a 20 minute article, right?
I’ll leave you with an excerpt from The Principles of Communism:
I bolded the section where Mao made an error in judgement and socialized the economy dramatically before the productive forces were developed enough.
Bruh, it’s a losing battle in here. I got downvoted to hell for saying the same thing.
Because the PRC is Socialist, and following Marxism.
It has a Socialist Market Economy. Marx and Engels repeatedly stated that Private Property cannot be abolished all at once in lower-stage Communism (which modern Marxists call Socialism). The economy of China is over 50% publicly owned and centrally planned, and there is a cooperative sector as well, meaning the Private Sector is a minority. On top of this, the Private Sector is still centrally planned.
The PRC employs a “birdcage model,” where competition in the markets eventually leads to monopolization into large syndicates, which the CPC then folds into the public sector steadily as it increases control by degree.
This is exactly why I linked you the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. If you aren’t going to read Marx and Engels, and you aren’t going to study Historical Materialism, surely you can read a 20 minute article, right?
I’ll leave you with an excerpt from The Principles of Communism:
I bolded the section where Mao made an error in judgement and socialized the economy dramatically before the productive forces were developed enough.
The idea that China was socialist under Mao but became capitalist under Deng is a common Maoist take and something that distinguishes them from Marxist-Leninists, it’s kind of in the name.
Sometimes when people call China capitalist, I half-jokingly ask if they’re a Maoist, or if they think the best policy is closer to Mao than what they’re currently doing. Of course, usually, the answer (when I get an answer at all) is no: they opposed what China was doing when it was more state-controlled and they opposed what China was doing when it did reforms and opened up to private investment, if they make moves to hold billionaires accountable to the law or to move more of the economy to the public sector, they’re bad, and if they did the opposite, that would also be bad, but if they stayed steady, that too would be bad.
Maoists and Capitalists are both at least coherent in what they think China should do, in opposite extremes: either undo the reforms and revert to how it was or take it further and become more capitalist. Marxist-Leninists tend to have more nuanced takes about adapting to changing conditions, in line with what they’ve done. But then you have this other category that’s super prevalent on Lemmy that wants to criticize China’s every move without ever offering any kind of coherent idea of what they actually want them to do, economically. I don’t even know what to call that position because it makes no sense to me at all.