This for is not “their ideal model of communism”, far from it actually, they are just trying to be pragmatic about it as a form of “temporary retreat”.
I am not being disingenuous! Cowbee has argued multiple times that China is in fact communism.
Yeah… I’m not gonna respond to that, trying to keep a good faith convo… But you seem to be more interested in slander…
I am not trying to slander, wtf? You’re seriously telling me that other MLs don’t consider themselves anti-revisionist and revolutionary?
For what it’s worth, db0 misrepresented my claims, so it’s worth going through again to see my clarifications, just to add evidence to back up alsaaas’ claims.
I am not being disingenuous! Cowbee has argued multiple times that China is in fact communism.
I’d like a quote. I have consistently maintained the following:
The PRC is socialist, as the large firms and key industries, the commanding heights of the economy, finance sector, etc. are overwhelmingly publicly owned. The private sector is about half sole proprietorships that don’t make sense to socialize immediately anyways, and the working classes are in charge of the state.
The model of socialism in the PRC is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
The socialist market economy of the PRC is early-mid stage socialism, not a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Communism is a post-socialist stateless, classless, moneyless society where production and distribution have been fully collectivized globally.
The CPC is ideologically communist, ie Marxist-Leninist (specifically ML-XJT), and is dedicated to achieving communism.
China isn’t an “ideal,” it’s a system that works for them. I support other socialist states as well. I’ve said that they are the most developed and advanced socialist state, but not that they are my “ideal” nor that they have somehow achieved communism despite having class, a state, and money.
If you’re going to use me as an example, please don’t misrepresent my positions.
I remember you arguing that China is communist by redefining away the state but honestly I can’t be bollocksed to digging for the exact comment. I’m glad you don’t actually believe China is a form of communism at least. I disagree with everything you believe but at least you had a chance to prevent your actual stance.
I’ve never once stated that China doesn’t have a state. I have stated that administration isn’t the same thing as a state, and thus some forms of what we think of as government structures aren’t inherently a state (according to Marxist analysis) and therefore exist into communism, so that may be where the confusion is from. China has both those elements and formalized structures to maintain working class supremacy over capitalists and the petite bourgeoisie, so it definitionally has a state.
The PRC is a form of communism only in the perspective of communism as a process, the way Marx uses it here:
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
However, when discussing AES states, I don’t really use that form of “communism as a process,” as it adds confusion. It’s helpful to think about communism this way as it relates to historical materialism, but that’s deeper into Marxism.
I am not being disingenuous! Cowbee has argued multiple times that China is in fact communism.
I am not trying to slander, wtf? You’re seriously telling me that other MLs don’t consider themselves anti-revisionist and revolutionary?
Sorry, imma need to disengage on this one (am mentally exhausted)
It’s cool, for the record, I was legit not trying to slander you.
This was a good thread to follow. Genuinely enjoyed the debate.
For what it’s worth, db0 misrepresented my claims, so it’s worth going through again to see my clarifications, just to add evidence to back up alsaaas’ claims.
I’ve read your stance on China before, so I know it’s more nuanced than that. One of the few comments I didn’t upvote.
I just like to encourage good (if not perfect) debate.
Fair enough!
I’d like a quote. I have consistently maintained the following:
The PRC is socialist, as the large firms and key industries, the commanding heights of the economy, finance sector, etc. are overwhelmingly publicly owned. The private sector is about half sole proprietorships that don’t make sense to socialize immediately anyways, and the working classes are in charge of the state.
The model of socialism in the PRC is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
The socialist market economy of the PRC is early-mid stage socialism, not a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Communism is a post-socialist stateless, classless, moneyless society where production and distribution have been fully collectivized globally.
The CPC is ideologically communist, ie Marxist-Leninist (specifically ML-XJT), and is dedicated to achieving communism.
China isn’t an “ideal,” it’s a system that works for them. I support other socialist states as well. I’ve said that they are the most developed and advanced socialist state, but not that they are my “ideal” nor that they have somehow achieved communism despite having class, a state, and money.
If you’re going to use me as an example, please don’t misrepresent my positions.
I remember you arguing that China is communist by redefining away the state but honestly I can’t be bollocksed to digging for the exact comment. I’m glad you don’t actually believe China is a form of communism at least. I disagree with everything you believe but at least you had a chance to prevent your actual stance.
I’ve never once stated that China doesn’t have a state. I have stated that administration isn’t the same thing as a state, and thus some forms of what we think of as government structures aren’t inherently a state (according to Marxist analysis) and therefore exist into communism, so that may be where the confusion is from. China has both those elements and formalized structures to maintain working class supremacy over capitalists and the petite bourgeoisie, so it definitionally has a state.
The PRC is a form of communism only in the perspective of communism as a process, the way Marx uses it here:
However, when discussing AES states, I don’t really use that form of “communism as a process,” as it adds confusion. It’s helpful to think about communism this way as it relates to historical materialism, but that’s deeper into Marxism.