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’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.