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’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.