With China’s popularity rising, there has to come a point where a country’s population decides to say:
“We need to follow a Marxist-Leninist model pronto if we want to remain a functioning society, because capitalism isn’t working anymore.”
Which country is gonna say it first?
Probably the Russian federation. They have a strong communist party, and a population that reveres it’s socialist past, and a socialist neighbor to emulate.
Spain and Italy?
Italy LOVES fascism, there’s no way
They’ve been doing general strikes all year. They’re cutting ties with Israel. We are WAY more fascist than Italy. We have zero healthcare and WE are paying for the fascist fundamentalist state of Israel to continue its holocaust.
Second wave, 1848 weeps
Why are you framing socialism and democracy as incompatible?
Why are you framing people’s democracy as less democratic than bourgeois dictatorship?
As Lenin said in his eponymous Imperialism book, it would be in the nation who “is the weakest link in the chain”
Now ehich nation would that be? Hard to say without devoting some serious scholarly dia-mat analysis.
For now, Burkina Faso is a shining beacon in africa. I have hope for the burkinabé.
marxism isn’t going to emerge because of china’s popularity. revolutions would occur if imperialism wasn’t constantly doing black ops to kill every single last communist and their mother.
if i had to guess, it’d be somewhere in south east asia, but who knows, maybe if we don’t have genocide sam in latam a few countries here could do with a revolution.
China. A second socialist revolution. First, there’s actually precedent for it there. Revolutionaries could call themselves restorationists, promising to fulfill the original revolution’s abandoned mission. Maybe a version that actually empowers workers and builds bottom-up social democracy. Socialism without the authoritarianism. What better country for a socialist revolution than the one that gave us 9-9-6? China is ripe for a socialist revolution.
Properly define authoritarian before using it as a thought-terminating scare word, & you will come to the conclusion that it is simply used to conjure up stereotypical images about certain peoples & their governments.
How do I know this? Because it is so abstract as to be meaningless without further context, & the further context makes countries like China look like fully-realised communism compared to the coloniser states.
Contradictions & struggle increase under a socialist system; they do not evaporate overnight. It’s not easy, & every Party that has led a socialist state is extremely aware that the struggle for communism gets even harder under socialism, because socialism needs to deal with resurgent bourgeois elements, provide for healthcare, establish & defend all the peoples rights (housing, work according to personal ability, healthy food, clean water).
Most importantly it needs to constantly try to get all the people involved in the political sphere with constant bottom-up appointments and elections for leadership and also deal with constant feedback from below and surveying/referenda. And unlike other systems, socialism involves self-criticism & the Party keeping each other honest, on the path, & meeting planning goals (or else you get Yugoslavia).
Anti-corruption must be an even stronger priority under socialism. The Xi era is markedly better for socialism than the era starting with Deng. The CPC has already been reshuffling & getting rid of corrupt actors/aspirant bourgeoisie in the military & in civilian sectors. The remants of capital in the form of Chinese billionaires live terrified lives for a good reason, & their assets are ultimately on-condition & used to sabotage them (by appropriating & investing in all-China development instead of letting them buy political power). This would not have happened if China’s socialist revolution somehow just reverted to feudalism/early capitalism. Instead, maybe there would be a Brezhnev-like “maintenance era” of stagnation (that was a bit better than Khruschev but still bad, and did not correct the political damage done by the preceding one).
We would not see enormous developmental progress, very high civic engagement, low crime, & imcreasing arts-&-culture exports, & potential world-leader status, nor would we see favourable trade terms with other countries & “pay when you can” loans to those ravaged by colonialism, nor would we see unwillingness to engage in shared pillage exploits (ie. military alliances formed to harass poor nations). All of the above happening at the same time is an unfathomable contradiction in a capitalist country.
The evidence just does not show that the CPC are doing such a bad job cultivating socialism that an ultra-left civil war is necessary to course-correct for Deng. Moreover, another civil war in China is implicitly an endorsement of the imperial order, and I hope you aren’t seriously suggesting the neocolonial capitalist slaver bloc ought to go on unopposed.
There’s so much wrong with your comment it’s hard to know where to begin, but definitely read theory.
Sorry I’m going to take a swing here and say that you’re a white EuroAmerican just completely uninformed to the reality of the Chinese people, Chinese law and Chinese sentiments. You are completely detached from the reality of China. And honestly even from this short comment it doesn’t appear you have a strong grasp of Marxist theory either.
China’s recent development doesn’t really hinge on Marxist-Leninist models. It went heavy into state capitalism to produce a massive improvement in the economy. I feel like China’s main innovation was to create an investment model that was company agnostic; private companies competed to operate state owned factories rather than the state owning the companies. Corporate governance is more “third way” with loose control over semi-private entities.
Marxist-Leninist model has everything to do with China’s development. You can read this book on the subject which explains how China’s rise is a direct product of Marxist central planning.
The whole idea of state capitalism is a bit of a misnomer. It basically says that even though USSR had state owned enterprise, the internal capitalist relations within it remain largely the same. While that’s true, there is a fundamental difference here. Capitalism is a system where people who own capital hire workers to exploit there labor with the purpose of increasing their capital. The goal of capitalist enterprise is to create wealth for the owners with any social benefits being strictly incidental. On the other hand, the purpose of state enterprise is to provide social value. Workers in state owned companies are producing things that the society needs. They are working for their own benefit and those of others around them. Therefore, the nature of work itself is fundamentally different from actual capitalism.
And this is precisely what socialism is. It’s a transitional stage between a capitalist society and a future communist society where the working class has seized the control of the state, but existing material relations have not yet been abolished.
Also worth noting that the state in China is firmly in control of the commanding heights of the economy.
The actual innovation in China is in combining high level central planning with dynamic allocation. The problem with Soviet economy was that any large system will produce a lot of noise as information travels through it. So, when you do central planning the way USSR was, it becomes very difficult to balance things. You make a plan, the directives travel down to the factories and farms where production happens, there’s delay in the information arriving, mistakes in transcription, and so on. Then the same thing happens on the way back up, so the picture at the top is divergent from the situation on the ground. And that leads to things like overcorrections, and plans based on false data, so the system becomes unbalanced over time. And that’s what we saw happen in USSR. I can highly recommend reading Thinking in Systems for a deeper explanation of the problem.
Now, that doesn’t mean that the idea of central planning itself is wrong. The problem is with trying to do micromanagement at high level which just doesn’t work. And this is the problem China figure out how to solve by using markets as allocators within the centrally planned system. The planners still set five year plans, they still control the commanding heights of the economy, and give overall direction on what types of things should be produced, but the details are left to market mechanisms to work out dynamically at the appropriate level. And this type of a hybrid system is proving to be highly effective.
That’s a lot of words to reiterate what I said. If China is in a transition state, then it isn’t full communism. Also, China has decentralized some decision making from its planned economy, the “third way” which I reference.
Nobody claims that China is full communism, not even the Chinese themselves. It’s a socialist state with a communist party in charge. And yes, decentralizing decision making at the lower levels while continuing to do central planning at high level is the key innovation. Your original comment was nonsensical claiming that China has diverged from Marxism-Leninism and that it’s state capitalist. Next, you’ll be telling me that Lenin diverged from Marxism-Leninism when he implemented NEP.
There seems to be this weird Schrodinger’s Cat situation where is both the “this isn’t Communism yet” combined with “no, we are creating this on Communist principles”.
And the talking point for the discussion is about China’s form of “Communism” should be replicated across different countries. My statement that China’s economy currently fits a state capitalist model is still valid because China hasn’t full communist like how the Soviet Union never hit full communist. It is a step on the path.
I feel like the argument right now is that I’m using the word capitalism to describe the current step on the path.
As I’ve already explained to you in the above comment, and you studiously ignored, China is a socialist state. Soviet Union was also a socialist state. There is no Schrodinger’s Cat situation here at all. Your confusion stems from the fact that you don’t understand what socialism actually is. Socialism is the transitional phase when the working class takes power in society, but the existing material relations have not yet been abolished. That’s precisely what we see in China today. That’s the whole difference between the socialist stage of development and communism which no country has achieved, and is unlikely to be possible as long as capitalism remains the dominant ideology in the world.
The argument right now is that you’re just using words in nonsensical fashion because you lack understanding of the subject we’re discussing. You can start educating yourself on the subject by reading this short article. https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3228-lenin-s-three-theoretical-arguments-about-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat
I’m describing a step, you’re describing a walk.
I’m mainly correcting the whole China isn’t following Marxism-Leninism claim and clarifying what state capitalism really means. It’s also important to understand what the socialist state of development actually is and how it relates to communism. Everything you’ve said in this thread distorts these ideas.
“We need to follow a Marxist-Leninist model pronto if we want to remain a functioning society, because capitalism isn’t working anymore.”
Aaah, the over-simplification of highly complicated changes
The ‘high complicated’ change being liberals midwifing fascism.
You could start by identifying the successful Marxist-Leninist country. I don’t think there is one.
Cuba, China, Vietnam, and DPRK are all successful Marxist-Leninist countries.
DPRK? 🤨
The country that survived an American genocide and now is thriving? Yes.
Thriving? 🤨
Cuba… If being able to withstand an embargo by the most powerful nation on Earth for decades and still managing to outperform them on healthcare, education and life expectancy is not “successful”, I don’t know what is…
lol, china is biggest world economy. the soviet took a famine ridden feudal country and turned it into a global power. meanwhile kkkanadians are clapping literal nazis in parliament. keep coping while your burger reich overlords annex your settler colony and you spend all of you wage on a 2m2 appartment.
china was already mentioned
I don’t think westerners would want to live in a country like China. If that’s the case, why don’t people just immigrate there?
Because uprooting your life and moving to a different country is really hard to do as anybody with even a minimally functioning brain would understand?
“if your country is so bad why don’t you move” sorta vibes
but to answer your question, westerners have no idea what china actually is.
We completely agree on that. Westerners cannot conceptualize what China is really like.
i hope you enjoy becoming the 51st state because brainworms this extensive can only lead to annexation by the us empire.
