When the relationships between domestic bourgeoisie and the people are handled well, they may not be antagonistic in nature and may be resolved through peaceful means. This is not true for imperialistic bourgeoisie.
One doesn’t practice socialism by calling their bourgies “the people’s billionares” or by making the goverment do stuff. China has a private market, wage labour is dominant and their monopolies actively export capital.
You should try reading marx and understanding what ‘socialist devolopment’ is before running your mouth and saying a bunch of shit you have 0 clue about.
@ghost_of_faso2@moffintosh@lemmygrad.ml Did you or he convinietly forget about the USSR? You know, the second economic world power at the time which was able to industrialize and develop via central economic planning instead of devolving in a redwashed capitalist social-democracy?
And before you spell N.E.P., the current chinese revisionism and the NEP aren’t even remotely comparable. For starters, the NEP lasted only 5 years, was limited to agriculture and had the precise aim of pacifiying the pesant class after a revolutionary war. China too had it’s initial NEP period (the New Democracy), which was later supplanted by central economic planning, which built the industrial foundations of the country, and which would even result in a faster, more equal, economic growth for china had they kept them.
In short, socialist development isn’t capitalism but with the red state doing things, and you don’t need capitalism to develop a nation
And not because of socialist planning, rather due to revisionism and professionalization of the party. China wasn’t really helping either since it considered the USSR a greather threat to itself and socialism than the USA
this discussion is about China.
It’s about their socioeconomic policy, and their switch away from socialist planning to market economy under the pretext that the latter is a necessary step of development. The USSR debunks this.
China is not revisionist
China has a market economy with wage labour and private ownership of the means of production which contributes to 70% of it’s GDP. They also allowed bourgeois into the party since 2002, not to mention their monopolies export capital abroad. Pretty revisionist, surely more than whatever Khrushchev did.
And not because of socialist planning, rather due to revisionism and professionalization of the party. China wasn’t really helping either since it considered the USSR a greather threat to itself and socialism than the USA
I tend to feel more sympathetic toward china regarding the sino-soviet split and think Dengs criticisms of the USSR regarding vietnam where potent, they extended themselves too far into wars of aggression like in Afghanistan and where undermined by the west.
It’s about their socioeconomic policy, and their switch away from socialist planning to market economy under the pretext that the latter is a necessary step of development. The USSR debunks this.
They are still under control by socialists, just because they decided they needed market economy isnt revisionism, its just another path to allowing material abundance; the vast amount of resources in China are still controlled by the workers, they have a 90% house ownership in a country with over a billion people in it and there is not a present landlord class that holds sway over the workers.
China has a market economy with wage labour and private ownership of the means of production which contributes to 70% of it’s GDP. They also allowed bourgeois into the party since 2002, not to mention their monopolies export capital abroad. Pretty revisionist, surely more than whatever Khrushchev did.
Its not revisionist to encoperate capitlaist reforms into a socialist society, Marx & Deng both agree you need material abundance to start socialism, and that you need to progress through capitalism, as its the next stage of economic devolopment. They have managed to maintain socialist control of the government and still excersize socialist authority at every level of buisness, even if there are private entities within it. The USSR isnt the only model and they would be unwise to follow it blindly, as it failed and was failing them.
As far as I can tell, the source is dumb anarchists vs. Caleb Maupin c. 2021. I never heard it prior to that.
Specifically, it seems to originate in a video he made called “Socialist Billionaires? YES! (Let me explain…)” It was a fairly run-of-the-mill explanation, with a click-baity title, of why China has a market sector. Of course, rather than engage in any one of the many legitimate criticisms you could make of Caleb Maupin, the terminally online anarchist crowed focused on the title alone, and were spamming “the people’s billionaires” all over the place for months afterward. It’s the same mindset that finds “borger king” funny, and it probably won the guy more followers than he lost.
The phrase has been living on “left” social media ever since.
China makes Khrushchev look like an hardcore ML
China united as one country. That’s a major L for capitalism
I’m sure that the “people’s billionares” are a sure loss for capital…
When the relationships between domestic bourgeoisie and the people are handled well, they may not be antagonistic in nature and may be resolved through peaceful means. This is not true for imperialistic bourgeoisie.
Literally mao.
One of these things still exists as a relevant communist political force enacting marxism leninism
One doesn’t practice socialism by calling their bourgies “the people’s billionares” or by making the goverment do stuff. China has a private market, wage labour is dominant and their monopolies actively export capital.
They’re a social democracy larping as communists
You should try reading marx and understanding what ‘socialist devolopment’ is before running your mouth and saying a bunch of shit you have 0 clue about.
What is this? Theory for ants? 🤏
open the image in the new tab homie
I’m well aware homie, doesn’t make it less amusing.
There can be no image without enlargement, or reading without opening a new tab, to open a new tab is no sin.
@ghost_of_faso2 @moffintosh@lemmygrad.ml Did you or he convinietly forget about the USSR? You know, the second economic world power at the time which was able to industrialize and develop via central economic planning instead of devolving in a redwashed capitalist social-democracy?
And before you spell N.E.P., the current chinese revisionism and the NEP aren’t even remotely comparable. For starters, the NEP lasted only 5 years, was limited to agriculture and had the precise aim of pacifiying the pesant class after a revolutionary war. China too had it’s initial NEP period (the New Democracy), which was later supplanted by central economic planning, which built the industrial foundations of the country, and which would even result in a faster, more equal, economic growth for china had they kept them.
In short, socialist development isn’t capitalism but with the red state doing things, and you don’t need capitalism to develop a nation
@ghost_of_faso2
And not because of socialist planning, rather due to revisionism and professionalization of the party. China wasn’t really helping either since it considered the USSR a greather threat to itself and socialism than the USA
It’s about their socioeconomic policy, and their switch away from socialist planning to market economy under the pretext that the latter is a necessary step of development. The USSR debunks this.
China has a market economy with wage labour and private ownership of the means of production which contributes to 70% of it’s GDP. They also allowed bourgeois into the party since 2002, not to mention their monopolies export capital abroad. Pretty revisionist, surely more than whatever Khrushchev did.
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1016/j.chieco.2020.101431
I tend to feel more sympathetic toward china regarding the sino-soviet split and think Dengs criticisms of the USSR regarding vietnam where potent, they extended themselves too far into wars of aggression like in Afghanistan and where undermined by the west.
They are still under control by socialists, just because they decided they needed market economy isnt revisionism, its just another path to allowing material abundance; the vast amount of resources in China are still controlled by the workers, they have a 90% house ownership in a country with over a billion people in it and there is not a present landlord class that holds sway over the workers.
Its not revisionist to encoperate capitlaist reforms into a socialist society, Marx & Deng both agree you need material abundance to start socialism, and that you need to progress through capitalism, as its the next stage of economic devolopment. They have managed to maintain socialist control of the government and still excersize socialist authority at every level of buisness, even if there are private entities within it. The USSR isnt the only model and they would be unwise to follow it blindly, as it failed and was failing them.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
As far as I can tell, the source is dumb anarchists vs. Caleb Maupin c. 2021. I never heard it prior to that.
Specifically, it seems to originate in a video he made called “Socialist Billionaires? YES! (Let me explain…)” It was a fairly run-of-the-mill explanation, with a click-baity title, of why China has a market sector. Of course, rather than engage in any one of the many legitimate criticisms you could make of Caleb Maupin, the terminally online anarchist crowed focused on the title alone, and were spamming “the people’s billionaires” all over the place for months afterward. It’s the same mindset that finds “borger king” funny, and it probably won the guy more followers than he lost.
The phrase has been living on “left” social media ever since.