Not do everything like they do of course, but the gist of their policies would apply well to the imperial core. A nationalized and coop market economy that essentially beats capitalists at their own game. Policies of internal auditing and promotion through merit, not (necessarily) elections or
People in the imperial core are used to a certain way of life. The poorest, the marginalised, represent a minority that is mostly turning to the social-democrats.
I can’t see myself convincing the middle-class with Marxist arguments. The exploitation of labour, the killing of the planet… it doesn’t work enough. They realize this but they have an apathy towards it. It’s not enough to make them want to organise and reform the system – not even revolt yet!
They cling onto the dream of opening their own business one day and having private property (or even excessive personal property). They know politicians are corrupt, but don’t see the power they have in changing this.
But we have a working example in China. And that is why horrible, shameless accusations are now being thrown at them. If you start with “I like the Chinese model…”, people will see you as a radical terrorist. The propaganda has certainly worked.
Reading up on the premises of the October Revolution, the conditions were right in Russia for people to move to the Bolsheviks because they were the ones offering the actual solutions. Here, people are used to a certain quality of life. It is certainly destructive but I believe continuing the destruction for some time is better than continuing it indefinitely. In any case, we need to offer them solutions that will actually liberate them. In the Chinese model, they would see their wages double every decade (when was the last time they got a minimal raise?). They would see politicians and business owners being held accountable and forced to work for the benefit of society, not their own.
I am also partial to a cultural revolution; not necessarily exactly how the CPC did it (to which I believe there are criticisms to be made), but the concept I am not against. It is important to remove these remnants of neo-colonialism in people (like the recent petition to put Libya under French mandate…) and, at the very least, teach a revolutionary curriculum in schools.
But instead of focusing on dispelling these myths (which needs to happen too), I would rather focus on presenting the Chinese system and explaining how we could have this as well. But the two certainly go hand in hand.
In regards to actual policies, I believe the Chinese model is able to respond to the needs of this imperial middle class while moving towards socialism. It’s a realistic model because it exists; the problem I most run into when discussing socialism is that they can’t imagine it. “How will you pay for all this?” “But everyone thinks their plan will work”. The other problem as I mentioned is that China is not enjoying a good reputation in the imperial world, as designed.
Is there anything I’m not seeing or considering?
I feel sort of the opposite.
The US is the most powerful imperial country on Earth, its the literal belly of the beast. The amount of capital at its disposal is immense. It wouldn’t make much sense to do a “tactical retreat” as the PRC had to as the productive forces in the country are nowhere near the level they were post-revolution for China. There’s no need to build it up to meet peoples’ needs, no need to form a front against a hostile nation.
The wealth gap in the US is increasing; the “middle class” is shrinking to where the “lower class” is where most of these people end up. As this slow-burn crisis continues to expand and peoples’ material conditions further deteriorate, it becomes much easier for people to realize something is wrong. Education and radicalization is what will get the masses around the idea that the “American Dream” is all a farce.
Post-revolution, if the US were to follow the Chinese model, it would only end up empowering the already very powerful bourgeoisie, making the task of the vanguard so much more difficult. China started from even more feudal conditions than Russia; there really wasn’t a bourgeoisie like in Western capitalist nations. The gradual opening of the market (socialism with Chinese characteristics) has allowed the CPC to enact control on what happens with the growing bourgeoisie (and all the contradictions that they then have to manage as well). Meanwhile in the US, the bourgeoisie already exist and are incredibly bunkered-in.
It would be a disservice to the revolution to give them an inch. It’s the job of the US vanguard party to tear down everything, which not only benefits the working class of the US, but lifts the boot of imperialism around the world. The US controls so much internationally that the other Western nations would be scrambling to fill in the vacuum left in its wake, teetering the balance of power more in the favor of the international proletariat.
I 100% agree with this. It’s the job of US revolutionaries to tear it down, and end the US for the good of humanity. Building a “socialism with even more US colonizer characteristics” would work only to preserve its institutions, what we need is a balkanization and disorganization of the empire, to take its hands off our necks and let the world breath again.
Even on a practical level for those of us living in its borders, ending the United States means disempowering or at least disorganizing the police, landlords, and all those organizations whose sole purpose is to make us die as quickly as possible. Of course that’s not going to happen without a fight, and looking at how weak and disempowered the US left is compared to its police and military, I don’t see that happening on any scale less than 100 years.
How do you think the US will look like after a revolutionary civil war, if say that’s how socialism is to win? I think the post-revolutionary conditions will determine everything and not merely what we would like the US to be after revolution.
You’re totally correct, at least when it comes to realistic methodology, adhering to one strict plan is anti marxist. Every country has its own conditions, and like you said the best place to start in the United States is by literally making real bases of operations, not some larpy hiding in the forest type stuff. We need to follow the mass line and protect the most marginalized and I really don’t think joining a party is a good idea, party politics is for later but right now we need a mass line, something simple. The poor don’t care about some old European dead guys or old Chinese dead guy, they want their material conditions to be bettered and the government won’t give it to them so what better way to start than to create a mass organization founded by Marxists that provides free food like a soup kitchen, a mutual aid fund, a dedicated team to fight against landlords and community evictions. We need to start simple and build from there, the masses will come to us when they want to learn the hard theory and it will become necessary as the masses get curious, over time as we have numbers in the thousands and tens of thousands we can start the party line but we won’t be able to be militant until we have millions in support.
It took China about 30 or 40 years to build up revolution, and it’ll take a long time here too but we need to forget the party talk and just help the poor. Mao himself wrote about practicing your theory, scientists don’t just write a theory and call it a day, they put their theories to practice, throw out the stuff that doesn’t work and put in the things that further the cause. I’m myself trying to figure how I can organize maybe contact any local people with the same thinking as me to begin. Revolutionary work is slow boring work but it’s necessary to create dual power.
That being said, a party cadre is a good base for internal motivation and organisation of principled marxists to start serving the masses. Lots of communist parties start front organisations to keep the dialectic between party and mass priorities in motion.
not (necessarily) elections
This gives me pause. Elections yield mixed results, to say the least, but they’re at least a method of accountability. I want the ruling class to be accountable to the proletariat. Am I wrong here?
The CPC has a governmental department focused on audits. This department conducts surveys, polls, and performance reviews to know if people in government get results. This in turn allows one to receive a promotion or, on the contrary, be demoted if they don’t do their job. Xi for example held many offices through this “career” (I don’t like to imply there’s careerism in a dotp). You start managing healthcare in a small town or something like that, then can become governor, or manage bigger things, until you are eligible to be president of the whole country. Someone like Obama could never have been president in China; you need a track record to get there.
It also means the general population doesn’t vote for everyone and everything, e.g. a new hospital director (as is the case already in capitalism anyway).
I understand the confusion, I wasn’t sure how to express this thoroughly.
Somewhat related, but here’s a really good two vid series on this by Paul Cockshott.
