If China was capitalist it would do what Russia did in the 90s. Ultras have no explanation for why China looks and behaves so differently from any other capitalist country. If China achieved its poverty alleviation through capitalism then why haven’t other global south capitalist countries done the same? If capitalism builds infrastructure like you see in China why doesn’t it do so in the rest of the world?
Why would a capitalist ruling class need to keep up the pretense of socialism when they clearly didn’t need to do so in Russia, where they instead destroyed every remnant of socialism that they could get their hands on as soon as possible? If the Chinese proletariat is so asleep and defeated that they can’t recognize or can’t change their supposedly revisionist leadership, why would that leadership need to continue to play this game and not just openly declare the rule of the bourgeoisie?
And no, China’s achievements are not comparable to those of social democracy in Europe. European social democracy only offered concessions to the working class because there was a rival system next door that posed an existential threat as an example of a better society. As soon as that alternative no longer exists social democracy quickly devolves into neoliberalism. Perhaps in the 70s and 80s this was still controversial, but we’ve had over thirty years now in Europe of this being objectively proven to be the case.
What socialist system is the Chinese bourgeoisie trying to compete with by offering its working class such immense improvements in living standards while curtailing their own power? Who is China’s USSR? There is none. Because China is the alternative of which the neoliberal West is terrified. It is precisely because China is successful and not capitalist that the entire collective West’s propaganda is trying to demonize and discredit them, so their own people won’t realize what kind of life they could have and demand it.
And sure, China is far from perfect. No it is not practicing the kind of socialism that the USSR had. Yes there are still class antagonisms in China, because guess what, class struggle doesn’t end the moment you have your revolution. The cultural revolution, as well intentioned as it was, was never going to change that without changing the material basis of society. It is pure idealism to think that a society can be advanced into the next stage of socialist development by force of will alone.
And i say this as someone who is very sympathetic to most of the ideas of the cultural revolution: It is the most un-Marxist thinking imaginable, this idea that you can overpower material reality by changing culture. Culture follows material conditions, not the other way around.
It is pure idealism to think that a society can be advanced into the next stage of socialist development by force of will alone.
Well, ultras are idealists larping as communists, not materialists.
Damn bro, stop, your keyboard is on fire! 🔥
Thanks, but if anything this is way too abbreviated. I’ve read critiques of China by some pretty well read and well spoken ultras calling China capitalist that really need way more debunking than i have time or energy to do. Because some of them can be unfortunately convincing to “newbie” lefties, with the way they use ostensibly Marxist language and concepts, and (cherrypicked) quotes of Lenin or Stalin to weave an argument that can be on the surface compelling if you just take everything they say at face value. They’re not immediately obvious as nonsense the way right wing reactionary arguments are.
And a common problem is that such debunking can quickly devolve into a contest of who is better at quoting this or that passage from Lenin or Marx, which is ultimately just another form of book worship. What i’m trying to do is show that it is not actually necessary to get into the weeds of debating technical theory points. You simply have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, with some historical perspective and some materialist common sense. It’s not so much about what ultras say, it’s what they don’t say. Just asking a few questions exposes the gaps in their argumentation that they very carefully (but probably unconsciously) try to avoid addressing.
And maybe this is also subjective to a certain extent, but the bottom line for me is: Occam’s Razor. This whole convoluted “big deception” theory that ultras have about the 5D chess game that the Chinese capitalists who have allegedly taken over the CPC are supposedly playing is just too contrived for me. Why? Why would they bother to do that? It reminds me too much of the way that science deniers (flat earthers, creationists, etc.) will come up with more and more elaborate ad hoc additions to their theories with each new piece of evidence that doesn’t fit their model, rather than accepting the much more simple and straightforward scientific explanation which already predicted everything.
It’s just unserious. It’s bad science and no amount of smug memes can hide that.
Gotta roast those marshmallows somehow
Order of Lenin post here, excellent job
Very well put, the elephant in the room is that China is clearly developing in a different way from capitalist nations. I’d argue an even better comparison than USSR would be India because both China and India started roughly from the same conditions, and the difference in their development couldn’t be more stark.
Also worth noting that while it’s very difficult to explain why China doesn’t conform to capitalist norms, it’s easy to see that it’s developing in a similar way to other socialist countries such as Vietnam and Cuba. Both have introduced their own versions of market reforms just as China has. What truly unifies all socialist countries is that the benefits of economic development are predominantly passed on to the working majority as opposed to being horded by a capital owning minority as is seen under capitalism.
Another important point when comparing with European socdem societies is that the standard of living there was achieved through exploitation of the Global South, while China built itself up without relying on colonialism.
People who insist on holding China to some sort of a Platonic ideal of socialism are frankly not worth having a discussion with. They’re just LARPers who refuse to engage with material reality.
People who insist on holding China to some sort of a Platonic ideal of socialism are frankly not worth having a discussion with. They’re just LARPers who refuse to engage with material reality.
I mean it’s not a bad thing to offer constructive criticism and point out what could be done better. China isn’t perfect and the CPC also makes mistakes. The point isn’t to idolize them or to copy everything they do exactly as they do it, because that would also be idealist, it would mean ignoring the fact that different material conditions require different approaches.
But it’s one thing to point out flaws and another thing to say that because they don’t fulfil this, as you put it, platonic ideal, that it automatically makes them the same as the capitalist imperialist countries. This is evidently absurd and not a position that can be taken seriously no matter how much Marxist jargon it’s cloaked in.
As has been said so often already, if the Western left thinks it can do better than China, then they should do that first and then they will have earned the right to say that China isn’t doing socialism good enough. The only country that has earned that right imo is the DPRK, and they have paid a heavy price for their refusal to compromise their principles.
For sure, I don’t mean to say that we shouldn’t do constructive criticism, just that the criticism has to be rooted in material analysis to be meaningful.
I also find the chauvinism of people who criticize China because it doesn’t fit their model of an ideal society to be just so incredibly distasteful. It’s quite clear that vast majority of people in China support their system, and that means it’s working for them. We have no place to criticize how people in China decide to live.
Meanwhile, the fact that a particular system cannot be just copied is actually a useful tool for talking to people who freak out over particular aspects of existing socialist states like China. I explain to them that each socialist project arose from its own historical and material conditions, and each one is unique in nature. If socialism is implemented in the west, then it will necessarily be shaped by the conditions found here, and the ideals of western societies. Other socialist project can inform us how to approach specific problems when building socialism, but any learnings from them must be studied dialectically and adapted to the current conditions of a country. So, the whole concern people have is fundamentally unfounded. For example, if our society is more socially liberal then there’s nothing inherent about a socialist system that would be at odds with that.
Preach it!
The proportion of planning to market forces is not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not equivalent to socialism, because there is planning under capitalism too; a market economy is not capitalism, because there are markets under socialism too. Planning and market forces are both means of controlling economic activity. The essence of socialism is liberation and development of the productive forces, elimination of exploitation and polarisation, and the ultimate achievement of prosperity for all
These ultras need to seriously think about what they’re saying. People in China now enjoy unprecedented material wealth, upward mobility, and optimism for the future. Is this because capitalism is a fair and effective system, but only in China and not everywhere else in the developing world? Or is it because they’re not doing capitalism?
People said the same thing about the USSR even before Stalin’s death. They think because one thing has similar characteristics and vocabulary to what they know, then it must be the same as the thing they know.
you have to understand, those dastardly
orientalsdengists are leading us astray from TRUE socialism (when you lose)
