Apologies to the mods.

  • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    4 days ago

    China is communist, and there’s a reason authoritarianism exists in those spaces. That reason is the US, which spends unlimited amounts of money to upkeep their war economy that they haven’t cooled off since ww2.

    Absent constant attacks there’s a good chance authoritarianism wouldn’t have ever developed in those spaces. But since someone keeps funding scorned previously rich fucks to start counterrevolutions, it has to exist. A necessary evil until the us and west kill themselves.

    • OmegaLemmy@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      China isnt communist, not with their actions, not with their economy, not with their society, not with their diplomacy and not even with their politics, communist in name and propaganda only

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        China is Socialist, and is still trying to build Communism. I am not sure what you are referring to by their “actions.”

        Their economy has large firms firmly in the public sector, with the private sector being made up primarily of sole proprietorships and small businesses or cooperatives. This is classical Marxism, you can’t kill an economy into being developed enough for public ownership nor can you outlaw small businesses into large ones. Marx believed markets were the key to laying the foundations for public ownership, and here we are.

        Not sure what you mean by “their society,” if I were being dishonest I would say that smells of Western Exceptionalist chauvanism.

        Their diplomacy is pretty damn peaceful, they have only a handful of millitary bases worldwide, and instead go for multilateralism.

        I don’t know what you mean by “politics,” here, this is more vagueness.

      • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        4 days ago

        60% of the economy being owned by the people exclusively for the benefit of the people isn’t communist?

        Please point out where in the manifesto you dozed off.

        • j_overgrens@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          60% of the economy being owned by the people exclusively for the benefit of the people isn’t communist?

          No

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Percentage wise doesn’t determine it, correct, but China is Socialist because the vast majority of its large firms and key industries are Publicly Owned, and the private sector is mainly cooperatives, sole proprietorships, and small businesses. Marx believed markets centralize themselves, meaning over time more can be publicly planned in an efficient manner.

            • j_overgrens@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              Marx believed that Socialism means that the workers own the means of production.

              In China the communist party owns 60% of the economy, and the rest of the economy is hosting 406 billionaires.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

                I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn’t to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.

                The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

                This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.

                China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      4 days ago

      Communism is a classless stateless society. China has a vanguard party, and any attempts to protest. Run against it, or run outside it will result in torture, imprisonment, and death. The vanguard and their oligarch pals are a separate class from a Chinese citizen. Not classless, not communist. China is a state. Literally not stateless, literally not communist.

      The reason authoritarianism exists there is because the military overthrew the emperor/tsar and put themselves in power. And militaries function via authority. It’s got nothing to do with WWII or western powers. They did it to themselves.

      It’s funny how leninist etc clutch their pearls and bemoan the wests trepidation towards them. When they’re perfectly innocent. After all, who doesn’t forcefully annex much of Eastern Europe?

      Not saying the west has never overstepped it’s bounds or fucked up. Not at all. Just that leninist are the wests hypocritical equal.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        Of course, China is not a “communist country” in the sense that it has achieved communism - in that sense, “communist country” is a contradiction in terms and no country could ever be communist, because communism is stateless. When people describe countries as communist, what they mean is that the leaders profess belief in communist ideology, that is, a country that is run by communists.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        China has not achieved a global, publicly owned and planned economy, no, but is still working towards that, as Marxists would, through Socialism.

        First of all, the state and government are not the same thing, and parties are not classes either. The State is the aspect of society that enforces class distinctions, classes themselves being relations to ownership. The way Marx believed we could get to statelessness is by nationalizing the large industries and firms that are already built up enough for central planning to work, and let the small firms compete and grow until they reach that point. This is what China’s economy looks like.

        I think if you listened more to what Marxists believe, you’d be more likely to succeed in leftist organizing in real life (if you do any).

      • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        4 days ago

        Stop. Bad radlib.

        Read chinese history. Try again. When you can’t even use wikipedia to support your ridiculous misconception of history I don’t care about anything else you say.

          • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            4 days ago

            Cool. So you’d support a popular, citizen lead uprising that had to convince illiterate farmers to take up arms against western funded and armed authoritarian monarchists and then establishing a state to deal with the now 1 billion people that statistically knew nothing but farming while introducing them to higher level concepts like the existence of police or government they can participate in or what their taxes even do, right?

            Hell if you were a communist you’d have some response to how to deal with an international, infinitely funded threat actor right?

            You wouldn’t be stuck at the idea that you can go from agrarian subsistence farmers to post scarcity mutual aid communes, right? You wouldn’t be dumb enough to think that you even have the capability to defend yourself and you local community, much less a revolution, without a clear state hierarchy in place for mass coordination and communication, right? You’d be smart enough to know why stateless communities cannot exist in any world where a single stated capitalist actor exists, right?

            There was no strawman, by the way, cosplayer. You repeat the empires propaganda like a lib, you repeat their ideology word for word, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              4 days ago

              A citizen military is still a citizen military. The military is not a democracy. They didn’t win with luck dragons and unicorns. And did not disband to Institute actual democracy. Whether or not they started out as Citizens doesn’t disprove what I said. It’s a red herring.

              No one asked my response, least of all you. Again with more red herrings and straw man attacks. Anyhow I’ve got better things to do then toy further with you.

              • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                4 days ago

                China has actual democracy, you can watch their fucking votes for fucks sake. Bye bye radlib. Hope you get over your programming someday.