All states are authoritarian, what matters is which class is in control, the proletariat or bourgeoisie. “Authoritarian” isn’t something unique to the PRC, it applies to every state, though the nature of that authority depends on the class structure.
Cowbee [he/they]
Actually, this town has more than enough room for the two of us
He/him or they/them, doesn’t matter too much
Marxist-Leninist ☭
Interested in Marxism-Leninism, but don’t know where to start? Check out my “Read Theory, Darn it!” introductory reading list!
- 10 Posts
- 604 Comments
No, the Falun Gong is an anticommunist cult that regularly makes up shit. You are regurgitating USian propaganda, that’s why you’re malding.
Public ownership is collectivized, private is individual or a group of investors. Private ownership requires profits at a systemic level (if not individually), while public doesn’t need to. Does that make sense? With collectivized ownership we can abolish the profit motive, and plan the economy more effectively.
No, Putin does not own the economy, just like Trump does not own the US. This is silly. Additionally, Russia is capitalist, and the PRC is socialist.
No, the CPC does not take organs from people off the streets. This is incredibly racist propaganda, and I cannot believe you’re repeating this.
I’m not “simping” for anything, I’ve provided sources for what I’ve said, while you live in fantasy land where heads of state are owners of economies like we live in feudalism. This is nonsense. Plus, not sure why you’re bringing in the DPRK and RF unprompted, we were discussing the PRC.
Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlto Asklemmy@lemmy.ml•what's something you believe strongly but have little knowledge about2·3 hours agoSure, but I maintain that we are talking about different scenarios.
Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlto Asklemmy@lemmy.ml•what's something you believe strongly but have little knowledge about5·5 hours agoThat’s a fair point, but that doesn’t apply to everything. Believing something strongly is more about the factual basis of things, rather than direct desires for improvements. Like, I wouldn’t say I have a strong belief that I want a bagel right now, I just want the bagel, but I can say I have a strong belief that bagels are a type of bread.
Okay, this is deeply unserious.
-
Xi being head of state does not mean he owns the economy. This is incredibly silly, it’s the same logic that people used when claiming Castro was incredibly wealthy, and just pointing to the GDP of Cuba as proof.
-
The CPC absolutely looks out for the people of China. From the highly successful poverty eradication campaign, to the consistently and dramatically rising incomes for the working class, to the large infrastructure projects, the CPC is focused on the proletariat.
-
A study from a western firm that found that Chinese citizens overwhelmingly approve of their government because of the dramatic and consistent improvements in their lives is absolutely proof of support for the system. It isn’t proof of Xi being a “dictator.”
Come on, this is nonsense. Please stick to reality.
-
Their large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and central planning is the backbone of their economy. Their economic base is the public sector. This is socialism. State capitalism is when the large firms and key industries are privately owned, but directed by a strong state, like Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Bismark’s Germany, and the US post-WWII. As far as corruption, over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their government. Xi is incredibly popular because of the anti-corruption campaigns successfully removing large amounts of opportunists.
I don’t really know what you think socialism is.
The PRC has markets, but the overwhelming majority of large firms and key industries are state owned and planned. Even the medium firms are controlled by the golden share system. The PRC’s corruption got pretty bad in the 90s and 2000s, but Xi’s career has been so successful due to running a strong anti-corruption campaign. The PRC is socialist.
I don’t think it’s controversial to suggest that the US economy is heavily guided by the profit motive, and that megacorps control the state, while the PRC has been utilizing a largely planned economy to achieve large infrastructure goals and long-term plans. Even if you’re anti-PRC, this is just indisputable.
Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlto Technology@lemmy.ml•China’s First High-End Gaming GPU, the Lisuan G100, Reportedly Outperforms NVIDIA’s GeForce RTX 4060 & Slightly Behind the RTX 5060 in New Benchmarks191·9 hours agoI don’t see what this has to do with Trump or data collected by GPUs.
Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlto Technology@lemmy.ml•China’s First High-End Gaming GPU, the Lisuan G100, Reportedly Outperforms NVIDIA’s GeForce RTX 4060 & Slightly Behind the RTX 5060 in New Benchmarks191·9 hours agoWhat does China have to do with Trump?
@Provinto@lemmy.ml gave an excellent answer, but I figured I’d take my shot at simplifying further.
Essentially, the bourgeois state is formed over time to support bourgeois society. A revolution that tries to wield it in its own favor has to contend with the fact that over time, the state as a superstructure is fully compatible with its respective base, capitalism. In order to change the base and superstructure, an entirely new state needs to take its place, not just in name but in structure, otherwise the old superstructure left hanging will wrest back control, like what happened at the Paris Commune.
Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlto Asklemmy@lemmy.ml•what's something you believe strongly but have little knowledge about41·10 hours agoNot every society is authoritarian. Tribal, classless societies were not so, they had no state. A fully collectivized, ie communist system will have no class, and thus no need for one class to oppress others, ie is not authoritarian. Every existing society in between those is authoritarian, from the feudal lords to the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, each ruling class will wield the state and thus authority to resolve class contradictions. I already explained the differences in degrees of oppression, and how they depend more on circumstances than an implicit desire for control. It’s better for the proletariat to be in charge than the bourgeoisie.
Socialism is pre-communism. Socialism is a mode of production where the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and controlled, ie the PRC, Cuba, and former USSR. Communism is when all production globally has been collectivized, and thus is classless, and therefore stateless (though not without management, administration, or planning). Further, even collectivized systems allow for rewards for individual contributions, no socialist country in history has had equal pay, Marx railed against “equalitarians.” The process of sublimating all property is a gradual one, private property in socialism is something expected to vanish over time as firms grow and are folded into the collectivized system.
Finally, “human nature” has nothing to do with our conversation. I don’t see why you think communism can only work at a small scale, when the opposite is the case, communism can only be realized globally. I think you’re mixing up anarchist economics with Marxist economics.
Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlto Asklemmy@lemmy.ml•what's something you believe strongly but have little knowledge about9·10 hours agoThis is… shockingly misinformed. To a frankly massive degree.
-
Tribal societies, called “primitive communism,” were not at all what Marx was describing post-socialist communism to be. Tribal production was largely based on hunting and gathering, and tiny, communal ownership, rather than collectivized production built on a globally interconnected system.
-
Historical materialism does not pitch history as “linear.” It’s an advancement on idealist notions of dialectics as humanity advancing, unknown to themselves, a grand “Spirit.” Dialectical materialism flipped dialectics on its head, it’s matter that drives thought, not a metaphysical ideal that drives movement.
-
Hegel and German idealism have faded because they are idealist, and thus wrong. See point 2. You’re confusing Marxism as idealist, and erasing materialism by referring to it as “scientific” dialectics.
-
Marxism-Leninism betrays neither Marx nor Lenin. You just kind of left this hanging without explaining why, so I’d like clarification. Stalin’s contributions are largely limited to the political economy of the Soviet Union, such as the policy of Socialism in One Country. Not sure what you mean when you say Stalin lost in the power struggle with Stalin, I assume that’s a typo.
-
Marxist-Leninists have no love for the Russian Federation. MLs recognize that due to the RF’s lack of the immense financial capital and potential subjects to imperialize that the west already has, despite being a nationalist capitalist nation it’s forced to oppose western imperialism, and engage in trade with actual socialist countries like the PRC. Russia has every reason to want to imperialize the global south, but simply lacks the means to do so.
Marx’s theories have not failed. Crucially, what I’m picking up on is a surface-level understanding of Marxism coupled with false-conclusions resulting from a lack of depth in understanding. To be frank, I’m a Marxist-Leninist because Marxism-Leninism is successful as a tool to bring about socialism, and a useful tool in identifying the main contradictions in existing society. If you have more specific critiques, we can get into them, but as it stands there’s nothing for me to really counter, and I don’t want to just stand on a soapbox and tell you to “read more theory,” that’s almost always unproductive.
-
Regardless of how you feel about the GOP, the extent it is allowed to change is the extent to which the ruling class can continue to have their interests served. The DNC is the same in this respect, neither can go against the system dominated by private ownership, but they can slide around as long as they adhere to that.
As for successful revolutions, many. Algeria, Haiti, Cuba, China, Russia, Vietnam, etc. All have delivered much better results for their people post-revolution as compared to pre-revolution. Revolution happens because it’s necessary.
Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlto Technology@lemmy.ml•China’s First High-End Gaming GPU, the Lisuan G100, Reportedly Outperforms NVIDIA’s GeForce RTX 4060 & Slightly Behind the RTX 5060 in New Benchmarks211·12 hours agoEven if that were true, it’d be better than spyware tracing everything to the US Empire. What’s China going to do to me when I live in the US?
Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlto Asklemmy@lemmy.ml•what's something you believe strongly but have little knowledge about5·12 hours agoCommunism isn’t predicated on selflessness, nor is capitalism predicated on selfishness. Socialism/communism are predicated on public ownership and direction of production, while capitalism is predicated on private. The superstuctural elements like ideology are not the driving factors, the underlying base is. The superstructure comes from the base, and reinforces it, but does not decide whether it works or not.
Secondly, all states are authoritarian, they are all extensions of the ruling class. The degree that authority is exerted is a direct reaction to circumstance. Nazi Germany and modern Germany are both authoritarian and both ruled by the bourgeoisie, the reason Nazi Germany is seen as more authoritarian is because the economy was in dire straits and the capitalist class needed to violently crush dissent and assert itself in order to protect the existing property relations. Modern Germany is not opposed to the same violent repression, it just lacks the current necessity to do so, outside of crushing pro-Palestinian protestors.
Finally, socialism works. Socialist economies run by communist parties have had remarkable success in achieving high rates of economic growth and uplifting the working class. The largest and most significant economy in the world today is the PRC, which is socialist. People who say “communism/socialism don’t work” are largely pointing to the dissolution of the USSR, but the Soviet Union worked remarkably well until it liberalized and undermined its own system based on centralized planning. The reintroduction of capitalism to Eastern Europe was devastating, killing 7 million people and resulting in lowered life expectancy, skyrocketing drug abuse, human trafficking, poverty, wealth disparity, and more.
I think you would do well to investigate the topic further, as you already admitted you haven’t really done so yet, so this is a great opportunity.
Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlto Asklemmy@lemmy.ml•what's something you believe strongly but have little knowledge about5·12 hours agoAs @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml said, Marxist economics are sound and they work. The problem is that the conclusions of Marxist economics point to it being unquestionably correct to move beyond capitalism and into socialism, so the capitalist status-quo spends more time trying to make up any excuses they can to keep the gravy train going for that little bit longer. Liberal economists can’t form a consensus because it’s all based on rejection of working economic theory.
No, they don’t. You have no clue what you’re talking about, nor how government spending works.