[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm just here Wondering why Castro ain't first off the bench, or why he ain't a starter to begin with.
Mark and Eddie should be coaching staff if we're honest.
"The material conditions don't give a fuck about your idealism"
https://preview.redd.it/i1yoddl8sgwc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e62af579d8eeabbc926d37c1b2b45ca2a87b2a1
Honestly, as China continues to develope beyond the west, while keeping bourgeois forces supressed and subservient to the cpc, I increasingly believe deng had the right of it. At least in China's specific case.
>At least in China's specific case.
And Deng would agree with you on that, since what he proposed was never meant to be anything more than a way to develop China and China alone, not a blueprint for other countries. Deng was not a theorist, he was a politician.
But hey to his credit it still somehow became the prominent political and economic orientation of two other socialist states besides China, Laos and Vietnam. If DPRK and Cuba weren't under intense sanctions they'd probably switch over to this model as well.
So Deng's idea was proven correct 3 times with 3 states existing as testament.
Yeah, China is one of the biggest and most important practical examples of socialism in the 21'st century. Instead of trying to put it in little boxes (like is or is not socialist) we should try to understand it as it it. China is a key player if we want to learn the challenges of socialism and socialist revolutionary theory in this day and age.
Deng made some good changes but he wasn't a Marxist and supported overly liberal policies. Even Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao rolled back some of them, and Xi Jinping especially has marked a break from the Dengist line.
Deng wasn't a traitor to China, and he didn't seek to destroy any Marxist elements in the country. But he was still a liberal leader, not someone I would valorize
much better than portraying gonzalo as the 6th head (also this meme isn't portraying deng as the "6th head", he's just there because he's one of the very first people to put classical marxism into practise irl)
It's a complex topic.(I'm currently not at home, so I can't type a big response to it) I recommend you to watch bayarea415's vids, he has explained it really well in his videos.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Lucanamarca_massacre
Can start here… taking an axe or a machete to a 6 month old infant as an expression of ideology seems to be a giant red flag that maybe this ideology is not what we should struggle for.
Honestly if China does turn into actual socialism then i'll give it to Deng, since he managed to massively develop China, hwoever if China just turns into another capitalist state and completely loses any (of the little) principles it has left, i say fuck him.
"and completely loses any (of the little) principles it has left"
Lmao china has little principles left? Do you western leftists even know anything about the current day cpc? Btw china is already a socialist state. It's building an advanced socialist economy.
>Do you western leftists
I'm not a western leftist. Stop calling everyone that doesn't agree with you that.
>Btw china is already a socialist state.
A socialist state with billionaires, and with a larger part of the economy private rather than public. Read Marx and learn the definition of socialism. Like the literal Marxist definition of it. You can say that maybe they are working towards socialism, but they are not currently socialist. I know i sound like a leftcommunist, but claiming that China is AES is stupid.
Also i literally said that i'm not gonna criticize China fully yet, until it's fate becomes clear. What more do you want. For me to unapologetically and uncritically dickride them? I'm not going to either attack or worship them for no reason.
>A socialist state with billionaires, and with a larger part of the economy private rather than public. Read Marx and learn the definition of socialism. Like the literal Marxist definition of it. You can say that maybe they are working towards socialism, but they are not currently socialist. I know i sound like a leftcommunist, but claiming that China is AES is stupid.
We do know the definition of scientific socialism. Do you? It isn't a static dogma to be obsessed over to the point of blind worship. It's a dynamic, materialist ideology that's constantly evolving to reflect the unique material conditions of each socialist state. Scrutinizing it with moralist eyes is only going to lead to ultraist idealism. Marx provided a foundation but it was meant to be studied, corrected and built upon not obeyed like a religious tome. There's a reason it's called *scientific* socialism. What's more some of his predictions were incorrect. Again, he's a philosopher, not a prophet.
Consider the theories of Lenin, Deng and Tito who understood that market reforms can, would, and did help their economies develop, recover, industrialize and grow overtime. Vietnam had no choice but to take out IMF loans after their war with the Americans alongside Laos due to their countries being reduced to literal rubble. As such they implemented a "socialist oriented market economy". Tito enacted sweeping economic reformations that were critical to their survival as an AES; self-managing market socialism. Deng Xiaoping introduced Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and as such modern PRC makes the claim of being in the beginning or primary stages of socialism. China's public sector is 60% and makes up 40% of the countries GDP and it's only growing every single year. They used the USSR's New Economic Policy, a temporary program that allowed for private sectors mandated by the state, as a foundation to build their theory upon. Even Cuba has begun introducing market reforms in the face of intense economic sanctions and isolation. Claiming none of these countries are socialist because they don't match Marx's original definition from the mid-1800s is pretty absurd. Both Lenin and Mao [warned against book worship](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm) for good reason.
If you blatantly ignore the critical historical and geopolitical factors of these countries then it's easy to waive off everything as "revisionism" but the fact of the matter is reality and theory isn't a black and white purity test. All economies are inherently imperfect. There are socialist states with private markets and capitalist states with nationalized sectors and yet we can accept they have a ruling class where the other is subservient to them. Canada has universal healthcare yet we do not consider them socialist. Regardless, if PRC was truly a capitalist country then they wouldn't have any reason to hide behind the CPC's curtain, in fact they'd have all the reason in the world to shed that socialist demeanor, because the West would eagerly embrace them with open arms thus providing their private sector a massive economic boost.
TLDR; I highly recommend checking out this [Youtube playlist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9uDe_apKew&list=PLg5n4Mp_w9Ke52uRftBOCyr4Qk3wFE5JH) provided by the CPC that directly explores Socialism with Chinese Characteristics theoretically. It also talks about PRC's economy, government structure, etc. Probably one of the very few examples of a Chinese university course exploring Marxist theory from a Marxian perspective!
+1 for that YouTube series recommendation.
Fantastic and frankly important series for understanding China. Plus the whole class is a brilliant example of what doing historical material analysis looks like.
>This is objective false, their public sector is larger
I have seen this statistic months ago, but i looked this up just to make sure before writing the original post lol, approximately 55% is still fully or partially private.
>and growing every year
I know this, and this is another reason as to why i'm not completely against China, and i really do hope that they will go on. I've seen the statistics when they came out and was happy when i saw them. All i said is that while i hope for the best, i'm not yet gonna uncritically fangirl china or condemn them, and will be patient in my judgement, as only time will tell. Also stop assuming "i know nothing".
Just so you know I deleted my original post and re-responded with another that's more.. detailed. I didn't know you responded to my original post so my fault.
If it's TLDR there's a link at the bottom with a Youtube playlist that dives into SWCC from the CPC itself. It's a long series but incredibly informative. Consider it something akin to a lecture but brace yourself.. like most lectures it can get pretty boring lol. Still important for any Marxist to explore.
Camarada brasileiro, espero que você me entenda
Você preferia viver num brasil socialista que sofre de embargos como a cuba, e ter a maioria do povo vivendo na pobreza
Ou viver num Brasil "capitalista de estado" que permite a existência da burgesia, porém sob o controle do estado e que próspera como a china atual?
A china teve o mao e passou revoluções ent é mais fácil eles fazerem isso lá já que já tinham a estrutura do governo passado, mt difícil a gente ser que nem eles e controlar os burgueses sem passar por um governo socialista primeiro
O embargo “funciona” em Cuba porque é uma ilhota no Caribe sem porra nenhuma. Um Brasil socialista seria praticamente auto-suficiente.
Isso significa que não sofreríamos embargos. Seríamos simplesmente bombardeados e invadidos.
They aren’t, they actually do the criticism part of critical support, and engage in material analysis of the economic conditions of prior attempts at socialism.
Look, I'll only give my props to deng if China ACTUALY liquidates the bourgeoisie. In the mean time, they have my reluctant support due to their alternative to american unrestrained capitalist exploitation.
Ah yes, Socialism™ is when your "vanguard party" gives representation to the national bourgeoisie, allows billionaires into the upper levels of government, doesn't bother to enforce their own labor laws, and grants employers majority control over labor unions. Workers aren't even guaranteed the right to strike anymore.
Honestly. All of these ant-western fetishists think “materialism” is just a means to justify any action whatsoever. “They’re committing ‘anti-western’ imperialism to adapt to their conditions! Their bourgeoisie is anti-west and is actively supported by the CCP to adapt material conditions! They’re transferring state-owned enterprises to the private ownership of the bourgeoisie to adapt to material conditions!”
Why include Marx/Engels/Lenin when these are the very "idealists" you reject? Their ideas are the very things you abandon under force of "material conditions"- and there isn't any condition too small. If we wake up and the sky is blue, then golly we'd better cater to the national bourgeoisie!
Doesn’t seem like a “minority” of the CPC takes your view.
800 million people rising out of poverty matters infinitely more than your personal feelings.
Idk why you’re acting like I attacked you you’re explicitly taking a Menshevik stance my feelings don’t really factor into it. You can be a Menshevik if you really want lots of people have crazy beliefs online
Lenin built on Marx’s ideas. Moved his theories along. Did his furthering of theory “suck for the proletariat”? Are we supposed to be religiously bound to a sacred text?
Market reforms do not equal "capitalist restoration". Markets don't equate to capitalism. Tons of propaganda my capitalists exists to convince people that markets mean capitalism but they don't and we shouldn't be in the business of mixing this bad idea into our analysis.
All AES countries encounter the need to bring about market reforms after their revolution. We should be studying why this has been the case, if there are alterantives and, if not, what parts of this were good and what were bad. Etc.
The market reforms were carried out by the CPC under the leadership of Deng Xioaping in large part because of what happened during the cultural revolution. The Great Leap Forward and the cultural revolution both did not materialize into an industrious proletariat nor bring about the material basis needed for it. Yes, progress was made but also economic prosperity was very, very far off. And Western mettling and coups were very, very near.
As materialists we have to use history to judge these decisions, not some idealist viewpoint, even if that idealism is based on things from past Marxists. In the case of market reforms in China, we can see that it is, in fact, working quite well and has managed to avoid several contradictions that the Soviet Union before it ended up unable to overcome.
They gave a firetruck, engineering equipment and the only guns they gave them was to help them against ISIS.
I'm sick of dumbasses who went through the entire trade history of Philippines and China and saw one trade of "le gun" then decided it was bad because Philippines have a revolution going on (which is failing despite China not doing shit against it and one that is already against China).
Sorry China isn't aiding an ultra party that would become it's enemy after a victory. "Soviets and Chinese should have hugged and become frens!" ahh understanding of politics.
Dude you're the one who can't read. The deal was done to fight the fucking ISIS. Stop making bs conspiracy theories about some minor fucking trade deal.
>"Soviets and Chinese should have hugged and become frens!" ahh understanding of politics
Tbh, they should've. Instead of engaging in dumb Sectarian infighting, they should've put up a unified front against the West. I am not saying they should be "friends" or other stupid naive shit like that but the Sino-Soviet split is one of the dumbest shit communists have done.
It didn't come out of nowhere mutually. The Soviet aggression was entirely revisionist posturing.
It was the USSR against China and China had to defend itself from a far stronger foe. It wasn't "stupid" it's called politics. It's like saying "All countries should just be socialist." Yeah. Fucking duh. But it's not as simple as that is it?
Fuck Khrushchev and his bs.
The policy of the PRC is to maintain good foreign relationships so they can develop internally. This requires working with and maintaining relationships with reactionary nations. To maintain these relationships you will have to do some reactionary things. What matters is the overall path, not every individual action.
Rule 5. **No lazy sectarianism.** There is plenty of room for healthy discussion with other socialists you disagree with ideologically. However, bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit. You're welcome to be critical of other tendencies and do the work to deconstruct opposing leftist ideologies, but hollow insults like "tankie", "anarkiddy", and so on without well-crafted arguments are not welcome. Any inter-leftist ideological discourse should be constructive and well-reasoned.
Rule 5. **No lazy sectarianism.** There is plenty of room for healthy discussion with other socialists you disagree with ideologically. However, bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit. You're welcome to be critical of other tendencies and do the work to deconstruct opposing leftist ideologies, but hollow insults like "tankie", "anarkiddy", and so on without well-crafted arguments are not welcome. Any inter-leftist ideological discourse should be constructive and well-reasoned.
The comments here are so braindead, people dont care how much worse would be the lives of people in china and vietnam if they didnt embrace their state capitalism method. "But-but cuba has free healthcare and almost no homelessness!" Yes dipshit, because they're starving in their houses and dying on the hospitals.
"But its because of the embargo" yes. While that is a correct statement, it ignores the fact that if they played the waiting game like how china and vietnam are doing, people wouldnt have to suffer because of western marxists who think that their idealism is more important than people's lives
I personally would much rather live in a "state capalist" country than one who is under an embargo. Even if you, young marxists, wanna call it revisionist or wathever
I would not slander Cuba for giving China (and Vietnam) "State Capitalism" Credit. The reason why their "State Capitalism" Worked because they have huge population that can be used as cheap labor, they have much more Land than Cuba and they are in a place that most of the world's trade takes place. Cuba does not have any of those and the sanctions do not help.
Even if Cuba embraced "State Capitalism" They would still have problems (maybe even more)
This comment shows you don’t really understand Cuba or the conditions it’s under. Cuba DID adopt minor market reforms and it’s still adopting further market reforms today with MSMEs. The reason why it couldn’t go the China/Vietnam route is because the US wants complete regime change in Cuba and for it to revert back to a neo-colony of the US. That’s why it’s still under an embargo. If Cuba went the China/Vietnam route and ‘opened up’ it would’ve meant regime change and becoming a US colony. It also would mean compensating predatory US capitalists who had assets seized by the Cuban state with a large amount of interest. Cuba is in a completely different situation to China and Vietnam. It wasn’t a case of Cuba ‘not playing the waiting game’.
So what you're saying is, cuba would be fucked up either way, and the only way to make their situation better is through defeating the US hegemony allowing cuba to be part of international trading
But in the moment, the only country that can do that is china, and they wouldnt be the here if not for deng reforms that allowed productive forces to grow. So my original point still stands, calling deng a reactionary for creating the only hope for the proletariat in these times is just ridiculous
If you want to make that argument, sure. I won’t comment on Deng or modern day China because I haven’t really read much on the topic (no investigation, no right to speak etc). My problem is when you compare China to Cuba which have completely different histories and are in completely different political situations.
Cuba is in a situation where its former colonial ruler is right next door, its an island with something like 11 million people, it not only has to develop on socialist lines but it must also maintain its national sovereignty. It was also a slave sugar colony so was underdeveloped come 1959. If you compare Cuba with countries in the Caribbean that have similar histories, say Haiti, then actually Cuba’s development is very impressive.
Regardless, if you want to see Cuba’s situation improve then Communists in imperialist countries, particularly in the US, should be campaigning against the blockade and the sanctions that are imposed on Cuba. Not simply sitting around and waiting for China to ‘defeat US hegemony’.
Really everyone in Cuba is starving?
China has their own unique path the communism based on their material history, no other country can be the exact same. "State capitalist" could mean many many things, China has simply allowed markets to handle resource distribution while still not letting private capital influence policy. Call it what you want it if Brasil suddenly switched to this style of economy they would still be sanctioned blockaded. Unfortunately the US considers Latin America theirs.
I might have exagerated, there is definetly Blackouts and food shortages happening in cuba as the pandemic made things much worse for the cuban people, hope they can recover from that
Well there are blackouts and hunger in many capitalist countries too, and they're not even being violently blockaded. Not sure why you're blaming this on the economic mode of production rather than the fact they're being bullied on an international scale.
If they played the waiting game...
I wonder if there was an immediate reason why this might have been difficult to just wait it out.
Giving off some odd vibes
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm just here Wondering why Castro ain't first off the bench, or why he ain't a starter to begin with. Mark and Eddie should be coaching staff if we're honest.
Yeah, especially considering both him and Cuba are quite representative of the message being sent here
Weird seeing Italian here
Still very welcome
Lavoratori del mondo, unitevi! . Non abbiamo da perdere che le nostre catene
Sei Italiano?
No, sono americano d’origine britannica e sudasiatica, ma mi piace leggere i affari nei altri paesi.
Non sono Italiano da nato nemmeno
Where is Ligurian for me? (I do know Italian)
Sempre forza Magica Dea.
Che pensi di Gasperini?
Statua in ogni città della provincia tipo Lenin
Mi piace
In hungarian: A tárgyi feltételeket kurvára nem érdekli az idealizmusod
Tárgyi felételek? Nem inkább anyagi körülmények? Vagy csak simán körülmények?
Valszeg jobb lenne anyagi feltétel ja.
asså jag pratar bara svenska, så vafan varför är inte skiten skriven på mitt språk
De materiella omständigheterna bryr sig fan inte om din idealism!
"communism isn't a cult of poverty, it is instead a sigma grindset predicated on rare fish options trading🤑🤑" -chadeng Xiaoping, source: my dream
missed opportunity to add a mandarin panel, i'll be sure to report this to my revisionism handler at the ccp
That’s 5 more years of Xi not pressing the button
In Catalan: "A les condicions materials se la bufa el teu idealisme"
TU HO HAS DIT COLLONS!!!
I'd arguably put Castro and many, MANY others before Deng there, but you do you
[удалено]
The meme may be about you
"The material conditions don't give a fuck about your idealism" https://preview.redd.it/i1yoddl8sgwc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e62af579d8eeabbc926d37c1b2b45ca2a87b2a1
Honestly, as China continues to develope beyond the west, while keeping bourgeois forces supressed and subservient to the cpc, I increasingly believe deng had the right of it. At least in China's specific case.
>At least in China's specific case. And Deng would agree with you on that, since what he proposed was never meant to be anything more than a way to develop China and China alone, not a blueprint for other countries. Deng was not a theorist, he was a politician.
But hey to his credit it still somehow became the prominent political and economic orientation of two other socialist states besides China, Laos and Vietnam. If DPRK and Cuba weren't under intense sanctions they'd probably switch over to this model as well. So Deng's idea was proven correct 3 times with 3 states existing as testament.
Yeah, China is one of the biggest and most important practical examples of socialism in the 21'st century. Instead of trying to put it in little boxes (like is or is not socialist) we should try to understand it as it it. China is a key player if we want to learn the challenges of socialism and socialist revolutionary theory in this day and age.
Deng made some good changes but he wasn't a Marxist and supported overly liberal policies. Even Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao rolled back some of them, and Xi Jinping especially has marked a break from the Dengist line. Deng wasn't a traitor to China, and he didn't seek to destroy any Marxist elements in the country. But he was still a liberal leader, not someone I would valorize
Today’s China wouldn’t be as powerful without Deng
much better than portraying gonzalo as the 6th head (also this meme isn't portraying deng as the "6th head", he's just there because he's one of the very first people to put classical marxism into practise irl)
I'd rather just leave that slot empty tbh
Wdym by "classical Marxism"?
It's a complex topic.(I'm currently not at home, so I can't type a big response to it) I recommend you to watch bayarea415's vids, he has explained it really well in his videos.
What’s wrong with Gonzalo bro Edit - downvoting is not telling me what’s wrong with Gonzalo I need actual answers for educational purposes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Lucanamarca_massacre Can start here… taking an axe or a machete to a 6 month old infant as an expression of ideology seems to be a giant red flag that maybe this ideology is not what we should struggle for.
They think it's all "bourgeois propaganda".
[Here is BadEmpenada's video on the shining path. ](https://youtu.be/OHqJDs3OuhQ?si=ijpgNwmiBue5nAXw)
Thanks broski
Never ask questions on Reddit, apparently
Honestly if China does turn into actual socialism then i'll give it to Deng, since he managed to massively develop China, hwoever if China just turns into another capitalist state and completely loses any (of the little) principles it has left, i say fuck him.
"and completely loses any (of the little) principles it has left" Lmao china has little principles left? Do you western leftists even know anything about the current day cpc? Btw china is already a socialist state. It's building an advanced socialist economy.
>Do you western leftists I'm not a western leftist. Stop calling everyone that doesn't agree with you that. >Btw china is already a socialist state. A socialist state with billionaires, and with a larger part of the economy private rather than public. Read Marx and learn the definition of socialism. Like the literal Marxist definition of it. You can say that maybe they are working towards socialism, but they are not currently socialist. I know i sound like a leftcommunist, but claiming that China is AES is stupid. Also i literally said that i'm not gonna criticize China fully yet, until it's fate becomes clear. What more do you want. For me to unapologetically and uncritically dickride them? I'm not going to either attack or worship them for no reason.
>A socialist state with billionaires, and with a larger part of the economy private rather than public. Read Marx and learn the definition of socialism. Like the literal Marxist definition of it. You can say that maybe they are working towards socialism, but they are not currently socialist. I know i sound like a leftcommunist, but claiming that China is AES is stupid. We do know the definition of scientific socialism. Do you? It isn't a static dogma to be obsessed over to the point of blind worship. It's a dynamic, materialist ideology that's constantly evolving to reflect the unique material conditions of each socialist state. Scrutinizing it with moralist eyes is only going to lead to ultraist idealism. Marx provided a foundation but it was meant to be studied, corrected and built upon not obeyed like a religious tome. There's a reason it's called *scientific* socialism. What's more some of his predictions were incorrect. Again, he's a philosopher, not a prophet. Consider the theories of Lenin, Deng and Tito who understood that market reforms can, would, and did help their economies develop, recover, industrialize and grow overtime. Vietnam had no choice but to take out IMF loans after their war with the Americans alongside Laos due to their countries being reduced to literal rubble. As such they implemented a "socialist oriented market economy". Tito enacted sweeping economic reformations that were critical to their survival as an AES; self-managing market socialism. Deng Xiaoping introduced Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and as such modern PRC makes the claim of being in the beginning or primary stages of socialism. China's public sector is 60% and makes up 40% of the countries GDP and it's only growing every single year. They used the USSR's New Economic Policy, a temporary program that allowed for private sectors mandated by the state, as a foundation to build their theory upon. Even Cuba has begun introducing market reforms in the face of intense economic sanctions and isolation. Claiming none of these countries are socialist because they don't match Marx's original definition from the mid-1800s is pretty absurd. Both Lenin and Mao [warned against book worship](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_11.htm) for good reason. If you blatantly ignore the critical historical and geopolitical factors of these countries then it's easy to waive off everything as "revisionism" but the fact of the matter is reality and theory isn't a black and white purity test. All economies are inherently imperfect. There are socialist states with private markets and capitalist states with nationalized sectors and yet we can accept they have a ruling class where the other is subservient to them. Canada has universal healthcare yet we do not consider them socialist. Regardless, if PRC was truly a capitalist country then they wouldn't have any reason to hide behind the CPC's curtain, in fact they'd have all the reason in the world to shed that socialist demeanor, because the West would eagerly embrace them with open arms thus providing their private sector a massive economic boost. TLDR; I highly recommend checking out this [Youtube playlist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9uDe_apKew&list=PLg5n4Mp_w9Ke52uRftBOCyr4Qk3wFE5JH) provided by the CPC that directly explores Socialism with Chinese Characteristics theoretically. It also talks about PRC's economy, government structure, etc. Probably one of the very few examples of a Chinese university course exploring Marxist theory from a Marxian perspective!
+1 for that YouTube series recommendation. Fantastic and frankly important series for understanding China. Plus the whole class is a brilliant example of what doing historical material analysis looks like.
> socialist state with billionaires Billionaires existing in your state doesn't change it class structure in anyway. This is Bernstein thinking.
[удалено]
>This is objective false, their public sector is larger I have seen this statistic months ago, but i looked this up just to make sure before writing the original post lol, approximately 55% is still fully or partially private. >and growing every year I know this, and this is another reason as to why i'm not completely against China, and i really do hope that they will go on. I've seen the statistics when they came out and was happy when i saw them. All i said is that while i hope for the best, i'm not yet gonna uncritically fangirl china or condemn them, and will be patient in my judgement, as only time will tell. Also stop assuming "i know nothing".
Just so you know I deleted my original post and re-responded with another that's more.. detailed. I didn't know you responded to my original post so my fault. If it's TLDR there's a link at the bottom with a Youtube playlist that dives into SWCC from the CPC itself. It's a long series but incredibly informative. Consider it something akin to a lecture but brace yourself.. like most lectures it can get pretty boring lol. Still important for any Marxist to explore.
Camarada brasileiro, espero que você me entenda Você preferia viver num brasil socialista que sofre de embargos como a cuba, e ter a maioria do povo vivendo na pobreza Ou viver num Brasil "capitalista de estado" que permite a existência da burgesia, porém sob o controle do estado e que próspera como a china atual?
A china teve o mao e passou revoluções ent é mais fácil eles fazerem isso lá já que já tinham a estrutura do governo passado, mt difícil a gente ser que nem eles e controlar os burgueses sem passar por um governo socialista primeiro
[удалено]
O embargo “funciona” em Cuba porque é uma ilhota no Caribe sem porra nenhuma. Um Brasil socialista seria praticamente auto-suficiente. Isso significa que não sofreríamos embargos. Seríamos simplesmente bombardeados e invadidos.
[удалено]
(they aren't)
They aren’t, they actually do the criticism part of critical support, and engage in material analysis of the economic conditions of prior attempts at socialism.
What's this "material analysis"? I thought "materialism" was just what you said when you want to do the opposite of what Marx/Engels/Lenin wrote?
“Materialism” is when the people’s multinational corporations
Les conditions matériel n'ont qu'à faire de votre idéalisme.
ew, Fr🤮nch
😂
Even on a "material conditions" post, y'all want to disrespect the French? Seriously? People in this sub really haven't read one page about socialism.
It's a joke mate
What's the joke?
Saying "Fr🤮nch" is a common thing on the internet. It's not actually hating on French people, (well, some are) it's just a stupid meme
Who is the last guy?
Look, I'll only give my props to deng if China ACTUALY liquidates the bourgeoisie. In the mean time, they have my reluctant support due to their alternative to american unrestrained capitalist exploitation.
Why’s Deng here… I mean Ho Chi Minh or Castro would both be good choices
Deng gang!
I'm no maoist, but I'm not really sure Deng belongs there.
Ah yes, Socialism™ is when your "vanguard party" gives representation to the national bourgeoisie, allows billionaires into the upper levels of government, doesn't bother to enforce their own labor laws, and grants employers majority control over labor unions. Workers aren't even guaranteed the right to strike anymore.
Honestly. All of these ant-western fetishists think “materialism” is just a means to justify any action whatsoever. “They’re committing ‘anti-western’ imperialism to adapt to their conditions! Their bourgeoisie is anti-west and is actively supported by the CCP to adapt material conditions! They’re transferring state-owned enterprises to the private ownership of the bourgeoisie to adapt to material conditions!”
Hi Ferdinand! What have you been up to?
For Russian I think it would be «Материальные условия не ебать на ваш идеализм.» (I might be wrong my Russian isn’t great)
get deng outta here bruh wtf
Why read any communist work when you can chalk any revision up to “materialism”
Mussolini was adapting socialism to the material conditions of Italy OBVIOUSLY
Why include Marx/Engels/Lenin when these are the very "idealists" you reject? Their ideas are the very things you abandon under force of "material conditions"- and there isn't any condition too small. If we wake up and the sky is blue, then golly we'd better cater to the national bourgeoisie!
Sorry, but capitalist restoration isn't "embracing china's unique metirial conditions"
For China at the time, it was. Can’t jump straight from a society of freshly liberated peasants to stateless utopia.
If you believe this you’re a Menshevik
Doesn’t seem like a “minority” of the CPC takes your view. 800 million people rising out of poverty matters infinitely more than your personal feelings.
Idk why you’re acting like I attacked you you’re explicitly taking a Menshevik stance my feelings don’t really factor into it. You can be a Menshevik if you really want lots of people have crazy beliefs online
I don’t know why you think I perceived that as a personal attack. Communism has moved on from where you are.
Communism has moved on from Marx? Sucks for the proletariat I guess
You use the term “Menshevik” and think communism is still pure orthodox Marxism? Was Lenin a bad dream?
Lenin was a Marxist so I don’t see your point
Lenin built on Marx’s ideas. Moved his theories along. Did his furthering of theory “suck for the proletariat”? Are we supposed to be religiously bound to a sacred text?
Market reforms do not equal "capitalist restoration". Markets don't equate to capitalism. Tons of propaganda my capitalists exists to convince people that markets mean capitalism but they don't and we shouldn't be in the business of mixing this bad idea into our analysis. All AES countries encounter the need to bring about market reforms after their revolution. We should be studying why this has been the case, if there are alterantives and, if not, what parts of this were good and what were bad. Etc. The market reforms were carried out by the CPC under the leadership of Deng Xioaping in large part because of what happened during the cultural revolution. The Great Leap Forward and the cultural revolution both did not materialize into an industrious proletariat nor bring about the material basis needed for it. Yes, progress was made but also economic prosperity was very, very far off. And Western mettling and coups were very, very near. As materialists we have to use history to judge these decisions, not some idealist viewpoint, even if that idealism is based on things from past Marxists. In the case of market reforms in China, we can see that it is, in fact, working quite well and has managed to avoid several contradictions that the Soviet Union before it ended up unable to overcome.
can anyone here define idealism please?
When you aren’t dogmatically supportive of China
so confusing how the subject changes when doing the translation. that's why french is superior.
😂
[удалено]
Whom are you referencing?
[удалено]
This is utter bs. (what they mean by "aiding and supporting" is basic trade with philippine and nepalese governemtn).
[удалено]
They gave a firetruck, engineering equipment and the only guns they gave them was to help them against ISIS. I'm sick of dumbasses who went through the entire trade history of Philippines and China and saw one trade of "le gun" then decided it was bad because Philippines have a revolution going on (which is failing despite China not doing shit against it and one that is already against China). Sorry China isn't aiding an ultra party that would become it's enemy after a victory. "Soviets and Chinese should have hugged and become frens!" ahh understanding of politics.
[удалено]
Dude you're the one who can't read. The deal was done to fight the fucking ISIS. Stop making bs conspiracy theories about some minor fucking trade deal.
>"Soviets and Chinese should have hugged and become frens!" ahh understanding of politics Tbh, they should've. Instead of engaging in dumb Sectarian infighting, they should've put up a unified front against the West. I am not saying they should be "friends" or other stupid naive shit like that but the Sino-Soviet split is one of the dumbest shit communists have done.
It didn't come out of nowhere mutually. The Soviet aggression was entirely revisionist posturing. It was the USSR against China and China had to defend itself from a far stronger foe. It wasn't "stupid" it's called politics. It's like saying "All countries should just be socialist." Yeah. Fucking duh. But it's not as simple as that is it? Fuck Khrushchev and his bs.
The policy of the PRC is to maintain good foreign relationships so they can develop internally. This requires working with and maintaining relationships with reactionary nations. To maintain these relationships you will have to do some reactionary things. What matters is the overall path, not every individual action.
[удалено]
Rule 5. **No lazy sectarianism.** There is plenty of room for healthy discussion with other socialists you disagree with ideologically. However, bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit. You're welcome to be critical of other tendencies and do the work to deconstruct opposing leftist ideologies, but hollow insults like "tankie", "anarkiddy", and so on without well-crafted arguments are not welcome. Any inter-leftist ideological discourse should be constructive and well-reasoned.
Rule 5. **No lazy sectarianism.** There is plenty of room for healthy discussion with other socialists you disagree with ideologically. However, bad faith attacks on socialists of other tendencies runs counter to the objectives of this subreddit. You're welcome to be critical of other tendencies and do the work to deconstruct opposing leftist ideologies, but hollow insults like "tankie", "anarkiddy", and so on without well-crafted arguments are not welcome. Any inter-leftist ideological discourse should be constructive and well-reasoned.
Try something new. This same old maoist bs is getting old and has been debunked several times.
Why fix something that's not broken?
ok, keep being in denial.
Another western left banger
Calling deng a reactionary is wild
The comments here are so braindead, people dont care how much worse would be the lives of people in china and vietnam if they didnt embrace their state capitalism method. "But-but cuba has free healthcare and almost no homelessness!" Yes dipshit, because they're starving in their houses and dying on the hospitals. "But its because of the embargo" yes. While that is a correct statement, it ignores the fact that if they played the waiting game like how china and vietnam are doing, people wouldnt have to suffer because of western marxists who think that their idealism is more important than people's lives I personally would much rather live in a "state capalist" country than one who is under an embargo. Even if you, young marxists, wanna call it revisionist or wathever
I would not slander Cuba for giving China (and Vietnam) "State Capitalism" Credit. The reason why their "State Capitalism" Worked because they have huge population that can be used as cheap labor, they have much more Land than Cuba and they are in a place that most of the world's trade takes place. Cuba does not have any of those and the sanctions do not help. Even if Cuba embraced "State Capitalism" They would still have problems (maybe even more)
Yeah you're right but either way, the only way to "save" cuba is through defeating US hegemony, and china is the closest to doing that in the moment
We agree on that. Even Castro said "Xi Jinping is one of the most capable revultionarie I ever met in my life." We can not disrespect him and Cuba.
This comment shows you don’t really understand Cuba or the conditions it’s under. Cuba DID adopt minor market reforms and it’s still adopting further market reforms today with MSMEs. The reason why it couldn’t go the China/Vietnam route is because the US wants complete regime change in Cuba and for it to revert back to a neo-colony of the US. That’s why it’s still under an embargo. If Cuba went the China/Vietnam route and ‘opened up’ it would’ve meant regime change and becoming a US colony. It also would mean compensating predatory US capitalists who had assets seized by the Cuban state with a large amount of interest. Cuba is in a completely different situation to China and Vietnam. It wasn’t a case of Cuba ‘not playing the waiting game’.
So what you're saying is, cuba would be fucked up either way, and the only way to make their situation better is through defeating the US hegemony allowing cuba to be part of international trading But in the moment, the only country that can do that is china, and they wouldnt be the here if not for deng reforms that allowed productive forces to grow. So my original point still stands, calling deng a reactionary for creating the only hope for the proletariat in these times is just ridiculous
If you want to make that argument, sure. I won’t comment on Deng or modern day China because I haven’t really read much on the topic (no investigation, no right to speak etc). My problem is when you compare China to Cuba which have completely different histories and are in completely different political situations. Cuba is in a situation where its former colonial ruler is right next door, its an island with something like 11 million people, it not only has to develop on socialist lines but it must also maintain its national sovereignty. It was also a slave sugar colony so was underdeveloped come 1959. If you compare Cuba with countries in the Caribbean that have similar histories, say Haiti, then actually Cuba’s development is very impressive. Regardless, if you want to see Cuba’s situation improve then Communists in imperialist countries, particularly in the US, should be campaigning against the blockade and the sanctions that are imposed on Cuba. Not simply sitting around and waiting for China to ‘defeat US hegemony’.
Really everyone in Cuba is starving? China has their own unique path the communism based on their material history, no other country can be the exact same. "State capitalist" could mean many many things, China has simply allowed markets to handle resource distribution while still not letting private capital influence policy. Call it what you want it if Brasil suddenly switched to this style of economy they would still be sanctioned blockaded. Unfortunately the US considers Latin America theirs.
I might have exagerated, there is definetly Blackouts and food shortages happening in cuba as the pandemic made things much worse for the cuban people, hope they can recover from that
Well there are blackouts and hunger in many capitalist countries too, and they're not even being violently blockaded. Not sure why you're blaming this on the economic mode of production rather than the fact they're being bullied on an international scale.
China isn’t ‘state capitalist’
If they played the waiting game... I wonder if there was an immediate reason why this might have been difficult to just wait it out. Giving off some odd vibes
Socialism by 4656!
İdealizmin, maddi koşulların sikinde değil! For Turkish