[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / hikki / metatech / mewch / miku / vfur ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 217a68ad3c58ec6⋯.png (481.61 KB, 472x555, 472:555, 1549036140599.png)

File: bf5dbc31d6ba609⋯.jpg (14.69 KB, 450x245, 90:49, Choubapi.jpg)

 No.2861860

 No.2861864

wow he said he wants to do communism, very cool


 No.2861869

if Xi really wants communists to rally around him he wouldn't have sold weapons to Israel or been helping Duterte try to knock out the NPA. He's a bourgeois stooge and so is the entire CPC.


 No.2861873

At last I truly see….


 No.2861878

>>2861869

>>2861864

>>2861873

Why not just ally with the Western powers outright instead of holding up the "communism" sham if China really wasn't communist?


 No.2861879

8chan is currently owned by someone who works/worked in the CIA. Don't worry that there's so many anti-china mongrels on this board, it's by design. Western "leftism" is anti-communist and leftcom garbage mostly.


 No.2861882

File: 2b4e83e6be78b81⋯.jpg (182.38 KB, 960x684, 80:57, chartoftheday_8824_chinese….jpg)

>>2861878

China is allied with the Western Powers. Just look at Sino-American trade. Economically speaking their practically the same country.

>>2861879

>everyone who disagrees with me is CIA

fuck off


 No.2861884

>>2861882

Trade with capitalist powers doesn't dictate a country's relations of its productive forces, though. Why does China bother getting involved in all this communism stuff when all it does is alienate the West?


 No.2861885

>>2861884

>Why does China bother getting involved in all this communism stuff

words aren’t actions

>>2861884

>en all it does is alienate the West?

It doesn’t, the west doesn’t care what China calls it’s self, as long as it has capitalist property relations.

>>2861884

>Trade with capitalist powers doesn't dictate a country's relations of its productive forces

No, but the millions of Chinese workers employed in Foxcon sweatshops does.


 No.2861886

>>2861882

Lol 80% of western trots ARE fucking CIA. Sorry to break the news.


 No.2861887

I liked him more when he lived in a tree and ate honey.


 No.2861889

>>2861885

>No, but the millions of Chinese workers employed in Foxcon sweatshops does.

So what, the Soviet Union had millions of people employed in steel mills under brutal conditions during the NEP as well. Using force isn't China's style or position; they will achieve socialism through the gradual development of their means of production.


 No.2861890

File: fc009f5f0ef6ea8⋯.png (1.11 MB, 1413x929, 1413:929, t135g53g135g.png)

>This is simply because the petrodollar reflects three centuries of Anglo Saxon global domination

WE HEAR THE SUMMONS


 No.2861891

>>2861882

>their practically the same country.

You should support China then, you Burger nationalist.


 No.2861902

Say it with it me lads. COMMUNISM BY 2050


 No.2861903

File: 999c2f23162a401⋯.pdf (403.68 KB, China - A Modern Social-Im….pdf)

FUCKING READ THE PDF


 No.2861909

>>2861889

>So what, the Soviet Union had millions of people employed in steel mills under brutal conditions during the NEP as well.

The NEP lasted 5 years. Dengism has lasted almost 50 years.

>>2861891

>if you don’t like the PRC that means you support the burger gov

Couldn’t be further from the truth. Their is a third side to the Imperialist stretching between the PRC and the USA. The Side of International Communism.

>>2861886

>Lol 80% of western trots ARE fucking CIA

Source: your ass


 No.2861911

He calls it Communism, but socialsm with Chinese characteristics is more like Chinese Not Socialism.


 No.2861912

>>2861909

>The NEP lasted 5 years. Dengism has lasted almost 50 years.

The USSR lasted 69 years. China lasted already 70 and is still kicking better than ever. They gotta take it nice and easy, achieve economic domination rather than political or military.


 No.2861913

>>2861912

the CPC is literally just the Kuomintang dressed in red


 No.2861922

File: 24f065ba5f49035⋯.jpg (51.36 KB, 460x438, 230:219, deng.jpg)

>>2861860

Not that I'm a dengoid but what would be your reaction be if China would be the first country to achieve communism?

thanks for the image whoever made it. It made me laugh


 No.2861924

>>2861921

whitu pigu go home!

>>2861922

I would have a hearty laff then pack my things


 No.2861925

>>2861924

by pack my things i mean go to chinaland, of course, not leave


 No.2861927

>>2861921

你好破了


 No.2861930

File: b6b5c392247c5d2⋯.jpg (882.34 KB, 1425x4413, 475:1471, Indonesian anon rage again….jpg)

>>2861921

No FUCK YOU. This is how I accurately feel about you fucking barbarian chinese.


 No.2861950

>>2861922

>Not that I'm a dengoid but what would be your reaction be if China would be the first country to achieve communism?

If Neomoaists over through the CCP it’d hopefully turn into a permante revolution.

>>2861921

>>2861930

>the Chinese state is the Chinese nation

you’re all fucking retards. It’s possible to be against the Chinese neofascist government, without hating China or the Chinese people. This applies to America, Russia, Turkey, Britain, and pretty much every country in existence.


 No.2861956

File: 5b8e112708c5597⋯.png (173.23 KB, 800x1672, 100:209, chinese history in a nutsh….png)

>>2861950

CHICOM detected. Chinese are loyal only to Han Chinese and use even shittier forms of taqiya and pilpul. Die scum! No freedom only death if you live in CHINA.

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 劉曉波动态网自由门 1989年4月15日天安门广场 Winnie the Pooh 维尼熊

六四天安門事件

"june 4th Tiananmen Square massacre"

6月4日天安门广场大屠杀

6 Yuè 4 rì tiān'ānmén guǎngchǎng dà túshā

"The Tiananmen Square Massacre on June 4"

六四天安門事件・天安門大屠殺

Red China army killed great number of Chinese democratization's people in Tienanmen

Square in 1989 Jun .Their China military's tanks killed many democratic citizen .

It was awesome and shocking !

文化大革命

Over 40 million Chinese were massacred by red China of Mao Zedong in Chinese culture

revolution (1966-79) .It's awesome cruel !! , communism that … , just a mad dog !

Unbelievable ! But that's truth that all .Cause , red China is the bloody red beast or Satan's

country and area in Bible's John's holy prophecy .

人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence

多黨制 Multi-party system 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 反共 法輪功 北京之春 激流中國

大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 侵略 掠奪 破壞 屠殺 民族淨化

内臟器官 蛇頭 遊進 走私 六合彩 賭博 色情 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 Tibet

達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 東突厥斯坦 East Turkistan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/tiananmen-square-protests-in-pictures/

六四天安門事件

八九民運或是八九學運

1989年春夏之交的政治風波

Tiananmen Square Protests

天安門廣場抗議

Tiananmen Square Massacre

天安門廣場屠殺

請享用

TIANANMEN SQUARE MASSACRE 1989 六四事件 JUNE FOURTH INCIDENT 八九民运 1989 DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT TIANANMEN SQUARE INCIDENT

六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre

反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward

文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system

维尼熊Winnie the Pooh


 No.2861959

>>2861956

good racial speak, economically they are doing pretty good today


 No.2861962

>>2861878

To try prevent another Tiananmen Square from actual leftists.


 No.2861965

>>2861956

You know posting all of that does nothing, right?


 No.2861968

>>2861956

>>2861930

>>2861921

t. schizophrenic


 No.2861969

>>2861956

lol @ this reddit-tier incantation


 No.2861974

File: bdfc8ef39b59599⋯.jpg (2.45 MB, 2312x3980, 578:995, CIA NIGGERS1.jpg)

>>2861959

Not for long…

>>2861965

CHICOM GO HOME!

>>2861968

CIAnigger

>>2861969

CIAnigger

2 out of 4 "leftists" are glow in the dark niggers. Hahaha.

(CIA WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.2861980

>>2861974

If it gets you angrier, China will dominate the 21st century. China will enslave you and deport your dog to a gulag full of Cantonese gourmet chefs. You keep jerking off to your power fantasy about how "Chinese history doesn't exist because invaders" and how "China will get nuked" while slowly, everything around you, including you, will become made in China.

Tell me, how do you feel?


 No.2862004

>>2861980

every night I pray to big daddy Xi to take away my gay-ass parents and bring justice to fascist america


 No.2862008

America is going to be so butthurt after China sinks one of their carriers. I mean just look at all the sinophobia that is already peddled by amerifat liberals. It's definitely going to get a lot worse once the US begins waging open war to reclaim it's crumbling empire.


 No.2862010

>>2862008

America's military is still miles ahead of China's.


 No.2862024

>>2861930

I wonder which country is more successful.

China: soon to be #1 country in the world

Indonesia: corrupt capitalist neo-colonial mafia regime - Indonesian workers are among the least paid in the world, despite harvesting the palm oil that fuels the modern food industry.


 No.2862040

>>2862004

>The world's daddy is a bear who loves honey

I guess it fits


 No.2862041

File: 82f3e603da3cac4⋯.jpg (233.21 KB, 1021x881, 1021:881, ChinaWillGrowLarger.jpg)

>>2861980

I feel like the best I am getting is self-hating white faggot fucks on /leftycuck/ who believe CHICOMs can do and will do anything but deteriorate into successive continual collapse. China is reliant on a paradigm that relies on The US and others being Globalized. It already is made in China and it is right worthless, cuntboi.

>>2862008

CHICOM GO HOME! You can't sink, fly, swim, or die properly.

>>2862024

Chinese street-shitters who are little more than barbarian mongrels remind me of a certain poo-in-loo type cuntry.

Han Chinese are the enemy of all humanity. Kill them all.


 No.2862042

>>2861879

based and Xi pilled


 No.2862047

>>2862041

I don't know if logic will help you see through your blindfold but literally every empire collapses. China isn't the only country that collapses.


 No.2862073

>>2862008

>America is going to be so butthurt after China sinks one of their carriers.

Nuclear powers do not go to war with eachother.


 No.2862125

>>2862073

America is going to be so butthurt after China sinks one of their carriers in a proxy war.


 No.2862132

File: fc387f789cee607⋯.png (168.26 KB, 1080x320, 27:8, kim jong un 7th congress.png)

File: 58de3a864b3f4e4⋯.png (355.05 KB, 569x447, 569:447, hamas bulsae 2.png)

File: 21691548406b4a7⋯.png (324.32 KB, 827x530, 827:530, hamas 9k111.png)

>>2861869

Or voted in favor of sanctions on the DPRK.

tbh he should send weapons to Hamas instead.


 No.2862133

File: 649284060590599⋯.jpg (274.67 KB, 688x1024, 43:64, gettyimages-89615591-1024x….jpg)

>>2861902

>COMMUNISM BY 1981


 No.2862164

>>2862133

Did corn man actually say that?


 No.2862237

Sorry, but learning French is much easier.


 No.2862248

>>2862125

That wouldn’t be a proxie war. In proxie wars two competing powers fund different sides of a conflict inside of a different nation. Great powers don’t fire on each other in Proxie wars. Especially if both have nukes.

>>2862164

yes


 No.2862259

>>2862248

America is going to be so butthurt after one of China's proxies sinks one of their proxies' leased war vessels in a proxy war.


 No.2862316

>>2861878

For the same reason that India or Russia or Iran doesn't outright ally with NATO. China is different however, because unlike all of those countries, it's the only one making inroads in Southeast Asia and Africa, whereas Russia is fighting a wholly defensive war in Ukraine from a greater geostrategical standpoint. NATO funding is ramping up for Europe, which was originally something HRC was all about, until Trump did what every President does and proved there's one ruling-class and it doesn't matter how racist you are. China on the other hand is scaring the shit out of the West with loans.


 No.2862343

>>2861878

Because Mao and socialism is still a powerful and popular sentiment among the people of China


 No.2862350


 No.2862354

Lmao, anglo "lefties" are seething at the Chinese communist dominance


 No.2862390

File: b4e822278058c7e⋯.jpg (69.75 KB, 750x459, 250:153, 55e7b1de5afbd3a4508b4567-7….jpg)

CPC must stay in power by any means necessary even by force. China is the last great communist power left and our last hope to save the name of communism. We must advance slowly and with caution and with all the mistakes of Soviet Union in our minds. This our last chance to save the name of communism and none of this Syria, Russia, Hezbollah anti-imperialism bullshit doesn’t matter at any level compared to that. I agree that they deserve criticism about their mixed economy model but i have yet to see any constructive suggestions on how to build communism without China going through another great leap forward killing millions because of brain dead economic theory. China cant afford that and communists across the world cant afford that anymore. We have to make it right this time and not think that you can just jump into full communism like utterly retarded Mao did. There has to be realistic options on how to move towards the common goal of communism and if it means some level of markets or capitalism then so be it.


 No.2862393

If you ever feel lonely, don't forget the CPC has 90 million members and is the second largest political party on earth.


 No.2862395

>>2861869

You got a source on the NPA?


 No.2862411

>>2861911

Exactly. It's just fascism in a red dress. With all the traditionalist esoteric stuff and everything.


 No.2862437

>>2862390

Read the fucking PDF fam, China is clearly social imperialist and one of the reasons capitalism didn't collapse sooner

>>2861903

>>2862395

You too, also redspark has an entire category for the Philippines, you'll find it there


 No.2862442

File: 1dec7934fa700d1⋯.jpg (87.94 KB, 812x883, 812:883, 0f1.jpg)

>>2861890

>anti-anglo gang

that's some truly old school shit. Brings me back


 No.2862455

>>2862390

No, the CPC must be overthoughn by the Maoist Communist Party of China. This revolution must lead to an international revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoist_Communist_Party_of_China

>>2862390

>I agree that they deserve criticism about their mixed economy model but i have yet to see any constructive suggestions on how to build communism without China going through another great leap forward killing millions because of brain dead economic theory.

Stop repeating Porky talking points

>>2862437

>China is clearly social imperialist and one of the reasons capitalism didn't collapse sooner

No, it’s just capitalist


 No.2862476

All you pro-CPC faggots need to read Chuang. All the real Marxists in China - the ones who have been helping organize the recent strike waves and peasant uprisings not the party bureaucrats - recognize that they are living under state capitalism and that capitalist social relations and private property have been becoming increasingly dominant w/in Chinese society for decades.

>the Xi Jinping regime is fundamentally characterized by the project of building a bourgeois state adequate to the task of governing capitalist society for many years into the future—in contrast with previous regimes (from Deng Xiaoping to Hu Jintao), which “provisionally” made do with the remnants of socialist-era institutions for short-sighted aims.

>The Xi regime has already gone much farther in this regard, and it has put a lot of effort on trying to transform the state’s ideological apparatus. It’s trying create an ideological system capable of justifying the long-term existence of capitalism in China. The emphasis has been on digging through traditional Chinese thought and reviving ideas such as ge an qi wei (各安其位): everyone should accept their fate and take it as a moral obligation to play the role they’re assigned in a hierarchy. Women should obey men, children should obey their parents, workers should obey their bosses, etc.

>As for the regime’s economic strategy, this has two main aspects. One is the assertion of more direct control over the central SOEs, opposing those in the party who have advocated privatizing them and instead reaffirming their role as the central state’s most important source of income. The current campaign to reduce excess capacity in the steel and coal sectors needs to be understood as part of this broader strategy.

>The second is the localization (本土化) and upgrading of manufacturing: moving from the mere supply of products for foreign companies to the development of Chinese brands, doing our own research and development, and moving up the industrial chain to higher value production.

>Connfucianism is extremely widespread, and not just among the private bourgeoisie. If anything it was the CCP that initiated the revival of Confucianism in mainland China. Although the Xi regime has gone further in incorporating this into the CCP’s propaganda videos, posters, etc.

>This is how I would summarize the political situation over the past four years: Chairman Xi has begun to carry out state-building (建设国家). Prior to this, the Chinese government was like a protracted provisional government, from Deng’s market reforms all the way up until Chairman Hu stepped down [in 2012]. The task of state-building kept getting postponed. A sort of bourgeois state gradually came into being, but it was like the frame of a house: it had a roof, but there was no glass in the windows, and the interior wasn’t furnished at all. People could live inside, they could even invite some guests over, but…. If you say “incomplete bourgeois state,” that could be misunderstood as meaning the bourgeoisie hadn’t formed yet. It had formed, but especially on the spiritual level, its tentacles hadn’t yet penetrated deep into the minds of the people. It hadn’t yet established a complete set of rules and regulations for long-term planning. Chairman Xi is finally attempting to build a long-term state. In this sense, I think you could say that Chairman Xi is a founding father (国父). He’s trying to build something that could last for hundreds of years

>On the other hand, judging by past experience, a revolutionary crisis is often sparked not by a struggle in the industrial sphere, but by something peripheral (外围) to it, such as a riot, a student protest, housewives trying to get bread for their families. But in each case, those struggles function only as a spark that ruptures the social order. After that, the only thing capable of ultimately changing the capitalist order, the leading force, is the organized industrial working class. At least that’s how I see it.

I honestly seriously question the real commitment or theoretical knowledge who supports Xi and the CPC. If your Marxism is about supporting anyone who uses communist lingo and red flags and not about serving the interest of the working class it is worthless.


 No.2862477


 No.2862481

>>2862476

I'm so confused by China. Lately I've been reading up on it and have been pleasantly surprised by how misinformed I've been. I don't think Xi is some secret Marxist hiding his power level behind bourgeois reform, but I still think China's rise to super power status would be a good thing, especially since they really do seem serious about environmental stuff, more so than the Americans. I just don't know who I should look up to there.


 No.2862483

>>2862481

Your problem is you're looking up, not to the side, what you need to have faith in is the proletariat as the revolutionary class. Find a good party, agitate, fight for stuff working people want and never take the side of the bourgeois or the state.


 No.2862487

>>2861878

>If the British Empire and the German Empire were both capitalist why weren’t they allies?


 No.2862494

File: fbc46b3eb05b8fc⋯.jpg (10.39 KB, 391x391, 1:1, 959.jpg)

I just don't get China at this point. Although I agree that it would be better if Maoist btfo Dengoids somehow.


 No.2862498

>>2862494

There's not much to "get", it's single party state capitalism


 No.2862504

>>2862498

But is it bad? The living standards did rise extremely high and made it well off.


 No.2862509

>>2862504

Well it's bourgeois, so it's just as bad as France, US, Britain or any advanced capitalist country for the working man. Living standards have risen overalll but life in the "Free Economic Zones" and in the rural territories is hell.


 No.2862525

>>2862509

True to a degree. But I unironically think that the one redeeming quality of China is it's authoritarianism, because 1) it allows them to engage in a degree of planning which makes them capable of committing to environmental measures and 2) because the authority is based on Communist "mythology" which, by extension means people have access to Marx, Mao and so on.

Also, I remember reading somewhere there are still significant cliques within the party and the military that are actually Communists, which forces the CPC to at least pretend they take socialism seriously. I can't find it now, but can some more learned anon confirm if there's any truth to this?


 No.2862530

File: 510602595236993⋯.jpg (255.73 KB, 1590x1002, 265:167, Mao-Tse-tung.jpg)

But does anyone think that there's a chance for China to turn to socialism with Maoist characteristics? It certainly is developed enough. If so would the struggle be in the party like with the NEP or a new revolution?


 No.2862538

China not backing up other communists (or sending my socialist group free pamphlets in the mail) sucks but it's my understanding China's leaders see that as a regrettable but necessary move to preserve their own system in a world dominated by capital. "The enemy advances, we retreat" kind of thing.


 No.2862542

White Left Fascists tremble in the face of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.


 No.2862545

>>2862504

>The living standards did rise extremely high and made it well off.

Following WW2 the living standards of prols in America rose, does that mean that Marxists in the 60s should support the American state? No, during capitalist development there is a phase where living standards rise for workers,but eventually this stagnates and starts to reverse. China right now is where the West is during the postwar era.

>>2862525

>But I unironically think that the one redeeming quality of China is it's authoritarianism

>authoritarianism is good

Wtf? Authoritarianism is not central planing, it’s when their are intelligence agencies that spy on people and murder people in the night. In fact one could say that America is more authoritarian than China.

>>2862481

>especially since they really do seem serious about environmental stuff, more so than the Americans.

The reason China cares more about the environment than America is because America is the world’s biggest oil producer. China isn’t.


 No.2862597

So what are they gonna do with that Panchen Lama guy and their occupation of Tibet?


 No.2862599

>>2862542

Lowering working hours from 12 hours a day 6 days a week to 8 hours a day 5 days a week is left Fascism.


 No.2862614

I think America and China seem to live in a entirely different frame reference. During the founding of America the early period is marked my massive improvement in living conditions due to it's shift from mercantilist colonialism under the neurochirurgie empire to classical liberalism with adaquate amounts of aritable land to grow on. Productive forces skyrocketed and so on and so forth. Later on the Ruling order became a modified liberalism to account for the rise of the accumulation of capital into the hands of the few in the mid to late 19th century.

Americans look back on the founding fathers in the same way that the Chinese look back on Mao and co. As people who had the right Idea and now it has been distorted into something else entirely. For China it was certainly Demy that had dîné that but for America it is unclear due to conspiracy theorists.


 No.2862615

>>2862614

*British

My biligual keyboard sometimes goes haywire.


 No.2862617

China eating away at American hegemony is ALWAYS a good thing. No matter the means. America and the west are filled with psychopathic scum.


 No.2862619

File: 776300851f19c8c⋯.jpg (158.01 KB, 1000x710, 100:71, 1550724109816.jpg)


 No.2862631

File: 22e0c00bbd89267⋯.png (32.92 KB, 700x500, 7:5, ClipboardImage.png)

File: d308b2835cd99d2⋯.png (23.73 KB, 555x324, 185:108, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2862481

As always we should be looking "up to" the proletarians, and more specifically their strongest and most conscious elements: the organized industrial workers. Thankfully this class is giving us much to get excited about (pics related). the next step is for Chinese organic working class intellectuals, students, etc. to spread the ideas of Marxism to these workers and begin the process of party formation. This is exactly what real Marxists have been trying to do and are being stymied by the treacherous, bourgeois CPC.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/21/669509554/in-china-the-communist-partys-latest-unlikely-target-young-marxists


 No.2862698

>>2862525

> makes them capable of committing to environmental measures

Laughed my ass off


 No.2862704

>>2861885

>Determing the class character if a state by judging from literally ONE private industry

lmao, very materialistic from you hahaha


 No.2862707

>>2862704

Over 50% of Chinese industry is privately owned, and the SOEs operate like SOEs in imperialist countries do. You actually need to transform the social relations in the workplace to have replaced the capitalist mode of production with the communist one.


 No.2862779

>>2862707

>Over 50% of Chinese industry is privately owned

True, but the main economic sector, the sector that holds the heights of economy, is the socialist one, under the DoTP this constitutes the socialsit class charachter of China

They have a monopoly in following sectors:

aerospace

airlines,

aluminum,

architecture & design,

automotive,

aviation,

banking,

chemicals,

coal,

cotton,

electronics,

engineering,

forestry,

heavy equipment,

gold,

grain,

heavy machinery,

intelligence services,

iron,

materials,

metallurgy,

mining,

non-ferrous metals,

nuclear energy,

ocean shipping,

oil,

pharmaceuticals,

postal services,

rail,

salt,

science and technology research,

ship building,

silk,

steel,

telecoms,

travel

utilities

also all twenty of Chinese largest copanies are State owned

to qoute Lenin:

>Within the limits indicated, however, this is not at all dangerous for socialism as long as transport and large-scale industry remain in the hands of the proletariat.

(Lenin, Third Congress Of The Communist International, 1921)

https://medium.com/@xplk/three-questions-about-china-and-the-communist-party-of-china-7056e40b40f3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Chinese_companies


 No.2862785

>>2862779

State ownership is not socialism though. How can you say China is socialist when the profits of its economy go to financing capitalist business and not human needs first and foremost? How many decades can this country stay in NEP-mode?


 No.2862786

>>2862779

Again, where's the difference in social relations?

<inb4 co-ops are ultra left and a relic of the GCPR


 No.2862803

>>2862785

>State ownership is not socialism though

>Again, where's the difference in social relations?

Well the State sector is organized under socialist principles, resembling the socialist workers democracy in past and current socialist states.

Every Industry (even private ones) with over 100 Workers that are CPCh Members are required to open a CPCh workers cell, wich has leading decicion making roles in state owned enterprises as well as completing the 5 year plans and working according to it.

State owned industries also have the congress of the workers and staff members wich is the basic foundation of workers democracy in China, elected by workers inside the Enterprise bottom up, in a democratic centralist manner.

http://en.people.cn/92824/92845/92869/6439952.html

http://www.china.org.cn/english/DAT/214784.htm


 No.2862807

>>2862803

>resembling the socialist workers democracy in past and current socialist states

What does this mean? Co-ops exist in states that are clearly capitalist, if that was the point. Even you could do the opposite – have a socialist state with no workplace democracy because the relations of the productive forces would still be for the profit of people not business and capitalist means like stocks, advertising, etc..

>Every Industry (even private ones) with over 100 Workers that are CPCh Members are required to open a CPCh workers cell, wich has leading decicion making roles in state owned enterprises as well as completing the 5 year plans and working according to it.

State-mandated employees and goals don't equal socialism, though. They can be an aspect of a socialist state however may be entirely separate from it.


 No.2862824

>>2862807

>What does this mean? Co-ops exist in states that are clearly capitalist, if that was the point.

Those are aren'T a few Co-ops inside a capitalist system those organization make up all of the state sector that is being ruled by a dictatorship of the proletariat- it costitutes a socialist mode of production

>State-mandated employees and goals don't equal socialism, though

It is another way of practiced workers democracy inside enterprises


 No.2862883

>>2862824

>>2862779

>>2862803

>>2862824

A capitalist system with some socialist elements is still capitalist. Socialism can only exist as an absolute. Half of the economy in France is state owned. That doesn’t make France half socialist half capitalist. It makes France capitalist.


 No.2862904

File: b77b6e9b9c294be⋯.png (205.44 KB, 485x417, 485:417, red flag.png)

>>2862883

>Socialism can only exist as an absolute.

Why? I think the reasoning in pic related could be applied to socialism as well. (I'm not arguing China is socialist btw.)

>Half of the economy in France is state owned. That doesn’t make France half socialist half capitalist.

That is because state ownership is not necessarily socialist (irregardless of the percentage), not because socialist productive relations couldn't theoretically coexist with another mode of production. You could increase 50% to 100% and France still wouldn't (necessarily) be socialist.


 No.2862906

>>2862904

>>2862883

Also saying "socialism can only exist as an absolute" means that even if we lived in the socialist utopia of your dreams, all it would take to turn it into a capitalist society is for me to get one person to do wage work for me.


 No.2862973

>>2862906

>all it would take to turn it into a capitalist society is for me to get one person to do wage work for me.

This is true because even if one tiny action of capitalist exploitation occurs, the society as a whole is not socialist.


 No.2862975

>>2862973

that's just retarded fam


 No.2863111

>>2862883

>A capitalist system with some socialist elements is still capitalist

How is the main mode of production that consists of the imortant heights of economy, the most important sector of a country, socialist organized a "socialist element in capitalism"

Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

>Socialism can only exist as an absolute

>>2862973

>This is true because even if one tiny action of capitalist exploitation occurs, the society as a whole is not socialist.

This is just ultra left childishness, and it is a straight deviation from Marxism, Socialism is a transitional period that transforms into their higher stage, communism. It gradually abolishes private property, to expect it to directly abolish all kinds of property is unmaterialist. It also is a weird understanding of Marxist-Leninist State analysis. Capitalism, as welll as Socialism, is defined by the ownership of the means of production and (this is important) the question of the class dictatorship. There being one wage labourer in a country without him not having a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, it isn't capitalism.

To qoute Engels:

>Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.


 No.2863123

>>2863111

>How is the main mode of production that consists of the imortant heights of economy, the most important sector of a country, socialist organized a "socialist element in capitalism"

Because the other half of the economy is capitalist. In addition Chinease state owned companies produce for exchange value, instead for use value. They also engage in wage labor, and thus exploitation. This is capitalist. Regardless if their is state owned companies or not, or if it occurs under a communist ruling party.

>>2863111

>Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

Yes, Mao did it.

>>2863111

>No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

More productive forces are not needed for the creation of socialism. China was socialist during the Mao period when the productive forces were at a lower level then where they were today.

>>2863111

> Socialism is a transitional period that transforms into their higher stage, communism. It gradually abolishes private property, to expect it to directly abolish all kinds of property is unmaterialist.

No socialism is the period of time where private property, wage labor, and production for exchange have been eliminated. But not the state. Once the state has been eliminated only than can communism be achieved.

>>2863111

>Capitalism, as welll as Socialism, is defined by the ownership of the means of production and (this is important) the question of the class dictatorship. There being one wage labourer in a country without him not having a dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, it isn't capitalism.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not socialism. It is a form of capitalism where the Proletariat have seized control of the state. It is not socialism.

>>2863111

>only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

This is in reference to Communism not socialism. As China was socialist under the Mao era when it was less developed.


 No.2863132

>>2863123

>Yes, Mao did it.

I really don't think that's accurate.

>China was socialist during the Mao period when the productive forces were at a lower level then where they were today.

You're right, but no rational person gives a flying fuck if your country ticks all the theoretical boxes to be accurately labeled "socialist" or not if you're poor as shit and the standard of living is still very low. You might be able to argue that the economic development of China would've been possible without the reform and opening up, but clearly something needed to be done about the poverty and economic backwardness of China (and the reforms have been extremely effective at that).


 No.2863143

>>2861890

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧I approve of this post🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧


 No.2863186

>>2863123

>Because the other half of the economy is capitalist

As I pointed out, this is not the main economic sector, it is subordinated to the socialist one.

> In addition Chinease state owned companies produce for exchange value, instead for use value. They also engage in wage labor, and thus exploitation

The surpluce value the workers produce are used to better the overall lfing of society, just like in every other socialist state.

To quote Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme:

>From this must now be deducted [from the value created by people]: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

>These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

>There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

>Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relie

>Yes, Mao did it.

And it was an ultra left deviation as the past has shown and how engels pointed out, it is inconsistent with marxist theory and dialectial materialism

>More productive forces are not needed for the creation of socialism. China was socialist during the Mao period when the productive forces were at a lower level then where they were today.

in order to reach a communist society there absolutly needs to be a high aboundance of productive forces. How else would you organize a society where good would be redistributed without any payment , without money?

Even so capitalisms historical mission is to develop the productive forces high enough to pave the way for socialism.

This is the basis of historical materialism your arguing against.

>No socialism is the period of time where private property, wage labor, and production for exchange have been eliminated. But not the state. Once the state has been eliminated only than can communism be achieved.

True but still, socialism constitutes the transitional period of capitalism to communism, against this is the basis of dialectical materialism

To quote Marx:

>Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

(Critique of the Gotha Programme IV)

>The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not socialism. It is a form of capitalism where the Proletariat have seized control of the state. It is not socialism.

What? I'am not saying that a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is socialism, but that Capialism as well as Socialism need a dictatorship of their class, otherwise it wouldn't constitute the respective mode of production

>As China was socialist under the Mao era when it was less developed.

True, but it was a lower form of socialism, socialism with poverty can'T advance to communism, socialism needs high developed productive forces to develop to communism.

The whole economic mode of Socialism arises soley because capitalist private highly developed productive forces are used to produce in a society scale but are not controlled by society neither rather by private capitalist and those contradictions result in a socialist revolution


 No.2863190

>>2863186

Another qoute from Lenin on the subject:

>Capitalism is a bane compared with socialism. Capitalism is a boon compared with medievalism, small production, and the evils of bureaucracy which spring from the dispersal of the small producers. Inasmuch as we are as yet unable to pass directly from small production to socialism, some capitalism is inevitable as the elemental product of small production and exchange; so that we must utilise capitalism (particularly by directing it into the channels of state capitalism) as the intermediary link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, and a method of increasing the productive forces. (Tax in Kind)


 No.2863203

File: 5c488be99fb484d⋯.jpg (85.37 KB, 804x802, 402:401, nrhj2rz4qu911.jpg)

I'm not trying to do a gotcha I am legitimately confused by this so please try to answer in earnest: if xi is truly socialist or at least more sympathetic to true socialism than past Chinese leaders why does he crack down so hard on so called "New Left" orgs even if they are fundamentally Maoist/Marxist and even the ones who are fine with him being president and just want more worker organization? Does he think they're all wreckers or something? If so that's kind of strange to me cuz stuff like this has always existed in socialist states, including china, and while some were cia and shit a lot were genuine people's movements fighting against revisionism


 No.2863249

>>2862698

cannot dispute this high quality argument.


 No.2863268

ITT: LARPers fantasizing about how the extremely brutal, corrupt, authoritarian Chinese Communist Party "Will" do all the work for you delusional NEET's with "World Revolution" bullshit, when they are just authoritarian capitalists with communist bullshit imagery and propaganda.

I'd like to see the CCP send ☭TANKIE☭s into Chinese concentration camps.

Human experimentation on ☭TANKIE☭s and anarchists would be amusing.

Then fascists can get gassed.

While we Radical Centrists laugh smugly at you all.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

 No.2863274

>>2863203

I feel exactly the same. Someone please help.


 No.2863276

>>2863268

>authoritarianism is bad

>unless it's being used to kill ☭TANKIE☭s

1/10 I replied


 No.2864036

>>2861860

>>2861864

Are you retards literally illiterate? He never said he wants to go to communism. All the article is saying is that China prioritizes extracted surplus value into long term projects while the west doesn't. Oh, and poor third world countries have nothing to fear from being indebted to China.


 No.2864100

>>2863203

I think the idea is that the "New Left" organizations, while socialist, lack understanding of the material conditions present in China and the contradictions of their underdeveloped productive forces, and instead stick to a hardline communist stance. Basically that their naivety is damaging the Chinese state and it's efforts to build socialism.

Not sure how accurate this is, this is just what I've heard from supporters of the CCP.


 No.2864102

>>2864100

>underdeveloped productive forces

While being the world's factory? China today isn't what it was 50 years ago.


 No.2864103

>>2864102

I think the issue now is unequal development of them? I'm not a Dengist though.


 No.2864115

File: 8fc5abcda0a2633⋯.jpg (11.04 KB, 236x311, 236:311, 63d534756f801cfc36f3c0c21d….jpg)

>>2864103

>Developing material conditions is when you become an ultra developed nation but stick to full Dengism anyway and don't even do a minimum of succdem tier labor organization


 No.2864326

File: b2017e94e01597d⋯.jpg (20.93 KB, 451x445, 451:445, 5b27.jpg)

>>2864115

China doesn't want things interfering with surplus value extraction.


 No.2864902

File: 6e8519a7261728b⋯.jpg (19.81 KB, 960x422, 480:211, 6e8519a7261728bc6f4c83987e….jpg)

>>2863186

You are comparing the level of productive forces of the mid-1800s and the early 1900s with today, which is completely senseless. Capitalism has reached is crisis by overproduction already by the late 20s, and while China was a nation suffering from colonialism and imperialism before catching up, it has arguably reached that level now as well. China has two major problems: It can't feed it's enormous population without imports, and it can't supply it with power without imports. This is a question of internationalism and the obvious shortcomings of "socialism in one country" if the resources of said country aren't plentiful enough to make it self-reliant. Obviously, if the USSR was still around, and the Sino-Soviet split never occurred, there wouldn't be this problem but this in my opinion is not enough to justify the policy of the CPC which is exactly what Lenin called state-capitalism, have you actually looked into how the SOEs in China produce? Every year they are being taken on the leash of the market more, they have to be more competitive, and more profitable (and no we are not talking about "socialist profits" as it existed in the USSR where you are supposed to use up resources effectively), China is clearly on the path towards full-capitalism, and once it can't maintain its growth rates, the CPC has only two options: Actually trying to do socialism again, or privatizing the massive public sector so that neoliberalism can feed itself on the corpse of the state, just how Reagan and Thatcher did it in the 80s.

Now, please do tell, with a completely realistic view on the leading caste of the CPC, what do you think is more likely? That the CPC, ruling party of a capitalist superpower with billionaires in their ranks, will organise a society according to the principles of the Critique of the fucking Gotha Program, or just privatise more to sustain growth rates and rate of profit? The former option would be a huge risk to their power and possibly triggering another Cold War, the latter option would be smooth and easy without any turmoil and guarantees a grip on power 100%.

>>2863190

Yeah that's the fucking NEP he's talking about here, and if you actually read about Lenin during the early USSR he and others were constantly paranoid about opening Pandora's box, which is why the NEP actually ended. What China does is beyond the wildest stretch not what Lenin argued for and probably even Bukharin would be against it eventually.


 No.2864941

>>2862476

>>2862477

I've read all of this now, and it's certainly an interesting read. However, I disagree with two main points:

1.) The guy says the "proletariat has no organisations of its own" - this seems to ignore all the inroads by socialist institutions provided by a Marxist-Leninist state, such as worker councils, industrial unions, etc. - and while I'm sure some of them are corrupt or serve capital interests, to completely outrule them as any means of proletarian agitation and to only see insurrectionism as the solutions strikes me as ultra-leftist lunacy.

2.) He claims that the heads of ministries, the Central Committee of the CPC and the Politburo are all just "butlers" to the real, capitalistic cabal secretly controlling everything. He talks about a "council of elders". When the interviews asks him how this cabal exercises power, he says he has no idea. He also doesn't know how many people are in this inner circle. When the interviewer asks him how he knows all of this, he responds with that it is "common knowledge in China". I'm sorry, but that is some tinfoil hat tier unsubstantiated shit.


 No.2867243

>>2864902

China is not ruled by Billionaires, the socialist sector is the main economic mode in China under a DoTP, the CPCh's socialist state sector has a far greater grip on the economy than the USSR ever had in their NEP phase.

The CPC is not a bourgeois power, it has few Capitalists in their ranks, but those certainly don'T exercise any hegemonic power, they are bound to the CPCh, so they are even allowed to operate. It is a tool to stop them from developing autonomy.

Also: there are bishops in the NPC, but you wouldn't call it a theocracy


 No.2867251

File: 28532b4a0ff1bf6⋯.png (231.66 KB, 500x913, 500:913, no liberal ideology.png)

>>2867243

But muh r/socialism says ebil China ebil capitalists must support US against China.


 No.2867252

>>2864902

TAKE OFF YOUR HAT RIGHT NOW FUCKING SHILL SCUM


 No.2867254

>>2867243

>China is not ruled by Billionaires, the socialist sector is the main economic mode in China under a DoTP, the CPCh's socialist state sector has a far greater grip on the economy than the USSR ever had in their NEP phase.

Explain what "socialist sector" entails. Everything that's state-owned or where the state holds more than 50% of the shares? That alone doesn't make it socialist. Many SOEs that were established under Mao did go through multiple reforms under Hu Jintao and Xi Jingping, including several reforms to make them more profitable and competitive, which included things like laying off workers to cut costs. In fact, class struggle in China emerges more often in SOEs than not, and barely affects the Foxconn like companies on the coast.

>China is not ruled by Billionaires

CPC elites get rich off SOEs too! Just because something is state-owned doesn't mean people can't embezzle shit. In the West you have dozens of CEOs of state-owned companies like train networks which are millionaires. I mean, fuck, the PDVSA was state-owned before Chavez socialised it, which caused a lot of managers to leave, because just like in any state-capitalist economy there is collusion between the state sector and the private sector, which is especially true with China where politicians, billionaires, bureaucrats, etc. split the cake amongst themselves while emerging petit-bourgeoisie ("middle class") gets excluded, which is why these people are the biggest proponents of liberal democracy in China.

>The CPC is not a bourgeois power, it has few Capitalists in their ranks, but those certainly don'T exercise any hegemonic power, they are bound to the CPCh, so they are even allowed to operate. It is a tool to stop them from developing autonomy.

On what fucking level of idealism are you on? They don't need to be nominally capitalist (owners of means of production) when they collude with them. Please read the second issue of Chuang because the guy talks about the class composition of the upper echelon of the CPC. You might as well argue that Nazi Germany was socialist because they had a very similar model, only that it was centered more around Hitler and his clique as persons and less around the NSDAP institutions.


 No.2867255

>>2867243

>China is not ruled by Billionaires

Xi's net worth is 1.5 billion


 No.2867257

>>2867255

And where did you obtain such "information" ??


 No.2867259

Plus, can anybody of the CPC defenders link me something where they actually delve into Marxism? Or how they have any plans to transition to anything more socialistic by 2050 compared to what they have now? I've looked hard to find anything where they actually talk about Marxism proper. This guy visited a Marx conference in China and reported terminally revisionist trash:

https://monthlyreview.org/2007/09/01/the-state-of-official-marxism-in-china-today/

You can't just call yourself a communist party and pretend you don't need theoretical content.


 No.2867260

>>2867259

Idk, the leader of the CPC just gave a great quote. Another one is in the OP


 No.2867261

>>2867255

The only numbers I can find hover around a million. Which isn't much considering he has the highest position in the CPC.

>>2867259

>https://monthlyreview.org/2007/09/01/the-state-of-official-marxism-in-china-today/

Have they written an update? This was written in 2007.


 No.2867262

>>2867261

Well Hudson, Harvey, Roberts and many others are at Marxist conferences in China almost every year. They talk and write about the thriving marxist thought there.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / hikki / metatech / mewch / miku / vfur ]