Skip Navigation
GenZedong @lemmygrad.ml
QueerCommie @lemmygrad.ml

Is China socialist?

China will not save us. The global proletariat must rise up.

NOWHERE did I say I oppose China. I just thought this was an interesting video. Watch the fucking thing before hating and yelling about ultras.

46 comments

  • [zhenli真理 responds to 'What makes a country socialist?']

    A society where public ownership of the means of production, a state controlled by a politically organized proletariat, and production for societal use rather than for profit is the principal aspect (main body) of the economy.

    Key term here is principal aspect. There is a weird phenomenon from both anti-communists as well as a lot of ultraleft and leftcom communists themselves of applying a "one drop rule" to socialism, where socialism is only socialism if it's absolutely pure without a single internal contradiction. But no society in the history of humankind has been pure, they all contain internal contradictions and internal contradictions are necessary for one form of society to develop into the next.

    If you applied that same logic to capitalism, then if there was any economic planning or public ownership, then capitalism would cease to be "true capitalism" and become "actually socialism", which is an argument a lot of right-wing libertarians unironically make. The whole "not true capitalism" and "not true socialism" arguments are two sides of the same coin, that is, people weirdly applying an absolute purity standard to a particular economic system which is fundamentally impossible to exist in reality, so they then can declare their preferred system "has never truly been tried". But it will never be tried ever because it's an idealized form which cannot exist in concrete reality, actually-existing capitalism and socialism will always have internal contradictions within itself.

    If no idealized form exists and all things contain internal contradictions within themselves, then the only way to define them in a consistent way is not to define them in terms of perfectly and purely matching up to that idealized form, but that description merely becoming the principal aspect in a society filled with other forms and internal contradictions within itself.

    A capitalist society introducing some economic planning and public ownership doesn't make it socialist because the principal aspect is still bourgeois rule and production for profit. This would mean the state and institutions carrying out the economic planning would be most influenced by the bourgeoisie and not by the working class, i.e. they would still behave somewhat privately, the "public ownership" would really be bourgeois ownership and the economic planning would be for the benefit of the bourgeoisie first and foremost.

    A similar story in a socialist society with markets and private ownership. If you have a society dominated by public ownership and someone decides to open a shop, where do they get the land, the raw materials, permission for that shop, etc? If they get everything from the public sector, then they exist purely by the explicit approval by the public sector, they don't have real autonomy. The business may be internally run privately but would be forced to fit into the public plan due to everything around them demanding it for their survival.

    Whatever is the dominant aspect of society will shape the subordinated forms. You have to understand societies as all containing internal contradictions and seeking for what is the dominant form in that society that shapes subordinated forms, rather than through an abstract and impossible to realize idealized version of "true socialism".

    Countries like Norway may have things that seemingly contradict capitalism like large social safety nets for workers funded by large amounts of public ownership, but these came as concessions due to the proximity of Nordic countries to the USSR which pressured the bourgeoisie to make concessions with the working class. However, the working class and public ownership and economic planning never became the principal aspect of Norway. The bourgeoisie still remains in control, arguably with a weaker position, but they are still by principal aspect, and in many Nordic countries ever since the dissolution of the USSR, the bourgeoisie has been using that dominant position to roll back concessions.

    The argument for China being socialist is not that China has fully achieved some pure, idealized form of socialism, but that China is a DOTP where public ownership alongside the CPC's Five-Year plans remain the principal aspect of the economy and other economic organization is a subordinated form.

    Deng Xiaoping Theory is not a rejection of the economic system the Soviets were trying to build but a criticism of the Soviet understanding socialist development. After the Soviets deemed they had sufficient productive forces to transition into socialism, they attempted to transition into a nearly pure socialist society within a very short amount of time, and then declared socialist construction was completed and the next step was to transition towards communism.

    Deng Xiaoping Theory instead argues that socialism itself has to be broken up into development stages a bit like how capitalism also has a "lower" and "higher" phase, so does socialism. The initial stage is to the "primary stage" of underdeveloped socialism, and then the main goal of the communist party is to build towards the developed stage of socialism. The CPC disagreed that the Soviets had actually completed their socialist construction and trying to then build towards communism was rushing things far faster than what the level of productive forces of the country could sustain and inevitably would lead to such great internal contradictions in the economic system to halt economic development.

    The argument was not a rejection of the Marxist or Marxist-Leninist understanding of what socialism is, but a disagreement over the development stages, viewing socialism's development as much more gradual and a country may remain in the primary stage like China is currently in for a long, long time, Deng Xiaoping speculated even 100 years.

    I recall reading somethings from Mao where he criticized the Marxian understanding of communism, but not from the basis of it being wrong, but it being speculative. He made the argument that Marx's detailed analysis of capitalism was only possible because Marx lived in a capitalist society and could see and research its development in real time, therefore Mao was skeptical the current understanding of communism would remain forever, because when you actually try to construct it you would inevitably learn far more than you could speculate about in the future, have a much more detailed understanding of what it is in concrete reality and what its development stages look like.

    In a sense, that's the same position the modern CPC takes towards socialism, that the Soviets and Mao rushed into socialism due to geopolitical circumstances and did not have time to actually fully grasp what socialist development would look like in practice, and Deng Xiaoping Theory introduces the concept of the primary stage of socialism based on their experience actually trying to implement it under Mao.

    Despite common misconception, the CPC's position is indeed that China is currently socialist, not "will be socialist in 2049" or whatever. The argument is that China is in the primary stage of socialism, a system where socialist aspects of the political and economic system have become the main body but in a very underdeveloped form.

    • You have to understand societies as all containing internal contradictions and seeking for what is the dominant form in that society that shapes subordinated forms, rather than through an abstract and impossible to realize idealized version of “true socialism”.

      Sir, Madam, or Enby, no dialectics here: this is the Metaphysical Cinematic Universe.

    • There is a weird phenomenon from both anti-communists as well as a lot of ultraleft and leftcom communists themselves of applying a “one drop rule” to socialism, where socialism is only socialism if it’s absolutely pure without a single internal contradiction. But no society in the history of humankind has been pure, they all contain internal contradictions and internal contradictions are necessary for one form of society to develop into the next.

      This is a really good way of putting it. So much of ultraleftism is in fact an idealist denial of basic dialectical materialism.

  • I used to like Fellow Traveler, but I immediately view with suspicion anyone who denies that China is socialist.

    China is arguably "more socialist" than the USSR was, and if China isn't socialist, than the USSR never was.

    While there are many ways and thought experiments to quantify socialism, and there isn't and probably shouldn't be just one ultimate factor, I think the simplest measuring stick is something like this:

    Is China run as a country where the means of production are used to produce things primarily for use value? Yes.

    Is private property and investment and commodity production tolerated and all, yet limited to a way greater extent than in neoliberal "democracies"? Also yes.

    Is the commanding heights of the economy controlled by the proletariat, or at least by the state in the name and practical results of favoring the proletariat? Yes.

    That isn't to say that China isn't above criticism or that socialism isn't a constant struggle, but I can't take seriously anyone who seriously questions if China is socialist or not.

    • I had the same take before I watched the video.

      I can’t take seriously anyone who seriously questions if China is socialist or not.

      We should question everything actually. Why should I support China if I do not investigate the reality of the country?

      The video is accurate to the current state of China. They still have a bourgeoisie but there is major proletarian influence. Their definition of socialism is different and he explains deng’s theory. It is a nuanced investigation.

      My take which aligns with his is that China will not go full communism until the world is ready - ie when the world proletariat pushes for it. China is progressive but they are not exporting revolution.

      My disagreement with fellow traveler is it seems he would prefer they export revolution. The USSR showed that policy was a failure because it makes you look like an interventionist and people’s movements look inauthentic.

      • They still have a bourgeoisie but there is major proletarian influence.

        I think this is where you get it wrong (IMO). They may have a bourgeoisie, but those are not running the show. Personally I would put it as- "They still have a dictatorship of the proletariat but there is some bourgeois (influence/existence tolerated in favor of development over dogmatism)"

        The levers of finance remain in the hands of the state. The levers of industry remain in, and where not, accountable to, the hands of the state. The party itself actively works to punish corruption both within and outside of itself, has mass grassroots participation/membership, and evaluates itself and local government/cadres/etc based on tangible improvements in the livelihoods of the masses.

      • I get behind and totally support "ruthless criticism" of everything. And dialectical materialism is baked into my blood.

        I'm also skeptical if China does have a bourgeoisie class. I can definitely see China currently having something analogous to the bourgeoisie class, but the relationship to the means of production and capital is in my view, too different to directly describe as being bourgeoisie. Words have specific meanings, but also the general sentiment often matters more. There is no doubt a metric-shit ton of work still to do, and even China isn't exactly a worker's paradise.

        I have no doubt that billionaires and corrupt CPC members have lots of power, but my partial understanding was that most of China's billionaires seemed to be "billionaires-in-name-only." Sure, they may have net worth in the billions, but only if they are at the head of or play an important part in state-owned enterprises or if the CPC thinks it's necessary to have the capitalist on a leash, which I think is fundamentally different than classical bourgeoisie and proletariat. I still kind of scoff at people that point out that China has billionaires, and view it as a false equivalence. How often does the CPC seem to kick their shit in, fire or imprison billionaires, expropriate their wealth, and limit their power and reach at every step of the way? The BiNO's can afford slightly fancier cars and houses, but they seem to have almost zero real practical power. I'm not naive about the risks, though.

        Though I do think that no government is ever likely 100 percent efficient or 100 percent uncorrupt, and for instance I think it's a fucking travesty that the 696 work schedule and culture still exists, and that the CPC should do more to combat it.

  • "revisionism"

    Hot take but:

    People who seem to say this nowadays say this like a thought-terminating epithet.

    For many, it is, and they say this more than "dogmatism" or "doctrinairism."

    • If someone gets offended seeing the word “revisionist” you know what they are. I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t criticize revisionists. “Revisionism” should not shut down conversation but lead to discussions surrounding what errors were made. Everyone should criticize both dogmatism and improper pragmatism. I know your party falls into much dogmatism itself. You use the same tired electoralist/legalist strategy that supports settler colonialism and accomplishes nothing. You dogmatically cite old CPUSA leaders and continue their failed strategies with minimal critical thought.

      Revisionism is a great scourge on socialist history leading to failures from the US to Nepal. Dogmatism sucks too, but they often go hand in hand.

      • Also, from my viewpoint, the Communist Party of Peru is an example of revisionism in action after Gonzalo took over.

        IMHO, Maoism is revisionist and I think that's the angle you're attacking me from. I could be wrong and you can scuttle your actual angle or position or politics all you like. I'd prefer you state what type of ML or Marxist you are rather and say it proudly rather than try to muddy the waters. Even saying "anti-revisionist ML" would be better at this point.

        But making an an hominem is silly and a trite tactic, much less trying to divert the discussion.

      • Except I never said "don't criticize revisionists."

        Why are you making this about CPUSA when this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand?

      • Nepal is not an example of "revisionism."

        You said:

        “Revisionism” should not shut down conversation but lead to discussions surrounding what errors were made. Everyone should criticize both dogmatism and improper pragmatism.

        That is literally what I'm saying.

46 comments