Since when does Orthodox Marxism-Leninism mean operating a market economy? Since when does it mean having billionaires? Since when does it mean having private ownership of the means of production? Since when does it mean having the landlord class?
While China is obviously not as bad as the US or European social democracies it neither is a socialist state nor even a dictatorship of the proletariat (capital seeks to control every state it’s operating under!) how can you speak of a dictatorship of the working class when the CPC has bourgeois members within it?
This is always such a useless and thought-terminating cliche: While it looks (and arguably is) horrible that the Communist Party of China has or is affiliated with billionaires, the truth is that billionaires (at least not ones connected to state-owned enterprises) have almost no political power in the government as a whole.
Billionaires and the rich are tolerated for different reasons, but ultimate power rests with the CPC, which control the commanding heights of the economy, and almost always direct it in a pro-working class way.
Even Lenin argued that socialism is basically a more advanced version of state capitalism, except with the proceeds going towards average working people and society as a whole.
Comparing modern China to the USSR is almost apples to oranges. The USSR had very little time to build socialism, and had to brute force it.
According to Marx’s original writings, he strongly argued AGAINST this. He argued that it would be best for a socialist society to slowly and steadily nationalize/collectivize workplaces and economic entities, as they maximized gains from the slow capitalist transition, because they outlived their usefulness, and centralization would be the next logical step, instead of random companies accumulating profit inefficiently.
There are some revisionist elements in the CPC (I’m wary of Li Qiang for example) but I definitely wouldn’t call Xi a revisionist. His installment as General Secretary was more or less an orthodox marxist coup against revisionist Shanghai politicians.
Just read up on Xi’s anti-corruption campaign, while it wasn’t explicitly an ideological purge it’s pretty clear that those that it removed weren’t exactly devoted marxists.
I have alot of respect for Li Qiang, and while I understand being wary of officials advocating even for limited market forces, he seems to be one of the more genuine and driven and simultaneously pro-marxist officials in the party.
Is there anything in particular that makes you very wary of him?
He just seems a little more pro-private enterprise then I feel comfortable with. He at least seems competent and I don’t think he is an outright revisionist like Gorbachev, but enough to make me skeptical.
While Xi and the CPC is somewhat revisionist they’re nowhere near close Trump level evil
How can you call the CPC revisionist? They are arguably the most orthodox (aside from mainly Cuba and Vietnam) of communist parties.
Since when does Orthodox Marxism-Leninism mean operating a market economy? Since when does it mean having billionaires? Since when does it mean having private ownership of the means of production? Since when does it mean having the landlord class?
https://www.theredspectre.com/against-dengism
While China is obviously not as bad as the US or European social democracies it neither is a socialist state nor even a dictatorship of the proletariat (capital seeks to control every state it’s operating under!) how can you speak of a dictatorship of the working class when the CPC has bourgeois members within it?
This is always such a useless and thought-terminating cliche: While it looks (and arguably is) horrible that the Communist Party of China has or is affiliated with billionaires, the truth is that billionaires (at least not ones connected to state-owned enterprises) have almost no political power in the government as a whole.
Billionaires and the rich are tolerated for different reasons, but ultimate power rests with the CPC, which control the commanding heights of the economy, and almost always direct it in a pro-working class way.
Even Lenin argued that socialism is basically a more advanced version of state capitalism, except with the proceeds going towards average working people and society as a whole.
Comparing modern China to the USSR is almost apples to oranges. The USSR had very little time to build socialism, and had to brute force it.
According to Marx’s original writings, he strongly argued AGAINST this. He argued that it would be best for a socialist society to slowly and steadily nationalize/collectivize workplaces and economic entities, as they maximized gains from the slow capitalist transition, because they outlived their usefulness, and centralization would be the next logical step, instead of random companies accumulating profit inefficiently.
There are some revisionist elements in the CPC (I’m wary of Li Qiang for example) but I definitely wouldn’t call Xi a revisionist. His installment as General Secretary was more or less an orthodox marxist coup against revisionist Shanghai politicians.
I’m also curious where you see that Xi has mostly targeted revisionist Shanghai politicians.
I’m not disagreeing with you, or not entirely, but I feel like you have something specific relating to this.
Just read up on Xi’s anti-corruption campaign, while it wasn’t explicitly an ideological purge it’s pretty clear that those that it removed weren’t exactly devoted marxists.
I have alot of respect for Li Qiang, and while I understand being wary of officials advocating even for limited market forces, he seems to be one of the more genuine and driven and simultaneously pro-marxist officials in the party.
Is there anything in particular that makes you very wary of him?
He just seems a little more pro-private enterprise then I feel comfortable with. He at least seems competent and I don’t think he is an outright revisionist like Gorbachev, but enough to make me skeptical.