/lit/ - Literature

I'm not a tranny

>>13311583
I believe in God

mao is god-tier commie writer. i like reading him even more than marx. stalin has no commie classics and is an irrelevant detour in the development of socialism.

>>13311648
What would you rec from the Chairman? Is the Little Red Book more than a meme?

>>13311676
it's a meme and good. it has his thoughts distilled into something easy and comprehensible to even illiterate farmers. part of the reason how he managed to organize those farmers into a revolutionary army.

if you do any communist organizing, On Liberalism is essential.
On Practice and On Contradictions are his main philosophical works.

>>13311583
Propaganda, mao was 3 inches taller than stalin

i have

>>13311648
Unironically good post. Mao's syncretism and cretinism are unparalleled by even Trotskyists, and their theory stinks like rotten shit.

How am I meant to take Mao seriously after the whole pig iron and sparrow things
I mean I get it, he did accomplish an absurd amount but his capacity for retardation seems limitless

Because they're both retard commies.

If someone wrote a cookbook and every time someone tried to cook anything using that book, people who ate the food died. Why would I want to read that cookbook?

If people write endless books about a thing that provably doesn't work, what can I gain from reading their books other than what not to do?

>>13311583
>oogaboogachingchongovochikillpeoplewithglasses

>>13311878
>american education
considering the state that Mao founded is flourishing and successful today should probably make you want to recant that retarded position, even if you were to say "hurr but china is capitalist" it's still the same state that was founded by Mao, has Mao on their dollars, and has communist party meetings, reading Mao, dare I say it, might actually be useful for understanding the second largest economy on earth

They are not translated to my language. Altho maybe Stalin is, I'll check.

>>13312560
>china is flourishing
>losing ariable farm land by thousands of miles every year
>overpopulated country causes large and disgusting dirty cities that cause tons of pollution
>most of country is doing extreme factory work due to loss of land and limited job growth
>giant dust storms from the growing Gobi desert launch into Shanghai all the time
>low water reserves worse than California
>he thinks Mao's policies weren't retarded as well
>four pests policy
>backyard furnaces
>chinese famine during great leap forward


Fuck you and fuck your meme ideology.

>>13312560
The entire personal and policies have changed so much after he left it's a bizarre way of thinking.
Do you judge an hereditary ruler based on what his grant grandson did even if that's completely in contradiction with his grandfather?

>>13311594
I'm a commie but I would send all these "comrades" to the gulag

>>13311583
If I do the right wing death squad will really pay me a visit.

t. 3rd world shitworlder

>>13311594
>stawmanning this hard

>>13313319
>>13313323
>reading the man who appears on their fucking currency is completely irrelevant for understanding the country
you fucking retards would say george washington isnt an important figure for understanding america in some capacity? I'm not saying exclusively study Mao but obviously there's nothing to gain from not studying him

>>13311594
This, liberals and people who use the term 'brocialist' is why the left is no longer tenable. True leftists become rightists, because it is the only viable way for socialism to ever be realized.

>>13311583
I'm still on Marx. I'm going to read Bakunin afterwards. so Stalin and Mao have to wait for the time being
>>13311594
You know where to go back, low iq poster

>>13313319
Despite the problems you listed (the ones that are actually credible that is), China is objectively flourishing. This is beyond dispute.

>>13313327
>I'm a commie
no you're not you stupid reactionary

>>13311594
>punk
>communism
what

>>13313677
Yeah I mean what's the difference

Why does China seem to be the polar opposite of what Mao talks about?

>>13313852
It isn't the polar opposite, though it's definitely not the same. Read the writings of Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping, etc. And, if you want a short, Western (i.e. critical) discussion of socialism in Vietnam, which has basically the same model as China, try Vietnam: Rising Dragon by Bill Hayton. It explains many of the problems Vietnam faces, why it's socialist system has developed the way it has, and why the slogan itself, of the 'socialist market system' is still worth applying to the 'Dengist' Asian economies in general.

>>13313662
Because of economic policies that Mao would have abhorred.

>>13311594
stalin got of the lgbt crap of lenin

>>13313902
>>13313890

>>13311583
My family/acquaintances will rat me out if they know. I'll probably get kidnapped and killed by the paramilitary right wing thugs.

>>13311583
They don't seem very relevant today in all honesty

>>13312560
Sure, seems great to live in a totalitarian state where you literally can't go on a train if your "social score" is too low. Sounds great that over 80 million people died to achieve being a third world country where you can't breath the air in the cities and you need suicide prevention nets at your place of employment. etc. etc. etc.

P.S. Not an American, you fucking faggot. kys.

>>13314018
But, but, how are the poor going to afford bread?????

>>13313662

> still decades behind any country that didn't try to collectivise farming.
> Male to female ratio is ridiculous
> Most workers still dirt poor
> Totalitarian dictatorship
> Social credit system
> Rude people


> China is flourishing

>>13311594
Fucing degenerates

>>13314030
>'Social credit offences range from not paying individual taxes or fines to spreading false information and taking drugs. More minor violations include using expired tickets, smoking on a train or not walking a dog on a leash'
Meh
>80 million
kek
>pollution
Try capitalist India for pollution compared to socialist China lol
>nets
That was a foreign company dickhead. But yeah they should be punished.
>totalitarian nightmare
In general I'd much much rather live in China than any comparable neighbour like India, and their citizens, for the most part, seem to feel the same way. None of which precludes the real problems Chinese society faces.

>>13314054
Pleas mate this is just sad. You can point out issues with China (there's plenty you missed, though again half the ones you actually try and point to are bullshit). But China is objectively flourishing. Is there even any point in me going looking for all the data and evidence that shows that?

>>13314073
>capitalist India
kek

>>13314084
How the fuck is it flourishing, You keep using that word and I don't think you know what it means...

What exactly do you mean by flourishing

>>13314073
>a foreign company
Using Chinese labour laws...

> I'd much much rather live in China than any comparable neighbour like India

High fucking bar to beat India, a bunch of half niggers praying to gods with elephant heads...

>>13311583
I've read some Mao.

Never read any of Stalin's stuff. I listen to a pretty Tankie podcast so I feel like I've got a pretty good handle on what he was all about.

>>13312560
>this historical powerhouse and vastness of natural resources is flourishing guys
>this must be because and not in spite of the retard who nearly destroyed it over and over
The absolute state of commie bootlickers.

>>13314186
You know exactly what I mean. It's economic performance - growth, rising living standards, research and development, military spending, GDP, average wage, industrial productivity, stock market performance, geopolitical strategy, international trade, global social/cultural influence etc, etc, etc. It's all pretty widely known mate.

>>13314194
True enough, which is why I support them being punished. Already there's been many small scale labour disputes regarding companies like Foxconn, which is good. Hopefully there's gov action too. Maybe they'll be punished with the scary totalitarian social credit system, who knows.

>India
It's comparable in terms of geography, population, culture, former colonial situation. It used to be comparable economically, too. Looks like those days are long over though. After all, if India's just a bunch of half niggers worshipping elephant gods, aren't China just a bunch of half niggers worshipping Mao Zedong? Yet look what a difference socialism made in terms of economic development compared to neoliberalism, allowing one to flourish (a word the other anon seems to be spazzing out over) while the other stagnated, or at least grew much more slowly than China.

im sure ill get around to skimming through some marx eventually but im in no hurry. i barely have enough time to get through all the classics of fiction.

>>13311583
I'm currently reading Marx so I can be more informed when I shit on commies. Mao is next.

Why is every tranny a fucking commie?

>>13313637
>True leftists become rightists
There are two types of right-wingers. The cuckservative types who only care about the interest of the Capitalist elites, and the "far right" types who only care about the interests of the capitalist elites but also hate niggers.

>>13314979
the nazis pretty clearly cared about their workers

>>13311583
because as a socialist i oppose working. I will never read their works.

>>13314984
Nazis had their gripes with Capitalism but by and large they were still on the side of business elites. That aside, I assumed we were discussing the modern right, where the far right is dominated by swindlers like Farage, Bannon, and the likes.

>>13311583
they aren't really worth reading, unlike lenin or trotsky

>>13315031
They didnt think they could do without business elites as an element in a larger structure, but they weren't 'on their side', rather they forced the business elites to be on the Nazi side.

>>13311583
I am doing fine in this capitalist society

>>13315058
>>13314984
They had the choice to get rid of the capitalists, private property, etc., but chose not to. You only have to look at hours and wages of average workers in Nazi Germany to see what the Nazi Party thought of them.

>>13314984
By sending people who tried to unionize and demand livable wages to concentration camps?

Anybody here read Stalin's stuff on linguistics?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950/jun/20.htm

>>13315080
People did fine under all types of societies.

>>13315160
ghostwritten trash obviously.

>>13314979
Most far righters I've talked to hate capitalists for importing niggers and promoting the gay, dunno what you are on about.

>>13315127
>>13315149
The nazis rightly recognized that you cant just 'get rid of private property', instead they created work programs and directed the capitalists in accordance with their totalitarian designs for society.

>>13315479
>Can't get rid of private property
Course you can, the Soviets did. The Nazis were military dictators, they could've eliminated private property. Not without political and economic cost to themselves of course, which is why they didn't do it. But that's precisely my point. That maintaining private property was in Nazi interests. It certainly wasn't in the Soviets' interests. Socialism was what allowed the massive industrialisation that prevented heavier Soviet losses - likely even preventing total loss. Yes, there was a certain level of 'direction' of private property (though work programs directed labour, not capital), but in general, it had more liberty than is sometimes supposed. See here -
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/BuchheimScherner06.pdf

>>13315614
The nazis thought it was more efficient to just leave the capitalist structure in place and set themselves up above it. They were obviously right about this since the Soviet system was inefficient, and it wasn't remotely in the control of the workers anyway, it was just a very bizarre system forced by a dictator.

>>13315627
>Inefficient
I think you're correct that the Soviet system had genuine deficiencies that were a real factor in its own demise. But it's clear to me that what the Soviet system was exceedingly good at was directing heavy industry in the broad strokes of rapid industrialisation. That their system had this specific strength was instrumental in beating the Nazis, and so, I think I'm justified in saying that no, the Soviet system (though flawed) was actually far more efficient than the Nazi model. I mean just look which one lasted longer mate.
>wasn't remotely in the control of the workers anyway
Ideology. The Soviet system was a proletarian dictatorship, although again I concede that this system of ownership/control was incomplete, not sufficiently democratic, rigid, bureaucratic, etc, etc. You'll note none of that actually precludes social ownership though ('worker ownership' is anarchist reductionism when it comes to what socialism actually is anyway, which is why I don't use the term). I'd advise reading into what a Soviet actually was/how it functioned, and the Soviet electoral system - again, not perfect systems, but not a totalitarian dictatorship in the sense people usually mean either.

>>13315702
The Soviet system's strength in directing heavy industry was just the strength of a dictator's efficiency, you saw the same thing happening in British colonies. It wasn't more efficient than the Nazi system at all, the Soviet effort against the Nazis depended on greater numbers and aid from the Anglo powers.

Your entire second paragraph is just complete memes, the workers were not even vaguely in control of anything, it was run top down the same way capitalist enterprise is.

>>13315721
No it wasn't, it was the result of planned economy mate. If it was just a 'dictator' (Stalin didn't have the same role as Hitler, though he was undoubtedly authoritarian etc.). We'd see all dictatorships that insanely economically efficient, which they're not. The British Empire was not a planned economy, nor was Nazi Germany. Look, I don't know how familiar you are with Marxist theory, but here's how he defined socialism.
Social ownership of the means of production, the production of goods according to a common plan on the basis of social need (as opposed to to the production of commodities for a market), the abolition of wage-labour (by which is meant the system in which employees have no stake in the disposal of surplus-value), and the abolition of capital accumulation as the driving force of the economy, to be replaced by the maximisation of social/material yield and the optimisation of the plan.
That's the definition I adhere to. The USSR adheres to that description. The British Empire and Nazi Germany do not. For reference, if not the USSR, do you think there's ever been a socialist state in human history? Or no?

>>13315785
Im not saying the BE or NG were socialist, Im saying both they and the USSR had top-down hierarchical structures of production, and that their efficiency was due to having individuals with a great deal of authority and capability directing industry.

I dont really see the point in using the word socialist much since 50% of socialists will insist to the death that socialism is only when the workers own the means of production, and the other half will use your definition. I am not any sort of socialist so I dont know what to do with this infighting.

>>13315466
But they vote for the capitalists anyway.

>>13315862
being exploited commercially is better than literally being replaced by people who hate you

>>13314936
Let's see what you've got. Take down communism for me

>>13315813
> top-down hierarchical structures of production
This is why I referenced 'anarchist reductionism'. Your phrase has no bearing on the socioeconomic system of a state whatsoever. Every social system, from Roman slavery, to feudal Japan, to socialist Afghanistan and beyond, has had 'top-down hierarchical structures of production'. So it means nothing.
>individuals with a great deal of authority and capability directing industry
This isn't entirely wrong, you're just conceptualising it differently to me. Those individuals who directed industry in the USSR did so in a far far more involved, direct manner than can be said for the '''direction''' of industry in the BE or NG. They were appointed through and by a planned economy to directly coordinate what was done. Insofar as 'planning' existed at all in the BE/NG/etc., it was just individuals providing tax incentives, somewhat better contracts than came from private individuals, and so on. All this left the economy predominantly (overwhelmingly so) to the market. And even where such 'planning' did exist in a more substantive form, like the war economy of NG/BE, it was temporary, and the goal was always to maintain precisely the capitalist system in the long run. This relates to structural Marxists who '...differentiate between the long-term and short-term interests of the capitalist class in order to describe the necessity of the state to the capitalism system. Short-term interests of the bourgeoisie include policies that affect capital accumulation in the immediate future such as tax breaks, reduced minimum wages, government subsidies, etc. They maintain that when the state is not benefiting the bourgeois class’ short-term interests, it is acting on the behalf of its future interests.' (sorry to cite wikipedia but you get the idea lmao).
As regards your second line, well yeah there's disagreement in the interpretation of any system/event/object of sufficient size, that's just the nature of discourse. All I can do is argue why I think 'my' definition is stronger. But it only has to do with you insofar as you made claims that the USSR wasn't socialist/efficient/whatever. If you're not interested in those debates, yeah I mean that's up to you. But you're drawing mistaken parallels in my opinion between two utterly different systems on the back of superficial (sometimes even misleading) generalisations.

>>13315866
> literally being replaced by people who hate you
You're not being "replaced" in the sense that Capitalists don't give a shit about whether you're white or not. It's just a byproduct to them. As for being hated, that's bullshit as well. People who immigrate come to the West because they're looking for jobs (or gibs according to your kind, but same difference really) and for the most part they could not care less about you. The trash that you see doing evil things to natives arises from resentment caused by poor integration. Right Wingers love to point to cases of rapists and other scum in Europe, but you rarely see those people in Canada, the U.S and other countries that have been more diverse for longer.

>>13315917
>Every social system, from Roman slavery, to feudal Japan, to socialist Afghanistan and beyond, has had 'top-down hierarchical structures of production'
Yeah I know, it's why leftism is retarded.

>Those individuals who directed industry in the USSR did so in a far far more involved, direct manner than can be said for the '''direction''' of industry in the BE
The men who ran various colonies of the British empire were very involved on the ground with the industries in question.

My point is basically that you're trusting individuals to do what is right for the workers, since the workers can't literally control the industry themselves, the far right capitalist versions of this just have an intermediary, the capitalist, in between the workers and the individual with the authority. I see that as being a major point of similarity, not superficial at all, and I think a lot more Leftists than you're implying would agree, and wouldn't consider something properly leftist if it has that structure.

>>13315961
No mate, it's why your definition is retarded. On colonies, I can't believe I have to point this out but firstly, the colonial administrators were not involved in industries in anything like the manner of the Soviet system, and secondly, the individuals I referenced in the USSR were themselves workers, elected to their roles. Now you might claim that the Soviet electoral system wasn't as democratic as it should've been, and you'd probably be right, though democracy's not a binary. A country can be more or less democratic. But the British colonies were clearly not democracies. Colonial governors were overwhelmingly bourgeois, and very clearly served outside interests, so they don't even match your own claims about 'trusting individuals to do what is right for the workers'. It's not controversial whatsoever to point out that the BE was a market economy and the USSR was a command economy. Note how you have to deflect towards the colonies in the first place to make your claim, since the metropole that owned all the colonies and appointed all the governors, and which the entire Empire was in service of, was very obviously a market system. My 'trust' for the planners in a socialist system is backed by the fact that they can be deselected democratically. This was true in the USSR, with some exceptions in time of war.
>the far right capitalist versions of this just have an intermediary, the capitalist
You're still conceiving of NG as having no private property. The paper I linked shows it existed in plenty and had far more freedom/power than is popularly supposed. Completely ignoring my reference to structuralist Marxism's understanding of the state of course. But either way, just compare Marx's definitions of socialism and capitalism, the differences are right there in black and white. You can think what you want about 'Leftists', you're not one and aren't familiar with their discourse, so I have no particular reason to believe you, but let's say I do: what difference does it make? I'm lifting my defs straight from Marx, not making them up on the fly. If leftists disagree, hey, I think they're wrong. What else am I supposed to say. Anyway here's his def of capitalism just in case you're not familiar:
Private ownership of the MoP, production of commodities for a market, the employment of wage labour (i.e. disposal of surplus by owners not workers), and capital accumulation as the driving force of the economy.

>>13316056
You have just reiterated that command and capitalist economies are different. My point is they're both still run by an elite class of individuals and not by the workers

>>13316139
>You have just reiterated
Fine. You accept then that they have some pretty fundamental differences. Earlier you said they have major similarities. Whatever. On elites: This doesn't really mean anything either, the term 'elite' is entirely relative. If a government planner earns a dollar an hour more than a normal worker he's an 'elite'. Ask yourself what the economic makeup of the ruling class was. Then you can make your criticisms about it being 'elitist'. The only difference is that it's exposed as not necessarily being anywhere near as much of a 'major point of similarity, not superficial at all' as you necessarily think. But given that you think that the existence of ' top-down hierarchical structures of production' is enough to invalidate the distinctions made by economists between socialist and capitalist, that's probably a lost cause anyway.

>>13316234
An elite class has a set of incentives that differ from the people it rules over. This is a feature of every society in human history that went beyond a tribal stage.

It doesn't matter if they're paid the same wage on paper if the power differential is enormous.

>>13315872
Communism (as written by Marx and Engels) does not fucking work. The establishment of a proletariat dictatorship leads to authoritarianism, and will not naturally wither away into a communist utopia as history has shown. It inevitably leads to a charismatic figure or group of individuals taking power and subjugating the population. Furthermore, the proletariat/bourgeoisie devide doesn't account for a middle class, who do not directly own the means of producing and rather sell their labor, but still benefit from the exploitation of the actual proletariat. [third worlders and illegal immigrants]

All I've read is the manifesto and some excerpts from Das Kapital. Looking to pick up a full copy of that next.

>>13316239
Yeah, corruption will probably be a feature to a certain extent in every humans society ever. That seems quite diminished compared to your initial sweeping statements about private property and Nazis caring about their workers and 'leftism'. My point is that while you may be right, in some societies that 'power differential' is waay less 'enormous' than in others. Said incentives can be 'more' or 'less' aligned with the common interests of society.

>>13316267
The Nazis did care for their workers, about as much as the soviets did(really they cared more considering the soviets starved a bunch of their workers), they just did it with a capitalist economy.

But yes the point is that all societies are in reality a small elite ruling over and oppressing the masses. It's never that simple, but that is the basic shape

>>13316245
>doesn't work
China.
Even if we call China/Cuba/Wherever a failure/not socialist/shithole etc., we see human society heading for ecological meltdown anyway, who's to say capitalism'll make it?
>'authoritarianism'
Marx/Engels agree and see that as fine.
>subjugation
Vague. What population? Don't capitalist countries subjugate their population as well?
>history
My man, it's not a mechanistic guarantee, you're right it may never happen. But the thing about history is that it's still fucking going.
>Middle class
? Petit-bourgeoisie? Lumpenroletariat? Labour aristocracy? I can't tell what you're describing, but it's undoubtedly at least been noticed by Marxist theory

>>13316308
>Marx/Engels agree and see that as fine.
no

>>13316281
I see the point you're trying to make, but I need to go to bed, so let's just say I disagree. You only have to look at wages, freedoms, happiness, and so on between NG and the USSR. You're still ignoring that the term 'elite' is totally relative, an 'elite' might be small and powerful, small and weak, large and powerful, large and weak, more corrupt/less corrupt, richer/poorer, etc etc etc. The 'elite' of the USSR was clearly different to the elite of NG

>>13316335
The elites do differ, but I expect we'd disagree on which sorts of government structures correlate with the wellbeing of the people, as well as the degree to which the structure matters at all as compared to simply the nature of the individuals in power.

>>13316321
Like I said, I'm going to bed, so let me just reply once to your detailed rebuke.
>no
yes

>>13316368
Fair enough, take care man

>>13316308
>the thing about history is that it's still fucking going.
lol imagine thinking this

>>13314359
>the whole time China was under socialism India was under neo-liberalism
Not even fucking close

>>13316398
That'd be an excellent critique if it was something I actually said

>>13315920
>but you rarely see those people in Canada
t. Knows nothing about Canada

>>13316421
I'm a Canadian. If you think that Canada has the same problem as Europe, you're delusional.

>>13311648

He also wrote fantastic theory for conducting an insurgency. If you want to wage a guerilla war Mao should be on top of your reading list.

Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism have the same relation to Marx as people on the photos.

>>13311583
Because I read the bible and know the devil's plan.

>>13316308
>China
I've yet to read mao so I cant really comment
>authoritarianism
I dont give a shit what Marx and Enges think about it, authoritarianism and tyranny are a scourge on humanity and should be opposed from wherever they spring
>subjugation
You're being willfully ignorant. The millions starved in Russia and other eastern bloc countries. The millions of Chinese working in sweatshops for pennies a day. The millions of north Korean in labor camps. There certainly is subjugation under capitalism, but they primarily subjugate other countries populations rather than their own
>middle class
Sounds like I have more reading to do. Any recommendations?

>>13314030
>where you literally can't go on a train if your "social score" is too low.
Nice propaganda

>>13314181
>not true capitalism

>>13316245
>Communism (as written by Marx and Engels)
>the proletariat/bourgeoisie devide doesn't account for a middle class
It figures that no one here actually reads Marx, but this is just fucking funny

>>13311648
Young Stalin's poetry is based though. His commie writings were intended to be very accessible - simple to read and understand for even the simplest proletarian. Che, Ho Chi Minh and many others were inspired by his ideological work, e.g. "Foundations of Leninism"

He knocked on strangers’ doors,
Going from house to house,
With an old oaken panduri
And that simple song of his.

But in his song, his song—
Pure as the sun’s own gleam—
Resounded a truth profound,
Resounded a lofty dream.

Hearts that had turned to stone
Were made to beat once more;
In many, he’d rouse a mind
That slumbered in deepest murk.

But instead of the laurels he’d earned,
The people of his land
Fed the outcast poison,
Placing a cup in his hand.

They told him: “Damned one, you must
Drink it, drain the cup dry…
Your song is foreign to us,
We prefer to live in a lie!”

Iveria, no. 218 (1895)

>>13313965
Where do you live? Peru, Colombia?

>>13313677
>>13311594
This picture has done more damage to the communist movement than 10 SS armored divisions and the entire postwar CIA program

>>13314320
How are their people doing? For a commie you sound a lot like a neo con

>>13314359
>It's comparable in terms of geography, population, culture, former colonial situation

Confirmed idiot.

Geography: China is East Asian, India is South Asia. They're not ethnically close at all.

Population: Sure, there is a shit ton of both of them.

Culture: Confucian influenced Buddhism is not the same as Hinduism, ya dummy...

Former colonial situation: LOL

> aren't China just a bunch of half niggers worshipping Mao Zedong?

Chinese people are east Asians, Indians are basically non-muslim Pakistanis.

>>13317312
Based

>>13317386
It’s amazing what the power of memes can accomplish, isn’t it komrad?

>>13313319
really nigga? china is doing great and you listing a few bad things about the country doesnt change the fact. and i'm not even some CCCP dickrider, you're just straight up retardo

What's a good entry point to Lenin?

>>13319178
Well you sound like a dumb nigger. It is fine if you think macro-economic success is what ultimately matters. Some like to measure it by quality of life and standard of living. These are things that matter to individuals.
>a few things wrong
Fuck, get your head checked.

>>13314320
>growth, rising living standards, research and development, military spending, GDP, average wage, industrial productivity, stock market performance, geopolitical strategy, international trade, global social/cultural influence
Literally all capitalist country went through this without the need for Mao"s retarded policies.

>>13317872
The thing is, my retarded friend, China and India were always comparable economically(you'd have known this if you bothered to seriously look into things rather than regurgitating propaganda) throughout their history, So it's a proper comparison. Keep playing the mental gymnastics though

>>13319523
Retard how many do you think died for the capitalist powers to industrialise? China managed to industrialise without enslaving any continents and they did it in a fraction of the time, as well as under immense pressure.

>>13317843
Their people are doing record-breakingly well by a lot of standards, which is why trust in government there is highest in the world.
'Confidence in national government was the highest in Indonesia and China (two-thirds of citizens)'
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/gov_glance-2013-6-en.pdf?expires=1560879969&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1F585B34E0C3955BCE4F3B6EEFEEC504

>>13319187
Marx

>>13319187
State & Revolution