/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13383816]

He killed millions

[Anonymous No.13383822]

He didn't.

[Anonymous No.13383823]

>BUT IT WASN'T REAL COMMUNISM

[Anonymous No.13383824]

Evidently not enough
Do it again uncle karl

[Anonymous No.13383830]

>>13383816
to starve billions

[Anonymous No.13383832]

>>13383823
It was real and it worked under Stalin.

[Anonymous No.13383962]

>>13383816
Nice bait

[Anonymous No.13383979]

>>13383816
He killed trillions (of reactionaries)

[Anonymous No.13383990]

>>13383816
To save billions....

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13384006]

>>13383823
He didn’t found any nation state, he pointed out the flaws in the liberal utopia of capitalism. CAPITALISM HAS KILLED MILLIONS

READ SOME BOOKS

[Anonymous No.13384117]

>>13383816
2/10 bait

[Anonymous No.13384160]

>>13383816
no, he only 1 million and 999 thousand

[Anonymous No.13384575]

Engels to Marx:

>Dear Moor,

>Dear Moor,

You're right, I am very broke and, like the Prussian government, intensely preoccupied with ‘saving’. In the hope that, by leading a domesticated life in Hyde Road, I shall be able to make good the deficiency, I enclose herewith a five-pound note, O/L 28076, Manchester, 28 Jan. ‘62. At the same time, I am sending you a hamper of wine per Chaplin and Horne, containing about one dozen claret and 2 bottles of old 1846 hock for little Jenny, the rest being made up of 1857 hock. 24 bottles in all.

>On Friday I sent you a registered letter containing 10 pounds, £5 in a Bank of England note and £5 in a Country Note of the Boston Bank payable at Masterman & Co., Bankers, London. Having heard nothing from you since, I feel a little uneasy.

>Moro viejo, Moro viejo,
>El de la vellida barba.

And a lot of get-well-soon words because Marx and the senpai had were wrecks, apparently.

[Anonymous No.13384597]

>>13383816
>>13383822
wrong. read marx.

[Anonymous No.13384609]

>>13384006
Capitalism, as opposed to Marxism, is actually not even a specific ideology or specific mentality. I'd like to see you define Capitalism and how it opposes Socialism.

It would be very difficult to. Not as difficult as fascism, but still hard. I would like to see it butterfly :3

[Anonymous No.13384611]

to get wrekt by Stirner

[Anonymous No.13384636]

>>13383823
It was real, it worked and we should try it again just exactly as they did.

[Anonymous No.13384641]

>>13384609
>Capitalism is not a specific ideology or specific mentality
no shit tard

[Anonymous No.13384653]

If he hadn't, he would have been just another cringe daydreamer lefty. He's only able to be so insightful because he's dangerous.
His reductionism is retarded though.

[Anonymous No.13384708]

Capitalism has killed and continues to kill more people,yet the clowns will somehow claim its better and anything else is ''against human nature''.
Capitalism destroyed the planet in a 100 years
Communism ''destroyed'' a couple countries with the entire west interfering

[Anonymous No.13384733]

>>13384609

Work it back in your head big boy it's really not that hard. If Socialism = public ownership of means of production, then Capitalism = private ownership of the means of production

Bada bing bada boomayy ??

[Anonymous No.13384736]

>>13384641
Okay?

She keeps on using it like it's one.

She is trolling yes?

[Anonymous No.13384744]

communism consumes human lives to create capitalist economies only a decade behind the vanguard development of white nations.

it has brought the jungle/snow/island asian into the modern world.

what is needed now is an ideology to do the same for west african and arab races.

[Anonymous No.13384749]

>>13384733
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0a9HAIXjYzA

[Anonymous No.13384751]

>>13384736
the fuck do I care you tard

[Anonymous No.13384770]

>>13384749
>he vocaroos his responses

[Anonymous No.13384778]

>>13384770
Look if you don't have a proper rebuttal that's fine, just realize I win this argument. :3

[Anonymous No.13384832]

>>13383830

[Anonymous No.13384861]

>>13384749
Do you realise all of the things you have just said could have been levied at capitalism? "Oh come on brah capitalism presupposes a class struggle between the serf and the lord unlike feudalism which means that capitalist ideology has revolution build into it."
Yes, you fucking dipshit. The French Revolution [KEYWORD: REVOLUTION] did eradicate feudalism and implement capitalism. How is that different to what Marxists want to do? It just sounds like you're saying anything that goes against the status quo is ideology while the status quo is not.

[Anonymous No.13384896]

>>13384749
What a weak ass critique my guy. Marxists talk about capitalism because capitalism is the prevailing system of our time. If capitalism were overthrown and socialism implemented nobody except historians would talk about capitalism.
When capitalism was in its infancy the cultural discourse about capitalism framed it as in opposition to feudalism. Now feudalism has been abolished nobody except historians give a shit.

[Anonymous No.13384933]

>>13384861
>>13384896
https://vocaroo.com/i/s1MUFJW2TnZh

[Anonymous No.13385020]

>>13384933

>3 minute long Vocaroo

Can you please just type out your argument like everyone else instead of being a pure fanny

[Anonymous No.13385050]

>>13383816
And every single one of them deserved it.

[Anonymous No.13385078]

>>13385020
If you're the first guy, your response was indeed more informed than the others, I responded to you first.

The second guy is like 18 or something idk. :3

[Anonymous No.13385357]

>>13384609
Capitalism is a system in which private ownership of the means of production, production of commodities for market sale, the employment of wage-labour, and capital accumulation as the driving force of the economy, predominate.
Socialism is a system in which social ownership of the means of production, the production of goods according to a common plan on the basis of command/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 democratic 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 and material yield through optimisation of the plan), predominate.
Simple.

[Anonymous No.13385365]

Stalin saved billions

[Anonymous No.13385374]

>>13383816
Shoulda been billions.

[Anonymous No.13385377]

>>13385365
based and correctpilled

[Anonymous No.13385408]

>>13385357
A) You aren't her.

B) This does not justify her original implication of 'capitalism killing millions'

Otherwise, congratulations you know the basic definitions of these forms of exchange. :3

[Anonymous No.13385420]

>>13384006
Capitalism makes bread wait in line for you. Socialism creates bread lines.

[Anonymous No.13385422]

>>13384708
0/10 effort bait

[Anonymous No.13385423]

>>13385408
u act like the atlantic slave trade wasn't the height of capitalism. We literally don't even know how many people were massacred.

[Anonymous No.13385429]

>>13385423
You act like slavery isn't a part of mankind and was only abolished by western capitalist states.

[Anonymous No.13385490]

>>13383816
True. I saw him.

[Anonymous No.13385525]

>>13385408
Well done. You have correctly discerned the fact that I am not the tripfag known as Butterfly. Congratulations. Regardless, both capitalism and socialism can be credibly argued to have killed 'millions', though I personally believe it to be blindingly obvious that capitalism has 'killed' far more than socialism, if nothing else, simply by virtue of the fact that the former has existed for several centuries longer than the latter. But that is not the core of Marx's argument for socialism, nor is it mine. The fact is that capitalism contains contradictions, and faces crises, that it is no longer able to confront, or deal with. Ecological meltdown, debt accumulation, the de-industrialisation of the West, resource scarcity, automation, alienation, the falling rate of profit, the crumbling of the old imperial world order, etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.13386060]

>when race, sex, culture, history, geography, religion, and family are all spooks but class is 100% real
What's it like to believe that economics is the Brahma of the universe? I really can't stand this about modern thinking, ever since the leadership castes of society abdicated responsibility and turned over power to the merchant castes, billions of people have been trick into believing that economics is the only thing that matters, and worse, that economics is the only way to understand the world or to interpret anything and everything, really. I do not care for libertarianism, communism, socialism, capitalism, all these isms which all fundamentally want the same thing: to be ruled by money, industry, and production - for its own sake. Economics has become god.

[Anonymous No.13386075]

>>13385525
How can a system other than capitalism deal with the fact that capitalism will eventually outproduce that system and destroy them by any means necessary, including violence? This is not me defending capitalism by the way, but I don't understand what the solution is supposed to be. Capitalism has the biggest guns at any given time, categorically. It is able to wield and direct force more effectively than any other way of organizing society. Capitalism is like cancer which has no effective chemotherapy.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13386082]

>>13385420
>socialism is when the state does stuff
Burger, please.

[Anonymous No.13386147]

the fall of the ussr just prove that they didn't kill enough

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13386957]

>>13386082
If by state, you mean the public sector, then yes
>>13385423
If capitalism is defined by the employment of wage-labor, then the institution of slavery is categorically not capitalist.
>>13385357
you again? these definitions you've invented don't hold any utility in defining our material world. these 'factors' can be demonstrated to have existed at various periods throughout history. Though I am glad you have included private ownership into the working definition, since now we can at least begin to distinguish the very real fundamental differences in economic operations of different nations.
And to reach another point: these definitions are borne out of a larger theory of historical materialism; a theory that does not accurately predict societal change when compared to historical data. So have your definitions and stick to the old ways, they'll be forgotten anyhow.

[Anonymous No.13386964]

>>13386075
>How can a system other than capitalism deal with the fact that capitalism will eventually outproduce that system and destroy them by any means necessary, including violence?
Capitalism will be destroyed by any means necessary, especially including violence, in the process of being replaced by socialism.

>Capitalism has the biggest guns at any given time, categorically.
That's absolutely right.
>History has never before witnessed a power of such overwhelming strength, permanently garrisoning the oceans. Aircraft carrier imperialism is the last great redoubt of a class rule that does not understand the meaning of the word death. It is with this imperialism that the proletarian revolution will have to fight its decisive battle. And thus, the Leninist theses on the world revolution obtain a brilliant clarity, and the treasonous pseudo-doctrines of the “national roads to socialism” miserably collapse. The bourgeoisie cannot be beaten one nation at a time, State by State, but only by way of a revolution that affects whole continents and by way of the insurrectionary embrace of the proletarians across all frontiers. What chance of survival would a revolutionary State of the proletariat that takes power in one or another part of the world have, as long as American imperialism was in a position to wield, from anywhere on the Oceans, its shocking weapons of destruction? In order to shatter the repressive power of capital the proletariat will have to rise in arms on a world scale against the ruling class. There is thus only one “road” to socialism: the international and communist road.
>American imperialism, with its one hundred aircraft carriers, is not only mounting guard for its own national security. It is mounting guard for capitalist privilege in every part of the world, anywhere that the proletariat represents a threat to the survival of the bourgeoisie. And why, if it faces a class enemy that has a unified defense, should the proletariat split up its own forces in the frameworks of the various nations? The magnificent American Navy, which is today the terror of the world, will be transformed into a pile of scrap metal if the volcano of the Revolution erupts again. The fire will have to break out in all the nations and all the continents, however: in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, but especially in America. Then we shall see what becomes of a nuclear powered super-carrier when the crew hoists the red flag.

>>13386957
>If capitalism is defined by the employment of wage-labor, then the institution of slavery is categorically not capitalist.
That's correct. Production process that employs predominantly slave-labour is not capitalist. Instead, it was used for primitive accumulation of capital, capital that was then used to kickstart actual capitalist production.

>you again?
No, he wasn't me. I'm me though.

[Anonymous No.13386974]

>>13385365
Stalin killed more communists than any other person in human history except for maybe Mao.
Is he, dare I say, /ourguy/?

[Anonymous No.13386987]

why is fascism more hated than communism when fascism has been proven to work far better than communism?

[Anonymous No.13386991]

>>13384749
>he vocaroos his response
I mean... better dead than red, but fuck bro. Your autism is embarrassing us.

[Anonymous No.13386994]

>>13386974
When you put it that way

[Anonymous No.13386996]

>>13386082
Have you read Haffner's book butterfly?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387019]

>>13386964
>primitive
hardly. the slave trade was quite complex.
>capital that was then used to kickstart actual capitalist production
then why didn't industrialization take place in ancient Rome? why not Portugal or Spain either?

[Anonymous No.13387049]

>>13386060
Marxism mirrors capitalist production, the object of its critique, hence it is an inhuman capital's eye view of the world, when really political change can only come from extra economic factors, the very things marxists dismiss as reactionary and outmoded. Leftists are usually not workers but upwardly mobile managers and bureaucrats, the left hand of global capital, who want to assert their moral superiority over the common people and destroy whatever little remains of organic community

[Anonymous No.13387105]

>>13384636
Based. Only reason it started to fail was because of economic liberalization.

[Anonymous No.13387166]

>>13386957
(I'm the anon who posted the definitions)
Since you're apparently familiar with me and the definitions I posted, you'll remember the huge importance I put on the word *predominate* there. Which easily deals with your point that wage-labour, for example, has existed for millennia. The rest of your bald assertions re historical materialism and what will be 'remembered' I'm happy to dismiss as just that, assertions.

[Anonymous No.13387178]

>>13384749
>didn't even turn this into something funny.
fuck you faggot. never listening to any of your vocaroos again

[Anonymous No.13387181]

>>13386075
Most likely some combination of increasing economic integration on the part of China (or China style states) into the global economy, increasing inability to maintain imperial aggression, a falling rate of profit, nuclear proliferation, etc. It is by no means a historical inevitability though.

[Anonymous No.13387190]

>>13387019
>hardly. the slave trade was quite complex.
don't be this autistic
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primitive
>not derived : original, primary
>of or relating to the earliest age or period : primeval

>then why didn't industrialization take place in ancient Rome? why not Portugal or Spain either?
I'm not claiming that slavery was sufficient for "kick starting" capitalism, only that it happened to be one of the best means of primitive accumulation, and that it was employed as such.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387201]

>>13387166
>The rest of your bald assertions re historical materialism and what will be 'remembered' I'm happy to dismiss as just that, assertions.
Your theory doesn't have predictive power, isn't backed by empirical data, and doesn't reflect the reality of societal evolution. Of course it will be forgotten.
>predominate
That's a funny way to spell cop-out. Every time a marxist is confronted with reality they shift the goal posts. Now your vague term has even less meaning. It's not even clear if it 'predominates' today, due the large sectors of the world economy tied into agriculture.
Capitalism isn't a mode of production, it's an economic theory, as per the dictionary: economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

[Anonymous No.13387215]

>>13384749
actually laughed

You may not like it, but this is what peak autism sounds like

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387218]

>>13387190
Capitalism wasn't spawned of prior accumulation of wealth, it was developed by institutional drift meeting critical junctures resulting in ultimate institutional divergence. The conditions necessary for a capitalist society are very much political.

[Anonymous No.13387225]

>>13385078
Why do you type :3 at the end of every post? Maximum cringe

[Anonymous No.13387248]

>>13387218
To initiate capitalist production you need to be able to buy means of production and hire labour-power, which you can only pay for through some already accumulated wealth which is by this act transformed into capital.

>>13387225
Why do you give him attention?

[Anonymous No.13387249]

>>13387248
Because he's getting this woman to masturbate to him over 4chan somehow and no one has ever done that

[Anonymous No.13387256]

>>13387201
You're free to call it whatever you want, I take flak from socialists as well for calling China socialist on the basis of these definitions. This notion of predominance is fairly old now though, I basically just lifted it from Mandel's The Formation of the Economic Thought of Karl Marx, particularly his distinction between a 'mode of production' and a 'socioeconomic formation'. The former is a more taxonomic, formal, theoretical abstraction, the latter relates to this logic of predomination, of competing forces inside the same social totality, a notion that in turn finds most of its precedent in Lenin's writing on the NEP. It's a fairly well understood idea, though articulated differently by different thinkers, but an idea that's neglected by Western Marxism. You claim that the world economies' ties to agriculture(?) disprove its status as capitalist was also unclear.

[Anonymous No.13387262]

>>13383816

[Anonymous No.13387326]

>>13386060
>hindu

Fuck off pagan.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387327]

>>13387248
Sure, but these processes happen more organically and over a greater period of time than just
>lol we just sold slaves lets open a factory now
Indirectly, money from the slave trade might have been reinvested into a burgeoning
capitalist Britain or Netherlands, but there is no significant causal link there.
>>13387256
>You claim that the world economies' ties to agriculture(?) disprove its status as capitalist
Never claimed that. I merely pointed out that your definition doesn't have categorizing power, since it is incredibly vague when 'predominance' becomes established, or has even been established.
>bla bla bla marxist theory
Nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.13387366]

>>13387327
There's a certain level of interpretation involved I agree, economics and social studies aren't exact sciences clearly. Doable though. Just ask yourself what proportion of value created is done so in the industry in question. Then you can make a claim as to its relative centrality to the economy, and then a further claim as to its 'degree' of predominance. Not that hard. Also likely to difer between areas. Perhaps for China coal power is a 'key' sector with a strong place in the arena, perhaps in France it's not coal, but nuclear power, that fulfils a similar role. And so on. Your point's still underdeveloped, since 'agriculture' can be organised on capitalist, or feudal, or socialist lines, which is the entire point of the determination. But I assume that's what you're getting at.
>bla bla
Masterful rebuttal. You've really sown the seeds of doubt there. I'll surely be a liberal any day now, retard.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387386]

>>13387366
I not trying to convert you. You have your headcannon and you can keep it. It's a free country after all. What I have an issue with is spreading around this marxist mumbo jumbo and passing it off to others. There's a lot of impressionable people out there, and I don't want to see a repeat of the 20th century. Your theories are obviously archaic. Economics, political science, and anthropology have come a long way since Marx. So many smart people have chased false leads, and so many others died. So keep it to yourself, bucko.

[Anonymous No.13387403]

>>13387327
>Sure, but these processes happen more organically and over a greater period of time than just 'lol we just sold slaves lets open a factory now'
good job coming up with and then bravely refuting another retarded strawman, lobster boy

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387407]

>>13387403
enjoy being booty blasted, faggot. accumulation is as much a condition for capitalism as their being air to breath, meaning to say, its an obvious fucking condition. There should also be people. And maybe some kind of government. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.13387420]

>>13387407
>accumulation is as much a condition for capitalism as their being air to breath, meaning to say, its an obvious fucking condition.
evidently not obvious enough for this anon >>13387218
but sure, it's still pretty obvious, I never denied that

[Anonymous No.13387429]

>>13387386
>'headcannon'
Cringe on multiple levels
>archaic mumbo jumbo
How many times do I need to say the word China before people take note. I repeat, the theory and society you flippantly dismiss is the only one capable of dealing with the colossal shitstorm coming our way this century. No amount of 'la la la I can't hear you' can change capitalism's inability to confront these problems, and thus, socialism's necessity
>bucko
Cringe x2

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387462]

>>13387429
>capitalism's inability to confront these problems,
A baseless assertion. The liberal order has been through much already. More than you.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387469]

>>13387420
I talked past you a bit, I'll admit it.

[Anonymous No.13387473]

>>13387462
I think crippling ecological collapse is a little beyond it actually. Whatever

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387484]

>>13387429
>china
>capable of anything
Oh i am laughin'
they're economy is holding on by a thread, corruption is rife, and they have no legitimate mandate to rule once the growth stops. Plus, I've lived in China and speak Chinese. Those people are ridiculously inefficient, and their hobbies include: sleeping.

[Anonymous No.13387494]

>>13387386
>There's a lot of impressionable people out there, and I don't want to see a repeat of the 20th century.
The only hope for it to not repeat is a swift victory of the next proletarian revolution. As long as production is not co-operative and there's capitalist competition, there will be bloody wars.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13387503]

>>13387462
>I prefer MY baseless assertion

>>13387484
>china
>capable of anything
Oo, you scared now

[Anonymous No.13387505]

>>13387484
The personal, anecdotal qualities of Chinese people, as reported by someone impersonating fucking Butterfly of all people, I could't care less about. It's the socioeconomic system that has enabled them to achieve so much that does. The numbers don't lie.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387509]

>>13387494
Nice fantasy.
>>13387503
I didn't make an assertion, retard. I state a historical fact.

[Anonymous No.13387511]

>>13383823
Lolie so much

[Anonymous No.13387512]

>>13387503
Hey Butters, how's your yeast infection?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387515]

>>13387505
>socioeconomic system
Deng's liberal reforms? China is Deliberalizing under Xi, and the trade war gives him little leeway. They will fail, just as they failed to westernize under the qing: they fail to carry out the necessary political reforms.

[Anonymous No.13387521]

>>13384749
You talk like a cuck.

[Anonymous No.13387528]

>>13383816
> Ah shit here we go again

[Anonymous No.13387538]

>>13386082
Yes, Socialism is when the states kills you, starves you, tortures you can makes sure you have no life to live.

[Anonymous No.13387546]

>>13386987
Fascism took one of the most historically powerful, prosperous nations in the world that was undergoing a brief depression and made it into a smoldering heap of rubble in less than a decade.
Communist ideals, without ever coming close to communism itself, turned an agrarian backwater that had just barely taken its first steps away from using serfs and turned it into the second-greatest superpower the world has ever seen.
The best example of working socialism today is probably Cuba, a poor-as-fuck island in the Caribbean that still manages to have a 100% literacy rate, zero homelessness, and arguably a better healthcare system than most first world countries despite being right next to the largest military and economic power humans have ever produced that's been actively trying to destroy it for the better part of a century. Compare it to its neighboring poverty-stricken Caribbean islands and see how much better the life of the average laborer is there.
For a historical success of socialism look at Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso, who managed to vaccinate every child in his country, plant ten million trees in a campaign against desertification, eschew all foreign aid, and become a net exporter of food after ending a long cycle of famines. He did all of that in four years before a faction of previously-wealthy tribal chiefs (whose land he redistributed to divide among their tribes) had him assassinated.

[Anonymous No.13387549]

>>13387509
Even nicer fantasy is when one thinks that people talking positively about Marx's theoretical work on /lit/ can lead to a repeat of 20th century.

[Anonymous No.13387557]

>>13387515
>liberal reforms
What? No, socialism. Is that not obvious from my open Marxism? The reforms are just an individual part of the system I describe. Tilting towards foreign capital or SOE's is something relative, both can be done to greater or lesser degrees as the situation changes, and both will be correct for different conditions. My assertion is that China is still socialist remember. But the outcome you describe is definitely possible, they may well fail. Nevertheless, I remain cautiously optimistic for now. We'll see.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387569]

>>13387557
Socialist, capitalist, whatever. China is China. It's system is unique. The source of China's growth has been the liberal reforms.

[Anonymous No.13387580]

>>13387546
>100% literacy rate, zero homelessness, and arguably a better healthcare system
yes I believe 100% of soviet propaganda as well

[Anonymous No.13387592]

>>13387580
Those are stats taken independently from groups like the World Health Organization you retard. Did the last Soviet Politburo secretly live on in a bunker somewhere for the sole purpose of falsifying statistics on a country on the other side of the planet?

[Anonymous No.13387599]

>>13384006
Fuck off

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13387601]

>>13387569
So you would blame the decline in the US to their Keynesianism or China’s “liberalism”?
Not to deny they are practicing capitalism, but they’re hardly champions of Austrian school or any kind of neoclassical economics.

Ever watch David Harvey?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zQk5zd4Y1A0&t

[Anonymous No.13387608]

>>13387569
It's system is fairly unique, it's a historically new kind of socialism compared to the more orthodox Soviet stuff, but very much socialism. And hardly restricted to China alone. Besides the obvious parallels in Vietnam and Laos, Cuba and the DPRK will also be incentivised to gradually transition to a similar system in my opinion. While the reforms have been vital, it's reductive to thank them and them alone for the growth, though they did indeed play a decisive role (you keep calling them 'liberal' reforms, as if to imply the reforms make China capitalist). 'Under Mao China stood up, under Deng China got rich, under Xi the China is becoming strong' as they apparently say. There's a certain continuity, in that all three of those figures - and the movements and philosophies they headed - played a role in China's present success. Not one to the exclusion of all the others.

[Anonymous No.13387610]

>>13387592
yes if the organization is abbreviated to three letters they are 100% right

[Anonymous No.13387613]

>>13387569
>>13387608
I'm on a lit board and we can't even use the correct form of it as a possessive. It's 'its'.

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.13387616]

>>13386987
Because it works too well.

[Anonymous No.13387618]

>>13387613
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.13387619]

>>13383816
They deserved it

[Anonymous No.13387620]

>>13387610
So you trust statistics that reinforce your own beliefs and anything that makes you question them is propaganda, is that how it works?

[Anonymous No.13387633]

>>13387616
Yes fascism is unstoppable, it works way too well

[Anonymous No.13387635]

>>13387538
>it is another snappy quote against socialism that somehow invalidate the gains made by socialists

[Anonymous No.13387664]

>>13387618
Yeah, great, but you've moved away from discussing the actual writings and philosophies of Marxism to a discussion about the political climate in China, which by the way, functions more like a democracy now than as a socialist state due to western influences.

In all seriousness, the relativity to Marxism is ridiculous in the modern age. It addresses critical concerns, such as the well-being of workers, when workers had literally zero social mobility and were often working in dangerous situations. It's talking about farmers and factory slaves. If we want a doctrine that addresses the needs of people in the current day, someone should buck the fuck up and write one, because Marxism is a loosely veiled and misdirected ideology often used by right-wing groups to find abundant flaws in the ideas of socialism.

tl;dr stop your pol bitching, if you want to talk texts talk texts, but Marxism and Das Kapital are archaic garbage at this point.

[Anonymous No.13387672]

>>13387620
yes us communists never do that we are the truly unbiased ones

[Anonymous No.13387677]

>>13387664
>functions more like a democracy now than as a socialist state due to western influences.
Stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.13387683]

>>13387664
student cucks with middle-class consciousness who repeat such stupidities will promptly rediscover that Marx in fact does "address the needs of the people in the current day", as soon as they become one of those people, that is fall into the proletariat in to the course of one of the next recessions

[Anonymous No.13387685]

>>13387672
>fascism has been proven to work and communism has been proven not to
>what about these examples of socialism working on the path to communism
>fake
>no
>why do leftists hate proof and statistics and facts and logic????
You're a faggot, no more (You)s

[Anonymous No.13387686]

>>13387677
Yeah there really isn't as much state influence as people like to dream up. Gooks all want iPhones and nice clothes. Capitalism and democracy end up going hand in hand because one feeds into the other. The state relaxed control because it benefited the nation by making them rich. Live in your CNN bubble, dumb boy.

[Anonymous No.13387698]

>>13387685
I never said any of that. Communism is good at putting words in other people's mouths though

[Anonymous No.13387702]

>>13387683
This is why people hate litfags. You never just read the fuckin' text. You have to go on wild chases of imagination to make something fit what you want it to fit. Read the text next time instead of day dreaming. 'Seize the means of production' in a modern context where capitalistic interests have made it very plausible for nigh everyone to start a business? Please. At best you can relate Marxist ideologies to a vague parable, scarcely different to a very aggrandized contribution to Aesop's fables.

[Anonymous No.13387706]

>>13387686
I am certainly no Dengist apologist to say that China is socialist (Hell even Xi Jinping himself didn't think so with his 'socialism in 20 years.' proclamation) But to say China is somehow democratic now woefully misunderstands the extreme centralization and allocation of power of China. What do you think the people in HK are rioting about? Unless you are being a cheeky cunt in thinking Taiwan is China, you need to shut the fuck up.

>Live in your CNN bubble, dumb boy.
I don't even live in the West idiot,

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387710]

>>13387608
I call them liberal reforms because they are indeed liberal (inclusive) in nature. China is certainly not a paragon of liberalism, but it has embraced certain key elements, i.e. free exchange, market based pricing, foriegn investment etc. etc. They have also followed suit as other authoritian countries have done in pretending they are not actually authoritarian. Many Chinese would refer to their system as 'more free than the west' or 'democratic'. Vietnam has liberalized to a far greater extent. There is no firewall, and foreigners can purchase property (50 year lease).
The DRPK is another story. They have a massive military to maintain, and that severely limits it's options.

[Anonymous No.13387713]

>>13387664
I obviously have no idea what angle you're coming at this from, but if you've any familiarity with Marxism you'll know it's meant to be a philosophy of action, change, and the real world. You're free to disagree, but I think a discussion of the real world movements it's influenced and led is useful. I'm happy to discuss texts as well, but whatever, that's where the conversation went. Your false dichotomy between 'socialist state' and 'democracy' seems odd. I don't even mean the vulgar propaganda claim that socialist states are ispo facto the height of perfect Utopian democracy, to the exclusion of all other political forms etc., etc. Just that the two aren't mutually exclusive, and it's odd to imply such a thing. Look, if Marxism was nothing more or less than the collected works of Marx and Engels, you'd probably be right. But it's been constantly updated, revised, debated, recontextualised, and various elements have been discarded, revived, and so on. It's wrong to reject it as some dusty collection of 'archaic garbage' (something being old doesn't make it useless for starters). Especially so if we consider the fact that all of the most successful revolutionary, socialist movements and states have been specifically Marxist.

[Anonymous No.13387729]

>>13387706
Oh god you live in a shit hole like Crimea don't you? Any depravity at the hands of Russian influence is nothing to do with the concepts behind the rule, and everything to do with the absolute state of Russians.

China, as a republic, elected Xi. Now I concede that he's decided he wants to be fascist again, but you can sure as shit he won't seek to impoverish the people again. They've been impoverished all too recently; if he did they'd rebel and lynch him. HK were under British rule and want to remain a city state. The absolute shock people would rebel. It'd also mean letting in the uncouth mainlanders without the same level of control, and HK is frankly, a gentrified and affluent segment of CN.

Are there many manifestos/documents from the CN government on their policies? It's kind of a shame I can't read Chinese; I feel like a translation would lose its meaning.

[Anonymous No.13387755]

>>13387706
Mate the CCP endlessly calls themselves and China socialist. You might think they're wrong and/or liars, but to try and claim that China isn't socialist off the back of what its leaders is say is retarded.

>>13387710
I see what you meant, fair enough. I only disagree that such reforms make the country capitalist, and that the DPRK has no path to such reforms (ignoring whether they'd be good or bad). Also as far as the Chinese claim they're not 'truly' authoritarian etc., that's just rhetoric, they clearly are. Not that that matters too much in this particular conversation in my opinion. Back to the DPRK, nukes allow a new focus, and to that end the WPK officially announced the end of the Songun policy
https://www.cetri.be/Kim-Jong-Un-s-North-Korea?lang=fr

[Anonymous No.13387758]

>>13387729
>China, as a republic, elected Xi
LMAO
M
A
O

The CPC elected Xi, but nobody in China elected him. Holy ignornant are you about how China government works.

>They've been impoverished all too recently; if he did they'd rebel and lynch him. HK were under British rule and want to remain a city state.
The extreme naviety is disgusting to read. CPC's stranglehold on China is built on its prosperity sure, but any takeover would be first within the party. Party leadership have been changing hands to push changes to policymaking.

>The absolute shock people would rebel. It'd also mean letting in the uncouth mainlanders without the same level of control, and HK is frankly, a gentrified and affluent segment of CN.
It is also the issue that they are rebelling on, which is an extremely undemocratic measure. You can browbeat the HK people all you want, but the grievance is based on having their democratic (however weak) being denied and weakened.

And I live in Asia you fucking ignorant swine.

[Anonymous No.13387768]

>>13387755
>Mate the CCP endlessly calls themselves and China socialist.
They said that they are a communist party and that they wanted to make China socialist, but they have never said that China is currently in socialism, at least since Deng.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13387777]

>>13387755
I don't think the modernist terms apply anymore. We are living in a new, brave time; defining what is today by what was yesterday will only serve to cement conservative sentiment.

[Anonymous No.13387778]

>>13387635
>the gains made by socialists
Which gains exactly? Socialism has made no gains, in fact every single time it has been tried it has failed and ended in death and misery.

[Anonymous No.13387786]

>>13387758
>The CPC elected Xi, but nobody in China elected him. Holy ignornant are you about how China government works.
Just from the Wikipedia on the CPC.
>The CPC is officially organised on the basis of democratic centralism, a principle conceived by Russian Marxist theoretician Vladimir Lenin which entails democratic and open discussion on policy on the condition of unity in upholding the agreed upon policies.
Maybe you need to re-evaluate your understanding of what a democratic system is, because it doesn't necessitate that everyone gets a vote; you're confusing the prototypical idea of democracy with a practical application of democracy. The prototypical idea of democracy says everyone within the affected bodies of people get a vote - show me a nation that uses this, and I'll concede my argument.

[Anonymous No.13387797]

>He killed millions
and that is a good thing

[Anonymous No.13387800]

>>13387768
That's not true. What is true is that Xi thinks 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' is laying the ground for a more advanced socialism.
'This new era will be an era of building on past successes to further advance
our cause, and of continuing in a new historical context to strive for the success of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It will be an era of securing a decisive victory in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, and of moving on to all-out efforts to build a great modern socialist country...As socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era, the principal contradiction facing Chinese society has evolved'
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/download/Xi_Jinping's_report_at_19th_CPC_National_Congress.pdf

[Anonymous No.13387805]

>>13387786
Everyone within the party gets a vote sure. But not everyone in China is a member of the CPC retard. Nor is the party membership exactly cross-sectional. Ironically enough the CPC purged the leftist who were advocated for a democratic republic that sides with them against the KMT. I won't deny that the party itself might some semblance of democracy, but the state itself is not democratic by any means (which is what you said when you were comparing it as a democracy with a socialist STATE)

[Anonymous No.13387819]

>>13387702
>Seize the means of production' in a modern context where capitalistic interests have made it very plausible for nigh everyone to start a business?
"nigh everyone", read: middle class cucks who can afford it, 1 out of 20 of which will make it to the top, the rest falling down into the proletariat, sooner or later

>At best you can relate Marxist ideologies to a vague parable, scarcely different to a very aggrandized contribution to Aesop's fables.
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.13387821]

>>13387805
>Everyone within the party gets a vote sure. But not everyone in China is a member of the CPC retard.
I literally said in my previous post that a democracy does not necessitate that everyone gets a vote. It's called representation.

>>>/pol/
If you want to discuss ridiculous prototypes and hyperboles, go back to that shit hole.

[Anonymous No.13387824]

>>13387777
Ignoring for a moment the fact that a certain level of historical continuity is necessary to perceive basic reality; if so-called 'conservative' sentiment is an accurate and useful description of reality, I have no issue with it. The rupture between modernity and whatever we face now was and is considerable, but not perhaps as total as you claim.

[Anonymous No.13387825]

>>13387800
Your quote doesn't implicitly or explicitly state that China is fully socialistic yet, but that the CPC is building one soonish.

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/18/c_136689652.htm
>In a report delivered to the congress on behalf of the outgoing CPC Central Committee, Xi Jinping said China would become a "great modern socialist country" by the middle of the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.13387839]

>>13387821
>democracy does not necessitate that everyone gets a vote. It's called representation.
The democracy is within the party not within the state. Literally no one votes for the positions within the state. It is the party members who vote for the leaders who put themselves in the state. It is not who how many people are represented, but that only party members are represented that makes China the state not a democracy. You are literally playing semantic games and gaslighting anyone calling you out.

[Anonymous No.13387855]

>>13387778
See
>>13387546
He didn't even talk about all the other shit Sankara did, read about him

[Anonymous No.13387859]

>>13387825
It does, that's why I explicitly included a further part of the speech - 'As socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era'. Black and white. You don't need to take that one quote though, socialism's mentioned dozens of times in that paper alone, take a look. He repeats the claim above in the first paragraph as well - 'The 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China is a meeting of
great importance taking place during the decisive stage in building a moderately
prosperous society in all respects and at a critical moment *as socialism with
Chinese characteristics has entered a new era*'. You're confusing the so-called 'modestly prosperous country' and the 'advanced' or 'great modern' socialist country you occasionally hear them speak of, as far as I can tell they consider the former necessary for the latter. As in, 'advanced' socialism. Not socialism period.

[Anonymous No.13387868]

>>13387855
Socialism has led to, in every single instance that it has been applied to reality, mass starvation, death and misery.

A success rate of 0%, a fail rate of 100%.

Socialism has made no gains and will never make any gains. You defending such a brutal ideology in 2019 makes you inhumane. You hate humans and you hate freedom.

[Anonymous No.13387886]

>>13387859
>'As socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era'
That is literally a internal ideological term that is about liberal capitalism reform with the intentions (at least in theory) to establish a working socialism. Even Deng himself admitted that this was a means to and end. Hence the 'China would become a "great modern socialist country" by the middle of the 21st century.' quote is important since it means he thinks that said liberal reforms will serve its purpose by then.

[Anonymous No.13387908]

>>13387868
Did you not read the post or what? Socialism has and will continue to make gains whether you deny them or not.
Mass starvation, death, and misery are all absolutely the default of the human race and no ideology can magically vanish them all away overnight. Today's massive global capitalist machine feeds on this and worse every day, it cannot survive without subjugating portions of the world to mass starvation, death, and misery, does that give it a success rate of 0% and a fail rate of 100%?

[Anonymous No.13387916]

>>13383816
H U N G R Y S A N T A

[Anonymous No.13387937]

>>13387886
You've moved the goalposts, now that it's clear the CCP call China socialist, you've decided that they're lying, which wasn't the original argument, see >>13387755
I think the phrase 'fully socialistic' you used earlier hints at a misunderstanding. Remember, socialism is supposed to be transitional. For a socialism to reach its 'fullest' extent necessarily presupposes its own negation, into communism, at least for Marxists, yes? The less 'pure' socialism is nevertheless still socialism. It reminds me of Trots trying to spin Stalin's claim 'can the final victory of socialism in one country be attained, without the joint efforts of the proletariat of several advanced countries? No, this is impossible' as some sort of Freudian slip that reveals the impossibility of socialism without world revolution etc etc. When what it actually means is that socialism, being a transitional socioeconomic system, cannot reach its full extent without abolishing itself. I think the same logic applies here.

[Anonymous No.13387938]

>>13383816
Marxism sucks because classes are a spook

[Anonymous No.13387951]

>>13383816
>the virgin hitler: didn't kill his great enemy, the Holocaust was a farce
>the chad Marx: killed millions

[Anonymous No.13387973]

>>13387937
>now that it's clear the CCP call China socialist
Yes they did in the middle of the 21st century genius.

>For a socialism to reach its 'fullest' extent necessarily presupposes its own negation, into communism, at least for Marxists, yes?
Sure and the special thing that Lenin brought to the table is that a fedualistic country like Russia and China could leap/transit to socialism faster or under 'managed' capitalism, That is more or less the biggest thing his party (and the variants) were trying to achieve, how to transform feudalism to socialism asap. That is what I meant by 'socialism to reach its fullest extent' whereby China could leave behind capitalism (and any of its features) to be a socialist country. Maybe my wording was off but that is the point I am trying to make.

[Anonymous No.13388044]

>>13387908
>Mass starvation, death, and misery are all absolutely the default of the human race and no ideology can magically vanish them all away overnight
Yes this is true, however capitalism brings people out of poverty, doesn't kill people or force them into starvation or misery. Socialism does exactly all of those and more, it's a terrible ideology when practiced in reality.

Capitalism does not subjugate anyone to anything, you are not poor because someone else is rich. It's not a zero sum game.

Only through capitalism have we prospered, more people than ever are suddenly not poor anymore, are not starving, are not homeless, are not dying by the age of 30 and so on.

Socialism is the exact opposite. It seeks to destruct everything in its way. It has never made any, and will never make any gains what so ever. It's a cruel ideology that should not and need not be practiced in reality.

[Anonymous No.13388046]

>>13387973
You deny that socialism with Chinese characteristics is what it claims to be, I think it is. There's probably not much more we can do here unless we go on to make the respective arguments for that being either true of false. Given your comments, I'm assuming you've heard all of them already, possibly many times, and decided you still don't agree. So I suspect this is a bit of an impasse. What I contend that you're misunderstanding is that the so-called 'managed capitalism' of the NEP/SwCC is not capitalism, but a (primary/early/less developed) form of socialism. After all, markets existed existed even under Maoist China, they were simply underground, informal. Which is why we can't conflate markets with capitalism, and why socialist countries can have markets and still be called such imo.

[Anonymous No.13388055]

>>13383823
I like how their only argument against socialism is muh soibois. Your obsession with masculinity is proof that you're deeply insecure about it and your sexual repression is eating you up from the inside

[Anonymous No.13388128]

>>13388055
How about the fact that without ownership and accountability there's no incentive to look after something? The entire thing can be brought down by two words: moral hazard.

[Anonymous No.13388289]

>>13388128
If people fail to fulfill the administrative functions they're entrusted with, then they'll get recalled and will have to do some less preferable work. But such instances will be much less prevalent in a society where interest of the individual is identical with universal human interest, compared to the current society, full of conflicts of interest caused by the war of all against all for accumulation of private wealth.

[Anonymous No.13388299]

>>13388289
All the history of mankind proves that your murderous theory does not work.

You're a madman. Mentally ill. Seek help.

[Anonymous No.13388314]

>>13388299
well that was easy

[Anonymous No.13388338]

>>13388044
>capitalism brings people out of poverty, doesn't kill people or force them into starvation or misery
>Capitalism does not subjugate anyone to anything
This is laughably wrong. The capitalist system has a whole host of problems even in western first world countries looked at in isolation (the dissolution of traditional cultures, religion, and societal cohesion for a start), and when you acknowledge that the exploited third world countries being used to fuel our relative prosperity are part of the same capitalist machine, it's not hard at all to argue that capitalism is much more evil and conducive to overall misery than the majority of the 20th century's admittedly spotted leftist experiments.
You have to have a quasi-religious reverence for capitalism in order to sit here and claim nobody has ever been subjugated to anything by it. Please learn to understand the shortcomings of your own ideology instead of being such a fanatic.

[Anonymous No.13388401]

>>13388338

You realise capitalism is getting rid of poverty ion the Third Worlds faster than anything has in history, as we speak, right?

[Anonymous No.13388516]

>>13388401
>he trusts the rigged numbers

[Anonymous No.13388524]

>>13388401
China is responsible for 80% of glibal poverty reduction since the 80s.

[Anonymous No.13388534]

>>13388289
"less preferable work" doesn't mean anything. What does less responsibility indicate under a communist regime if less responsibility means the same amount of money? What incentive does someone have to be "good at their job" as a field tiller if yields are irrelevant? Is it fear of death? That's not a good incentive.

>>13388338
I'm not religious and you didn't address the argument in a meaningful way. It's clear capitalistic societies as a whole function better than societies that remove incentive to do good work. You don't even need to read a book, simply look at a map. Which societies work best? It's no accident that societies that don't promote work ethic through rewards fail.

[Anonymous No.13388542]

>>13388524
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.13388593]

>>13388534
>"less preferable work" doesn't mean anything.
You don't think there are kinds of work that would be less preferable than purely administrative work, especially for those who have already shown a proclinaton towards purely administrative work?
>What does less responsibility indicate under a communist regime if less responsibility means the same amount of money?
What money? Communism is moneyless. It's also not a "regime".
>What incentive does someone have to be "good at their job" as a field tiller if yields are irrelevant?
Why would they be irrelevant? Also, I don't know what "good" is supposed to mean here. If it's "above average" then there's no special incentive apart from respect and feeling of worth. But nobody has to be above average.

[Anonymous No.13388606]

>>13388542
My bad, 'only' 70%
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-04/23/c_129857170.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201806/06/WS5b174bf8a31001b82571e716.html
http://isdp.eu/publication/chinas-anti-poverty-efforts-problems-and-progress/
http://english.gov.cn/news/top_news/2016/12/28/content_281475527208032.htm

[Anonymous No.13388608]

>>13388534
There's a world of difference between saying capitalism is more efficient and saying capitalism has never caused any suffering or subjugated anyone in any way, you shifty little faggot.
Capitalism is very efficient at innovation, but also produces huge amounts of waste (there are, for example, several times more vacant houses in the US than there are homeless people). It also has absolutely no regard for long-term consequences of its expansionism because there simply isn't any way to punish negative externalities beyond the government slapping the hands of corporations and saying "Bad," and even that is A) not very capitalist in nature and B) not very effective at actually stopping negative externalities. This could literally end the human race in a couple of centuries, which is pretty inefficient in the long term.
>remove incentive to do good work
Every actual leftist author from Marx on has addressed this, the "nothing matters at all everybodys gets everything equally" shit is just as unjustified as the "they're gonna steal your toothbrush" myth.
Meanwhile, in a capitalist world, hard work leading to you being a billionaire CEO is held up as a foundational lie told every day.
>I'm not religious
Which is why I needed to tell you to stop holding your ideology in a delusional religious light.

[Anonymous No.13388633]

>>13383816
With his bare hands?

[Anonymous No.13388638]

>>13388401
>muh arbitrary dollar-a-day!

[Anonymous No.13388666]

Millions is worth the price of utopia

[Anonymous No.13388669]

>>13383816
100 GORILLION DEAD

[Anonymous No.13388929]

>>13388593
> You don't think there are kinds of work that would be less preferable than purely administrative work, especially for those who have already shown a proclinaton towards purely administrative work?
Yes, I don't think there's significant difference between work types. Even so, without profit motive or incentive it may be impossible to designate between yields in an administrative capacity.

>What money? Communism is moneyless. It's also not a "regime".
Exactly.

>Why would they be irrelevant? Also, I don't know what "good" is supposed to mean here. If it's "above average" then there's no special incentive apart from respect and feeling of worth. But nobody has to be above average.
If nobody "has to be" above average than no one will be. That means poorer work overall, which is what has been observed.

>>13388606
> self reported statistics from China

>>13388608
>Every actual leftist author from Marx on has addressed this, the "nothing matters at all everybodys gets everything equally" shit is just as unjustified as the "they're gonna steal your toothbrush" myth.
Funny you call me a shifty little faggot when you don't even address the point. You just mention it in hopes of that being enough. It isn't.

>Meanwhile, in a capitalist world, hard work leading to you being a billionaire CEO is held up as a foundational lie told every day.
You're delusional if you think people at the top don't work harder. Just because you're a lazy useless faggot doesn't mean everyone else

>Which is why I needed to tell you to stop holding your ideology in a delusional religious light.
I went through a commie phase when I was 14 too. I just grew up because I'm not a retard.

[Anonymous No.13388966]

>>13384611
Based

[Anonymous No.13388993]

>>13388929
>If nobody "has to be" above average than no one will be.
That's fine. I meant, it's not true, but it's fine either way. We don't need inhuman effort to thrive, especially with highly developed technology of production. Average, human effort will do just fine.
>That means poorer work overall, which is what has been observed.
Are you from the future?

>I went through a commie phase when I was 14 too.
You didn't because you didn't know shit about communism, and you still don't. If we're being generous, you might have had a "lame utopian socialism" phase.

[Anonymous No.13388999]

>>13385365
to kill trillions

[Anonymous No.13389024]

>>13386987
Because it was defeated in a war which in the minds of people, even today, reflects the ultimate battle of good versus evil.

[Anonymous No.13389059]

>>13388929
>1.1 billion out of poverty globally
https://qz.com/798481/over-a-billion-people-have-been-lifted-out-of-poverty-since-1990-but-the-next-billion-will-be-harder/
>[In] China...GDP growth has averaged nearly 10% a year—the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history—and more than 850 million people have lifted themselves out of poverty
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview
Both from the World Bank. You do the math retard

[Anonymous No.13389078]

>>13388929
>You're delusional if you think people at the top don't work harder
Are you a fucking boomer? Have you never interacted with the kind of people who land six-figure "consulting jobs" as soon as they get out of their Ivy daycare centers?

[Anonymous No.13389262]

>>13388993
>That's fine. I meant, it's not true, but it's fine either way. We don't need inhuman effort to thrive, especially with highly developed technology of production. Average, human effort will do just fine.
"yeah bro it's totally cool to stall progress and get sub-normal returns on everything as long as there's no CEO's."
It's easy to say until everyone's hungry and there's nothing around.

>Are you from the future?
No, but history speaks volumes about this type of government

>You didn't because you didn't know shit about communism, and you still don't. If we're being generous, you might have had a "lame utopian socialism" phase.
lol OK, this is the standard "cope" when your ilk runs out of talking points. Telling me to "read marx" because you can't express the points yourself. Fucking losers online all day because they don't have a job and still can't express how it'd work.

>>13389059
> don't trust the banks bro unless of course they're agreeing with my point.
China succeeded because of capitalism and business with the west.

>>13389078
>Are you a fucking boomer? Have you never interacted with the kind of people who land six-figure "consulting jobs" as soon as they get out of their Ivy daycare centers?
I've met plenty of them and you're delusional if you think the best schools in the nation with great resources and instructors don't produce better workers. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.13389323]

>>13389262
>business with the west
Irrelevant.
>capitalism
Ah, more shifting goalposts. China is socialist. I'm sounding like a broken fucking record here but whatever. They have an avowedly Marxist-Leninist party in power, periodic Five Year Plans, mandatory party representation in nearly every facet of the economy and society at large, and huge swathes of the economy are state-owned and ran. See below.
>Examining what companies are truly private is important because privatization is often confused with the spreading out of shareholding and the sale of minority stakes. In China, 100 percent state ownership is often diluted by the division of ownership into shares, some of which are made available to nonstate actors, such as foreign companies or other private investors. Nearly two-thirds of the state-owned enterprises and subsidiaries in China have undertaken such changes, leading some foreign observers to relabel these firms as “nonstate” or even “private.” But this reclassification is incorrect. The sale of stock does nothing by itself to alter state control: dozens of enterprises are no less state controlled simply because they are listed on foreign stock exchanges. As a practical matter, three-quarters of the roughly 1,500 companies listed as domestic stocks are still state owned.
>No matter their shareholding structure, all national corporations in the sectors that make up the core of the Chinese economy are required by law to be owned or controlled by the state. These sectors include power generation and distribution; oil, coal, petrochemicals, and natural gas; telecommunications; armaments; Aviation and shipping; machinery and automobile production; information technologies; construction; and the production of iron, steel, and nonferrous metals. The railroads, grain distribution, and insurance are also dominated by the state, even if no official edict says so
>One reason the rollback of reform has been overlooked by Washington is that China is officially engaged in a process of restructuring its economy. But this effort has none of the characteristics of market reform. It is aimed at shrinking the number of participants in many industries and expanding the size of the remaining enterprises; through both measures, it will reduce competition.
>the state exercises control over most of the rest of the economy through the financial system, especially the banks. By the end of 2008, outstanding loans amounted to almost $5 trillion, and annual loan growth was almost 19 percent and accelerating; lending, in other words, is probably China’s principal economic force. The Chinese state owns all the large financial institutions, the People’s Bank of China assigns them loan quotas every year, and lending is directed according to the state’s priorities.

https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/liberalization-reverse

[Anonymous No.13389351]

>>13383816
itt. People forgetting the untold masses of people that died in every civilization transitioning from feudalism to capitalism and agrarian economies to industrial ones. Soviets just tried to jump through the capitalist phase and it didn't work out. But go ahead singling out the deaths you think are important cause capitalism makes you feel so fulfilled and not totally dead inside. You're just carrying water for the richest fucking assholes who wouldn't care if you an hero'd this very moment

[Anonymous No.13389420]

>>13389323
>Irrelevant
Yeah because the non-state actors, IP theft and mobilizing of cash into chinese factories for chinese labor has nothing to do with it.

>Ah, more shifting goalposts. China is socialist. I'm sounding like a broken fucking record here but whatever. They have an avowedly Marxist-Leninist party in power, periodic Five Year Plans, mandatory party representation in nearly every facet of the economy and society at large, and huge swathes of the economy are state-owned and ran. See below.
So, there's shareholders that get money and services for production quotas? There's people that benefit from their labor? There's currency?

>wordwordswords
Throw all the COPE at it that you want, but at the end of the day the only reason this is working is because of capitalistic tendencies.

[Anonymous No.13389508]

>>13389420
>non-state actors, IP theft and mobilizing of cash into chinese factories
It may have everything or nothing to do with their success. It makes no difference though. China is socialist for all that, assuming I concede all those things' importance or even existence in the first place, which I don't necessarily (see those words you're so scared of to see the fallacy of the term 'non-state actors' in China lmao). If it's so easy, why did China manage it and not India, African countries, Russian Federation, etc.?
>shareholders that get money and services for production quotas? There's people that benefit from their labor?
http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-4/deng-xiaoping-socialism-with-chinese-characteristics
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2018-11-20-socialism-with-chinese-characteristics-a-study-tour/
>currency does't exist in socialism
Pathetic.
>wah cope cope wordswordswords
Figures you'd be averse to words, you flailing retard.

[Anonymous No.13389597]

>>13389262
>It's easy to say until everyone's hungry and there's nothing around.
Our production technology is developed well enough to allow us to drastically cut labour time, allow for "sub-normal returns", and still have enough food for everyone. Especially since we'll be able to cut a lot of worthless jobs, both by producing less useless shit and by centralizing the production of the rest.

>No, but history speaks volumes about this type of government
It doesn't speak anything about it.

[Anonymous No.13389606]

>>13389323
>China is socialist.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.13389652]

>>13389606
it has red flag and the leaders reference marx so it clearly is socialist u moren

[Anonymous No.13389865]

>>13389597
Why is our technology so good? You can blame industrialization on capitalism. There will be more problems in the future as our population grows and the solution isn't a communist one.

And yes it does. Pick up a fucking book.

>>13389508
It's obvious that you're too ingrained and stupid to change your view and your willful ignorance of what made China successful is pathetic.

[Anonymous No.13389874]

>>13388055
FREUDIAN SLIP

[Anonymous No.13389877]

>>13389606
>>13389652
Great arguments. I'm convinced.

[Anonymous No.13389879]

>>13389652
That is indeed a hilarious picture. :3

[Anonymous No.13389883]

>>13389865
You give up then. Well done. Extra props for citing zero fucking sources:

[Anonymous No.13389894]

>>13386974
Stalin stopped the jew take over of Russia very bad goy :'(

[Anonymous No.13389941]

>>13389883
Yes, because state statistics and globalist journalism is truly objective reason. I don't waste my time with trash like that when no one will read it and my words are enough

[Anonymous No.13389951]

>>13389323
>heritage.org
>The Heritage Foundation (abbreviated to Heritage)[1][2] is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., primarily geared towards public policy. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[4]

[Anonymous No.13389988]

>>13389865
>Why is our technology so good?
Capitalism creates conditions for its own abolition. God bless capitalism!
>in the future as our population grows
It's supposed to peak in early 2040s.
>And yes it does. Pick up a fucking book.
I did, that's why I know you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.13390042]

>>13389941
Course, everything you don't like is globalist propaganda. And I'm the dogmatist which no amount of words can convince hahaha. How sad.

[Anonymous No.13390049]

>>13389951
I'm well aware the Heritage Foundation is conservative you spastic. I deliberately chose to cite them since I was being accused of relying solely on Chinese state propaganda.

[Anonymous No.13390087]

>>13383816
haha.
>>13384749
>HAHA! i don't understand, but i agree.
>>13385365
of dollars by just not giving them food.

[Anonymous No.13390090]

>>13383816
And that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.13390466]

>>13390042
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_China
You don't need a news periodical or genius IQ to understand that they make money through trade you fucking moron. Everything you say and do is designed to waste my time.

[Anonymous No.13390471]

>>13390466
http://fortune.com/2019/03/01/china-ip-theft/
more on IP theft

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/investigation-uncovers-squalid-conditions-in-chinese-toy-sweatshops/news-story/cbdc8886b807023c7480c760a8bbfb66
chinese sweat shops.

Tuning into the news for like one fucking day will show all this shit I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.13390500]

He's still killing today.

[Anonymous No.13390690]

>>13390466
The reason I know you haven't read any of the sources I posted, or anything to do with Chinese socialism, is that THEY THEMSELVES consider trade a key aspect of the Chinese economy, specifically their dealings with the global economy. Please just read up on what 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' actually is. You don't have to agree with it, just read up on what it is. Trade DOES NOT preclude socialism. Not even 'sweatshops' preclude socialism. Because guess what, if a socialist society has sweatshops, that makes it a flawed and criminalstic socialism, BUT STILL SOCIALISM. Just like a capitalist country remains capitalist even if/when it commits 'crimes'. Socialism is an economic system, not a moral judgment. Why is this so difficult for retards on both the left and the right?

[Anonymous No.13391305]

>>13390690
So you think that the fact that they agree with what I'm saying negates my argument? Commies really are retards committed to wasting my time. Seriously dude you should spend some time offline looking for a fucking job.

[Anonymous No.13391495]

>>13383816
while he had good criticisms of the British class system at the time, his way of life was so unmanly that he deserves zero respect. next time there is a commie rally in your town go check it out. you will see nothing but the filthiest human beings who hate life.

[Anonymous No.13391997]

>>13390690
>Trade DOES NOT preclude socialism.
Yes it does.
>Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products

>>13391495
>next time there is a commie rally in your town go check it out.
A bunch of larping retards is not a "commie rally"

[Anonymous No.13392043]

communism was designed by women and is therefore useless

[Anonymous No.13392047]

>people still fall for his meme ideology today

[Anonymous No.13392051]

[Anonymous No.13392093]

>>13389508
>why did China manage it and not India
because China was authoritarian, and India's economy was and still is hopelessly crippled by democratic red tape

Read Deng's doublespeak in the article you posted
>If we had taken the capitalist road, we could not have put an end to the chaos in the country or done away with poverty and backwardness

>The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system...our shortcomings after the founding of the People’s Republic was that we didn’t pay enough attention to developing the productive forces
And how are they going to develop those productive forces? By reforming the economy to be more capitalist and less command-based. The only interpretation of what he said that makes sense is if you take "socialist" to mean authoritarian and "capitalist" to mean democratic.

So is this the definition you are using when you say that China is "socialist"? That it is in the control of a single party instead of diffused into laws and capital interests. I guess you could say it's easier for the CCP to seize the means of production from the private sector than the US, but I'm not totally sure that's true. Certainly not if they want to keep growing and competing in the world economy. The only time they, or anyone else, could do it and get away with it is when they've already won, or otherwise are angling for war

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!yvm0QrHZZJQ No.13392371]

This argument of classifying China is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.13392375]

good thread

[Anonymous No.13393146]

>>13391997
Suffice to say, I think Marx was being a tad mechanistic/reductive here, since I'm a proponent of the primary stage of socialism/socialist market system theory. Course, he wrote the Critique specifically as a response to Lassalle, so perhaps this is understandable in that light (I'm particularly wary of Marx's phrasing here, 'the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, I've no idea if this is something distinct from the DotP, been a few years since I reread the Critique, maybe it's clear in the full text), especially with his famous lines re Communism 'as it emerges from capitalist society' etc. etc. in the very next paragraph. Regardless, the point I'm making is that I think Marxism has developed a fair bit since Marx's time, as outlined here
http://ouleft.sp-mesolite.tilted.net/?p=1649
I'll make this my last response though, this dragged on a bit and I think we've both outlined our positions.

>>13392093
Same here, I'll make this my last response. There's plenty of bureaucratic technobabble in modern day Chinese Marxist writing, but none of what you quoted strikes me as an example of it. To tilt the economy *relatively* away from command economy, and towards market forces (and it is relative) does not make it not socialist, because market forces are in subordination to the planned SOE sector, as well as subject to regulation, mandatory party presence in private companies etc. To quote the article I cited above
>China avoided collapse after 1989 by combining state ownership, of fewer, but more powerful state enterprises, with various subordinate forms of private ownership.
I'm lifting this next bit from Wikipedia because I can't get the book, but here's some more detail on planning
>the planning system is a three-layer system: compulsory, contractual and indicative. At the upper level, the planning system is compulsory: documents outlining detailed sets of targets, including the human resources needed and the supply of raw materials and the financing needs, such as infrastructure programmes; development plans of the western provinces; education plans; health expenditures; research objectives, and so on. Generally speaking, included within compulsory planning are state-owned companies and banks and the monopolistic sectors under tight government control such as the Ministry of Railways. At the second level, the planning system is contractual: planning sets the objectives; the ways and means of a given industrial sector; and then negotiates with the corporations and the offices concerned to establish detailed objectives, as well as the allocation of resources to the targeted sectors. At the third and lowest level, the planning system is only an indicative: government schedule; industrial sector targets; the companies involved and inducement measures (government subsidies, tax exemption, bank lending and financial markets).
Anyway, see you later.

[Anonymous No.13393202]

>>13383816
Yep, more than 100,000,000 dead so far and counting. Mostly their own people, too. Most destructive socioeconomic theory OAT. I am a Classical Liberal, but if I had no option but to choose between the two, I would pick Fascism in over any kind of Communism in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous No.13393231]

>>13393146
>I'm particularly wary of Marx's phrasing here, 'the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, I've no idea if this is something distinct from the DotP, been a few years since I reread the Critique
The co-operative society is a society whose mode of production is no longer capitalist. It is a classless society. The dictatorship of the proletariat is an instrument for the transformation of the capitalist society into the co-operative society. It is not yet classless (as the name indicates).
Sounds like it's been "a few years" since you read any Marx at all, instead of those supposed "Marxist developments":
>Regardless, the point I'm making is that I think Marxism has developed a fair bit since Marx's time, as outlined here
Yes, it's been falsified quite a bit in an effort to explain away the contradiction of the supposed proletarian states being anti-proletarian and more capitalist as time goes on.
>I'll make this my last response though, this dragged on a bit and I think we've both outlined our positions.
That was my first response to you, but I don't see a point in discussing this any further either.

[Anonymous No.13393272]

>>13393231
>That was my first response to you
My mistake
>The co-operative society is a society is classless
I suspected this, though I didn't want to assume it. Sad attempt at sarcasm aside, that appears to back my point though, since socialism is the modern name for the what Marx called the DotP, the transitional stage between capitalism and a classless stateless moneyless society. The logical conclusion then fits with the next paragraph, that I referenced, re Communism as stamped with the birthmarks of capitalism etc. The implication is that the DotP/socialism may well contain similarities/holdovers/etc from capitalist society, as its in the process of transition.

[Anonymous No.13393399]

>>13393272
>since socialism is the modern name for the what Marx called the DotP
"Instead of creating socialism in the real world, we'll create it in people's heads by renaming something else as socialism". Pure counter-revolutionary propaganda. But that's beside the point anyway, since China is not even a DotP. Never has been.
>The logical conclusion then fits with the next paragraph, that I referenced, re Communism as stamped with the birthmarks of capitalism etc.
There's a difference between communism being stamped with the birthmarks of capitalism (like the necessary enforcement of "equal right" with regards to level of consumption in the lower phase) and communism sharing fundamental features with capitalism that make capitalism into what it is (indirect production, exchange between producers). In the former case we have communism which is stamped with the birthmarks of capitalism, while in the latter we have nothing more but a capitalism that pretends to be communism.

[Anonymous No.13393592]

>>13393399
>"Instead of creating socialism we'll be evil"
Look it's pretty widely known there are factions of revisionists, neoliberals, and so on in the Chinese government. You could credibly attempt to argue I think that China is revisionist. But revisionist is not a mode of production.
>Never has been
Interesting claim, not even during the Mao era? Are you an Ortthodox Marxist, or maybe some kind of Trotskyist? Unusual claim regardless. I wonder if you think there's ever been a socialist society in history before, then?
>while in the latter we have nothing more but a capitalism that pretends to be communism
I see your point but I disagree. What happens when the transition period lasts decades and decades? That has a little more weight than just 'oh of course there'll be a few relatively minor similarities and holdovers'.There's going to be concessions made 'in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually'. This extremely protracted process represents a titanic struggle, with all the consequences taht a titanic struggle has for theoretical purity. These processes and such that we see in modern China represent a series of heavy distortions and alterations, but not a fundamental rupture in the mode of production imo. Though such a rupture is entirely possible, at any time. All it takes is a push. This is certainly the CCP's biggest struggle they'll have to confront.

[Anonymous No.13393623]

>>13383830
to save trillions

[Anonymous No.13393642]

>>13393592
>But revisionist is not a mode of production.
"Capitalist" is though.
>Interesting claim, not even during the Mao era?
Yes, it was a political revolution of peasantry right from the start. Nothing to do with the international proletarian revolution except for the rhetoric.
>Unusual claim regardless. I wonder if you think there's ever been a socialist society in history before, then?
Socialist? No. A DotP? Yes, the Paris Commune and the USSR until it did a 180 away from the international revolution.
>What happens when the transition period lasts decades and decades?
For one, the production becomes less and less capitalist, instead of more and more capitalist.

[Anonymous No.13393679]

>>13393642
>peasantry
I'm frankly not that well-read on the early years of the Chinese revolution, though it seems odd that you consider the USSR a DotP despite its similarly overwhelmingly peasant society (When did it do a 180 though? 1917? 1921? 1928? 1938? 1956?).
>For one, the production becomes less and less capitalist, instead of more and more capitalist.
Putting aside that I disagree with the terminology to a certain extent, surely you see how simplistic that is? History isn't a straight upward march of More Socialism and Less Capitalism. Too mechanistic.

[Anonymous No.13393681]

>>13383830
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.13393747]

>>13393679
>despite its similarly overwhelmingly peasant society
It's not a matter of how large a class is relative to other classes, but which class achieves political power.
>When did it do a 180 though?
When the policy of "socialism in one country" was adopted. Excuse me for quoting Wikipedia:
>The Soviet Union adopted socialism in one country as state policy after Stalin's January 1926 article On the Issues of Leninism. 1925–1926 signaled a shift in the immediate activity of the Communist International from world revolution towards a defense of the Soviet state.

[Anonymous No.13393795]

>>13393747
>It's not a matter of how large a class is relative to other classes, but which class achieves political power.
I agree. It's why I consider China socialist, both back then and now.
>SioC is capitalist
Wrong. Lenin thought that notion wrong. Stalin thought it wrong. Even Trotsky actually thought it wrong, just that it was destined for failure long term. Even ignoring the post-Lenin contributions of the USSR to the world movement, in full accordance with the theory of SioC. Socialism is a mode of production, and a transitional stage. Not a 'commitment to internationalism', as desirable as such a thing undoubtedly is. Pure idealism. Can't be arsed diving into that fucking debate now though. Take care.

[Anonymous No.13394053]

>>13393795
>I agree. It's why I consider China socialist, both back then and now.
You have to be the ultimate cynic to unironically believe that the billionaires in the Chinese party are fulfilling the program of the proletarian class right now.

>Lenin thought that notion wrong.
No he didn't. He always affirmed the international road to socialism. It's no coincidence that the 180 on this was only done after his death. And if you respect what Lenin thought so much, then we can go through some things he actually said if you wish. For example:
>Then the class distinction between workers and peasants should be abolished. That is exactly our object. A society in which the class distinction between workers and peasants still exists is neither a communist society nor a socialist society. True, if the word socialism is interpreted in a certain sense, it might be called a socialist society, but that would be mere sophistry, an argument about words.
This is from a speech delivered a whole 100 years ago, and yet it perfectly exposes your empty sophistry for what it is.

>Socialism is a mode of production, and a transitional stage.
Previously you claimed that socialism is a name for what Marx called the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is the revolutionary transition between the capitalist mode of production and the communist one. Now you're claiming that it is its own mode of production. Who is the author of this breakthrough discovery in Marxism? A whole new mode of production appeared out of nowhere between the capitalist one and the associated one, suspiciously similar to the former. How convenient for all the opportunists of the world.

>Not a 'commitment to internationalism'
Socialism aka communism is the real movement of the proletariat which abolishes the present state of things. As per Marx's discovery, this movement can only be international. So yes, commitment to internationalism is a part of its essence.

>Pure idealism.
It's as much idealist as commitment to revolutionarism. And if that is idealist then Marx was the biggest idealist of all.

[Anonymous No.13394218]

>>13394053
>Billionaires
Not the dominant force of the Chinese government. A force to be closely watched regardless.
>Internationalism
Not entirely wrong, just not fully correct in the sense that you think it is. Your reasoning is undialectical. The national and the international exist in relation to each other, and both are necessary for the abolition of the other. The rest of your wordplay re 'commitment to internationalism is a part of socialism's essence because XYZ and therefore 123' is just that. And you accuse me of sophistry. In a national age, you cannot be an internationalist without engaging in the nation, ideologically, practically, etc. To think you can is the source of the faddish open borders lunacy seen from American liberals. Your internationalism is a fetish, not a tool.
>Socialism as transition vs socialism as MoP
I mentioned Mandel in a previous discussion. Basically I think that socialism is a transition stage, but also a mode of production with fairly unstable/weak characteristics, at least insofar as the 'more' socialist a country is, the closer it is to its sublation, in full communism. Like I said, any 'transitional stage' that can last decades (perhaps centuries?) has to have a little more theoretical weight behind it than just being 'the period of revolutionary transition'
>Lenin
"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world―the capitalist world…”
~Lenin, “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe” (1915)

“…Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries…”
~Lenin, “The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution” (1916)

“…when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth.”
~Lenin, “Speech to the Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets” (1918)
>A society in which the class distinction between workers and peasants still exists...
Peasants are a feudal class, don't mistake them for capitalist agricultural workers. Doesn't even matter whether you think China is capitalist or socialist, it should be fairly clear that their agriculture is run on modern industrial lines, not feudal ones.

[Anonymous No.13394231]

>>13383823
read marx

[Anonymous No.13394414]

>>13394218
I'm not touching that pile of stinking shit of a post except for the Lenin parts. Although I will point out that sprinkling random Hegelian lingo on shit doesn't help, it only makes it stink more.

>After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production,
Where is this "organising of socialist production"?
>the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world―the capitalist world…
The Chinese proletarian billionaires are surely going to arise against the rest of the capitalist world any minute now.

>…Socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries…
Socialism being the movement in the process of realizing the proletarian program. This is a trivial point. Of course proletarian revolutions can't succeed everywhere in the world in a single day, or even a single year.
I agree that the USSR once was socialist in the trivial sense of being ruled by socialists, that is members of the movement defined above, but this is exactly what he was referring to in 1919 when he said:
>True, if the word socialism is interpreted in a certain sense, it might be called a socialist society, but that would be mere sophistry, an argument about words.

>when we are told that the victory of socialism is possible only on a world scale, we regard this merely as an attempt, a particularly hopeless attempt, on the part of the bourgeoisie and its voluntary and involuntary supporters to distort the irrefutable truth
This is a refutation of the more immediatist critics, equivalent to the one above.
Further down:
>The final victory of socialism in a single country is of course impossible.

And still further down:
>The great founders of socialism, Marx and Engels, having watched the development of the labour movement and the growth of the world socialist revolution for a number of decades saw clearly that the transition from capitalism to socialism would require prolonged birth-pangs, a long period of the dictatorship of the proletariat
He clearly distinguishes between socialism and the DotP which is the transition to socialism.
>the break-up of all that belonged to the past, the ruthless destruction of all forms of capitalism, the co.-operation of the workers of all countries, who would have to combine their efforts to ensure complete victory.
Another clear affirmation of internationalism.

[Anonymous No.13394528]

>>13384609
Hey man I don't know you but I just want to say that I think you are genuinely stupid. Not just from this post specifically (although it is part of it), but I mean in general I think you are a very stupid person with a very low iq, or at best an almost average iq. That is not to say anything about you personally since I don't know you, but just in general how you must be very dumb.

[Anonymous No.13394551]

>>13394528

[Anonymous No.13394676]

>>13394414
>dialectics
>mumbo jumbo
Nice dodge.
>Socialism being the movement in the process of realizing the proletarian program
Is this not the primary stage of socialism the Chinese insist they are currently in? The 'trivial sense of being ruled by socialists' has significance in that being ruled by socialists carries a number of implications about the economic and political structure of that society. I remind you that the commanding heights of China's economy are SOE's and planned accordingly etc. etc.
>Final victory of socialism
I.e. Higher stage communism. Stalin acknowledges this too. It's in line with what I said.
>"Between capitalist and communist society 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."
The DotP is the political/governmental corresponding form of socialism, which is strictly speaking economic (in practice the two often correspond fairly closely with each other), not a separate also-economic thing between capitalism and socialism
Lenin matches this position here
>the transition from capitalist society--which is developing towards communism--to communist society is impossible without a *political transition period*, and the *state* in this period can only be the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Here again, more explicitly
>the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors
You yourself seemed to acknowledge this when you said the Paris Commune was a DotP. You don't mean it was an economically separate, entirely unique thing to both capitalism and socialism presumably? You refer to its political structure.
>Internationalism
I realise you don't like dialectics, but please read my post about it again. Again, '*complete* victory' means worldwide high stage stateless classless moneyless communism, not socialism.

[Anonymous No.13394723]

Socialism does not work.

Communism does not work.

Marxism does not work.

Capitalism works.

[Anonymous No.13394729]

>>13394723
Based

[Anonymous No.13394785]

>>13394723
Yikes

[Anonymous No.13394842]

to save billions

[Anonymous No.13394931]

>>13394676
>>mumbo jumbo
Yes, typing out self-contradictory nonsense and pretending it's "dialectics" is peak mumbo jumbo.

>I remind you that the commanding heights of China's economy are SOE's and planned accordingly etc. etc.
Legalistic ownership structure is a matter of superstructure. It has no bearing on the mode of production. Engels:
>But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. [...]
>Certainly, if the taking over by the State of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of Socialism.
And, again, China is not ruled by socialists.

>Final victory of socialism
>I.e. Higher stage communism.
If you admit that this is what he meant, then you also have to admit that what he means there by socialism is just the socialist movement, and not the mode of production.
The reason is that, if he meant the mode of production, then "final victory of socialism" couldn't have meant "higher stage -- communism", since when it comes to the matter of the actual organization of society, Lenin only used "socialism" to designate the lower stage, and not the higher one.

>The DotP is the political/governmental corresponding form of socialism
No, it's not a form of socialism. Socialism is, if we take Lenin's terminology, a lower stage of communism, or, if we take Marx's, any stage of communism. Communism is classless. DotP is not classless, because it is a dictatorship of a single class, as distinguished from another class, for example the peasant class, as in Lenin's example, when he said that a society with separate worker and peasant class is not socialist.

>I realise you don't like dialectics
Stop using this word, it's embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.13395101]

>>13394723
Nothing works

[Anonymous No.13395179]

>>13394931
>The New Economic Policy introduces a number of important changes in the position of the proletariat and, consequently, in that of the trade unions. The great bulk of the means of production in industry and the transport system remains in the hands of the proletarian state. This, together with the nationalisation of the land, shows that the New Economic Policy does not change the nature of the workers’ state, although it does substantially alter the methods and forms of socialist development for it permits of economic rivalry between socialism, which is now being built, and capitalism, which is trying to revive by supplying the needs of the vast masses of the peasantry through the medium of the market.
“Role and Function of Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy,” December 30, 1921
>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. On the contrary, the development of capitalism, controlled and regulated by the proletarian state (i.e., “state” capitalism in this sense of the term), is advantageous and necessary in an extremely devastated and backward small-peasant country (within certain limits, of course), inasmuch as it is capable of hastening the immediate revival of peasant farming. This applies still more to concessions: without denationalising anything, the workers’ state leases certain mines, forest tracts, oilfields, and so forth, to foreign capitalists in order to obtain from them extra equipment and machinery that will enable us to accelerate the restoration of Soviet large-scale industry
Lenin, Third Congress Of The Communist International, 1921
There's been some developments since Engels in my opinion my man. It is on this basis that Chinese Marxists acme up with the theory of the 'primary stage' of socialism.
>then "final victory of socialism" couldn't have meant "higher stage -- communism
It could've easily though, since Lenin, like most Marxists, assumed a stagist version of history in which communism followed socialism.
'Lower stage communism', or socialism if you want, is not classless, so it makes no sense to say the DotP is not the corresponding political form (of the economic form) of socialism - your phrasing obscures my meaning for the reasons you say.
>Internationalism
Strip out the Hegelian stuff if you want, the point remains obvious. Any internationalist is necessarily going to have a more nuanced, pragmatic relationship with the national than you suppose. In exactly the same sense that a pacifist might have to employ violence to stop an even greater aggressor.
>China is not ruled by socialists etc
I think this is the impasse though mate. Now I really do have to leave off for the night.

[Anonymous No.13395317]

>>13395179
Nationalization might be a step towards transforming the mode of production from capitalist to socialist, but it's not yet sufficient for the latter. This is not a "development since Engels". It's already in the ten planks from the Manifesto, for example.
And that such transformation is taking place, doesn't necessitate that those who effect it must be considered socialists. Marx:
>Capitalist joint-stock companies as much as cooperative factories should be viewed as transition forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, simply that in the one case the opposition is abolished in a negative way, and in the other, in a positive way.

>It could've easily though, since Lenin, like most Marxists, assumed a stagist version of history in which communism followed socialism.
No, for Lenin socialism was already communism, specifically the lower stage of it.

>'Lower stage communism', or socialism if you want, is not classless
Communism is classless. Socialism is also classless, whether it only encompasses the lower stage of communism or the entirety of it. This was all accepted even by Lenin, as I already mentioned twice.

>Strip out the Hegelian stuff if you want
There's nothing Hegelian about calling random word-twisting, self-contradictions, and lack of clarity "dialectics".

>Any internationalist is necessarily going to have a more nuanced, pragmatic relationship with the national than you suppose.
I think I have more pragmatic relationship with the national than YOU suppose. The state will be used and abused as an instrument of the revolutionary party, but the revolutionary party can never become an instrument of the state, and the latter is precisely what constitutes the abandonment of the proletarian program.

[Anonymous No.13396082]

>>13383822
>Karl Marx isn't responsible for "death by communism".
>NRA is responsible for mass school shootings.
real NRA hasn't been tried yet.

[Anonymous No.13396108]

>>13396082
Yikes

[Anonymous No.13397160]

>>13396082
Based

[Anonymous No.13397489]

>>13387546
>one of the most historically powerful, prosperous nations in the world that was undergoing a brief depression and made it into a smoldering heap of rubble in less than a decade.
You're retardation regarding the topic of history unsurprising given that you're a socialist. Weimar Germany and Pre-fascist Italy is anything but historically powerful and prosperous nation given that they have 0 power projection until Fascism took over. The same case goes to Spain and Portugal(though this is more on corporatism but fascism is inherently corporatist in nature). The USSR sacrificed much of the countries resources and its citizen to have a meager growth compared to both fascist and capitalist country despite being a massive union. The inefficiencies of its economic system was finally realized when that dungheap ultimately collapsed on itself during the late 90s when their leader weep at the sight of your average American supermarket.

[Anonymous No.13397527]

>>13387713
>discussion of the real world movements it's influenced and led is useful.
Useful in the sense that it only give an opportunity in being another useless retarded doctor lecturing about marxism in several Universities.

>But it's been constantly updated, revised, debated, recontextualised, and various elements have been discarded, revived, and so on
And that's what makes it outdated garbage, congrats on proving him right. If your theory revolves around being ""updated"" constantly then its a tightly shit and unscientific theory in the first place.

>It's wrong to reject it as some dusty collection of 'archaic garbage
It is when it serves no practical application

>Especially so if we consider the fact that all of the most successful revolutionary, socialist movements and states have been specifically Marxist.
And that's where the problem start, all of the so called socialist states are failures in the eyes of the world.

[Anonymous No.13397540]

>>13387819
>falling for the middle class is le falling meme
As if you need any more proof that commies are retarded in terms of economics.

[Anonymous No.13397544]

>>13396082
epic

[Anonymous No.13397554]

>>13384708
based

[Anonymous No.13397726]

>>13383816
You spelled saved wrong.