You must log in or register to comment.
Why do we need China to prove that the US government is full of corporate stooges?
Also, the word is “authoritarian” for when it scares people.
Also, the word is “authoritarian” for when it scares people.
Leaving something to calm people down
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
I don’t see what the purpose of this comment is. On Authority is 8 minutes long to read, and provides the general Marxist understanding of “authoritarianism.” This isn’t like telling someone to read Capital or Losurdo’s Liberalism: A Counter History (though you should read them when you get the chance), it’s an 8 minute long essay that is directly applicable to the topic at hand.
Removed by mod
Reading Capital is a great thing, I’m personally wrapping up volume 2 and will be moving onto volume 3 shortly.
As for On Authority, it explains the nuances of the Marxist explanation of power dynamics, and what is necessary and unnecessary. It’s useful, and short. Capital spends over 3 volumes describing the subject of its title, and I wouldn’t use an ableist insult like calling someone “insane” for suggesting its study.
I’m well aware of the shortcomings of just telling people to “read theory.” I made an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list myself, and try to make it more accessible by including audiobooks where I can. That being said, I have yet to encounter anyone that has refused reading an 8 minute essay for being too long. Engels isn’t speaking with purple prose here, it is a concise analysis.
Ultimately what your comment cones across as is saying nobody should ever read theory, and we should all just vibe our way forward.
Removed by mod
Personal expression is allowed, but certainly you can see that just mocking the other user (and now me directly) is just wrecker behavior? There are millions of better ways to handle that, like asking for a summary, audiobook, etc, rather than just insulting everyone for recommending what is a comparatively extremely short read.
Ok, I get that the word insane can be used as an ableist term, but I was not referring to it as such. I meant it in it’s literal sense, so do not frame me like that. I myself have had moments in my life where I had my sanity slip. From my viewpoint, being the person who I am, just going around in public and asking people to read an 8 minute text is insane. Doesn’t matter hoe good the text is, that is what someone who has lost their sanity would do.
As for readin 8 minutes worth of text: If you want to encounter people that can not read through that, first of all, nice to meet you, second of all you have to do is to go to c/ADHD, you’ll find plenty. It’s also a difference if it’s just some dude posting a comment with a link to that text, being the equivalent to asking a stranger you just met to read a pamphlet, or actually dedicatedly talking to that person, as they are automatically way more invested.
I find it incredibly pretentious that just because I didn’t speak for the online link of a certain group, it is automatically assumed, that I am a “proudly acting in bad faith” and being called a lib, like it was. On top of being insulted of being illeterate of course and the like. That is insane as well.
I myself have ADHD. I find reading for long periods of time to be a struggle, and have had to figure out what works best for me. I know what works for me may not work for everyone. What I take issue with is you mocking someone for posting an extremely relevant and short essay that is very much on topic.
You’re taking the stance that because you have struggles with reading essay-length and longer, that you can just mock people recommending theory to others. Rather than asking for a summary, or an audiobook version if that works for you, you just decided to insult the user recommending the theory. It’s disingenuous wrecker behavior.
Average western “leftist”
My guy, I am a socialist. Like not even a little. I’m on an anarchist instance you doof.
Lol, I’m not surprised; a proud refusal to read anything or learn anything seems to be the defining trait of western self described “anarchists” (who are usually just liberals who haven’t read enough to realize that)
My god you are a petty piece of shit. I said I’m a socialist, not an anarchist. I am on an anarchist instance, since I believe in different viewpoints in different parts of life. If you believe I should read more, how about you start actually readin what I write?
I even like Marx, so I have no idea why you’re getting this mad. Is he your saviour? Your one and holy? Jesus, you must be in a fucking cult.
You’re getting pretty damn touchy for someone who was opening and proudly acting in bad faith, lol
Redditor reading a few paragraphs challenge: impossible.
I do not use reddit, but I do genuonely have issues reading, especially if it is a 400 word essay that I’m just suppised to willy nilly read because someone on the internet wants me to.
Its less about you reading the linked text and more about you posting a meme that discourages others
Stay ignorant and mad lib
I am european and voted left.
Stay ignorant and mad lib
China isn’t communist, it’s capitalist. But it’s better than the USA and europe
Nope.
Is China State Capitalist?
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
- Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
- Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
- Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
- China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
- Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
- How the State runs business in China.
- 50% of the economy is in the socialist public sector and directly follows the plan (40% if you ignore the agricultural sector). 20 to 30% is inside the state capitalist sector, which is the sector partially or totally owned by domestic capitalists but run by the CPC or by local workers councils. The rest is made up of the small bourgeois ownership like in the NEP.
These are not arguments against accusations of state capitalism. State capitalism doesn’t mean that stuff isn’t state owned, or that the state doesn’t crack down on billionaires.
State capitalism refers to the idea of a state owning the means of productions and engaging in capitalist practises through state owned or controlled enterprises. Saying that the state owns companies in china is like… perpendicular to the argument to whether China engages in state capitalism. These links are mostly irrelevant to the question.And who controls the state in China? This is the fundamental problem with the term “state capitalism”, which Lenin addressed:
“The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.“
- Lenin
Then your argument is not about whether or not china is state capitalist but about whether or not the Communist Party of China is earnestly communist and truly represents the working class in its political aims. That is an entirely sifferent question and is not much affected by whether or not they have state run enterprises.
Ok let’s assume that the Chinese state is owning the means of productions and is engaging in capitalist practises through state owned or controlled enterprises. Then it would not be fair to call it state capitalist, but state socialist. As capitalism implies that the communist nomenclature is keeping all the surplus value/wealth for themselves, which is not true.
State capitalist does not imply such a thing. State capitalism is whem the state does capitalism ehich it is perfectly possible to do in a way where it is attenpting to forward a communist aim. This was the case in the ussr.
A lot of people get hung up on the term “state capitalism” when discussing transitional phases. The key point they miss is that while the form might resemble capitalism (wage labor, state as the employer), the content and purpose are fundamentally different.
Under bourgeois capitalism, the entire purpose is the private accumulation of capital. Social good is an incidental byproduct, at best. In a socialist transition, the state uses these same economic forms as a tool for social development by building infrastructure, providing healthcare, ensuring food security, and directing the entire economic surplus back into society. It’s the difference between a machine designed to enrich a class of owners, and one designed to uplift the entire working class.
Public ownership is the principle aspect of China’s economy, governing the large firms and key industries, and the working class has political dominance over capitalists. China is a socialist country, and is working towards higher stages of socialism.
Yep, very good visualization!
But aren’t there competitive corporations which are owned by rich people in China? And doesn’t chinese government extract as much information from its citizens as possible (even more than european governments) like the case in DeepSeek? It may seem to be authoritarian but I think it’s also a sign of consumption habbits extraction. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Socialism is not defined by the total absence of private property, but by what is principle, and in China that’s absolutely public ownership with the working class in control. Further, it doesn’t take especially more data than European, Statesian, etc. governments.
China isn’t communist
You’re right it’s not. It’s
market socialista socialist market economy or socialist with Chinese characteristics to be more preciseTechnically it’s a Socialist Market Economy. Market Socialism typically describes a cooperative-focused economy. At that point though we are splitting hairs.
You’re right! Thank you for correcting me and generally for your service 🫡
No, thank you comrade 🫡
It’s not, if it was then it would develop like every other capitalist country.
