Exactly which part was idealism? I specifically analyzed the materialist base of the PRC. Their economy isn’t fully publicly owned, correct, but if that was the requirement for Socialism then every single instance of Socialism would be Capitalist right up until the last bit of Capital is folded in, which is nonsense idealism. Socialism is a transitional state to Communism.
You clearly said “as far as I know,” then refuse to engage with actual analysis. What’s the point? To show that you both don’t know and are unwilling to speak with a Marxist?
What you consider socialist is basically the same as the alt right’s “socialism is when the government does stuff. If it does all the stuff, it’s communism”.
It’s idealistic, because you think a capitalist society is socialist, as long as their leadership claims they’re communist.
You’re far too much simping for Lenin. I don’t considersit fruitful to argue with such a devout Leninist in a meme community.
No, I consider Socialism to be a transitional state towards Communism. I don’t have to trust the CPC to recognize that over half of the economy is Publicly Owned and planned, and that the minority of the economy in the Private Sector depends heavily on the Public Sector and is shrinking as the CPC increases ownership and control over it as it centralizes, right in line with Engels.
Secondly, you claim my analysis is idealistic because I think “a Capitalist society is Socialist as long as the leadership claims to be communist.” Where? Where did I make that claim? All of my analysis depended on factual, observable reality, from the large and robust Public Sector to the increasing power over the Private Sector. Xi could claim to be a liberal and we would have to seriously doubt his intentions as the Public Sector is only growing and the government is slowly folding the Private into the Public! The fact that Xi has a doctorate in Marxism is irrelevant entirely to my analysis, though it certainly doesn’t hurt.
Furthermore, you failed to explain how the PRC is Capitalist! You leave your opinions open, unbacked, unverified, and unprotected as though they are common sense, when the evidence points to the contrary.
Finally, I don’t know what you mean by “simping for Lenin.” Lenin is one of the most important Marxists in history, and his work is invaluable to Marxism in the modern world. That doesn’t mean I “simp” for him. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, I take Marxism seriously, and so far you’ve failed to demonstrate any actual understanding of Marxism.
over half of the economy is Publicly Owned and planned
Who controls the public sector? The workers, or the CPC?
CPC increases ownership and control over it as it centralizes,
Ah, I see. That’s just state-capitalism.
so far you’ve failed to demonstrate any actual understanding of Marxism.
That’s because you’re conflating marxism with leninism. I don’t agree with Lenin, simple as that. I would claim that he misrepresented Marx, but I also don’t agree with Marx’s thesis of a societal trajectory beyond capitalism, either.
Secondly, you claim my analysis is idealistic because I think “a Capitalist society is Socialist as long as the leadership claims to be communist.”
You claim that China has a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” But the CPC are objectively not proletarian. They call themselves communist, but they lack the material conditions to be called proletarian. Their class is one of bureaucrats (which is underlined by Xi having a doctorate in marxism), which enact the exact same function of the bourgeoisie in capitalism. That’s why I call your excuses idealist. But I think you’re too ideologically committed to accept that.
Your whole point is that socialism is the transitionary state towards communism. That’s Lenin talking, not Marx.
So accepting Lenin’s contributions to Marxism is “simping?” You’re deeply unserious, there’s 0 chance you’ve actually engaged with Lenin via reading The State and Revolution, or Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin’s analysis of Capitalism as it reaches the modern era is invaluable, which is why the vast majority of Marxists worldwide are Marxist-Leninists.
As for who controls the Public Sector, the answer is the Proletariat via a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The CPC has nearly 100 million members, and the PRC has 8 other parties that work alongside the CPC in government. This is Marxism in action.
The idea that the CPC running the Public Sector is “State Capitalism” as you say means you truly have not read Marx. Marx always advocated for public ownership and central planning, a good article on this is Why Public Property? Or, if you’d prefer Engels, here’s an exerpt from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
The seizure of the means of production by society eliminates commodity production and with it the domination of the product over the producer. The anarchy within social production is replaced by consciously planned organization. The struggle for individual existence comes to an end. It is only at this point that man finally separates in a certain sense from the animal kingdom and that he passes from animal conditions of existence to really human ones.
Next, you get on to your beef with Lenin and Marx, without justifying either. You just say you “disagree.” The PRC doesn’t, and neither do I, so clearly it is on you to explain why the actions the PRC is taking go against Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. Additionally, you don’t at all justify why you believe Lenin “misrepresented Marx,” continuing your trend of asserting opinions and refusing to back any of them up in a manner that can be engaged with. Furthermore, with respect to me saying you don’t understand Marxism, I really meant Marxism. Lenin’s input had no clear relevance on that specific topic, you fundamentally failed to demonstrate an understanding the basics of Scientific Socialism (which you then go on to disagree with outright in denying Capitalism’s centralization paving the way for public owrship and planning a la Socialism).
Moving onward, you have an absurd claim that there is a “class” of bureaucrats. This goes against Marx’s understanding of class dynamics! You continue to make up new definitions that go beyond Marx’s analysis. Again, circling back to Engels, who along with Marx described a “planned economy” where the “government of persons” transitions to the “administration of things,” this was always meant to be a democratic government! Central Planning and Government Ownership are core to the Marxist conception of a Socialist society. The CPC represents the interests of the proletariat, and is largely made up of the proletariat. Again, 96 million members! You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and how the PRC functions. Moreover, you say the CPC being knowledgable about Marxism makes them a distinct class! This is idealism.
Finally, the idea that “socialism being transitional” to Communism came from Lenin is just semantics. Marx called it “lower stage Communism,” Lenin called it “Socialism.” If your issue is with me calling the transitional phase Socialism because Lenin used that term instead of Lower-Stage Communism, then I’m afraid I don’t see the point. Either way, as we already established earlier, markets cannot be abolished overnight, only by the degree to which they have centralized and developed. Following either word, the PRC is either Socialist or Lower-Stage Communist! Again, Engels:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
What’s your justification for ignoring every instance of Marx and Engels proving you wrong? You’re clearly anti-Marx, so why not just admit to being so and accept that the PRC is Marxist? You can disagree with their course while acknowledging that they are Socialist, in fact if you can make a good argument you can use that to explain why you think, say, Anarchism is better.
So you admit to not having read Lenin, yet claim to disagree with Marx, Engels, and Lenin? Why not read them for yourself, so that you can judge them properly, alongside the texts you’ve provided? I never claimed you hadn’t read theory, I claimed you have a horrible understanding of Marxism and thus have likely read little to no Marx, and that you haven’t read Lenin. I fully believe you’ve read Anarchist theory, just that you lack the proper understanding of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism to come up with reasonable critique.
We therefore arrive at the true meaning of your first comment: Marxism isn’t Anarchist, so it isn’t Socialist. An absurd claim, you can absolutely recognize both Anarchism and Marxism as forms of Socialism without agreeing with both.
As for your sources, I read the first article you linked. I wish you did me the same respect and read the articles I linked, but that’s neither here nor there.
Rudolf Rocker is wrong, on quite a few levels. He claims that the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” is bourgeois! That implementing democratic institutions by which to control production as it advances in the hands of the Proletatiat is bourgeois! Additionally, he claims that the DotP will “give back” to the Workers once Socialism is achieved. This is nonsense! On the contrary, the Workers are already in control during the DotP, and Socialism has already begun. Rocker allows his Anarchist bias to decry any form of government as “not for the workers” and thus makes the case that a fully publicly owned, centrally planned, democratically controlled economy is somehow “bourgeois” despite utterly eliminating the bourgeois mode of production!
Rocker makes this case in 1920, after Marxism had produced the first Socialist State. It’s understandable to be wary in the first tender years, however since then Marxism has produced many more successful revolutions, and Anarchism very few. Modern Anarchists must learn from this and adapt their theory until it produces successful results, such as learning from EZLN. Rocker fails because he draws false dichotomies and wrote well before we had the knowledge that Marxism does produce consistent and successful revolutions and dramatic improvements for the Working Class.
This is why what you say is at its core idealist. You can claim that China isn’t Anarchist, but you cannot claim that it isn’t Marxist, so you have to redefine Socialism as Anarchism! You’ve moved the goalpost entirely.
You can continue to be an Anarchist, but I encourage you to read Marx, Engels, and Lenin if you want to speak about AES states and whether or not they are operating on Marxist principles and economics. Otherwise, everything on that subject that comes from your mouth is nonsense. You can make Anarchist critiques of AES, sure, as you have a background in Anarchist theory. You don’t, however, have a background in Marxist theory, so you can’t speak as though you do!
I fully expect you to ignore this, but you’d do well to read the first few sections at least of my Introductory Marxist Reading List.
We therefore arrive at the true meaning of your first comment: Marxism isn’t Anarchist, so it isn’t Socialist.
lol, not what i said, comrade.
You don’t, however, have a background in Marxist theory, so you can’t speak as though you do!
Yeah, that’s not true. I’ve read a bit of Marx and enough of Engels. I can barely keep up with the theory that’s coherent to my worldview. I’m not willing to read up on 100 years of outdated political theory.
As I’ve said a few times before: you’re way too commited to the leninist party line that you bend over backwards to justify your positions, claiming the “dictatorstip of the proletariat” is materialist, while ignoring the empirical evidence staring you in the face.
Spare me with your idealist excuses.
Exactly which part was idealism? I specifically analyzed the materialist base of the PRC. Their economy isn’t fully publicly owned, correct, but if that was the requirement for Socialism then every single instance of Socialism would be Capitalist right up until the last bit of Capital is folded in, which is nonsense idealism. Socialism is a transitional state to Communism.
You clearly said “as far as I know,” then refuse to engage with actual analysis. What’s the point? To show that you both don’t know and are unwilling to speak with a Marxist?
What you consider socialist is basically the same as the alt right’s “socialism is when the government does stuff. If it does all the stuff, it’s communism”.
It’s idealistic, because you think a capitalist society is socialist, as long as their leadership claims they’re communist.
You’re far too much simping for Lenin. I don’t considersit fruitful to argue with such a devout Leninist in a meme community.
No, I consider Socialism to be a transitional state towards Communism. I don’t have to trust the CPC to recognize that over half of the economy is Publicly Owned and planned, and that the minority of the economy in the Private Sector depends heavily on the Public Sector and is shrinking as the CPC increases ownership and control over it as it centralizes, right in line with Engels.
Secondly, you claim my analysis is idealistic because I think “a Capitalist society is Socialist as long as the leadership claims to be communist.” Where? Where did I make that claim? All of my analysis depended on factual, observable reality, from the large and robust Public Sector to the increasing power over the Private Sector. Xi could claim to be a liberal and we would have to seriously doubt his intentions as the Public Sector is only growing and the government is slowly folding the Private into the Public! The fact that Xi has a doctorate in Marxism is irrelevant entirely to my analysis, though it certainly doesn’t hurt.
Furthermore, you failed to explain how the PRC is Capitalist! You leave your opinions open, unbacked, unverified, and unprotected as though they are common sense, when the evidence points to the contrary.
Finally, I don’t know what you mean by “simping for Lenin.” Lenin is one of the most important Marxists in history, and his work is invaluable to Marxism in the modern world. That doesn’t mean I “simp” for him. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, I take Marxism seriously, and so far you’ve failed to demonstrate any actual understanding of Marxism.
That’s what I call “simping for Lenin”.
Who controls the public sector? The workers, or the CPC?
Ah, I see. That’s just state-capitalism.
That’s because you’re conflating marxism with leninism. I don’t agree with Lenin, simple as that. I would claim that he misrepresented Marx, but I also don’t agree with Marx’s thesis of a societal trajectory beyond capitalism, either.
You claim that China has a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” But the CPC are objectively not proletarian. They call themselves communist, but they lack the material conditions to be called proletarian. Their class is one of bureaucrats (which is underlined by Xi having a doctorate in marxism), which enact the exact same function of the bourgeoisie in capitalism. That’s why I call your excuses idealist. But I think you’re too ideologically committed to accept that.
Your whole point is that socialism is the transitionary state towards communism. That’s Lenin talking, not Marx.
So accepting Lenin’s contributions to Marxism is “simping?” You’re deeply unserious, there’s 0 chance you’ve actually engaged with Lenin via reading The State and Revolution, or Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin’s analysis of Capitalism as it reaches the modern era is invaluable, which is why the vast majority of Marxists worldwide are Marxist-Leninists.
As for who controls the Public Sector, the answer is the Proletariat via a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The CPC has nearly 100 million members, and the PRC has 8 other parties that work alongside the CPC in government. This is Marxism in action.
The idea that the CPC running the Public Sector is “State Capitalism” as you say means you truly have not read Marx. Marx always advocated for public ownership and central planning, a good article on this is Why Public Property? Or, if you’d prefer Engels, here’s an exerpt from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
Next, you get on to your beef with Lenin and Marx, without justifying either. You just say you “disagree.” The PRC doesn’t, and neither do I, so clearly it is on you to explain why the actions the PRC is taking go against Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. Additionally, you don’t at all justify why you believe Lenin “misrepresented Marx,” continuing your trend of asserting opinions and refusing to back any of them up in a manner that can be engaged with. Furthermore, with respect to me saying you don’t understand Marxism, I really meant Marxism. Lenin’s input had no clear relevance on that specific topic, you fundamentally failed to demonstrate an understanding the basics of Scientific Socialism (which you then go on to disagree with outright in denying Capitalism’s centralization paving the way for public owrship and planning a la Socialism).
Moving onward, you have an absurd claim that there is a “class” of bureaucrats. This goes against Marx’s understanding of class dynamics! You continue to make up new definitions that go beyond Marx’s analysis. Again, circling back to Engels, who along with Marx described a “planned economy” where the “government of persons” transitions to the “administration of things,” this was always meant to be a democratic government! Central Planning and Government Ownership are core to the Marxist conception of a Socialist society. The CPC represents the interests of the proletariat, and is largely made up of the proletariat. Again, 96 million members! You have demonstrated a lack of understanding of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, and how the PRC functions. Moreover, you say the CPC being knowledgable about Marxism makes them a distinct class! This is idealism.
Finally, the idea that “socialism being transitional” to Communism came from Lenin is just semantics. Marx called it “lower stage Communism,” Lenin called it “Socialism.” If your issue is with me calling the transitional phase Socialism because Lenin used that term instead of Lower-Stage Communism, then I’m afraid I don’t see the point. Either way, as we already established earlier, markets cannot be abolished overnight, only by the degree to which they have centralized and developed. Following either word, the PRC is either Socialist or Lower-Stage Communist! Again, Engels:
What’s your justification for ignoring every instance of Marx and Engels proving you wrong? You’re clearly anti-Marx, so why not just admit to being so and accept that the PRC is Marxist? You can disagree with their course while acknowledging that they are Socialist, in fact if you can make a good argument you can use that to explain why you think, say, Anarchism is better.
As I’ve said before:
You claim I haven’t read Lenin. Have you read any anarchist critiques of leninists? Like Rudolf Rocker:
This one is a bit more contemporary: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary
If you haven’t, then don’t claim like I haven’t read any theory, just because I’m not reading your sacred texts.
So you admit to not having read Lenin, yet claim to disagree with Marx, Engels, and Lenin? Why not read them for yourself, so that you can judge them properly, alongside the texts you’ve provided? I never claimed you hadn’t read theory, I claimed you have a horrible understanding of Marxism and thus have likely read little to no Marx, and that you haven’t read Lenin. I fully believe you’ve read Anarchist theory, just that you lack the proper understanding of Marxism or Marxism-Leninism to come up with reasonable critique.
We therefore arrive at the true meaning of your first comment: Marxism isn’t Anarchist, so it isn’t Socialist. An absurd claim, you can absolutely recognize both Anarchism and Marxism as forms of Socialism without agreeing with both.
As for your sources, I read the first article you linked. I wish you did me the same respect and read the articles I linked, but that’s neither here nor there.
Rudolf Rocker is wrong, on quite a few levels. He claims that the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” is bourgeois! That implementing democratic institutions by which to control production as it advances in the hands of the Proletatiat is bourgeois! Additionally, he claims that the DotP will “give back” to the Workers once Socialism is achieved. This is nonsense! On the contrary, the Workers are already in control during the DotP, and Socialism has already begun. Rocker allows his Anarchist bias to decry any form of government as “not for the workers” and thus makes the case that a fully publicly owned, centrally planned, democratically controlled economy is somehow “bourgeois” despite utterly eliminating the bourgeois mode of production!
Rocker makes this case in 1920, after Marxism had produced the first Socialist State. It’s understandable to be wary in the first tender years, however since then Marxism has produced many more successful revolutions, and Anarchism very few. Modern Anarchists must learn from this and adapt their theory until it produces successful results, such as learning from EZLN. Rocker fails because he draws false dichotomies and wrote well before we had the knowledge that Marxism does produce consistent and successful revolutions and dramatic improvements for the Working Class.
This is why what you say is at its core idealist. You can claim that China isn’t Anarchist, but you cannot claim that it isn’t Marxist, so you have to redefine Socialism as Anarchism! You’ve moved the goalpost entirely.
You can continue to be an Anarchist, but I encourage you to read Marx, Engels, and Lenin if you want to speak about AES states and whether or not they are operating on Marxist principles and economics. Otherwise, everything on that subject that comes from your mouth is nonsense. You can make Anarchist critiques of AES, sure, as you have a background in Anarchist theory. You don’t, however, have a background in Marxist theory, so you can’t speak as though you do!
I fully expect you to ignore this, but you’d do well to read the first few sections at least of my Introductory Marxist Reading List.
lol, not what i said, comrade.
Yeah, that’s not true. I’ve read a bit of Marx and enough of Engels. I can barely keep up with the theory that’s coherent to my worldview. I’m not willing to read up on 100 years of outdated political theory.
As I’ve said a few times before: you’re way too commited to the leninist party line that you bend over backwards to justify your positions, claiming the “dictatorstip of the proletariat” is materialist, while ignoring the empirical evidence staring you in the face.