Status: Marxist-Leninist
Likes: #communism; #socialism; environmentalism; #cats
Dislikes: #capitalism; imperialism; destruction of our ecosystem; consumerism; fascism, [racism, sexism, homophobia, etc]
You having the audacity to label someone else’s analysis as “non-dialectical-materialist,” yet not understanding that economic power, especially that of billionaires and millionaires, does translate to political power is the reason I’m not taking you seriously.
“Having a lot of money doesn’t necessarily translate into having a lot of political power,”
I’m not going to listen to someone who won’t even acknowledge how economic power translates to political power. This is the dumbest, non-Marxist take I’ve ever heard, more like something a Social-Democrat would say, which seems to be how many “Marxists” who support modern-day China tend to sound.
The Chinese capitalists are “very, very weak,” yet there were 814 billionaires as of 2024. Comparatively, there are only 800 billionaires in America.
The Chinese state doesn’t own all of the means of production, and capitalists (particularly rich capitalists) still have plenty of economic power, so it’s not like the capitalist class in China is completely without power.
I already explained to you what state capitalism is: “state capitalism, where the private ownership of the means of production still exists but under state control and regulations,…”
Private ownership of the means of production is what has to end for a system to be socialist. In China, there’s plenty of private ownership of the means of production, so it isn’t socialist.
Fuck off, fake Marxist.
People who try to justify the existence of capitalism and billionaires have no right to call themselves Marxists.
No, my issue is with capitalism.
I’m done with all these justifications for capitalism and billionaires.
This copy and pasted response doesn’t relate exactly to anything I said. I never said that socialism is only when the public directly owns the means of production. I said that state capitalism, where the private ownership of the means of production still exists but under state control and regulations, is still capitalism and must be abolished for socialism. This is a sentiment that Engels expressed in “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” so I’m not pulling this out of thin air.
Also, just to add, state capitalism is still capitalism. State ownership alone doesn’t do away with capitalism or the exploitation it entails. It is essentially the final stage of capitalism that must be abolished for the establishment of socialism. 2/2 #socialism #capitalism
“…capital accumulation by private individuals is absent in this model.”
There are billionaires in China and capitalists in general who accumulate capital. If state capitalism is when the government controls the economy and essentially acts as a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production, then it would be more accurate to call China a mixture of state-capitalism with private-capitalism. 1/2 #socialism #capitalism
I just read "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? ", and it made so much sense. Thanks for sharing. I’m going to read the rest soon.
I always viewed “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” as a necessary economic compromise that had to be made to prevent the Chinese Communist Party from losing power, similar to the NEP in 1920s Russia, so that eventually China could continue on the road to pure socialism. Is that accurate?
The Kim’s are communist whether you like it or not, and this quote is very much in line with the communist position on bourgeois democracy. Also, communism does, or at least is should, always lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is not a dictatorship in the traditional sense. It’s the “dictatorship” of the proletarian class, and if you think otherwise, then you clearly need to read more Marx and Lenin.
There is no joke. I don’t see why Stalin would be an untrustworthy authority on communist ideology. Based on the books I’ve read of his, he seems to be very trustworthy in his analysis and explanation of the ideology of communism and socialism.
I see no reason why Stalin would be an untrustworthy authority on communist ideology.
No. What many Marxist-Leninists, at least, don’t like about Trotskyist is their extremely flawed ideology.
I recommend you read this book that further explains the problems with Trotskyism: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm
I’m not in Quebec, but there is a group called “Parti communiste du Québec (PCQ),” which is a Marxist-Leninist party.
@davel
I’m not dealing with your pro-Chinese-capitalism revisionist garbage.