Cowbee [he/him]

“Patriotic Socialists,” Socialists in the Imperial Core that advocate for Nationalism as a means to spread their message. It has more in common with fascism than Socialism, as it perpetuates Imperialism. Mostly irrelevant outside of the American Communist Party (not to be confused with the CPUSA, which has its own issues).

You haven’t provided sources for any of your numbers, and you immediately moved the goalposts when proven wrong. The PRC’s unemployment is nowhere near 30%. Developing infrastructure requires labor, and planning cities for future expansion has helped with China’s rapid progress.

You clearly are arguing in pure bad faith and aren’t worth responding to.

That’s true in Marx’s time, in a Capitalist economy. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, which is completely different, and moreover is still rapidly developing infrastructure. Healthcare is cheaper and more readily available than in the US as well.

It’s clear that you’re arguing in pure bad faith.

Because prices are lower there and PPP is raising. There isn’t as much of a need to spend and instead they can save. They are “good at Capitalism” because they are using markets as a tool to develop and fold Private Property into the Public Sector as it develops.

What on Earth are you talking about? The PRC eliminated extreme poverty, you absolutely would not be left to die on the street. You aren’t making any sense.

Fair enough, though if you wanted to disengage you shouldn’t have written points one would naturally want to engage with in a disengagement comment. Perhaps in the future you can just say “disengage” or otherwise, trying to disengage while also trying to get the last word in pointwise doesn’t work.

Hey OP, I do think that this kind of agitprop is counter-intuitive. Like we discussed earlier, when trying to persuade liberals to your side, it is useful to highlight uncontestable reality. Simply showing a bunch of different ideological groups disagreeing with the PRC being Socialist without doing the legwork to show how and why the PRC is indeed Socialist and just calling them reactionary for disagreeing fuels them, rather than refutes.

Just my 2 cents. Your meme is “correct,” but requires a background in Marxism to appreciate, which is why it very easily backfires. Compared to how @yogthos@lemmy.ml posts, you can see the difference in effectiveness. I went and did all that legwork in replying to Prunebutt, so I don’t think it was a wash or anything, but you can see just how easy it was for Prunebutt to flip your meme against Marxists.

You did, though, back when we were trying to have a conversation. Maybe that was one-sided, and it was only me trying to have a conversation, but then why bother replying to me?

What do you mean by the PRC “maximizing billionaires?” The PRC regularly cracks down on their bourgeosie, and the majority of the economy is in the Public Sector, not the Private. What do you mean by “no social services of any kind?” Large infrastructure projects like massive public transit, a much better and more comprehensive public healthcare system than the US, an elimination of extreme poverty in the last decade, the PRC is focusing on the working class. Xi himself is far less rich than most world leaders, can you explain how the PRC is built to "enrich him and his allies?

Further, I have no idea what you mean by “socialized healthcare is a Capitalist scheme to hold the proletariat back.” Capitalist concessions do exist in Social Democracies, but they aren’t holding the Proletariat back, Bourgeois control of the state is.

Are you trying to say that a Socialist country needs to have 100% of the economy fully socialized to be considered Socialist? What do you call a system transitioning from one system to the next?

Finally, are you trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is a “Chinese AI bot?”

Gotcha, you’re just going to double down on name-calling and thought-terminating clichés. I appreciate the removal of the gendered insult, but keeping the insult keeps the main point of issue I take with avoiding a conversation around Marxism.

If I’m wrong, explain. I very clearly explained exactly why you’re going against Marxism to the point of invalidating it as Socialism.

Secondly, even if we only accept Marx alone, and ignore Engels, Lenin, every other Marxist who has expanded upon and contextualized Marxism (at which point we move from materialism to idealism, dogmatism), there is nothing Marx wrote that implies “beaurocracy” constitutes a class! The “administration of things” is done via *central planning and public ownership," and you cannot do so without managers! You even admitted to only reading “a bit” of Marx, and never once could explain why direct quotations that ran counter to your claims don’t matter.

Marx’s texts are not “sacred.” We keep what we can test and verify, and toss what we can’t. You haven’t made a proper case for tossing aspects of Marxism, and in fact in the Rocker article, you showcase endorsement for what History proved wrong! Your reply to direct quotations disproving you? Ignore them and call me a dogmatist. That’s not how we have constructive conversations, that’s refusing to engage with theory you haven’t made a case for ignoring!

Finally, you resort to gendered attacks. I have no idea what gender or sex you are, you don’t list your pronouns nor would I have any way of otherwise knowing. That’s a thought-terminating cliché that avoids the conversation. I am explaining Marxism to an Anarchist that displayed a lack of understanding of Marxism, at any other point you could have disengaged, but instead chose to resort to personal attacks the whole way through.

The good thing is that your comment string is useful for anyone walking in here to see an example of someone arguing in bad-faith.

It isn’t what you said, but it’s what you revealed yourself to have meant. That’s why I said it was the “true meaning” of what you have said, you claim to only believe Socialism to be Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, but when I explain how the PRC already has that, and moreover elaborated more on what constitutes Socialism from a Marxist perspective, you used Anarchist reasoning that goes against all of Marxism, not just the PRC, such as the idea that having a government means you aren’t Socialist because of an ill-defined “beaurocrat” class.

You can claim to have read a bit of Marx and “enough of Engels,” but what’s shown practically by your reasoning and refusal to address direct quotations disproving your concept of Marxism is that you haven’t read enough. I don’t want to make this a reading measuring contest, which is why I asked you to counter the arguments made by Marx and Engels themselves.

Moreover, you claim Marxism is “outdated,” but here I am directly proving how the PRC is using Marxism as the largest economy in the world (by PPP) to tremendous benefit, meanwhile you give Rudolf Rocker’s article from before we had direct historical evidence counter to his ideas. Which is outdated, Marxism, which guides many really existing states and has produced numerous successful revolutions and working class improvements, or Rudolf Rocker’s conception of Anarchism, which largely just has the EZLN?

I don’t think Anarchism is a lost cause, but I do think you need to look in the mirror before you call practical, working theory “outdated” in service of actually outdated criticisms of said theory!

Finally, what on Earth do you mean when you say the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” isn’t Materialist? The DotP has practical, real world success and sees use in several countries around the world, the notion that it’s “idealist” makes no sense. You never back that up, I actually think you don’t really know what Materialism and Idealism truly are. I recommend Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy.

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.

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.

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.

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?

The PRC is Socialist. The PRC’s Public Sector covers a little over half of their overall economy, and the cooperative sector covers a little under a tenth. The Private Sector is under strict guidance of the government, in a birdcage model, where the CPC increases ownership as the markets themselves form monopolist syndicates that make themselves candidates for central planning. Further, the Public Sector is over key, heavy industried and infrastructure that drive the Private Sector, like the steel industry.

This is all in line with a Marxist understanding of Socialism, a Dictatorship of the Proletariat gradually wresting Capital from the hands of the Bourgeoisie as the Bourgeoisie must necessarily centralize Capital, making it much easier to centrally plan. Before these syndicates have formed, Markets are a more effective vector of growth in the Productive Forces, and as they stagnate Public Ownership and Central Planning becomes more efficient. From 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.

I highly recommend you read the article What is Socialism? The PRC isn’t Anarchist, but it is Socialist. You’re also welcome to read my introductory Marxism reading list.

I already explained that what you use as “Imperialism” and what davel and I have been explaining is different, and I explained that the Marxist definition is better because it can accurately explain why the US is working in the way it is and why China is not. Even if you wish to claim the Marxist definition is “Extraction” or some other term, China still isn’t Imperialist by your definition, because it isn’t advantageous to be!

Again, to simplify:

Davel and I are explaining that it is in China’s material intetestd to mutually cooperate with the Global South because a strong Global Soutb can buy more goods from the PRC, which focuses on exporting commodities.

Similarly, the US’ material interests are dominating the Global South because it focuses on exporting Capital.

You have no counter to this so far, other than you don’t “trust” China because in the past, under an entirely different Mode of Production, China has been Imperialist. This is a weaker explanation than ours, because our analysis focuses on mechanics while yours focuses on ideas.

Secondly, India has pivoted towards increased mutual cooperation with the PRC and has stepped down on its claims of aggression, and turned more away from the US. That point no longer really stands.

I don’t necessarily have faith in “humanity,” but economic systems and material interests. China has no material reason to turn to Imperialism (or “Extraction”) while the US does and has. Simple as that.

That’s a link to a wikipedia segment saying a Western Imperialist think tank has accused China of slowly going bit by bit to get larger gains than had they gone all at once. That isn’t proof of the PRC hyper-exploiting the Global South for Super Profits via the export of Capital, nor proof of anything. It’s an accusation from a biased source.

You are clearly rejecting the definition of Imperialisn davel, I, and other Marxists use. Whether it’s intentional or not I don’t know, but if it is, why have a conversation with us? You haven’t proven that the PRC is Imperialist, just that it acts in its own interests, which we all agree about. Davel and I have just pointed out that the structure of the economic system of the PRC means it is moving to uplift the Global South so they can buy more from the PRC, rather than bomb them to death and hyper-exploit their workers like the West does.

They were Imperialist, and now they are not. What changed?