Is the communism practiced by China something Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would've envisioned their system to be in practice?
Is the communism practiced by China something Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would've envisioned their system to be in practice?
No every form of communism except for the post-WWI communes in Western and Central Europe would have been completely alien to Marx and Engels.
Marx predicted that communism would develop by default in the educated, productive, civilized countries of Western Europe, which are now among the least class-conscious nations on Earth. You can't instill this kind of civic virtue on mobs of idiot peasants, and you can't rule it with bloodthirsty dictators. Mao's theories were gibberish, he regarded the hammer and sickle swingers as just another enemy to be crushed.
Marx would never have been caught dead saying "Authority grows from the barrel of a gun."
Stalin was just another tsar. Mao was just another crazy butthole. Neither of them did one thing Marx would have approved of except maybe advocating for women to join the workforce and the military.
>Marx predicted that communism would develop by default in the educated, productive, civilized countries of Western Europe, which are now among the least class-conscious nations on Earth.
The reason why it was supposed to develop there is because their conditions will get so heinous for the workers that the people will rise up and take control of the MoP. Marx repeatedly emphasize that people don't need to know, think about, or understand any of this because they will just work off their material conditions anyway. The lack of class consciousness isn't surprising. The average western worker isn't actual involved in Capitalist production and are more or less just servants to their feudal lords and retainers (i.e. brewing coffee for investors that fund the slave labor to grow coffee) they are also parasites of Capital and will be either tossed aside by the Capitalists and become revolutionary or we get a more Haiti type situation.
Mao was a second Qin Shi Huang using a set of red-coloured robes.
No historically a large portion of Communism was adapted specifically for china by mao and other high members of the CCP
Marx and Engels couldn't care less about how "communism" and "socialism" would or should look like in the future, and they both despised intellectuals who wasted time in such futurology
This.
Communism in China was a fundamentally nationalist, post-bolshevik project. It didn't anticipate a world revolution, it sought radical social change in China first, then in the rest of the world. Mao-era foreign policy was laughable and its attempt to export its ideology militarily were unsuccessful, with more success in spreading it through publication.
Communist China successfully supported Communist regimes in half the countries on its border. Half of them are still there.
bullshit
>norks
partition was soviet made, mao did not support the korean invasion of the south and only intervened when the yanks got too close to manchuria
>vietnam
another soviet proxy, the chinks actively opposed the Vietnamese and funded the Khmer Rogue against them
>mao did not support the korean invasion of the south and only intervened when the yanks got too close to manchuria
So all Mao did was unilaterally decide the outcome of the conflict, which was the creation of a Communist satellite state.
>another soviet proxy, the chinks actively opposed the Vietnamese and funded the Khmer Rogue
oh I get it you're moronic okay carry on
China, North Korea, and Vietnam with their wage labor, private property, capital accumulation and suicide nets sure are worker paradises. Why don't you move there. No more will you finally be exploited by the evil capitalists. Trust me, Jack ma has your interests in mind.
the chinese state has literally imprisoned jack ma and other cronyist billionaires
>moving to someone else's ethnostate
this is your brain on liberalism
I’m Chinese you idiot
ABC 汉奸 more like
Neither Laos nor Vietnam, nor the DPRK were established by Maoists, they come from pre-Mao interpretations of communism.
Jack Ma isn't determining policy, though it would have been more possible a decade or two ago for him to do so. Tons of western outlets read primarily by wealthy capitalists lament China's treatment of its billionaires. Obviously it isn't a paradise, but the party state isn't totally at the mercy of capital.
China treats its billionaires so bad they're the fastest growing place for them. Makes a lot of sense. Like seriously, if China is your communist utopia. Just move there. You can finally live there without having worry about receiving a wage like so many Chinese people just so happen to do. I mean, who needs universal healthcare or the right to strike. Nobody pays rent in China. There's no landlords there. There's no corporations in China exploiting people. There's no poor in China. Everything there is just find and dandy. Just move there.
Xi's daughter goes to Harvard. Millions of Americans work in China remotely. Its not really to go live there. Go do it.
How does any praise for the achievements of a country translate to believing it to be a utopia? A country acting in opposition to capital, even occasionally, in an era of neoliberalism is at least praiseworthy.
I think this insane hyperbole is a result of the conflict between a deeply held belief that liberal democracy works and will deliver a utopia, and the reality of its terminal decline.
What's there to praise? They're just doing the economic policies we've seen the West. You praise You're praising China for liberalization, privatization and markets having the dominate role in the economy while condemning it here as "neoliberalizing." You're not being consistent, and not standing on any real political beliefs. Its also hilarious is never actual Chinese people here who praise IQfy - its white liberals like yourself who won't even move or live there because you be even poorer there than you are in your own country lmfao.
>at liberal democracy works and will deliver a utopia
No, this is what you believe. This is why you complain, and want the government to give you more handouts and pay off your student loans. You think society owes you free money simply because you exist. You have an entitlement complex. You've been spoiled by college, and your parents, and believe you owed more than what you deserve. Its disgusting, really.
Deng's economic reforms were disastrous for many people, but ultimately were executed with the stated intention of building wealth, rather than the idea that it was the "most efficient" way of doing things. For an example of what total liberalization in the name of efficiency looks like, look at the vibrant post-soviet liberal democracy in Russia, currently waging a brutal war of revanchism on the vibrant post-soviet liberal democracy in Ukraine.
I'll also add that randian objectivism, ancap or whatever is a totally depraved abomination. Individuals are only the products of societies which create them and nobody has ever been abandoned at birth and through sheer will become anything other than a corpse. Further abstraction of the remaining aspects of the new deal state to the free market will only result in more misery.
Deng's economic reforms lifted millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Mao's policies killed millions of people and turned the country into an improvised shit hole - his communal farms and kitchens starved so many people needlessly and collapsed productivity. His cultural revolution caused a brain drain and set the country back to the Dark Ages with all ancient Chinese culture and businesses it destroyed. Deng reversed all of Mao's moronation, and China doesn't look like its from the stone ages anymore. Even Soviet and Albanian officials were shocked at how poor China was under Mao, and increasingly mocked his policies as delusional and ultra left. Mao dying was the best thing that ever happened China because when it started to even be a better country.
>Deng's economic reforms lifted millions of Chinese people out of poverty.
Because the growth was ultimately managed and leveraged for social programs, without this they'd be India.
No, see
. Deng did away with social programs lmfao. He literally just did privatization, moron. India has more social programs than fricking China. China doesn't have universal healthcare. Its private. India has universal healthcare, and its still shit, because it has nothing do with their economics. Its literally because India is ran by low IQ idiots who shit in the street all day while and move cows while all the rich people leave on H1 visas. The equality of your country has nothing do with the economic foundation; its the intelligence people running it. Indians have some the lowest IQs in the world.
dang, what you can achieve with slave labor
never understood the Deng worship. He literally just stop following a moronic ideology and adopt free market capitalism, basically doing what Republican China would have done if they didn't bottle the civil war and people hailed him as some sort of genius.
Likewise the farmers from this village were hailed as geniuses when all they did was abandon moronic collectivisation and just farm normally as individuals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaogang%2C_Anhui
Honestly, so many 3rd world countries are 3rd world because they follow some moronic ideology like a teenager entering a Goth/Weed phase. If they had develop normally most of them would have been fine. China's case is like smart kid who waste his life being a hippie and then suddenly started maturing and get his life back on track by doing what a normal adult would do: finish highschool, go to college and get a job
>China's case is like smart kid who waste his life being a hippie and then suddenly started maturing and get his life back on track by doing what a normal adult would do: finish highschool, go to college and get a job
More like a kid who was on track to becoming a rockstar, and decided to stop playing music and go work at a minimum wage job.
>He literally just stop following a moronic ideology and adopt free market capitalism
China has a mixed economy and they never really went all the way like Russia did. There's a thriving market economy but all land remains in the hands of the state, as does the banking system. Imagine if a group calling itself the Communist Party took over the U.S., nationalized all land and the banks (Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, etc.) and ran them as a public utility along with the oil companies and a bunch of other industries, particularly in resource extraction and primary-sector industry (steel companies) and the largest commercial construction contractor in the world.... MCC:
?t=29
These are state-owned giants. Would this be embracing "free market capitalism?" If the U.S. did that, would people be saying, "finally, true capitalism has never been tried and now we're doing it!" That'd just be crazy. Bloomberg is even now grimly reporting that China is also shifting its housing market into the Singapore model where most of the population resides in public housing, and Xi is bringing back state-run agricultural cooperatives in rural areas (95% of towns have them).
I can tell you're a Hispanic or a sea ape. Why are thirdworlders like you so stupid?
Start learning what free market capitalism is before spamming useless shit no one cares about. I get it in your 3rd world shithole you're considered smart by being able to regurgitate wikipedia and tabloid articles but you aren't fooling anyone here. Go learn what free market capitalism is, China is free market and operate with market principles. Their government being authoritarian and interventionist is a separate thing.
Stop trying to act smart, you aren't. Stay true to yourself, be blissfully ignorant, learn a trade and enjoy bunda like the rest of your countrymen instead of being a pseudo-intellectual on IQfy
>China is free market and operate with market principles. Their government being authoritarian and interventionist is a separate thing.
It's more of an issue for Chinese people than it is for me. I'd recommend Michael Hudson since he explains the Chinese economy as basically a lot like the old-style industrial capitalism (although in a more socialist way) that the U.S. and Germany practiced to get rich, which is to provide public infrastructure at low cost so you can become an exporter. China has also kept its banking system in state hands, which is the most important part of the whole thing, whereas in the U.S. you have banks in charge of allocating credit instead of the state.
So Hudson's view is that it was that socialism was once thought to be something that evolves out of industrial capitalism, but in the West there was a counter-revolution and the rise to power of oligarchic, rentier, financial classes. That hasn't happened in China but they do have a lot of imbalances because of the spontaneous wealth created in recent decades, and what Xi is doing is taking chunks of the private sector economy and merging it into the socialist economy like what's happening with the housing market.
China's news agencies brag about China opening up its economy up more and more, continuing Deng's liberalization policies of decollectivizing the peoples' communes and co-operatives - literally moving away from common ownership of the means of production to private property, free trade, foreign investment, and you're praising it for lifting people out of poverty. Xi says they will never return to a planned economy. Even the class struggle rhetoric in China is denounced with Confucian arguments of hard-work and complacent. Xi regularly makes arguments no different than standard US conservatives. You then attack these same policies in the West. It makes no sense at all. You people can't make yourselves convincing because you contradict yourself constantly with your own stupid beliefs lmfao.
You're totally deranged. I'm praising social programs and dirigism, not every single thing that any Chinese official or news agency does or says.
Reading comprehension
You're praising fricking China when they scaled by social programs you fricking moron. Deng literally did with Mao's rice bowl programs - guaranteed jobs, housing and healthcare for privatization. You don't know a single think about China because all you do is larp on the internet. Deng even changed the Constitution to remove the right to strike in 1982.
These are basically unreadable but you need to understand that your libidinal desire to assign a value judgement to something and attack those who think otherwise is only making you more moronic and mentally ill than you already were. You should try to understand that praise and criticism aren't mutually exclusive and that some aspects of something can be bad and others good. You're fruitlessly bashing your dopamine release button over and over and you're going to get a brain hemorrhage.
>unreadable
You're illiterate and schizophrenic. You come to IQfy to praise China, a country where most people can't even post on because its censored there, to defend a country has a lower corporate tax rate, higher poverty than most Western countries. Even people in Taiwan have universal healthcare, live longer, and are richer than the people in China. You really don't live in reality, and I'd be shocked if you had a job.
>A country acting in opposition to capital.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/xi-jinping-says-china-won-t-return-to-planned-economy-urges-cooperation/story-65egcFbGiMdM6VYp1SVqvJ.html
Yes, China is totally in opposition to capitalism. That's why they're members of the World Bank, WTO, and have one of the largest stock markets in the world. Xi regularly denounces welfare, and is passing tax cuts as we fricking speak, and you want to tell us Xi is working against capitalism? China has done nothing remotely anti-capitalist. Xi is a die-hard nationalist. He doesn't give a frick about Marxism or you. His kids go to Harvard while people in China die because they can't buy healthcare or pay rent.
Marx stated that the end goal was communism in the earlier stages he envisioned free trade and other mercantile capital means. so Dengism applied this principle theory in his own ideology better than moronic Mao
>he envisioned free trade and other mercantile capital means.
So he just re-invented the wheel for no reason just for millions of people to die trying it lmfao
Nope, modern chinese "communism" has much more in common with Nazi Germany than anything Marx wrote.
Xi gives speeches to Davos defending globalization and free trade. China even has a lower corporate tax rate than the US lmfao. They're even talking about lowering taxes right now as we fricking speak while we're raising them here. Mind you, China is a member of the World Bank, WTO - they're part of the entire capitalist system. The Chinese have all economic benefits of capitalism without any of the social freedoms.
one of them is not like the others
Mao himself wouldn't have agree with the communism in China today and that's a good thing because China would be worse than NK under whatever system Mao came up with
There is no communism in China today.
Politically its a totalitarian oligarchy, and economically it's state capitalism.
>More precisely in the Communist Manifesto he noted: “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” Note Marx’s use of the term “by degree.” Marx, therefore, clearly envisaged a period during which political power would be socialist, held by the working class, but in the economy both state-owned property and private property would exist. However, after 1929 the USSR had, embarked on a policy in which essentially 100% of the economy was taken into state hands. Small scale production, in particular agriculture was collectivised or statified, and the USSR’s economy was relatively isolated from foreign trade. By the late 1970s not an identical but a parallel economic structure also existed in China.
>Whatever its geopolitical justification when such a structure was introduced in the USSR, in particular there was the threat of military attack, the facts show that the USSR’s “ultra-left” economic structure in Marxist terms, which had been successful in the short term (12 year) period of essentially military dominated struggle against Nazi Germany, was unsuccessful in the prolonged economic struggle between the USSR and the US after World War II. China’s “reform and opening up”, the return to an economic structure closer to Marx, in contrast produced the greatest economic growth seen in world history.
yes
they always said communism had to start in an industrialised nation
therefore, a communist government should do whatever it needs to do to industrialise before enacting communism
M&E weren't ever clear on what socialism was, and also themselves shouldn't be considered ultimate sources of Marxism, because both are heavily tainted by Hagelian pseudery.
ITT: moron Black folk who havent fully embraced the spirit of mao zedong's thought
Marx and Engels very explicitly never made a system of any sort. In fact they would mock the very notion.
Don't think Karl Marx had a system.
In his entire collection of works Marx has not made 1 (one) correct prediction. Literal meme philosopher.
The Nostradamus books are in the metaphysics section.
>china
>communism
It depends on when. Mao's communism resembled the early stages of Marx's system. Deng Xiaoping's system more closely resembles national socialism
The Third Reich's privatization efforts went against the grain in the 1930s even by the standards of the United States at the time, including privatizing several major state-owned banks inherited from the Weimar republic. Neither China nor Vietnam have ever done that.
Another article in Bloomberg today, quoting one Chinese economist:
>Jiang started his career by researching China’s health-care system, which has been progressively opened to private-sector ownership since the 1990s. “When I first studied Western economics, I thought that the market could have a guiding role in the health-care sector. But on-the-ground investigation changed my viewpoint. I saw that privatization was hurting patients,” he wrote in 2019. Now, “legislation should keep profit-seeking capital out of the medical service system,” he argues. Such sentiments indicate health care could be a possible target for future regulatory campaigns.
>Other SPECC economists argue that the expansion of capital relates specifically to the financial system, which they refer to in Marxist terms as “fictitious capital.” Entrepreneurs are speculating on financial assets and real estate to make quick returns instead of investing in the “real” economy, such as manufacturing, they say. Their views provide intellectual heft to Xi’s battle to reduce leverage in the economy and make housing “for living in, not for speculating on”—even at the cost of slower economic growth.
https://news.yahoo.com/marxism-makes-comeback-china-crackdown-200012094.html
Marx doesn't have a system