Commuism is when the state takes all of your toothbrushes.
- karl marx 2003
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
81 points (86.5% liked)
Memes
53610 readers
1493 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 47 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Authoritarian communism is when the see see pee won't let me leave my lunar habitat to go for a stroll without my space suit
Authoritarian communism is when no funeral strippers:
(I couldn’t find the Lemmy post about it so here’s an article lol)
“Party’s Over: China authorities crack down on funeral stripping” - The Guardian
Talking about china? I'd probably classify china as a socialist authoritarian state with its own brand of state capitalism. That they have feared revolution, suppress protests and simultaneously try to be seen as fair and just has probably been a good thing for citizens ... unfortunately, the masses are increasingly easy to control, and incentives for good & responsive governance will likely change as a result.
Talking about china? I’d probably classify china as a socialist authoritarian state
Yes, this meme is about you.
A little rude, no?
[removed by mod]
Over 90% of China supports their government, and it's because the CPC is consistently improving people's lives. There's no desire to be at the recieving end of state violence, but for the working classes to hold it as in China.
It's still the party though (and increasingly the upper echelons of the party) that holds power. If they can maintain high approval, they get to keep the role (without resorting to coersion and/or violence). A good way to maintain high approval is to put the needs of the people first.
The party is run by the working class, which is why it has a direct connection to the needs of the people.
China is socialist, specifically with a socialist market economy. They take counter-revolution seriously, but overall the people in China support the system they've collectively made. Over 90% of the population supports the government, and that isn't because "masses are increasingly easy to control," it's because socialism has worked wonders for the people of China.
Further, this meme isn't purely about China, it's about liberal analysis of authority. If you don't see the state by its class character, then socialist states are indeed authoritarian just like capitalist states, but the qualitative difference is that the working class is in control of socialist authority and uses it to oppress capitalists, fascists, and sabateurs. This is "authoritarian," but unlike capitalist authority it's used for the working class. This applies to all existing socialism.
the working class is in control of socialist authority
Independent unions are illegal in China with only the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) permitted by the Chinese state and the Chinese Communist Party to operate. Seems to me like you got it backwards, the "socialist authority" is in control of the working class. Any who attempt to organize on their own terms are met with state repression. Your insistence that the Chinese state only oppresses capitalists, fascists, and saboteurs is provably false.
You're confusing unions in socialism, independent of and opposed to the socialist system, with proletarian control. Unions are allowed, yes, as directly linked with the socialist system. What isn't allowed is petty bourgeois-style unions that oppose the socialist system. The proletariat runs the party and thus the state, and as a consequence has already built proletarian unions, and dissalows those that would work against the socialist system.
Nothing I said is false, you're just confused on the purpose of unions in systems outside capitalism, and immediately assume legally backed unions to be nefarious and bad.
If it's not independent then it's not proletarian. The state doesn't crush independent unions because they're opposed to the socialist system, but because they are a threat to the authority of the state. I believe people have a right to self-determination, and preventing workers from organizing on their own terms violates that right. The means of production should belong only to those who actually do the work of production, not private individuals and not the state claiming falsely to represent them in the abstract. I'm a syndicalist in that I believe that the purpose of unions is eventually to overthrow the hierarchy and establish a cooperative, not to settle and become a class collaborationist union or an arm of a class collaborationist state, though it is preferable to no union at all.
If it’s not independent then it’s not proletarian.
All this means is that you think the working class cannot have state power, and that the state is outside of class struggle and not within it. In reality, states exist to establish the supremacy of a class, in capitalism the bourgeoisie and in socialism the proletariat. Independence from socialism is a petty bourgeois notion, not proletarian.
The state doesn’t crush independent unions because they’re opposed to the socialist system, but because they are a threat to the authority of the state.
These are one and the same in the context of a socialist state transitioning towards communism. The political economic nature of socialism is in collectivizing production and distribution, opposing the political arm of this defeats the economic.
I believe people have a right to self-determination, and preventing workers from organizing on their own terms violates that right.
This slogan sounds nice, but ultimately just means that people should have a right to undermine socialism against the will of the people.
The means of production should belong only to those who actually do the work of production, not private individuals and not the state claiming falsely to represent them in the abstract.
Again, a working class state run by the working class is the only actual method of establishing socialism at scale.
I’m a syndicalist in that I believe that the purpose of unions is eventually to overthrow the hierarchy and establish a cooperative, not to settle and become a class collaborationist union or an arm of a class collaborationist state, though it is preferable to no union at all.
Ignoring for now that you seek a form of petty bourgeois "socialism," the idea that a union in a socialist system is somehow "class collaborationist" for being official and supported by said socialist state requires a ton of heavy lifting on your part. You proceed from the premise that the state is outside of class struggle, impossible to be proletarian, and that somehow cooperative-focused petty bourgeois quasi-socialism is the answer.
states exist to establish the supremacy of a class
Already we're dropping the pretense of eliminating class, which is the entire premise of communism. A system which establishes supremacy in any form could never hope to eliminate class.
Independence from socialism is a petty bourgeois notion, not proletarian.
And again you are uncritically equivocating socialism and the state. Socialism can and does exist independently of the state whenever workers collectively organize production and distribution anywhere and for any reason. Cooperatives are socialist, not petty bourgeois, because the workers themselves have collectivized the means of production. Small businesses that are privately owned are petty bourgeois.
These [socialism and the state] are one and the same in the context of a socialist state transitioning towards communism.
Always transitioning towards but never quite getting any closer and never will without the people themselves acting collectively to dismantle the state. The idea that the state will just "dissolve," or even more ridiculously disassemble itself, is absurd.
This slogan sounds nice, but ultimately just means that people should have a right to undermine socialism against the will of the people.
Again, people collectivizing the means of production on their own terms does not undermine socialism, it undermines the state. It's funny you suggest people acting on their own initiative undermines their own will, and not the state cracking down on them. I thought from our previous interactions that you were more reasonable than this.
a union in a socialist system is somehow "class collaborationist" for being official and supported by said socialist state requires a ton of heavy lifting on your part.
A union in any system that stops short of supplanting the boss and siezing the means of production is class collaborationist. Such a union in a capitalist republic is essentially just a bureaucratic arm of the company that serves as controlled opposition, and in a "socialist" republic is a bureaucratic arm of the state that exists to ensure the working class acts in the state's interest. You think the latter is acceptable because you believe the state truly represents the will of the people, but I believe that only the people themselves are truly representative of their will.
Already we’re dropping the pretense of eliminating class, which is the entire premise of communism. A system which establishes supremacy in any form could never hope to eliminate class.
Nope. Communism is a post-socialist mode of production established by resolving the contradictions within socialism. States eradicate themselves by eradicating the basis of class, and this happens by collectivizing production and distribution. This can only happen under proletarian states, because the proletariat resolves the class contradiction between bourgeois and proletarian by collectivizing property. This is how the state withers into statelessness.
And again you are uncritically equivocating socialism and the state. Socialism can and does exist independently of the state whenever workers collectively organize production and distribution anywhere and for any reason. Cooperatives are socialist, not petty bourgeois, because the workers themselves have collectivized the means of production. Small businesses that are privately owned are petty bourgeois.
Cooperatives are petty bourgeois collectives of private property, not socialist property. The idea of competing small cells of worker-owners is petty bourgeois in origin and stands opposed to collectivized production and distribution.
Always transitioning towards but never quite getting any closer and never will without the people themselves acting collectively to dismantle the state. The idea that the state will just “dissolve,” or even more ridiculously disassemble itself, is absurd.
The transition between capitalism and communism is slow, long, queer, messy, and protracted. The state does not "just dissolve" or "disassemble itself," the proletariat erases the basis of the state, class, by collectivizing production and distribution. This does not mean collapsing into fully decentralized nothingness, but collectivized production and distribution.
Again, people collectivizing the means of production on their own terms does not undermine socialism, it undermines the state. It’s funny you suggest people acting on their own initiative undermines their own will, and not the state cracking down on them. I thought from our previous interactions that you were more reasonable than this.
Moving away from collectivized production and distribution towards individualist minor collectives is undermining socialism in favor of cooperative, petty bourgeois quasi-socialism. It both undermines socialism and the socialist state, preparing conditions for capitalist states based on cooperative ownership of private property. The fact that I disagree with your framing of socialism and communism doesn't mean I'm doing so unreasonably, this critique is as old as Marx and Engels and is elaborated on thoroughly in Anti-Dühring. For something smaller, Cooperative Property is not Socialist.
A union in any system that stops short of supplanting the boss and siezing the means of production is class collaborationist. Such a union in a capitalist republic is essentially just a bureaucratic arm of the company that serves as controlled opposition, and in a “socialist” republic is a bureaucratic arm of the state that exists to ensure the working class acts in the state’s interest. You think the latter is acceptable because you believe the state truly represents the will of the people, but I believe that only the people themselves are truly representative of their will.
When said union is trying to supplant socialism and sieze the means of production from the proletariat in favor of small, petty bourgeois cooperatives, then it is working against socialism. I trust the people to own and direct production and distribution, which is why I support socialist states, approving of them preventing small cells of worker-owners turning over public property back into private, establishing the basis of capitalism once again.
Communism is a post-socialist mode of production established by resolving the contradictions within socialism. States eradicate themselves by eradicating the basis of class, and this happens by collectivizing production and distribution.
The contradictions within socialism will not be resolved without people acting on their own initiative to resolve them. The state siezing the means of production and claiming it is doing so on behalf of the people forms a new basis of class, it does not eliminate it. It is simply taking the means of production from one set of private hands to another more centralized set that is only somewhat more responsive to the people's will. The people must act of their own initiative to forcibly decentralize the power of the state until no hierarchy remains in order to eliminate class.
Cooperatives are petty bourgeois collectives of private property, not socialist property. The idea of competing small cells of worker-owners is petty bourgeois in origin and stands opposed to collectivized production and distribution.
Who says they have to compete? Realistically they would form federations to organize production and distribution on larger scales. Cooperatives in Italy do this, though they face strong resistance from corporations and the state as they do so. If you have eaten Parmigiano Reggiano you have eaten something created by many small cooperatives banding together to collectivize production and distribution. The cheese is made with milk from many small cooperatively owned farms that pool their resources together and share in the profits.
The contradictions within socialism will not be resolved without people acting on their own initiative to resolve them.
This doesn't really say anything at all. Socialist systems are people resolving contradictions, socialist states are made up of the people and not some group outside this.
The state siezing the means of production and claiming it is doing so on behalf of the people forms a new basis of class, it does not eliminate it.
The working class siezes the state, smashes it, and replaces it with a socialist state where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. There is no new class here, unless you're redefining what class itself means away from Marx and into vibes, like calling plumbers a class.
It is simply taking the means of production from one set of private hands to another more centralized set that is only somewhat more responsive to the people’s will.
Incorrect. It's moving from an economy where private ownership is principle and capitalists in control of the state to public ownership as principle and the proletariat in control of the state. Socialism itself is based on centralization and democratization.
The people must act of their own initiative to forcibly decentralize the power of the state until no hierarchy remains in order to eliminate class.
Utter vibes. Full decentralization and horizontalism is the basis of private property and results in the resurgance of the state, this time of capitalist character, to resolve contradictions between the various cells.
Who says they have to compete?
By nature, cells with unequal ownership will trade for what they need, resulting in further inequalities and the resurgance of full capitalism.
Realistically they would form federations to organize production and distribution on larger scales.
You're using "realistically" in place of ideally, here. There's no basis for this when you intentionally demolish proletarian organization in favor of petty bourgeois cells.
Cooperatives in Italy do this, though they face strong resistance from corporations and the state as they do so.
Cooperatives in Italy exist in the context of a capitalist state, made up of petty bourgeois worker-owners trying to do better for themselves than standard firms allow. This is progressive compared to standard firms in the context of capitalism, but potentially reactionary in the context of socialism (if they truly exist to turn public property into private as you alleged earlier).
If you have eaten Parmigiano Reggiano you have eaten something created by many small cooperatives banding together to collectivize production and distribution.
Not collectivizing. Collectivizing meaning at mass scale, not at small, local levels. I'm aware that cooperatives exist, and tend to support them over standard firms, but this isn't socialism.
The cheese is made with milk from many small cooperatively owned farms that pool their resources together and share in the profits.
I understand how cooperatives work.
It's a market economy too, of course, but it is capitalist because of the private capital in business. That the state also has representatives in large companies plus is often a minor investor doesn't remove the capitalist aspect. In other countries you sometimes see unions and workers councils, backed by laws and courts serving similar roles to protect workers and limit excesses in large corporations. China has the ability to refocus its economic policies and priorities far more directly, which is quite cool when you think about the challenges humanity faces. I hope it can stay on a peaceful path.
If 90% of the population really support the government (hopefully without much deception necessary, but perhaps not so important), and the 10% aren't being persecuted, then that's wonderful.
The presence of private property does not mean China is capitalist, just like the presence of public property does not mean the US Empire is socialist. What matters is which aspect is principle, and the class character of the state. In China, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned, and the state is run by the working classes. No mode of production has ever truly been "pure," and thus treating socialism like some magical, special mode of production is absurd.
Over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system, yes. It isn't "deception," and you keep trying to paint China as especially duplicitous and evil, which is borderline chauvanism. In China, capitalists are regularly persecuted, executed, and otherwise kept in control by the socialist state.
I think it's important to mention that it's not just the proportion of state owned industries in China. The finance sector is state controlled, which in a capitalist society is how the highest level decisions are made. Anyone who's read Imperialism will recognize China as a socialist state.
Yep, agreed! That's why I said principle aspect, not majority, and referenced the large firms and key industries, ie the commanding heights. Having a state-run bank alone isn't socialism either, it's important to recognize all of it, and which direction it's going. Though, thanks for adding, if it was unclear for you then doubtless it was unclear for others!
That china is a socialist state is not in question.
We're talking about its economic system, and I believe "state capitalism" is the right description.
That most of its major industries are state controlled and the biggest firms are SOEs doesn't change this.
As a side note: There is still a lot of private capital slushing around in China, and many USD-millionaires. There's still significant inequality. They still have work to do, but that doesn't detract from what they have achieved.
I believe “state capitalism” is the right description.
If you want to focus on the pure mechanic of how surplus value is extracted in SOEs and try to make the argument that the CPC forms a nomenclatura that appropriates it then it would be still fairer to call it "State socialist" as the surplus value is distributed amongs the working class benefiting them significantly materially unlike in capitalist countries. Since it's qualitatively a different state than the UDSSR is useful to also look at the distinguishing aspect, namely the presence of the market. Hence "socialist market economy" is the right description like other posters mentioned
The term “state capitalism” confounds more than it illuminates.
The capitalist mode of production is founded on the M-C-M' circuit. The state, by contrast, is not, because as the sovereign, it is the issuer of money. It doesn’t need to make a profit from its commodities or services because it creates money by fiat[1]. Therefore the capitalist mode of production is exclusive to the private sector.
It only confuses if you decide to use a non-Leninist definition of the state. The state exists to manage class contradictions. Are the classes being managed different than in capitalist states? No, but their political class has a different character than in the west. The party is larger, more powerful, tangible and broad though still operating with bourgeois principles, interests and aspirations. The bureaucratic class sustains the bourgeois class, gives concessions to the working class, maintains a petite bourg middle class, as a project that obfuscates the capitalist class in opposition to, and exploiting, a working and toiling classes.
Is the "socialist state" withering away? No, it is growing more powerful. IMO an ideology more concerned with socialist states over socialist internationalism is the ideology of state bureaucrats, not proletarian revolutionaries. Which makes sense since the worker/peasant revolution failed in China, their politics are more Dengist than Maoist, the party even rejects the concept of class antagonism! I don't see how they can even be considered Marxist.
The bureaucratic class uses the state apparatus to sustain the bourgeois class, while the toiling classes are fundamentally proletarian, that is, despite social democratic concessions they still have nothing to sell the capitalists but their labor. People are heavily exploited in "special economic zones". Communal land is becoming more privatized, not less. The rural agrarian population is insular and petty bourgeois, the urban middle classes are becoming less political but more aspirational and individualistic. Housing, while abundant, is still commodified.
The party uses the state to maintain capitalist relations. State capitalist. The only thing confusing is that in our world there is always a state protecting the bourgeois class. So it's really just capitalism, like social democracy. So maybe "party capitalist" is more accurate. I'm not too invested about slandering China, but your criticism is the same disingenuous attitude that insists "authoritarian" is meaningless. The term exists, people use it in political discourse, not engaging with it, and pretending it doesn't exist is intentionally obtuse. No Marxist should concern themselves with epistemological word games.
"Authoritarian" can be concretely defined and understood. Overlooking the self criticism of, "it is very convenient that I refuse to believe in the existence of a verifiable phenomenon that is used to criticize me," trying to prove the phenomenon is fake rather than engaging with it as criticism, betrays the socialist principle of ruthless criticism, as well as Marxist materialism. No one believes you except those in your own camp. It's sectarian idealism.
It only confuses if you decide to use a non-Leninist definition of the state. The state exists to manage class contradictions. Are the classes being managed different than in capitalist states? No, but their political class has a different character than in the west. The party is larger, more powerful, tangible and broad though still operating with bourgeois principles, interests and aspirations. The bureaucratic class sustains the bourgeois class, gives concessions to the working class, maintains a petite bourg middle class, as a project that obfuscates the capitalist class in opposition to, and exploiting, a working and toiling classes.
The state exists to establish and maintain supremacy of one class over the others, and in China that class is the proletariat. The communist party is large, indeed, but it isn't "operating with bourgeois principles," whatever that means. There is no obfuscation of class struggle.
Is the “socialist state” withering away? No, it is growing more powerful. IMO an ideology more concerned with socialist states over socialist internationalism is the ideology of state bureaucrats, not proletarian revolutionaries. Which makes sense since the worker/peasant revolution failed in China, their politics are more Dengist than Maoist, the party even rejects the concept of class antagonism! I don’t see how they can even be considered Marxist.
There are a few key errors here.
-
The state as a state that cannot but whither away already exists, it cannot complete that process without the death of imperialism and the global transition to communism.
-
China is very internationalist, just not millitantly so. No country has done more to undermine the economic basis of imperialism in the 21st century than China.
-
The revolution did not fail.
-
China upholds Mao and Deng, but in fact sees Xi Jinping Thought as the same category as Mao Zedong Thought while keeping Deng Xiapoing Theory at the level of theory, not thought. It's Xi Jinping Thought that is seen as the genuine advancement.
-
The CPC does not reject class struggle. The CPC rejects the Gang of Four's vulgarization of class struggle over all else.
The fact that there are five critical errors in this paragraph alone speaks volumes.
The bureaucratic class uses the state apparatus to sustain the bourgeois class, while the toiling classes are fundamentally proletarian, that is, despite social democratic concessions they still have nothing to sell the capitalists but their labor. People are heavily exploited in “special economic zones”. Communal land is becoming more privatized, not less. The rural agrarian population is insular and petty bourgeois, the urban middle classes are becoming less political but more aspirational and individualistic. Housing, while abundant, is still commodified.
There is no "bureaucratic class." Administration is fully in line with proletarian responsibilities. The rest of your comment is indicative of early socialism, which is a long and drawn out process, not of capitalism.
The party uses the state to maintain capitalist relations. State capitalist. The only thing confusing is that in our world there is always a state protecting the bourgeois class. So it’s really just capitalism, like social democracy. So maybe “party capitalist” is more accurate. I’m not too invested about slandering China, but your criticism is the same disingenuous attitude that insists “authoritarian” is meaningless. The term exists, people use it in political discourse, not engaging with it, and pretending it doesn’t exist is intentionally obtuse. No Marxist should concern themselves with epistemological word games.
The party, to the contrary, uses the state to socialize the economy and maintain dominance over the capitalists that do exist. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the state is run by the proletariat. For someone that seems to not be too invested in slandering China, you've repeated common misinformation about it without backing yourself up, and then wound yourself up in the epistemological word games you accuse others of.
“Authoritarian” can be concretely defined and understood. Overlooking the self criticism of, “it is very convenient that I refuse to believe in the existence of a verifiable phenomenon that is used to criticize me,” trying to prove the phenomenon is fake rather than engaging with it as criticism, betrays the socialist principle of ruthless criticism, as well as Marxist materialism. No one believes you except those in your own camp. It’s sectarian idealism.
"Authoritarianism" is simply the use of state power, and the state must be understood by its class character. The reason Marxists ridicule those accusing socialist states of "authoritarianism" is because this is juxtaposed not by a lack of authority, but by *capitalist authoritarianism." The degree of state power employed is not a decision of individuals, but of the state reacting to material conditions it finds itself in. Modern Germany has just as much potential to end up like Nazi Germany, but because they aren't in the same degree of crisis they don't need to employ as drastic measures to solidify bourgeois rule.
Overall, you've played more word games than anyone else here, repeated misinformation from anti-communists and cold warriors, then tried to shut down the points of others without meaningfully backing up your own.
Well, I dont appreciate the implication that my views are based on imperialist talking points. I am an admirerer of the Chinese project, but i don't consider it revolutionary. Again I think youre being obtuse when you say you dont know what bourgeois principles are. I think you know that I'm not an imperialist parrot, on the contrary, I think you dismiss my perspectives too eagerly. However I appreciate the push back on the state capitalist definition. My most recent study of those conditions are based on formulations by Loren Goldner, based on formulations of Bordiga. Its not that I subscribe to them explicitly but its clear I need to develop a stronger critique.
Also
The reason Marxists ridicule those accusing socialist states of “authoritarianism”
I am hearing that I am not a Marxist because i acknowledge the substance of a criticism, and that ridicule is in fact a viable mode of political discourse. This speaks such volumes. This is exactly the sectarianism I am most principally concerned with.
A party that coexists with the bourgeoisie is reformist, a party that sustains a depoliticized middle class also sustains exploitation for the sustainance of their bourgeoisie. The petite bourgeois and middle classes are the way that a state obfuscates class antagonisms.
I dont think it is a stretch to insist that a party that sustains a bourgeois class would have a bourgeois character. It would surprise me if the Chinese party didn't have a detailed and thorough history of this problem. The bourgeois nature of the party is expressed through state bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not 1:1 with proletarian administration, bureaucracy is self-sustaining. The CCP has no incentive to abolish itself or to wither away, on the contrary! Whereas you wish to purge opposing viewpoints, I argue the CCP needs to purge its bourgeois reformism before it can ever meaningfully resist imperialism. The idea that the party affects the class, while its essential character is independent of that class is just pure idealist rubbish. You seem to think the party state is buying time for socialism, but I dont think you can prove that it isnt social democratic in nature, that is, withering away of the power of proletariat.
However I did refer to the party as a bureaucratic class which is not accurate either, it is not a class, but rather, a social relation created to mitigate class antagonisms. This also will require further development on my part.
I guess I just kind of wish that you could be straight with me instead of being like a propagandist/apologist? Like I know you have criticism of the CCP, I'm sure you would share them with others who you felt comfortable going so. But rather than viewing me as a comrade, I'm an imperialist parrot deserving ridicule. If you knew three things about me you'd choke on that assumption. Which shows your connection to all this is alienated, because you can't directly connect with me as an organizer, Marxist, socialist or fellow traveler. All connections between people are mitigated through ideology, through affectation and epistemology rather than anything genuinely respectful of difference. Its the puritain, purging mentality of state bureaucrats, not revolutionaries.
I'll move past the first couple paragraphs, which I think you'll be okay with considering the opener was your background and the second you taking issue with me stating the standard Marxist position as in contradiction with yours, implicitly categorizing you as non-Marxist in that analysis. I do maintain that you are removing yourself from Marxism with that analysis, but I'll address what you brought up here.
A party that coexists with the bourgeoisie is reformist, a party that sustains a depoliticized middle class also sustains exploitation for the sustainance of their bourgeoisie. The petite bourgeois and middle classes are the way that a state obfuscates class antagonisms.
Coexistance is not what is going on in China. The bourgeoisie are in a drawn out process of eradication, as the proletarian state gradually collectivizes property. They cannot accelerate this as they are still thoroughly coupled with global capitalism, the transition between capitalism to communism is itself global and thus China plays a revolutionary role in undermining imperialism, the primary contradiction.
I dont think it is a stretch to insist that a party that sustains a bourgeois class would have a bourgeois character. It would surprise me if the Chinese party didn’t have a detailed and thorough history of this problem. The bourgeois nature of the party is expressed through state bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not 1:1 with proletarian administration, bureaucracy is self-sustaining.
The CPC is not sustaining the bourgeois class, but is restrained by the global transition. The party itself is not bourgeois. Doubtless there are liberals in China, of course there are, but the party is proletarian in nature.
The CCP has no incentive to abolish itself or to wither away, on the contrary! Whereas you wish to purge opposing viewpoints, I argue the CCP needs to purge its bourgeois reformism before it can ever meaningfully resist imperialism. The idea that the party affects the class, while its essential character is independent of that class is just pure idealist rubbish. You seem to think the party state is buying time for socialism, but I dont think you can prove that it isnt social democratic in nature, that is, withering away of the power of proletariat.
The CPC is not trying to abolish itself, nor should they. China is meaningfully opposing imperialism, and has freed much of the global south from the trappings of underdevelopment. The CPC is not "buying time for socialism," China is already socialist. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the proletariat is in charge of the state. What remains between now and communism is the long, drawn out transition. Social democracies have private ownership as principle, and capitalists in charge of the state.
However I did refer to the party as a bureaucratic class which is not accurate either, it is not a class, but rather, a social relation created to mitigate class antagonisms. This also will require further development on my part.
I recommend Gramsci's On Comrade Bordiga's Sterile and Negative "Left" Criticism since you mentioned Bordiga earlier.
I guess I just kind of wish that you could be straight with me instead of being like a propagandist/apologist? Like I know you have criticism of the CCP, I’m sure you would share them with others who you felt comfortable going so. But rather than viewing me as a comrade, I’m an imperialist parrot deserving ridicule. If you knew three things about me you’d choke on that assumption. Which shows your connection to all this is alienated, because you can’t directly connect with me as an organizer, Marxist, socialist or fellow traveler. All connections between people are mitigated through ideology, through affectation and epistemology rather than anything genuinely respectful of difference. Its the puritain, purging mentality of state bureaucrats, not revolutionaries.
I'm capable of critique of the CPC, sure. At the same time, I find it far less important than taking a pro-socialist stance that upholds existing socialism. I can recognize your desire to establish socialism while also vehemontly disagreeing with your position, see Gramsci on Bordiga earlier. I think Nia Frome's article Long, Queer Revolution may be helpful for you. Here's an excerpt:
What do we gain from viewing the revolution as a long, queer process? Perhaps the most salutary effect is that it lets us stop arguing about whether any given state “is” or “is not” socialist. “Socialism” names a global transition; a given state may take a leading role in this transition for a time, but we should expect any state, even one in the lead, to be advancing along some fronts while it regresses or stagnates on others (wouldn’t it be entirely too stagist to imagine otherwise?). The game of tallying up progressive vs. regressive features in order to cleanly demarcate socialist countries from capitalist ones can’t ever be brought to a satisfying close, precisely because socialism is just capitalism’s turning into something else, a process that is spread out over the human race in a constantly shifting (combined and uneven) mosaic. It’s unreasonable to think in terms of pure anything, to expect any given fight or institutional innovation to be the fight or the innovation that, if everyone just got on board with it, would finally usher in communism. Instead, we should think in terms of roles — is x playing a progressive role in situation y? Trying to aggregate the answers to this question to arrive at an overall “socialism” score is just as misguided as any other quantity purporting to capture quality.
Your wall of text is up its own asshole. You’re playing word games while chastising me for playing word games.
I think you're getting hung up on an artificial separation of politics and economics, you should look up a critique of this or investigate why political economy is a useful framework for analysis.
Thanks. I find it quite fascinating, despite the open hostility of some here.
The goal of socialism is not equalitarianism, but to improve the lives of the working classes and work towards collectivizing all production and distribution to satisfy the needs of all. Further, state capitalism is a better descriptor for the US Empire, Singapore, ROK, etc, not for a socialist market economy like China.
You might have to provide your definitions...
Markets are the coordination mechanism, while the ownership structure is clearly capitalist in nature, because a huge amount of capital in China is privately owned. And yes, I am aware many prefer to call their brand of state capitalism "socialist market economy" instead.
That the state owns significant amounts (and the majority in key sectors) is a good thing.
Not a goal? Economic equality does seem to be a goal of China's socialism.. Common prosperity, with a reduction of extreme inequality as one of the key tenets.
I did. The fact that private capital exists in China does not make it capitalist. Capitalism, as a mode of production, refers to a broad system, not private ownership in general. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, you cannot slice out private ownership as a static, disconnected thing and call it capitalism, it must be judged within the context of its existence. It isn't just that the state owns a significant amount, but that the state owns the commanding heights of industry, the large firms and key industries, finance sector, and more, with the working class in control of said state.
State capitalism refers to capitalist states, run by capitalists with private ownership as the principle aspect, but with large degrees of state control. Nazi Germany is another good example of state capitalism, a strong bourgeois state is not the same as a socialist market economy.
Marx railed against equalitarians. Equality isn't the goal, but reducing disparity while focusing on improving the lives of the working classes. If that means billionaires existing as a tactical contradiction, then this isn't a mark against socialism, but instead a contradiction that requires solving down the line. As China remains integrated into the world market, billionaires do exist, but they hold no political power.
Capitalism can and does exist outside of capitalist states (China being an example of this)...this is obviously a matter of differing definitions. That's OK, but I'd suggest some links to formal definitions. Perhaps there's a wiki somewhere?
edit: I think nazi germany's economy fits the term command capitalism better than state capitalism.
You're fundamentally treating capitalism differently from socialism, which is your error. Socialism isn't when the government does stuff, just like capitalism isn't when private property. As for definitions, here's Prolewiki on State Capitalism and on Socialist Market Economy.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-capitalism is the traditional definition, which I think fits pretty well.
I don't care much for the opinions of liberals on what they think constitutes socialism or capitalism, which is what you mean by "traditional." There's no reason to take liberal words any more seriously than socialists, especially on socialism.
Don't be rude, Cowbee.
The term "state capitalism" has existed for a long time (originally by one of Karl Marx's buddies, I think I read), and is used by economists the world over.
Trying to rewrite its definition without acknowledging its well established existing meaning is disingenous and dishonest (on the part of whoever started it or refuses to acknowledge the oversight).
It's perfectly fine to say "I/we prefer term X because ..." though.
The link you provided makes it clear that it ultimately agrees with me, down in the history section:
The term state capitalism was first used in the 1880s, and the concept was described in detail in 1896 by Wilhelm Liebknecht, a close associate of Karl Marx, to differentiate state takeover of private enterprises from the socialist state. Liebknecht described socialism as the removal of capitalism, leading to total state control, which he considered different from state capitalism. State takeovers increased during and in the immediate aftermath of World War I in Europe as private firms failed or were taken over to prevent layoffs. France nationalized its railways, airlines, and several other industries. Italy used a state-owned holding company to control a multitude of nationalized companies. In the United States, state and local governments have owned most major airports since the 1920s, and the country’s postal service is part of the federal government. The interwar period also saw the rise of several totalitarian states, with Nazi Germany exercising high control over investment and production.
It's clearly talking about capitalist states nationalizing industry, which circles back to the fact that the capitalists control the state and private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. This is why socialism isn't simply "when the government does stuff," and why China is better described as a socialist market economy.
You got me digging.. Liebknecht (and others) discussed it at the 1891 SPD Reichsparteitag (available at the internet archive in hard to read German) Liebknecht warned that state capitalism was the worst form, and not true socialism ... ie. don't equate the expansion of state corporate power with socialism.
His opinion was that even when the state owns or controls industries, the capitalist mode of production (markets, wage labour, accumulation) remains intact rather than being replaced with genuine social ownership. It was apparently a rebuttal to "state socialism as reformist ideology", asserting that merely placing capital in state hands does not abolish exploitation, and could even be a harsher form of it.
That was at a time when there were no socialist states.
Lenin apparently turned it on its head, declaring that the state can be proletarian and not bourgeois, and that state capitalism under a proletarian state is a step forward, not backwards.
By Liebknechts criteria, china has state capitalism (and not socialism, which he treated as mutually exclusive)
And China would probably fail Lenin's own conditions for socialist transition, because China presents state capitalism as a stable system and not a transitional one (ie. as a means, not a mode).
China calls itself socialist anyway, but it's definitely with chinese characteristics like party control and private capital making millionaires. Healthy & peaceful criticism/discussion should be welcomed, along with recognising what they are doing well.
Overall, I think times change and capital ownership is an extremely practical concept that we probably won't break away from anytime soon. Leibknechts warnings should still be heeded.
I think a simple way to view it is this: the state is a weapon, not a class or a faction. What it accomplishes and who it oppresses depends on who wields it.
You got me digging… Liebknecht (and others) discussed it at the 1891 SPD Reichsparteitag (available at the internet archive in hard to read German) Liebknecht warned that state capitalism was the worst form, and not true socialism … ie. don’t equate the expansion of state corporate power with socialism.
Correct, socialism isn't when the government does stuff. Bismark was not a socialist for nationalizing industry in the context of a bourgeois state with private ownership as principle.
His opinion was that even when the state owns or controls industries, the capitalist mode of production (markets, wage labour, accumulation) remains intact rather than being replaced with genuine social ownership. It was apparently a rebuttal to “state socialism as reformist ideology”, asserting that merely placing capital in state hands does not abolish exploitation, and could even be a harsher form of it.
This is the difference between state capitalism and a socialist market economy, ie between a state ruled by capitalists with private ownership as principle yet strong state control (Nazi Germany, the Republic of Korea, US Empire, etc) vs one where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class in control of the state and markets for smaller and medium firms, ie PRC and Vietnam.
That was at a time when there were no socialist states.
Sure.
Lenin apparently turned it on its head, declaring that the state can be proletarian and not bourgeois, and that state capitalism under a proletarian state is a step forward, not backwards.
Lenin did not turn this on its head. Lenin corrected the Second International, who were reconciling a bourgeois state with "socialism," ie social democracy or state capitalism. The state can be proletarian, correct, this is true since Marx and Engels theorized about the state, and it is the proletarian state that withers away.
By Liebknechts criteria, china has state capitalism (and not socialism, which he treated as mutually exclusive)
Incorrect, see my point distinguishing state capitalism with socialist market economies.
And China would probably fail Lenin’s own conditions for socialist transition, because China presents state capitalism as a stable system and not a transitional one (ie. as a means, not a mode).
Further incorrect. China presents its socialist market economy as the initial stages of socialism:
China calls itself socialist anyway, but it’s definitely with chinese characteristics like party control and private capital making millionaires. Healthy & peaceful criticism/discussion should be welcomed, along with recognising what they are doing well.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics describes China's model of socialism and unique features like the Mass Line, not that private property still exists. Every socialist state in history has had some level of private property, even the DPRK, but the Marxist analysis of private property in the context of a socialist state is that it exists in a form that prepares its own socialization.
Overall, I think times change and capital ownership is an extremely practical concept that we probably won’t break away from anytime soon. Leibknechts warnings should still be heeded.
Overall, I think if you want to discuss socialist theory and whatever any given theorist would approve or disprove of, you should actually read them.