this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
818 points (94.4% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
1632 readers
8 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Workers rights in Denmark, an Imperialist country that is firmly under the control of Private Capital, are declining. Safety nets are eroding and unions are weakening, disparity is rising. The opposite is the case in the PRC, a rapidly developing country where Public Ownership is in control of the economy.
Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can't just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn't to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism. Analysis of China's economic makeup affirms this method as true:
Further, China is democratic. It doesn't have a western liberal democracy, but it does have a comprehensive Socialist democracy. You can read this article talking about why the Chinese democratic model is in place and why the people support it, or this article on how the Chinese model of democracy works in contrast to western democracy, or this short video on how it works, or this video on how elections work, or this article on the makeup of the NPC.
By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%? The material conditions of Chinese citizens have dramatically improved, along with their faith in the government:
Further, China is not Imperialist. Rather than using financial Capital to provide large loans with clauses requiring countries to privatize industries for foreign capture, they focus on building up trade infrastructure and industrialization. This is because they need to create more customers, they don't have an import-driven economy nor does private financial Capital control the state.
I recommend you check out this introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list I made, if you want to judge Marxists on their application of Marxism, then you should familiarize yourself with Marxism.
Again, I'll remind you that Denmark is an Imperialist country, and a petro-state. It is dominated by the Private Sector, and has a well-developed labor aristocracy that has somewhat successfully organized into recieving some of the spoils of Imperialism, though this is fading and eroding over time as the workers have no control over the government or market. Denmark is also already a developed country, and has been one for a long time. That's how it engages with Imperialism in the first place, large corporations developed and needed to spread outwards to retain legitimacy, they export the worst aspects of production to the Global South while importing the spoils.
Here are some good resources others have compiled on the Nordic Model in general:
The PRC, on the other hand, is a developing country. Key metrics are rapidly rising, and a lot of this is due to programs like the Poverty Eradication Program that was successfully completed. I really like The Metamorphosis of Yunagudui to show just how massive that campaign was for the people it impacted.
Further, China does have unions, such as the All China Federation of Trade Unions, and the state regularly supports worker movements as well. That's why it enjoys such high approval ratings, Unions are there to represent labor against Capital, and the government actually represents the people in the PRC while the state sides with corporations in Denmark. Unions are far more necessary in Denmark when greedy Capitalists run freely and can take whatever you have when you aren't looking.
As for Imperialism, you're assuming millitary intervention is Imperialism. Was it Imperialism when the US Union invaded and beat the Confederacy? Or when the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany? In the case of Tibet, Xinjiang, etc, approval rates for the CPC are quite high. A large part of that, for example, in Tibet, is because the majority of the population were slaves in a brutal caste system under the CIA-backed Dali Lama, and thus welcomed the PLA in open arms.
As for Taiwan, Both the CPC and Taiwan have stated that they are okay with the status quo, for now. With US backing lowering in Taiwan, we may see increased desire to integrate into the PRC to make up for their loss in revenue from the US.
The Belt and Road Initiative doesn't work that way. Countries enter it in exchange for large infrastructural build up, in order for China to have new customers that aren't the West, who as we observe are quite fickle to work with. As this article from The Atlantic puts it, The "Chinese Debt Trap" is a Myth.
Speech is restricted in China, that's true. Corporations can't say whatever they want and risk destabilizing the system, and Billionaires are regularly punished for speaking out. Individual workers aren't really targeted much, both because they don't pose a threat, and because speech is promoted among the working class. "Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom" is a common saying in China, ie let many viewpoints be thrust into the sphere of conversation. In Capitalist countries, speech is firmly controlled by Private interests, if China did not restrict the speech of Capitalists they would flood the sphere with whatever they wanted.
For democracy, I'll copy and paste my sources, as you clearly read none of them:
And yes, I speak to people living in China, read articles from Chinese people, and speak to people who left China. The ones who left China were the most interesting, in that they defended China when overhearing a rant about China my right-wing coworker went on. This actually starteda shift towards me being more positive on China and encouraged me to learn more. I find articles like The Revival of Capital and the Left Turn of the Mental Laborer to be fascinating. China is clearly not a paradise, but it's also one of the fastest improving countries in the world, and that's thanks to being Socialist and run by Marxist-Leninists.
I know the person you're replying to won't care to read these materials, but it sure helps for others reading through the comments with where to start educating themselves. Thanks!
No problem! That's generally my strategy, people looking to argue online aren't going to change their minds, they see it as a "win/lose" situation. Instead, I focus on refutation of absurd claims and well-sourced information more for onlookers to engage with. I really like Nia Frome's articles on Red Sails called Marketing Socialism and On Dialectics, Or How to Defeat Enemies. They really help shape how I engage with others online, decisive and sharp refutation is very useful for onlookers to see.
For more fun articles on why people believe what they do, I'm a big fan of Roderic Day's "Brainwashing" and Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing." Those help dramatically with seeing that, really, there's little convincing others directly in online debate, but there is hope for others whose material conditions have opened them up to new ideas to see and engage with more information they are curious about.
Thank you for your work in this thread comrade, its going to help a lot of people.
I appreciate it! 🫡
I said it elsewhere, but I do think now is an excellent time for agitation and developing clear lines.
Liberals will always retreat to lazy name calling when faced with any real arguments.
Why don't you just call me a pinko commie? It's clearly what you mean
We see how fake democracy is in the US when it helped dozens of coups and are arresting people for protesting against a genocide
You calling the person above a tankie just shows how ignorant you are.
They took the time, with references and without name-calling (something you immediately jumped to), to refute your claim about the Chinese government.
Why can't we have honest, intellectual discussions on the internet?
Your behavior reflects how most people think about socialists.