172
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 36 points 1 day ago

It's not a stretch, it's outright false to call it communism or socialism, systems which necessitate the abolishment of capitalist mode of production (commodity production, private ownership, markets) and money. China, meanwhile, literally has billionaires, still produces things under capitalist mode of production and the only oddity it has compared to other Capitalist countries is partially nationalized economy (which Mussolini has also done, it's not socialism by itself).

It's just a social democracy.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Isn’t there only one political party in China? How is that democracy? Not being hostile, genuinely curious how that would work

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

You can have disagreements within a single party. Like how in the US they banned communist parties because it didn't align with the capitalist ideals that all American parties are required to align with.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

The US has not banned communist parties from existing. There's even a few local elected communist mayors. The Red Scare for sure did it's job though, and declaring as a communist in virtually any US office is a surefire way to lose.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago
[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Which was ruled unconstitutional in 1973 by the federal district court of Arizona. Did you finish the article that you linked?

Blawis v. Bolin

[-] [email protected] 0 points 23 hours ago

It's like burning down a house and asking what's the problem after the fire has gone out. Repercussions last a long time. The cultural changes produced go on for generations.

Anyways, none of that matters cause this is America. We just did the unconstitutional thing at the State level instead.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.557.htm

Please read and hit me with some more complaints. Maybe if I keep knocking them down you will eventually change your mind :)

[-] [email protected] 0 points 21 hours ago

Yes the cultural repercussions of the Red Scare are pervasive to this day. I mentioned that in my original reply.

The Texas State code you linked has a pretty funny definitions of "Communist":

Sec. 557.021. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:

(1) "Communist" means a person who commits an act reasonably calculated to further the overthrow of the government:

(A) by force or violence; or

(B) by unlawful or unconstitutional means and replace it with a communist government.

It's not altogether uncommon in southern states to redefine words to make the name of the act sound extremely right wing. If this was written a decade later I guarantee it would say "Terrorist" instead. This particular act is also silly because it just redefines treason laws that already existed to make it seem like they were stopping communists. States did similar in this past election with "banning illegal immigrants from voting" on ballots. It's a political scare tactic and it clearly is working on you. Again, this law doesn't actually ban colloquial definition of "Communist" just some weird legal rewrite of what would most people would call a terrorist.

It also is kind of shitty to have someone come at you with "Brutal" and linking to an article that debunks their claim. Then continues to move the goalpost and condescendingly tells you that they're going to "knock down" anything you rebut with while also calling them "complaints" instead of facts. As such, I think I'm done with this conversation. Have a nice day!

[-] [email protected] 0 points 20 hours ago

Before I too let the conversation die I just want to point out how much you devalue "political scare tactics" like they have no effect and can be basically ignored by its targets with no repercussions. I want you to think on that for a while. Figure out yourself why that is a self evidently silly thing to say when discussing how they redefined communist to mean traitor and how that means they actually didn't ban communism.

I bet your a real big fan of the children's game "I'm not touching you"

[-] [email protected] 0 points 19 hours ago

If you insist on continuing to engage me then let's pivot to a different conversation.

Why are you so hostile towards me and why do you insist on ascribing things to me that I didn't say, or even imply? In fact, I've said the opposite of what you have claimed I said in your comment... The main reason I had for pointing out that communism is not banned is that it actively dissuades people from joining a communist party if people believe it's illegal. Which is the intent of the scare tactic. Which I believe is a bad outcome. Do you follow the logic here? Now can we please put that aside as I actually think we're effectively on the same page or at least on the same chapter.

I've tried to be moderately polite to you but you seem adamant to be a complete ghoul back to me. I just can't figure out why a simple rebuttal sent you flying off into a weird attack mode where you seem to ignore facts put back to you. What I can't stress enough though, is that mindset is not unique to you. It's extremely off putting to me personally, and I'd very much like to figure out where the heck this mindset is coming from.

I will say that I don't care for more insults. I really don't have the mental energy to deal with some random person attacking me for no real reason. So if you do reply please keep it cordial or I think I will completely disengage from further discussions with you.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 12 hours ago

I don't insist on continuing. I'm sticking to my word and leaving it there.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Wikipedia lists 9 parties in the NPC

[-] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago

And all of those parties are listed as being under the control of CCP. So it is a one party state.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago
[-] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago

You should also learn that those parties are subsidiaries of CCP, the governing party. They are not actual alternatives.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I think people have some degree of chouce at the more local levels, but you're right.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

democracy is a far stretch though, isnt it? And capitalist is also not entirely true, when entire industry branches are nationalized, planned and not privatized

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Socialism does not necessitate the abolishment of commodity production in totality to be considered Socialist, just that the society we are analyzing is working towards abolishing it in the future, which is further cemented by running an economy where the overwhelming majority of large firms and key industries are in the public sector and thus have leverage over the rest of the economy.

This is because no system is static. Whoever controls the Means of Production controls their development, and in which direction. As production improves, centralization increases, and state management becomes more feasible and more fundamentally necessary. This propels further socialization of the economy, as long as there is a dictatorship of the proletariat, the development of the productive forces drives the development to higher and more developed stages of Socialism, eventually giving way to the establishment of Communism.

Further, to compare China to fascist Mussolini is just absurd. Mussolini had minor nationalizations, in order to support the Capitalist state. In China, it's fundamentally the opposite. Engels went over the difference in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

But the modern state, too, is only the organization with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists. The modern state, whatever its form, is an essentially capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal aggregate capitalist. The more productive forces it takes over into its possession, the more it becomes a real aggregate capitalist, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-workers, proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not abolished, rather it is pushed to the limit. But at this limit it changes into its opposite. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but it contains within itself the formal means, the handle to the solution.

Engels is specifically speaking about economies where the state is thoroughly bourgeois, and thus the character of the state ownership is to support Capitalism. This is not the case for China, however, which has gradually been seeing large gains for the working class and the Capitalists within China thoroughly submissive to the proletarian state. China has already had its revolution, it did not abandon it, neither did Cuba, Vietnam, etc. This is supported by what Engels says later:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Production is gradually transformed into public property as it develops and is more capable of being publicly owned and planned.

But you've already been explained this before, repeatedly. Your stance is that there can be no such thing as Socialism until commodity production, markets, and money all cease to exist, when in all likelihood vestigial elements of each may continue to exist even in the earliest stages of Communism, if we agree with Marx. Your stance is the "One Drop Rule," which eliminates the entirety of Dialectics and treats Socialism as a unique mode of production defined by purity, while Capitalism, Feudalism, and so forth were all defined by which element was the principle aspect, as no system has ever truly been "pure." This is plainly a wrong stance to take.

this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
172 points (70.5% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

1804 readers
176 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 8 months ago
MODERATORS