What is your favorite type of socialism? Mine is modern Chinese socialism

You know it's still a valid argument even if you pretend it's a joke, right?

READ A BOOK
E A
A E
READ

A

B
O
O
K

...

deng's policies are actually the most consistent with Marxist theory

no, China was never socialist

How does it feel knowing you're so autistic that even Holla Forums, a board shit at noticing sarcasm, managed to figure out OP was ironic and you failed at that?

Now I can rest assured that the "Holla Forums has good discussion" spam is truly just a meme, thanks.

have fun on Holla Forums

...

How can I have a favorite form of socialism if none of them are real socialism?

Marxist theory as it applies to the struggle for male liberation.

MARKET
SYNDICALISM

you're a dipshit and no one owes your dribble a coherent response

unfuck yourself and try again

...

unfuck yourself and try again

...

From what I understand China is basically playing capitalism using Marx's rulebook.

Wtf are you on about? Marx doesn't advocate for capitalism
See>>1551941

See

He said the dictatorship of the proletariat would begin with the nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy. China has that.

Most of Chinas industrial output is from privately owned foreign businesses although they do have a sizeable amount of state owned industry

We are reaching levels of reinterpretation of reality previously thought unimaginable.
Is this "bait" too, Holla Forums? Because I'm pretty sure he's serious.

Marx believed that the economy would first be nationalized. Of course you wouldn't know that because your knowledge of marx doesn't come from marx but from pol

You're saying this as if that actually would be socialism.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Inb4 you say it would be a "first step to socialism" or a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as if in China the proletariat in any way has or could have influence on the present state of things.

The commanding heights of the economy are nationalized its the beginning of socialist accumulation according to Marx.

So is universal education, doesn't make America socialist.

The term "socialist accumulation" was never uttered by Marx. It was coined by Preobrazhensky as justification for the turn to the right the USSR took in order to just the obviously capitalistic nature of the economy. Socialism means the end of accumulation in Marx. Kill yourself.

You do realize that "modern Chinese socialism" is defined by the privatization of previously nationalized industries, don't you?
You do realize that this isn't the first step towards socialism, but the last step towards capitalism, don't you?

Yes but mines and other commanding heights aren't nationalized in America

Of course I don't believe China is a DotP or socialist. They are state capitalist like the USSR before as they were formerly a feudalist country.

I never said China was heading towards socialism though…

Screenshot is from the communist manifesto

Might as well post even younger Marx when he still foolishly believed that equal distribution of wages was socialism.

Marx first had his hand in writing the Manifesto early in his writing years, and it can sort of show. While the Manifesto isn't the worst thing in the world, it ultimately ends up being a few things: a) an early, undeveloped form of Marx's analysis b) a dated historical document c) and a proponent of social democracy as we know it today (probably it's biggest crime!)

If you decide to read it through the lens as a product of Marx's early thinking and the period he resided in, there's still some small things you could gain from it.

It starts off strong with the lines necessitating the need for an internal working class party and defining the roles the communists stand in with the working class; it touches on the concept of property and the family institution. These ideas however are expanded along later by not just Marx but also Engels, and in a better way; after all, this was just a pamphlet.

The part where the foundations of this text start to crumble is it's ten "planks"/statements on the definiton of communism, which degenerate into social democracy and also directly contradict later Marx's radical, anti-establishment views on the movement.

The ten statements can be found here. (right at the bottom, the dot points :-) Arguing for increased income tax, state centralized credit, and more social democratic goodness; it's no surprise anyone would think the USSR was Marx's final vision.

People ultimately recommend Capital over this, by far, and for good reason. More fleshed out in analysis, more radical in it's understanding of the communist movement. Marx grew his understanding and later criticized these lines of thinking, such asvin his argument against the concept of value, with critiques levied at thinkers like Proudhon in The Poverty of Philosophy and the nature of other programmes in Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Ultimately, the preface of the Manifesto even shows Marx and Engels' understanding of the planks' limitations:
>The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

What the fuck does this mean then?
Are you referring to 🍀🍀🍀Marx's🍀🍀🍀 views on nationalization of the economy just for the sake of it? Because that's what it sounds like then.

It sounds like you're saying that China is heading towards socialism by nationalizing it's capitalist economic system.

What the fuck is your argument?

Alright I see Im still new to reading Marx and I'm planning on reading capital soon

take of that lenin hat for now, you're embarassing yourself

Why?

because it's reserved for people that haven't read any books

Go into an actual discussion thread. Click on the "catalog" button at the bottom of the screen, then press Ctrl+f and type in your question. If you can't find the topic you're looking for, start a new thread.

Nobody likes it when you derail other people's threads, so please be considerate and cut your shit out.

theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/09/us-navy-strike-group-north-korea-peninsula-syria-missile-strike