"""Leftists""" supporting China

China, the ultra-capitalist country, well known for its child labor and terrible working conditions, praised by employer union leaders for it's flexibility, cannot be imperialist.
How can one be this dumb ?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I've seen capitalists support China. I'm confused who is actually supporting China.

Because many "socialists" don't bother reading even the basic stuff and get all their information from wikipedia and video games.

It is another version of the 36639283783E1743 D chess maymay. Somehow China is still communist and they are just developing the productive forces, even though that country is perfectly capable of being socialist.

Or you love it or you hate it, black or white, there cannot be middle opinion. If something is not my perfect ideal it's a Stalinist-Authototalitarian-crypto-nazist-not leftist.
t.not a chink lover

Deformed workers' state.

Stop being an ultra left trotskyite fascist liberal anarkiddy, support the PRC in its anti-imperial struggle.

Stop your imperialism, OP.

...

We are an anti imperialist board now, prepare your anus for BO bans.

We must stand with Democratic Kampuchea against Vietnamese imperialism!

Why are there so many faggots on here without senses of humor?

They are using neoliberalism to achieve the material basis for communism. I would prefer market socialist methods but this is the right path for them until automatisation makes capitalism obsolete.

Capitalism can be only made obsolete by a revolution, and that will still be necessary in China,

Revolution will happen when the material conditions are met. You cant turn a feodalist country to communism in just one revolution.

"But every society based upon the production of commodities has this peculiarity: that the producers have lost control over their own social inter-relations. Each man produces for himself with such means of production as he may happen to have, and for such exchange as he may require to satisfy his remaining wants. No one knows how much of his particular article is coming on the market, nor how much of it will be wanted. No one knows whether his individual product will meet an actual demand, whether he will be able to make good his costs of production or even to sell his commodity at all. Anarchy reigns in socialized production. But the production of commodities, like every other form of production, has it peculiar, inherent laws inseparable from it; and these laws work, despite anarchy, in and through anarchy. They reveal themselves in the only persistent form of social inter-relations — i.e., in exchange — and here they affect the individual producers as compulsory laws of competition. They are, at first, unknown to these producers themselves, and have to be discovered by them gradually and as the result of experience. They work themselves out, therefore, independently of the producers, and in antagonism to them, as inexorable natural laws of their particular form of production. The product governs the producers. […] *With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer.* Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history,pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom. […] Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. *Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible.* The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. *In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.* marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm


Oops. guess you are retarded after all
Eat a bullet, faggot

So labor rights/protections and a proletariat government are thrown out the window for the sake of industrialization and expansion? That's what building socialism looks like to you?

Careful now, BO may just ban you for being "pro-imperialist".

Like i said i would prefer market socialism/worker ownership of means of production.

I do want communism and planned economy but this cannot be achieved without having the material basis for it.

That's what transitionary periods are for.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

fuck off imperialists XI is just playing 1949 dimensional connect four. China will industrialize the third world to rise up against the first world

nobody actually likes the PRC

even maoists from the PRC don't like the PRC

I'd like to thank the BO for allowing us to continue to have this thread. So kind of them not to delete all the threads critical of their wise policy, and only the ones that make jokes at the wise policy's expense.

Many thank dear leader BO.

Usually, the argument goes that China is simply doing an extended NEP.

An excellent point. The world isn't black and white, and just because real institutions don't match up to someone's perfect ideal of not being shameless devices of class rule doesn't mean they're useless, counterrevolutionary, or "not leftist." They're often the best we have. That's why I'm giving up on radical parties and going to canvas for the Democrats instead!


You can, if your revolution involves resolving capitalist contradictions, and liquidating capital, globally.

There's no need to develop a new capitalist world power for the sake of pushing forward revolution. We already have them. We already have a "developed world" across which revolution must take hold to resolve capitalist contradictions internationally. It makes no difference which nations and which capitalists make up this bloc, and promoting more new capitalists to oppose the most powerful capitalists is nothing more than squeezing the handbrake on general capital accumulation, while changing which nations and which capitalists comprise it is merely shuffling the deck. The incentives of the "anti-imperialist" national bourgeoisie are towards usurping, not abolishing, the overall exploitative system.
As for marksoc societies opposing capital's hegemon, sure, those can be revolutionary, but invariably one or the other must be destroyed and there is no case for development under a perpetual "socialism in one country" or "peaceful coexistence" doctrine, even if the society in question is genuinely socialist. As for "using neoliberalism to achieve the material basis for communism," if we take an accelerationist view of these "anti-imperialist" institutions, we may just as well take an accelerationist view of the dominant capitalists themselves and promote western neoliberalism, accumulation, and integration of the "one world market" under a single homogeneous bourgeoisie to be overthrown. However well-intentioned Deng may have been, the matrix of material incentives still requires a revolution to displace the bureaucrats, no less than the western bourgeoisie. If this revolution doesn't resolve capitalism internationally, a backslide into more "pragmatic dengism" until "the conditions are right" is inevitable.
Really any retreat from permanent revolution must be carefully justified according to how it, instead, presumes to abolish capitalism as an international system. While I see this in (neoliberal) accelerationism, which nonetheless isn't a position I'm too sympathetic towards, I've yet to see it in ML or inward-turning marksoc theory.

...