Beijing slams US claims it is not a market economy

...

...

I know you don't, but I'm noticing how most MLs on Holla Forums don't have a consistent anti-revisionist stance. I've seen too many tanks defend China.
I'm starting to warm up more towards anti-revisionist MLs as of late because they make quality posts and BTFO dumb tanks.

Dengists get the bullet first.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
.t Just spend 6 months in China

ants

Heard you talking shit user?

...

there's definitely been a wave of pro-China MLs crawling out of the woodwork over the past year. idk why but China is more popular on the left now than it has been at any time since the 1970s

A workers' state can have a market economy. NEP Soviet Russia attests to that.

Must be from Xi's declaring the country would be ready for socialism in 20 years.

Personally I only do shitposting (with chinese characteristics)

Why do you think? The President has done nothing but shit on China for hurting America's workforce (a truthful statement, even coming from his mouth) so idpol types are now racing to defend China because they're not with Trump or Russia (somehow, this entire view breaks down once one takes a close look at China's state sponsored hacking projects).

A few months ago I saw an advocacy group that had recently formed for my state (California), that supported Democrats doing their own trade deals with China to circumvent Trump's protectionism. SJWs have no problem worshiping asians as gods and as curators of the future, since it fits into their worldview anyway especially now that China is capitalist and focused on subsidizing technology companies while shooting striking coal miners, exactly what they want Trump to do.

ayyyyy

Yes but read the article, these comments come after the US Trade Representative office accused China of moving away from a market economy by subsidizing large state owned conglomerates. Which is to say, the US accused China of being socialist and China said "no" (or at least gave a response where they do not believe the claim "China is socialist").

do trots like china now? lmao

Nice, something we can agree on.

Market socialism is utopian garbage.

China isn't socialist by any reasonable metric, but it also can't accurately be called a capitalist regime. The state overwhelmingly controls the commanding heights of the economy and there still, to this day, remains a large degree of central planning. Additionally, the ruling political and military institutions and the CCP are more or less identical to what they looked like under Mao.

I can think of no analogue in any capitalist regime that looks anything like this. In spite of people who call China "communist", no fascist regime had the property forms or institutional structure of the PRC. For one, the fascist regimes did not actually control the command heights of their economy; they merely assumed the economic *risk* of those industries, which were almost entirely privately owned, and then took a slice of the profits.

The closest historical parallel to the modern day PRC is NEP Russia.The primary distinction is that China is extraordinarily more deformed and oriented toward capitalist property relations than NEP Russia.

Orthodox Trots typically maintain that China is a deformed workers' state.

This BO is such a fucking faggot.

That would mean China under Mao wasn't socialist, then.

Deng argued that China didn't have the material prerequisites for socialism so its not like this is a completely new admission.

This.

Modern CPC analysis is basically just a rehash of Bukharin. Nothing we haven't seen before.

-Maoism
-Socialism with Chinese characteristics
-Market Economy with Chinese characteristics
-Capitalism with Chinese characteristics
-NRx with Chinese characteristics

Not even NEP approaches the kind of shit Dengists are up to.

No, yeah.

Dengism is basically if you took the NEP, loaded it up with rocket fuel, injected it with methamphetamine, cut the brakes, attached it to a nuclear missile, and proceeded to launch it with the sheer sonic force of Pulse Demon playing at max volume on the most powerful speaker ever built.

Honestly this shows stagnation more than anything else. See

China needed some dose of capitalism to survive the end of the USSR (although this might also be attributed to the Soviet Politburo not being willing to kill their own citizens unlike China, see the Tienanmen Square Massacre), but whatever that dose was it's consumed everything and turned them into the same badly managed "social" market economy everyone else except America is.

The changes go far to demonstrate the problems with centralized governments and politburos, it creates a strong country but it prevents communism from occurring. One wonders if China had somehow managed to take a more distributed approach to communism in the 70s and 80s, for example devolving power to local regional governments and splitting up national conglomerates into regional units (like the US did with AT&T in 1983, which greatly expedited the Internet's rise). Instead there's been a massive concentration of wealth on the coasts, near seaports. Just as with capitalist societies.

...

i think it's great how nick land and phil greaves both love modern china

...

...

so it's basically what the USSR would've been like had Bukharin got his way?
no wonder Stalin purged him lel

Basically, yeah. The main difference being that Bukharin had a much better case for a prolonged market economy than Deng.

What if China is just "biding its time", waiting for capitalism to fully mature before implementing socialism? This would excuse their current policy. It would also be in line with an Orthodox Marxist ideology, which holds that capitalism has to fully develop first before socialism can be possible (correct me if I'm wrong here). Wouldn't this make the Chinese leadership neo-Kautskyite?

Jesus, I say "basically" way too much.

Gotta work on that. Makes me sound like a 14 year-old.

That's the exact argument that the CPC uses to justify their policies and it's mostly bullshit.

By the time Deng took power, China already had a fairly adequate industrial base and there was little to no need for an extensive market solution. By the time Xi took power, China had one of the most advanced economies on the planet.

This "the conditions for socialist development aren't ripe yet" excuse isn't fooling anybody.

Do you think they plan to keep the current system indefinitely?

If in 20 years, they suddenly go full-blown cybernetic central planning and abolish markets, will you change your opinion?

There is nothing stopping them from doing that right now. The original cybernetic central planning project itself, Chilie's Project Cybersyn, was built upon existing off-the-shelf commercial products in 1970. Essentially the basic idea would be to have factories report real-time data about production, accidents, inventory etc to a central command who could make decisions on it or feed it into a computer with other data. This would have used computers less powerful than existing desktop PCs, and landline telephone networks for communication.

At any point China could do this, but they don't. They don't do it even though most larger firms already do it out of competitive necessary (as an efficient distribution system negates the need for spare inventory for factories, this is an inherent part of globalization). Even right now America's government is trying to force their railroads to adopt computerized train controls, which creates a foundation for a semiautomatic US-wide transportation network. The FAA is trying to do the same for ATC.

Yet, China doesn't do it.

Why does the chart go into the future? Surely the crash would be much earlier thanks to all the pollution the Dengists have created.

How can Xi have people clap for him if he replaced all of them with computers?

CHINA IS PATCHWORK

Made by NRx Gang

Why don't we call the Maoists to stop this bullshit?

even Deng is rolling over in his grave

Because the CPC keeps killing them.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let's send them over to Africa and end the CPC exploitation there.

Well, Deng's problem was that he didn't live forever and his successors don't see a reason to abandon fully developed capitalism now. A "reverse NEP" wouldn't be so bad: First, you get the development of an industrial base under Mao, then you have 2-3 decades of NEP style market economy to develop living standards and consumer items, then you go back to socialism - the problem is that once you give porky the little finger he will take your whole hand. So right now there is no materialist reason for the CPC to become socialist again unless a massive economic collapse is immanent.

Eh, I think you massively conflating a socialist government with a socialist mode of production. You can still recognize that there are Marxists in the CPC, which doesn't make China not capitalist. As they say: Marxists make the best managers of capitalism.

The problem that I have with this Trot analysis is that it makes practically no difference between, let's say, China/Vietnam and Cuba/DPRK, despite them all having quite a different economic base. Unless you are saying that Cuba and the DPRK are not deformed worker's states, at which point you should just become a Marxist-Leninist.

This filter was actually one of the better ones.

Wow, you are such an important rebel, kid!
>>>/leftpol/

Join the "no books club" at
>>>/leftpol/

China is Fascist, its an authoritarian single party han ethnostate that is slowly ethnically cleansing its non-han majority regions of the native populations.

Your post looks like it's coming from an AnCom version of pic related

False, the share of minorities in the population has increased greatly under communist rule, as they are mostly exempted from the one child policy.

Of fucking course they can be, you brainlet. If you take a typical economy, like, say, the US, and simply transfer ownership of every economic entity to its' workers (and reorganize wage labour, obviously), it will be, canonically, socialist economy. At the same time, it will be a market economy.

Why wouldn't you defend a communist state that employs Lenin's own economic policy?

But why?

Is that picture meant to prove something? All it proves is that murder happens, as it does literally every where in the world.

wow, it's fucking nothing.

You would think they would suppress the populations of ethnic minorities to prevent tensions.

Pol Pot says hi.

youtube.com/watch?v=m91zBt94Ll0

forget ethnostatism; just like the old form of imperialism has all but disppeared with new levels of capital's liquidity, so have old forms of fascism. china has a caste system (hukou/户口) in which you are, and this goes for both han and non-han chinese, either urban or rural, and entirely different privileges and penalties count for both. read chuang: chuangcn.org/journal/one/gleaning-the-welfare-fields/.

i guess he can say hi as a fellow situationist on the ultra-left, what with hating spectacles and all that.

Titoism is not market socialism

you're right, it's just alt-stalinism with ethno-pluralist federalism as flavour over satellite client-statism, complete with all the usual: insurgentnotes.com/2013/10/yugoslav-self-management-capitalism-under-the-red-banner/.

China and Vietnam are quantitatively more deformed than Cuba and NK by orders of magnitude. But qualitatively, they still have the same fundamental social structure, ruling caste system, and contradictions. This is why orthodox Trots are comfortable putting all four countries in the same basic category even though they exhibit numerous, substantial differences in practical terms.

The hukou system is not a fucking caste system, and the article doesn't even say that either. It's just the household registration system which exists in every country in the world, and prevented ghettoization of cities and the existence of slums. To call this a caste is ridiculous. Besides, the new party line of the CPC focuses on unequal development, so the differences in welfare accessability are slowly being abolished.

It was a joke about your obsession with commoditiy production and the obvious misreading of Marx.

...

...

Why didn't Tito go full Stalin and purge the nationalists?

>In a broad sense specific to China, “peasant” could indicate anyone with a rural hukou, who will be referred to here as “ruralites” to avoid confusion. Many ruralites live in urban areas most of the time and are often uncertain whether they will settle there or eventually return to their villages. The hukou system is similar to apartheid or national citizenship, excluding ruralites from certain rights enjoyed by urbanites (people with urban hukou), but also granting ruralites the right to use collective village resources such as farmland, forests, ponds, coastline and pasture. In 2012, such ruralites accounted for between 60 and 70 percent of China’s population, totaling some 800 to 950 million people.[4] Roughly 280 million of those ruralites are urban residents, in that they spend most of their time in urban areas, mainly working for wages or running small businesses. (from the article, only a few paragraphs in btw, thanks for showing us you've read it as much as you've read marx, i.e. not at all.)
you're right to say this isn't out of the ordinary for any capitalist society hitherto, though.

like a state-sponsored cult of workerist heroism to keep the prole-doomed up with developmental productivism (stakhanovism in the USSR, udarnici-worship in yugoslavia?

like forced labour camps for those attempting to resist it (BBK vs. goli otok/sveti grgur)?

like virtually every other aspect of developmental capitalism with a delay into modernity (marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/doctrine.htm)?

he thought of them less efficient versions of his own clique. he was an instrument of capital as anyone else would be in his position.

is there literally anything china can do to make the double digit Autism Level ☭TANKIE☭s who have zero understanding of the history of ML splits dislike it?

Obama is giving free stuff to ISIS to impose Sharia Law

waow

Differently shaped social services depending on your economic situation is not an equivalent to apartheid.
What are you talking about? Rapid industrialization has almost always caused MASSIVE ghettoization and slums, this is totally natural for capitalist development, hence the necessity for the state intervention in China.

So, communism has died in every single place in the world, now what?

What changed? Quite a remarkable turnaround.

I don't think anybody particularly likes China's line, but it's intellectual bankcruptcy of so-called "leftists" to not engage in a more detailed analysis of not only the biggest but also of the most interesting society of the modern capitalist world but to just discard it. Especially since there are still Marxists in the CPC, and China uses Marxism as a general guideline to develop capitalism.

meant for >>2392429

It's an inevitability, and we continue on

it is when, you know, it's about more than entitlement to various different social services (in and of themselves reflective of) varying ways in which one is hooked to various types of labour geographically and one is anchored to them legally as citizen-type. read the text, for once in your life, before making me spoonfeed you its truistic contents and the additional commentary and theorizing the text adds to them.

oh wow, you're this close to seeing the point.

Probably has something to do with the fact that America is trying to literally destroy the entire planet.

Except the thing has underwent reforms and the whole article itself presents itself as a historical account. I've been to China, what you are saying is just not true.

Make an argument?

Which one? The Yugoslavia one? I am not a defender of Yugoslavia. The Bordiga article?

Funny this comes from a raging autist who clearly has an obsession

american capitalists want to make money like any other
fact is that china and america both depend on each other to prop up their economies and as the two largest economies by some distance, a war between them would completely destroy the world economy. no profit in that

why is it any more interesting than any other state?

Bordiga just made a great argument for why China, despite its market economy, is not a capitalist regime.

Why are trots so fucking retarded?

Does it really surprise you guys the image of China comes up when the word commie is mentioned as opposed to your meme idealogies

Yes the NEP in 1921 post feudal Russia is DEFINITELY comparable to this.

Anti-imperialism trumps dogmatic anti-revisionism every time. This is why we unconditionally defend Socialist China. Read Lenin.

top kek

Who says that killing people is necessarily wrong though?

this is why maoists are meme-tier, hail the revisionist overlord deng

grug know china socialist, xi jinping and phil greaves say grug it true

People want China to be socialist so badly, it's hilarious how much wishful thinking is involved

The only people who think China is still communist are boomer Reaganite neocons who want a boogeyman and desperate ☭TANKIE☭s looking for a powerful figure to latch onto. The real horseshoe theory.

… and i suppose commodity exchange just doesn't exist in market "socialism"? lol

it's astounding that you go around calling people brainlet

Are you saying the class character of the Chinese state is proletarian?

China is nothing like the NEP.

How blasé

the CPGB-ML said the same

Dunno. I suppose for economic reasons - they tend to be rural and from underdeveloped areas, so need more children to maintain them in old age.

China is retarded

what's the party on the left most apu?

No, he said China would be ready for "the Chinese Dream" in 20-30 years.

MLs simply interpreted this to mean "socialism" when all indicators point to the "Chinese Dream" being consumerist prosperity bullshit not dissimilar from the American Dream.

COINTELPRO

looks like CPUSA

Free market economics is the fastest possible way to grow economy in developing countries. But it becomes useless when standard of living and wages reach western levels.

wrong, komrade.

They tried the Soviet method and we all know the results.

It was better than the capitalist method

Every "market miracle" that occurred during the Cold War (Japan, worst Korea, etc) was the result of intensive government investment and regulation. Free markets are horrendously inefficient and have a very poor record with respect to actual development.

looks more like Brezhnev than Stalin

Do any of the pro-China people want to respond to this?
pambazuka.org/global-south/chinese-neocolonialism-africa

it wasn't better, it was a different kind of shit

lol wtf

I've seen people claim that the PRC builds african infrastructure beyond barebones extractive-shipping model.

bhekisisa.org/article/2015-10-07-china-to-build-100-hospitals-and-clinics-in-africa

Don't take my word on it though, I haven't even done cursory research on the matter but it can be an interesting point.