19·
3 months agoI’m not dealing with your pro-Chinese-capitalism revisionist garbage.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
Status: Marxist-Leninist
Likes: #communism; #socialism; environmentalism; #cats
Dislikes: #capitalism; imperialism; destruction of our ecosystem; consumerism; fascism, [racism, sexism, homophobia, etc]
- 0 Posts
- 57 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: September 8th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
You having the audacity to label someone else’s analysis as “non-dialectical-materialist,” yet not understanding that economic power, especially that of billionaires and millionaires, does translate to political power is the reason I’m not taking you seriously.
“Having a lot of money doesn’t necessarily translate into having a lot of political power,”
I’m not going to listen to someone who won’t even acknowledge how economic power translates to political power. This is the dumbest, non-Marxist take I’ve ever heard, more like something a Social-Democrat would say, which seems to be how many “Marxists” who support modern-day China tend to sound.
The Chinese capitalists are “very, very weak,” yet there were 814 billionaires as of 2024. Comparatively, there are only 800 billionaires in America.
The Chinese state doesn’t own all of the means of production, and capitalists (particularly rich capitalists) still have plenty of economic power, so it’s not like the capitalist class in China is completely without power.
I already explained to you what state capitalism is: “state capitalism, where the private ownership of the means of production still exists but under state control and regulations,…”
Private ownership of the means of production is what has to end for a system to be socialist. In China, there’s plenty of private ownership of the means of production, so it isn’t socialist.
People who try to justify the existence of capitalism and billionaires have no right to call themselves Marxists.
No, my issue is with capitalism.
I’m done with all these justifications for capitalism and billionaires.
This copy and pasted response doesn’t relate exactly to anything I said. I never said that socialism is only when the public directly owns the means of production. I said that state capitalism, where the private ownership of the means of production still exists but under state control and regulations, is still capitalism and must be abolished for socialism. This is a sentiment that Engels expressed in “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” so I’m not pulling this out of thin air.
Also, just to add, state capitalism is still capitalism. State ownership alone doesn’t do away with capitalism or the exploitation it entails. It is essentially the final stage of capitalism that must be abolished for the establishment of socialism. 2/2 #socialism #capitalism
“…capital accumulation by private individuals is absent in this model.”
There are billionaires in China and capitalists in general who accumulate capital. If state capitalism is when the government controls the economy and essentially acts as a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production, then it would be more accurate to call China a mixture of state-capitalism with private-capitalism. 1/2 #socialism #capitalism
[Saying that there’s no such thing as a state that’s more authoritarian or less authoritarian is denying reality.]
To clarify, that’s not what I said. I said that there is no such thing as a non-authoritarian state because states are authoritarian by nature, not that there aren’t varying degrees of the level of authoritarianism among different states. America is in many ways less authoritarian than the USSR, but it’s still authoritarian nonetheless.
@jeremy_list @NoiseColor @yogthos
[immediate transition is not only possible in theory but actually has some precedent]
– How is it possible in theory, and what precedent does it have?
[expecting a transitional state to actually continue the transition is even less rational than expecting Jesus to show up and start helping]
Why?
I’m not at all trying to suggest that Stalinist Russia was more free than modern-day America, just that many people think of America as a free country when it’s actually closer to Stalinist Russia than they’d care to recognize.
3/3 …in technology) and all while having the largest prison population in the entire world, possibly being larger than the amount of prisoners in labor camps under Stalin (again, it’s hard to compare since records from that era from the Soviet Union are lacking).
2/3 Also, speaking of America again, one of America’s suppression methods is suppression through delusion, tricking people into thinking that they’re actually free with constant propaganda in media and schools when the reality is that America is just as much (and maybe even more, since it’s hard to compare the exact numbers to the Soviet Union) police presence and civilian surveillance as the Soviet Union did (but probably more surveillance given the advancements…
1/3 [most western states (and, in fact, most states) don’t suppress discourse as much as the USSR often did.]
I have to partially disagree. While it is likely true that the USSR was more outward with its suppression methods than most western states today, countries, like America for example, do suppress dissent on a regular scale (Campus protest, George Floyd protest are just two notable examples, but there are plenty of more).
@WatDabney @davel
You pointing out how states can become corrupt doesn’t make #anarchism any more feasible of an option than it already isn’t.