Is "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" complete bull?

[United Marxist Nations]

Since a lot of people don't seem to understand, I want to clarify that this thread has next-to-nothing to do with the current economic system of China


As many of you probably know, "'Socialism' with Chinese Characteristics" is the current Party line of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). As most of us can quite easily tell, China isn't a socialist economy. So, "why is UMN making this thread?", you may ask yourself. Well, my topic isn't necessarily about the economic state of China, but more a question over whether we can trust the CCP. Now, the finer points of the Socialism with Chinese Characteristics doctrine say that the current phase (the "Market Socialist" phase) is simply for the goal of modernizing China, as China didn't go through the process of capitalism to reach the point of being ready for proper socialism. The problem most (including myself) see with this is that the CCP has yet to give us solid evidence that they will make good on their promise of a socialist China anytime soon, beyond their word that, by 2049, China will be fully ready for socialism. So, can we trust them?


Personally, I am quite skeptical of them, but I am also hesitant to burn all bridges with them until they have actually completely failed to deliver, assuming I will be alive when such either happens or doesn't happen. It would just be a bit awkward to have spent one's whole life relentlessly criticizing them, then see them make good on their promise. So, I suppose I'm somewhere in-between.

For purposes of the Poll
Marxist-derivative socialist ideologies
- Classical Marxism
- Luxembourgism (Left-Communism)
- Leninism
- includes Marxism-Leninism and Bolshevik-Leninism (and their individual derivatives)
- Maoism
- Other sects tracing their ideology to the Marxist dialectic

Non-Marxist Socialist/socialist derivative
- Democratic Socialism
- Libertarian Socialism
- Anarchism
- Anarcho-Communism
- Nationalist Socialism
- Other socialist ideologies not deriving from Marxist dialectism

Things I am considering as Capitalist
- American Conservatism
- American Liberalism
- Social-Democracy
- Libertarianism
- Anarcho-Capitalism

[The balkens]

So....its a critique of of the Chinese state capitalism?

Please continue.

[United Marxist Nations]

So....its a critique of of the Chinese state capitalism?

Please continue.

What specifically.

[New Werpland]

No, they're obviously being sincere.

[Hydesland]

What does it mean to be 'fully socialist' to you?

[The balkens]

So....its a critique of of the Chinese state capitalism?

Please continue.

What specifically.

Your OP?

I mean....as far as i know about the system in China (which is fuck all), its communism in name only. with what seems to be a far east version of the European system.

[Costa Fierro]

Can you trust the CCP? No. You cannot.

[GreatLitva]

Can you trust the CCP? No. You cannot.

+1.....

[United Marxist Nations]

What does it mean to be 'fully socialist' to you?

A society in which the mans of production are owned by the workers through some sort of social system.

[Kanaria]

I don't know how trustworthy they are. And I don't know where someone who opposes joint-stock corporations and wants them replaced with cooperatives but doesn't oppose personal property would fall in the world of socialism and capitalism.

[United Marxist Nations]

What specifically.

Your OP?

I mean....as far as i know about the system in China (which is fuck all), its communism in name only. with what seems to be a far east version of the European system.

My OP itself is just giving a background on the question. The current CCP official position is that they are in "the first stage of socialism", which is just modernization to prepare for the second stage. While the theory is certainly sound, the question I am more referring to is whether or not the CCP is trying to take foreign communists for a ride.

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't know how trustworthy they are. And I don't know where someone who opposes joint-stock corporations and wants them replaced with cooperatives but doesn't oppose personal property would fall in the world of socialism and capitalism.

Do you mean Anarcho-Syndicalism.

[Hydesland]

What does it mean to be 'fully socialist' to you?

A society in which the mans of production are owned by the workers through some sort of social system.

So absolutely no private enterprise? I can't see the ruling party ever voluntarily doing that, China might go full on socialist in the future if there was a huge economic crisis - but this would be from some populist revolutionary party kicking the ruling party out.

[Kanaria]

What does it mean to be 'fully socialist' to you?

A society in which the mans of production are owned by the workers through some sort of social system.

Could you give an example of a social system?
I am not sure how bad private property is. I hope distributism can provide some details on that...I do like some parts of its' appeal, to spread property out amongst the people as widely as possible, for instance.
I'll go find the socialist thread if I qualify for entry there.

[Pandeeria]

They have given up the ideals of trying to achieve Socialism a long time ago.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

China has completely failed to even eliminate the stigma against the 'peasant' class, despite supposedly having been communist for most of a century. It seems clear to me that communism in china is just a lie to keep said peasant classes in line.

[United Marxist Nations]

A society in which the mans of production are owned by the workers through some sort of social system.

Could you give an example of a social system?
I am not sure how bad private property is. I hope distributism can provide some details on that...I do like some parts of its' appeal, to spread property out amongst the people as widely as possible, for instance.
I'll go find the socialist thread if I qualify for entry there.

Well... I should have clarified, I was too vague, and it led to confusion that I should have avoided. When I generally refer to socialism, I refer to a stage in development in which the workers own them through the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, through a state that is controlled by the workers in some way.

[United Marxist Nations]

A society in which the mans of production are owned by the workers through some sort of social system.

So absolutely no private enterprise? I can't see the ruling party ever voluntarily doing that, China might go full on socialist in the future if there was a huge economic crisis - but this would be from some populist revolutionary party kicking the ruling party out.

Yeah, I'm more on that boat as well, but I've been wrong before, and I don't want to completely antagonize them if they are being honest with us.

[Sebtopiaris]

The workers do not control the means of production.
Have a nice day.

[Pandeeria]

Could you give an example of a social system?
I am not sure how bad private property is. I hope distributism can provide some details on that...I do like some parts of its' appeal, to spread property out amongst the people as widely as possible, for instance.
I'll go find the socialist thread if I qualify for entry there.

Well... I should have clarified, I was too vague, and it led to confusion that I should have avoided. When I generally refer to socialism, I refer to a stage in development in which the workers own them through the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, through a state that is controlled by the workers in some way.

China will never achieve that. It's completely against the CCP's interests.

[Sigismond Thalberg and Asterix]

I do not consider the Communist Party of China a particularly trustworthy organisation. As a capitalist, I am practically certain the Party doesn't intend to abandon its current “path” for socialism in 2049.

[Johanton]

It's capitalism with a brutal government nowadays.

[Kanaria]

I don't know how trustworthy they are. And I don't know where someone who opposes joint-stock corporations and wants them replaced with cooperatives but doesn't oppose personal property would fall in the world of socialism and capitalism.

Do you mean Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Well, I'm not anti-statist. But I also don't disapprove of anarchism wholly; the only thing that worries me is the "social organization by communes" that sometimes comes up in such discussions and its' ramifications on a global scale. (Yeah, I've listened to Arkolon...) But I do like cooperatives as organized by the most recently updated Rochdale principles. I believe they might work better for the workers at least, when compared to joint-stock corporations.
I dunno how inherently bad private property is, but I don't like the idea of getting money just to get more money. And I don't like wage labor that much. I'd like for the government to provide some sort of living income for people who don't want to live off of wages.

[United Marxist Nations]

Do you mean Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Well, I'm not anti-statist. But I also don't disapprove of anarchism wholly; the only thing that worries me is the "social organization by communes" that sometimes comes up in such discussions and its' ramifications on a global scale. (Yeah, I've listened to Arkolon...) But I do like cooperatives as organized by the most recently updated Rochdale principles. I believe they might work better for the workers at least, when compared to joint-stock corporations.
I dunno how inherently bad private property is, but I don't like the idea of getting money just to get more money. And I don't like wage labor that much. I'd like for the government to provide some sort of living income for people who don't want to live off of wages.

Well, Anarcho-Synidcalism kind of manages to get around that; some of their communes number in the tens, and even hundreds of thousands.

[Kanaria]

Could you give an example of a social system?
I am not sure how bad private property is. I hope distributism can provide some details on that...I do like some parts of its' appeal, to spread property out amongst the people as widely as possible, for instance.
I'll go find the socialist thread if I qualify for entry there.

Well... I should have clarified, I was too vague, and it led to confusion that I should have avoided. When I generally refer to socialism, I refer to a stage in development in which the workers own them through the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, through a state that is controlled by the workers in some way.

Isn't that something promulgated by Marx, or is that statement something promulgated by capitalist propagandists?