The (PR) Chinese politics thread

[Neko-koku]

PRC is neither America nor the Soviet Union. Instead it is a demon that combined Stalinist cadres, ancient Chinese centralism & Qin-style brutality and Nazi ethnonationalism. That is, it is a previously unknown form of devil.

[Soviet Tankistan]

Gorbachev’s reforms were completely different than the PRC’s.

How is the PRC socialist if the workers have no ownership, control or say?

Also the Soviets brutally crushed Czechoslovakia for that.

If you make the definition of socialism do wide as to cover the PRC, the US is can be called socialist.

I was referring to Hungary, and noted gorbachev and androporov as another example. Just because czechoslovakia was crushed doesn't mean it wasn't socialist. Stalinists killed Trotskyists and Anarcho-Communists in Spain, but they were still certainly socialists regardless of being killed by other socialists.

"How is the PRC socialist if the workers have no ownership, control or say?" That is communism. Socialism-Communism is the belief that through Socialism (the workers "own everything through the state"), we can eventually achieve Communism (the workers own everything directly in a Stateless, Classless society). Therefore, the point of Socialism is to achieve that--Socialism is not the state of having achieved that.

By that definition, the only difference between socialism and capitalism is voiced intention to create communism, which often isn't genuine aim, rather a campaign slogan and whatnot.

[Leninist Haven]

I was referring to Hungary, and noted gorbachev and androporov as another example. Just because czechoslovakia was crushed doesn't mean it wasn't socialist. Stalinists killed Trotskyists and Anarcho-Communists in Spain, but they were still certainly socialists regardless of being killed by other socialists.

"How is the PRC socialist if the workers have no ownership, control or say?" That is communism. Socialism-Communism is the belief that through Socialism (the workers "own everything through the state"), we can eventually achieve Communism (the workers own everything directly in a Stateless, Classless society). Therefore, the point of Socialism is to achieve that--Socialism is not the state of having achieved that.

By that definition, the only difference between socialism and capitalism is voiced intention to create communism, which often isn't genuine aim, rather a campaign slogan and whatnot.

This type of sectarianism is the difference that you don't see in capitalism. You will find Marxists who say Stalin wasn't socialist. You will find Marxists who say Lenin wasn't socialist. You will find Marxists who say that no government in history has been socialist. It's only relevant to your personal bias. Reform socialists generally believe that Stalinism is another word for right-wing police state. Stalinists generally believe that reform socialists are capitalists. If you don't find a socialist who agrees with your brand, you're incredibly unlikely to actually find agreement in what constitutes socialism.

[Thermodolia]

Needs more OP or else i'd be closed by the Mods sooner than later.

Other than that I do recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate chinese state as opposed to the bolshevist Beijing clique.

Agreed here.

Ditto.

Maoist-Occupied China is an illegitimate state that bought it's recognition through cheap slave labor. Taiwan is the last bastion of a true, free, and proud Chinese Nation.

AFAIK the vast majority of Chinese citizens support Beijing over Taipei, and more countries recognise the PRC over the ROC as "China".

Chinese citizens live in a police state; you act like they have a choice in what to think.

And again, the so-called "People's Republic" (which is neither of those things) bought it's legitimacy through cheap slave labor.

Now, I would like to see the return of the Republic of China, though I’d prefer the liberalisation that occurred following the death of Chiang Kai-Shek to be reversed, with China becoming strictly traditionalist-nationalist. Else it’s just going to enable American hegemony.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Point of order. China is most definitely a republic. It’s not a monarchy by any means

[Novus America]

I was referring to Hungary, and noted gorbachev and androporov as another example. Just because czechoslovakia was crushed doesn't mean it wasn't socialist. Stalinists killed Trotskyists and Anarcho-Communists in Spain, but they were still certainly socialists regardless of being killed by other socialists.

"How is the PRC socialist if the workers have no ownership, control or say?" That is communism. Socialism-Communism is the belief that through Socialism (the workers "own everything through the state"), we can eventually achieve Communism (the workers own everything directly in a Stateless, Classless society). Therefore, the point of Socialism is to achieve that--Socialism is not the state of having achieved that.

By that definition, the only difference between socialism and capitalism is voiced intention to create communism, which often isn't genuine aim, rather a campaign slogan and whatnot.

Exactly. The US just has to say our current path will miraculously create “communism” and we are socialist.
So according to him all you have to do is thrown in some BS lip service to utopian delusions to be socialist.

[Dragon-God Empire]

I feel so horrible upstairs. As a Chinese, I don't feel it.

[Thermodolia]

IMO, Beijing's claim is more laughable.

How you claim to be the successor to a state that still exists? The very fact that RoC has endured all this time is an embarrassment for them.

They will take care of that in due time.

If they do it would spark a world war

[Novus America]

By that definition, the only difference between socialism and capitalism is voiced intention to create communism, which often isn't genuine aim, rather a campaign slogan and whatnot.

This type of sectarianism is the difference that you don't see in capitalism. You will find Marxists who say Stalin wasn't socialist. You will find Marxists who say Lenin wasn't socialist. You will find Marxists who say that no government in history has been socialist. It's only relevant to your personal bias. Reform socialists generally believe that Stalinism is another word for right-wing police state. Stalinists generally believe that reform socialists are capitalists. If you don't find a socialist who agrees with your brand, you're incredibly unlikely to actually find agreement in what constitutes socialism.

Which again makes socialism so broad as to be meaningless.

[Dragon-God Empire]

Cruelty? Nazi?

[Leninist Haven]

By that definition, the only difference between socialism and capitalism is voiced intention to create communism, which often isn't genuine aim, rather a campaign slogan and whatnot.

Exactly. The US just has to say our current path will miraculously create “communism” and we are socialist.
So according to him all you have to do is thrown in some BS lip service to utopian delusions to be socialist.

I hate to tell you this, but most politicians lie. What they say doesn't matter. What they do is what makes them of a certain ideology. Their slogans mean nothing. Their lip service means nothing. All they have to do is attempt to achieve communism through their actions.

That means they have to create class consciousness and spread it. It means they have to spread socialism, or at the very least attempt to do so. Even the USSR failed at doing so. The USA will never argue for class consciousness in my lifetime, and it will never attempt to spread socialism in my lifetime. So no.

[Neko-koku]

Ditto.

Maoist-Occupied China is an illegitimate state that bought it's recognition through cheap slave labor. Taiwan is the last bastion of a true, free, and proud Chinese Nation.



Chinese citizens live in a police state; you act like they have a choice in what to think.

And again, the so-called "People's Republic" (which is neither of those things) bought it's legitimacy through cheap slave labor.



You say that like it's a bad thing.

Point of order. China is most definitely a republic. It’s not a monarchy by any means

China was a Republic until 2018. Right now I'm not sure.

[Soviet Tankistan]

By that definition, the only difference between socialism and capitalism is voiced intention to create communism, which often isn't genuine aim, rather a campaign slogan and whatnot.

This type of sectarianism is the difference that you don't see in capitalism. You will find Marxists who say Stalin wasn't socialist. You will find Marxists who say Lenin wasn't socialist. You will find Marxists who say that no government in history has been socialist. It's only relevant to your personal bias. Reform socialists generally believe that Stalinism is another word for right-wing police state. Stalinists generally believe that reform socialists are capitalists. If you don't find a socialist who agrees with your brand, you're incredibly unlikely to actually find agreement in what constitutes socialism.

I recognize several forms of socialism as near enough, but they're not all great. However, as I said before, China is capitalist with Marxist-Leninist aesthetics.
Also, with my less than well heard of brand of politics, I don't have much choice as to whether I'm sectarian. I just will oppose obvious capitalists and fascists and recognize the implausibility of many proposed leftist ideals.

[Leninist Haven]

This type of sectarianism is the difference that you don't see in capitalism. You will find Marxists who say Stalin wasn't socialist. You will find Marxists who say Lenin wasn't socialist. You will find Marxists who say that no government in history has been socialist. It's only relevant to your personal bias. Reform socialists generally believe that Stalinism is another word for right-wing police state. Stalinists generally believe that reform socialists are capitalists. If you don't find a socialist who agrees with your brand, you're incredibly unlikely to actually find agreement in what constitutes socialism.

I recognize several forms of socialism as near enough, but they're not all great. However, as I said before, China is capitalist with Marxist-Leninist aesthetics.
Also, with my less than well heard of brand of politics, I don't have much choice as to whether I'm sectarian. I just will oppose obvious capitalists and fascists and recognize the implausibility of many proposed leftist ideals.

And yes, as I said, it's based on personal bias. We'll never succeed because there are so many different breeds of us, we simply cannot form a popular front of any sort. As I said, Spain showed that we destroy ourselves more than anyone else. I consider the PRC to be as far to the economic right as one can get whilst still being a form of socialist-communist. As I said, I hated Maoism and Dengism. Still, I unite with them because I know socialism has no chance otherwise.

[Thermodolia]

Point of order. China is most definitely a republic. It’s not a monarchy by any means

China was a Republic until 2018. Right now I'm not sure.

Unless Xi has been crowned Emperor of the Chinese they are still a republic. There have been several republics where the leaders ruled till their deaths

[Novus America]

Exactly. The US just has to say our current path will miraculously create “communism” and we are socialist.
So according to him all you have to do is thrown in some BS lip service to utopian delusions to be socialist.

I hate to tell you this, but most politicians lie. What they say doesn't matter. What they do is what makes them of a certain ideology. Their slogans mean nothing. Their lip service means nothing. All they have to do is attempt to achieve communism through their actions.

That means they have to create class consciousness and spread it. It means they have to spread socialism, or at the very least attempt to do so. Even the USSR failed at doing so. The USA will never argue for class consciousness in my lifetime, and it will never attempt to spread socialism in my lifetime. So no.

And how is the PRC, by crushing labor unions and encouraging hyper high wealth inequality actually achieving communism (which cannot be achieved anyways)?

But your argument is that if the US did try to “increase class consciousness” whatever that is supposed to be we would be socialist even if we kept the exact same system.
Basically you are saying socialism has nothing to do with economics.

[Neko-koku]

China was a Republic until 2018. Right now I'm not sure.

Unless Xi has been crowned Emperor of the Chinese they are still a republic. There have been several republics where the leaders ruled till their deaths

Sure.

[Soviet Tankistan]

By that definition, the only difference between socialism and capitalism is voiced intention to create communism, which often isn't genuine aim, rather a campaign slogan and whatnot.

Exactly. The US just has to say our current path will miraculously create “communism” and we are socialist.
So according to him all you have to do is thrown in some BS lip service to utopian delusions to be socialist.

It's interesting how the far right is able to use so much material from leftists out of context. Using similar logic, the Democrats are socialist.

Exactly. The US just has to say our current path will miraculously create “communism” and we are socialist.
So according to him all you have to do is thrown in some BS lip service to utopian delusions to be socialist.

I hate to tell you this, but most politicians lie. What they say doesn't matter. What they do is what makes them of a certain ideology. Their slogans mean nothing. Their lip service means nothing. All they have to do is attempt to achieve communism through their actions.

That means they have to create class consciousness and spread it. It means they have to spread socialism, or at the very least attempt to do so. Even the USSR failed at doing so. The USA will never argue for class consciousness in my lifetime, and it will never attempt to spread socialism in my lifetime. So no.

You just argued that socialism is when you claim to believe in communism, yet you then dispute this by saying actions, not words determine the state of socialism.

[Dragon-God Empire]

If Chairman Mao hadn't cleaned up the gentry, China would be like India today.

[Neko-koku]

If Chairman Mao hadn't cleaned up the gentry, China would be like India today.

Nope. India has real feudal traditions. China on the other hand has always been a bureaucratic state since Qin.

[Dragon-God Empire]

India is backward and ridiculous

[Dragon-God Empire]

Do you think the Republic of China can solve the problem of gentry?

[Cerinda]

India is backward and ridiculous

That's true, in fact the way Modi and his Hindu nationalist party is shaping the country into an Authoritarian state is very fascist its self.

[Novus America]

If Chairman Mao hadn't cleaned up the gentry, China would be like India today.

No, the difference is the PRC started more effective economic reforms in the 80s.
Under Mao the PRC was one of the poorest countries in the world.

[Leninist Haven]

I hate to tell you this, but most politicians lie. What they say doesn't matter. What they do is what makes them of a certain ideology. Their slogans mean nothing. Their lip service means nothing. All they have to do is attempt to achieve communism through their actions.

That means they have to create class consciousness and spread it. It means they have to spread socialism, or at the very least attempt to do so. Even the USSR failed at doing so. The USA will never argue for class consciousness in my lifetime, and it will never attempt to spread socialism in my lifetime. So no.

And how is the PRC, by crushing labor unions and encouraging hyper high wealth inequality actually achieving communism (which cannot be achieved anyways)?

But your argument is that if the US did try to “increase class consciousness” whatever that is supposed to be we would be socialist even if we kept the exact same system.
Basically you are saying socialism has nothing to do with economics.

I really don't want to define class consciousness for you as everyone will disagree with me (and with each other), but simply put, class consciousness is the conscious state that you, a worker, are being exploited by bosses of some sort who take your wealth, treat you terrible, and keep you where you are economically whilst their capitalist class rests on the top. That generalized definition alone should tell you how socialism clearly has economic aspects. The question is just, when you become conscious that you're happy with 1,000th of what you could have, what do you do about it? Democratic socialism says you take a mostly western democracy system, get elected, and then nationalize most if not all businesses so that the bosses and capitalist class slowly get eliminated. Reform socialists say that you need some aspects of capitalism
to first more clearly show the workers their issues, or out of what they determine as "economic necessity." Their goal is still to eliminate it entirely, eventually. Lenin did this with the N.E.P., a reform socialist policy. Lenin was not a reform socialist, but the context of history led him to believe he needed it temporarily to do away with it forever. Trotskyism says you need a leading party that allows the people to vote within only said party, but you can vote for different views within said party (reform soc, syndicalist, hardliner, etc) and that by providing a new political system for the population, you can give them a better understanding of their issues. Stalinism takes a different spin on this with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Every system of socialism just gives a different answer to "how do we give class consciousness in forever undoing capitalism, and what do we do afterwards." That is why we all disagree on every definition, it's why we all hate each other, and it's why China can ban Unions. The Stalinist Sankara also did, though I've never figured out why. These things just happen because different leaders/leading parties have different theories.

[Neko-koku]

Do you think the Republic of China can solve the problem of gentry?

Why do you think that having a gentry is a fucking problem?