If by “socialists globally” you mean hitlerite AES nation states (e.g. China, Vietnam) then yes it would benefit them immensely as now their capital accumulation gets boosted and they get to do more imperialism in the future as there’s less competition now. If you mean sub-20 member student uni book clubs, then yes it would also benefit them as now they have more stuff to larp about.
In either case, a collapse of US doesn’t help the real movement. If anything, the collapse would get rid of a ton of accumulated value, temporarily increasing the rate of profit abroad and bribing the labor aristocracy that presumably is aligning itself with global south (though I call BS, they’re as hitlerite as ever) back to defending global capital which would be counterintuitive.
When I say “socialists globally,” I mean it quite literally, as the international socialist movement. This includes AES states, which you call “Hitlerite” and “imperialist,” as well as the working class in the global south and global north. AES states, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in charge of the state, are entirely different from fascist states where private ownership is principle and the bourgeoisie in charge of the state.
Confusing the fact that private ownership exists with it being principle is placing form over essence, and focusing on similarities (having a strong state and some degree of private ownership) while ignoring differences (the commanding heights of AES states are publicly owned and the working class runs the state). Further, these countries aren’t imperialist either, this has no real basis.
The idea that the international working classes would not benefit from the dissolution of the international dictatorship of the bourgeoisie sides with the labor aristocracy and imperialists over the imperialized. You have an extreme chauvanism towards the global south in calling them “hitlerite,” which you keep passing around like candy without basis. You’re acting as a social chauvanist here, using socialist phrasemongering to argue for the perpetuation of the US Empire.
Nothing screams socialism more than class collaboration, active expansion of commodity production and commodity accumulation, funding military junta in Myanmar and so on. At this point China would only become socialist if its capital forces magically became conscious and went against it’s own interests.
Also good job with the slander on that last paragraph. All nation states are hitlerite, no matter if global north or south as they all brutalize their proles, are ruled by bourgeois and would happily go colonialist imperialist if they were in an economic position that necessitated it. The real chauvinism is putting some states on a pedestal and masking it with moralizing bullshit.
Also you ought to know the difference between “arbitrary collapse wouldn’t be useful and would just bring unnecessary suffering” vs “I support this empire and hope it stays forever!”. I’d much rather see all the contradictions result in US becoming a genuine DOTP once workers there finally wake up rather than millions dying for no reason other than revengeism and for some other capitalist state to take over.
China isn’t class collaborationist, they have a dictatorship of the proletariat. The fact that the bourgeoisie exist there does not mean they have leverage over the state, and the commanding heights of industy are out of their hands. There’s no such thing as class collaborationism, this is a lie told by socdems to keep the bourgeoisie on top. In reality, the state can only be under the control of a single, definite class, and in the PRC that class is the proletariat. Building up the productive forces and having significant exports as a means for technological transfer and development is a good thing, actually.
It seems it wasn’t a strawman at all, really. In insisting that every nation is “hitlerite,” no matter if they are socialist, imperialized, or colonized, you take a stance of inaction. This is exactly what I was getting at when I said you’re phrasemongering, social chauvanism to justify inaction against imperialism and siding with the imperialists and labor aristocracy.
You also ought to know that nobody really hopes for collapse over socialist revolution in the US Empire. That would be the best for everyone, but failing that the death of the world’s imperial hegemon would be dramatically positive. Dissolution of the US Empire removes the largest obstacle holding global development back, and eliminates this genocidal settler-colony once and for all.
If China’s bourgeois were truly powerless with no leverage and there’s no class collaborationism going on, they wouldn’t keep them and instead nationalize everything - after all, why keep a parasitic middle man that just sucks up billions in surplus value? To build up productive forces the bourgeois aren’t necessary - the state could handle it just fine.
Also, despite being a “DOTP”, China goes against worker interests almost every step of the way. Commodity production fundamentally relies on exploitation of workers and is in the interest of capital, the supposed proletarian party is actively letting bourgeois to join as seen with Three Represents for instance, independent labor unions are crushed, international proletariat interests are also being betrayed by China (like supporting Ukraine, their recent affairs within Africa, the junta I mentioned), economic imperialism via initiatives such as BRI, etc.
Painting a bourgeois nation red is such an effective strategy to fool leftists I swear. Maybe once third imperialist war drops, every bourgeois state is gonna be calling themselves socialist! Who knows…
Why does China have to nationalize the small proprietorships, agricultural cooperatives, and mid-sized secondary industries for you to accept that the bourgeoisie is kept out of political power? Markets are fairly useful for developing industry, and if private ownership has no dominance over the commanding heights of industry then that don’t have political power over the socialist state. If China was controlled by the bourgeoisie, then we wouldn’t see executions of billionaires at a regular basis, nor would we see such dramatic investment in infrastructure meant for the working classes.
The state could nationalize everything, sure. Under the late Mao period and during the Gang of Four, they had higher rates of public ownership, but growth was uneven. Reform and Opening Up, along with the crucial aspect of technology transfer, stableized growth and slightly increased it:
This strategy of maintaining public ownership as the principle aspect and relying on markets to help facilitate gaps left by the socialist system in a controlled manner have had dramatically positive results. They of course aren’t without new contradictions, but at the same time the presence of contradictions does not imply that the bourgeoisie are in control. This approach to socialism is elaborated on by Cheng Enfu:
Currently, the PRC is working towards the intermediate stage of socialist construction, per the chart.
As for the state being run by the working classes, this is also pretty straightforward. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, and we can see the class breakdown of the top of the government itself:
Independent labor unions aren’t allowed, correct, nor do they need to be. Unions are required to be a part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, and aren’t allowed to be independent from that federation. This isn’t a violation of worker rights, though, as the only purpose rogue unions would serve is undermining the socialist system, and would be vulnerable to foreign backing (such as from the US Empire).
BRI and the PRC’s presence in Africa and the global south in general isn’t imperialist either. The PRC is expanding trade, but not dominance, nor does its trade deals come at the barrel of a gun. They trade with pretty much everyone, and support their allies, but this is not imperialism. To the contrary, the PRC is acting against imperialism.
And many, many more sources back this up. It’s no secret that imperialists have been trying to smear China into being “no better” than the west, but the reality on the ground is that partnering with China results in mutual development and cooperation, while partnering with the west results in stripped autonomy, underdevelopment, and exploitation.
The idea that the PRC is a “bourgeois state painted red,” and that that’s why many Marxist-Leninists are “fooled” into supporting it, is ignoring my very clear arguments that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, with the working classes in charge of the state. Your most compelling argument seems to be that they could sacrifice the economic growth that Reform and Opening up brought and stuck with a more totally planned economy similar to the DPRK, but the fact that they are taking a different path does not mean that they are taking the wrong path, one where the bourgeoisie control the state and private ownership is principle, ie capitalism.
Again, your greatest error is in confusing form for essence, and only seeing similarities while ignoring differences. This causes you to make frankly absurd statements like “every nation state is hitlerite,” regardless of results and structure.
Most of what you’ve pointed out just now isn’t even in the interest of the working class, nor is it somehow exclusive to AES states - rather, these are just common interests held by bourgeois states.
GDP growth by itself indicates greater capital accumulation, which in turn indicates that a greater degree of worker exploitation has been achieved in a commodity producing society, directly going against worker interests. Same with maintaining the existence of bourgeois and their economic position under the guise of “helping GDP grow” for obvious reasons - it’s just absurd.
Aside from that, national/public ownership also doesn’t automatically mean “in workers interests”. For instance, majority of capitalist countries early on had or still have their means of public transportation (railroad, buses) nationally owned. Does it mean these parts were “socialist”? Of course not - cheap public transportation allows workers to travel cheaply and faster to their workplaces, which in turns allows capital to expand and accumulate value more efficiently. In other words, their purpose was capital growth.
All in all, my main point is that despite China being labeled as a DOTP, it purely advances its national capitalist interests and does nothing to advance proletarian interests. There might be incidental benefits for the proletariat here and there (as is the norm under capitalism, economic growth sometimes bringing better standard of living and infrastructure improvements), but all the actual advancements of worker interests are promised way, way into the future.
And hey - maybe China will actually achieve communist mode of production purely on its own which would largely debunk orthodox marxism, only time will tell.
Bourgeois states don’t seek grand infrastructure development, aren’t dominated by public ownership, and don’t develop mechanisms of democracy reaching approval rates over 90%. The PRC continuously puts the working class first. The idea that development of the productive forces is bad because it implies exploitation is inherently flawed, highly developed productive forces are the basis of socialized production to begin with, as it is with this development that we can best meet the needs of everyone with as little work as possible. What’s absurd is using GDP growth in an economy where public ownership as principle as a bad thing.
Secondly, I agree, nationalized infrastructure in bourgeois states, where private ownership is principle, is indeed not socialist. The PRC has public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state though, so any comparisons to, say, Bismark are entirely off-base. The PRC is qualitatively different from heavily state-driven capitalist economies like the Republic of Korea or Singapore, because in the state-driven capitalist economies private ownership governs the large firms and key industries.
I get that I’m beating a dead horse, but you keep making the same basic blunder, so I’ll state it again: you confuse form for essence. You utterly ignore the principle aspect of the economy, and see presence of contradiction as evidence of subservient aspects as dominant. This error in thinking is derived from purely looking at similarities, and ignoring differences. Only seeing the general, while ignoring the particular. In other words, utterly maiming the dialectical half of dialectical materialism.
All of the actual benefits are being given to the working classes on a steady and constant basis. Their quality of life has steadily gone up dramatically year over year, in a fundamentally far greater degree than social democracies offer by ratio, without bribery from imperialism. And no, the PRC isn’t saying they will achieve communism in one country, just that communism, when achieved, will fit that description. Obviously communism must be global.
Yeah, bourgeois states would never ever develop infrastructure for market expansion and capital accumulation purposes (e.g. building up infrastructure in colonial states to facilitate exports + extract resources or undertaking massive projects such as the Suez and Panama canals), they would never ever nationalize nor have dominant national ownership of their industry for national bourgeois benefit or capital stability (like in Saudi Arabia, fascist Italy, various national oil companies), nor they would have high approval rates like seen in fascist regimes and economic boom periods (entrenched superstructures also make workers “approve” things that go against their interests). Maybe there’s more DOTP’s out there than I thought…
The idea that development of the productive forces is bad because it implies exploitation is inherently flawed, highly developed productive forces are the basis of socialized production to begin with
Productive forces by themselves are neutral, what matters is the underlying social relations of production. Capitalist mode of production presupposes exploitation via extraction of surplus value and market constrains, which is not only exploitative but also conflicts with the long-term worker interest that is production-for-use. Expansion of exploitation goes against working class interests, that much is hopefully obvious - you’re not gonna find anyone but bourgeois or workers deep in nationalist superstructure being happy about their nation state having GDP growth.
On the other hand, a society that produces for use rather than for profit that doesn’t have the exploitative surplus extraction mechanism - now that and it’s growth is inherently in the interests of the working class.
China hasn’t made even the most gradual of shifts towards this, it’s a full on market economy that maintains the exploitative relation and sometimes merely transfers ownership around, but this doesn’t materially affect the relationship between the worker and means of production.
Mere promises for the “future plans” do not alter the bourgeois essence of the economy as it stands now in China, and I highly doubt that a state maintaining this essence that is in it’s national material interests will one day just do a 180, completely go against those interests and abolish the current state of things.
All of the actual benefits are being given to the working classes on a steady and constant basis. Their quality of life has steadily gone up dramatically year over year, in a fundamentally far greater degree than social democracies offer by ratio, without bribery from imperialism.
This is true for literally most capitalist countries during its active development, or after WW2. It is also a blatantly anti-marxist socdem narrative, as the marxist goal is abolishment of current state of things rather than merely making things temporarily better until capitalist contradictions inevitably catch up and result in crisis.
If by “socialists globally” you mean hitlerite AES nation states (e.g. China, Vietnam) then yes it would benefit them immensely as now their capital accumulation gets boosted and they get to do more imperialism in the future as there’s less competition now. If you mean sub-20 member student uni book clubs, then yes it would also benefit them as now they have more stuff to larp about.
In either case, a collapse of US doesn’t help the real movement. If anything, the collapse would get rid of a ton of accumulated value, temporarily increasing the rate of profit abroad and bribing the labor aristocracy that presumably is aligning itself with global south (though I call BS, they’re as hitlerite as ever) back to defending global capital which would be counterintuitive.
When I say “socialists globally,” I mean it quite literally, as the international socialist movement. This includes AES states, which you call “Hitlerite” and “imperialist,” as well as the working class in the global south and global north. AES states, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in charge of the state, are entirely different from fascist states where private ownership is principle and the bourgeoisie in charge of the state.
Confusing the fact that private ownership exists with it being principle is placing form over essence, and focusing on similarities (having a strong state and some degree of private ownership) while ignoring differences (the commanding heights of AES states are publicly owned and the working class runs the state). Further, these countries aren’t imperialist either, this has no real basis.
The idea that the international working classes would not benefit from the dissolution of the international dictatorship of the bourgeoisie sides with the labor aristocracy and imperialists over the imperialized. You have an extreme chauvanism towards the global south in calling them “hitlerite,” which you keep passing around like candy without basis. You’re acting as a social chauvanist here, using socialist phrasemongering to argue for the perpetuation of the US Empire.
Nothing screams socialism more than class collaboration, active expansion of commodity production and commodity accumulation, funding military junta in Myanmar and so on. At this point China would only become socialist if its capital forces magically became conscious and went against it’s own interests.
Also good job with the slander on that last paragraph. All nation states are hitlerite, no matter if global north or south as they all brutalize their proles, are ruled by bourgeois and would happily go colonialist imperialist if they were in an economic position that necessitated it. The real chauvinism is putting some states on a pedestal and masking it with moralizing bullshit.
Also you ought to know the difference between “arbitrary collapse wouldn’t be useful and would just bring unnecessary suffering” vs “I support this empire and hope it stays forever!”. I’d much rather see all the contradictions result in US becoming a genuine DOTP once workers there finally wake up rather than millions dying for no reason other than revengeism and for some other capitalist state to take over.
China isn’t class collaborationist, they have a dictatorship of the proletariat. The fact that the bourgeoisie exist there does not mean they have leverage over the state, and the commanding heights of industy are out of their hands. There’s no such thing as class collaborationism, this is a lie told by socdems to keep the bourgeoisie on top. In reality, the state can only be under the control of a single, definite class, and in the PRC that class is the proletariat. Building up the productive forces and having significant exports as a means for technological transfer and development is a good thing, actually.
It seems it wasn’t a strawman at all, really. In insisting that every nation is “hitlerite,” no matter if they are socialist, imperialized, or colonized, you take a stance of inaction. This is exactly what I was getting at when I said you’re phrasemongering, social chauvanism to justify inaction against imperialism and siding with the imperialists and labor aristocracy.
You also ought to know that nobody really hopes for collapse over socialist revolution in the US Empire. That would be the best for everyone, but failing that the death of the world’s imperial hegemon would be dramatically positive. Dissolution of the US Empire removes the largest obstacle holding global development back, and eliminates this genocidal settler-colony once and for all.
If China’s bourgeois were truly powerless with no leverage and there’s no class collaborationism going on, they wouldn’t keep them and instead nationalize everything - after all, why keep a parasitic middle man that just sucks up billions in surplus value? To build up productive forces the bourgeois aren’t necessary - the state could handle it just fine.
Also, despite being a “DOTP”, China goes against worker interests almost every step of the way. Commodity production fundamentally relies on exploitation of workers and is in the interest of capital, the supposed proletarian party is actively letting bourgeois to join as seen with Three Represents for instance, independent labor unions are crushed, international proletariat interests are also being betrayed by China (like supporting Ukraine, their recent affairs within Africa, the junta I mentioned), economic imperialism via initiatives such as BRI, etc.
Painting a bourgeois nation red is such an effective strategy to fool leftists I swear. Maybe once third imperialist war drops, every bourgeois state is gonna be calling themselves socialist! Who knows…
Why does China have to nationalize the small proprietorships, agricultural cooperatives, and mid-sized secondary industries for you to accept that the bourgeoisie is kept out of political power? Markets are fairly useful for developing industry, and if private ownership has no dominance over the commanding heights of industry then that don’t have political power over the socialist state. If China was controlled by the bourgeoisie, then we wouldn’t see executions of billionaires at a regular basis, nor would we see such dramatic investment in infrastructure meant for the working classes.
The state could nationalize everything, sure. Under the late Mao period and during the Gang of Four, they had higher rates of public ownership, but growth was uneven. Reform and Opening Up, along with the crucial aspect of technology transfer, stableized growth and slightly increased it:
This strategy of maintaining public ownership as the principle aspect and relying on markets to help facilitate gaps left by the socialist system in a controlled manner have had dramatically positive results. They of course aren’t without new contradictions, but at the same time the presence of contradictions does not imply that the bourgeoisie are in control. This approach to socialism is elaborated on by Cheng Enfu:
Currently, the PRC is working towards the intermediate stage of socialist construction, per the chart.
As for the state being run by the working classes, this is also pretty straightforward. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, and we can see the class breakdown of the top of the government itself:
This is despite the Three Represents system. Overall, this system has resulted in over 90% of the population approving the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate.
Independent labor unions aren’t allowed, correct, nor do they need to be. Unions are required to be a part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, and aren’t allowed to be independent from that federation. This isn’t a violation of worker rights, though, as the only purpose rogue unions would serve is undermining the socialist system, and would be vulnerable to foreign backing (such as from the US Empire).
BRI and the PRC’s presence in Africa and the global south in general isn’t imperialist either. The PRC is expanding trade, but not dominance, nor does its trade deals come at the barrel of a gun. They trade with pretty much everyone, and support their allies, but this is not imperialism. To the contrary, the PRC is acting against imperialism.
The CPC punishing Chinese landlords for improper treatment of Africans, mass arresting the landlords, passing reforms, and apologizing to the African Union
China has forgiven over 10 billion in foreign debt
Belt-Road Initiative: An Anti-thesis of Colonialism
Evo Morales speaks on claims of "Chinese imperialism
Five Imperialist Myths About China’s Role in Africa
Is China a Better Partner for Africa than Europe and the West?
Challenging US Imperialism with Chinese Multilateralism
The Fallacy of Denouncing Both Sides of the US-China Conflict
And many, many more sources back this up. It’s no secret that imperialists have been trying to smear China into being “no better” than the west, but the reality on the ground is that partnering with China results in mutual development and cooperation, while partnering with the west results in stripped autonomy, underdevelopment, and exploitation.
The idea that the PRC is a “bourgeois state painted red,” and that that’s why many Marxist-Leninists are “fooled” into supporting it, is ignoring my very clear arguments that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, with the working classes in charge of the state. Your most compelling argument seems to be that they could sacrifice the economic growth that Reform and Opening up brought and stuck with a more totally planned economy similar to the DPRK, but the fact that they are taking a different path does not mean that they are taking the wrong path, one where the bourgeoisie control the state and private ownership is principle, ie capitalism.
Again, your greatest error is in confusing form for essence, and only seeing similarities while ignoring differences. This causes you to make frankly absurd statements like “every nation state is hitlerite,” regardless of results and structure.
Most of what you’ve pointed out just now isn’t even in the interest of the working class, nor is it somehow exclusive to AES states - rather, these are just common interests held by bourgeois states.
GDP growth by itself indicates greater capital accumulation, which in turn indicates that a greater degree of worker exploitation has been achieved in a commodity producing society, directly going against worker interests. Same with maintaining the existence of bourgeois and their economic position under the guise of “helping GDP grow” for obvious reasons - it’s just absurd.
Aside from that, national/public ownership also doesn’t automatically mean “in workers interests”. For instance, majority of capitalist countries early on had or still have their means of public transportation (railroad, buses) nationally owned. Does it mean these parts were “socialist”? Of course not - cheap public transportation allows workers to travel cheaply and faster to their workplaces, which in turns allows capital to expand and accumulate value more efficiently. In other words, their purpose was capital growth.
All in all, my main point is that despite China being labeled as a DOTP, it purely advances its national capitalist interests and does nothing to advance proletarian interests. There might be incidental benefits for the proletariat here and there (as is the norm under capitalism, economic growth sometimes bringing better standard of living and infrastructure improvements), but all the actual advancements of worker interests are promised way, way into the future.
And hey - maybe China will actually achieve communist mode of production purely on its own which would largely debunk orthodox marxism, only time will tell.
Bourgeois states don’t seek grand infrastructure development, aren’t dominated by public ownership, and don’t develop mechanisms of democracy reaching approval rates over 90%. The PRC continuously puts the working class first. The idea that development of the productive forces is bad because it implies exploitation is inherently flawed, highly developed productive forces are the basis of socialized production to begin with, as it is with this development that we can best meet the needs of everyone with as little work as possible. What’s absurd is using GDP growth in an economy where public ownership as principle as a bad thing.
Secondly, I agree, nationalized infrastructure in bourgeois states, where private ownership is principle, is indeed not socialist. The PRC has public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state though, so any comparisons to, say, Bismark are entirely off-base. The PRC is qualitatively different from heavily state-driven capitalist economies like the Republic of Korea or Singapore, because in the state-driven capitalist economies private ownership governs the large firms and key industries.
I get that I’m beating a dead horse, but you keep making the same basic blunder, so I’ll state it again: you confuse form for essence. You utterly ignore the principle aspect of the economy, and see presence of contradiction as evidence of subservient aspects as dominant. This error in thinking is derived from purely looking at similarities, and ignoring differences. Only seeing the general, while ignoring the particular. In other words, utterly maiming the dialectical half of dialectical materialism.
All of the actual benefits are being given to the working classes on a steady and constant basis. Their quality of life has steadily gone up dramatically year over year, in a fundamentally far greater degree than social democracies offer by ratio, without bribery from imperialism. And no, the PRC isn’t saying they will achieve communism in one country, just that communism, when achieved, will fit that description. Obviously communism must be global.
Yeah, bourgeois states would never ever develop infrastructure for market expansion and capital accumulation purposes (e.g. building up infrastructure in colonial states to facilitate exports + extract resources or undertaking massive projects such as the Suez and Panama canals), they would never ever nationalize nor have dominant national ownership of their industry for national bourgeois benefit or capital stability (like in Saudi Arabia, fascist Italy, various national oil companies), nor they would have high approval rates like seen in fascist regimes and economic boom periods (entrenched superstructures also make workers “approve” things that go against their interests). Maybe there’s more DOTP’s out there than I thought…
Productive forces by themselves are neutral, what matters is the underlying social relations of production. Capitalist mode of production presupposes exploitation via extraction of surplus value and market constrains, which is not only exploitative but also conflicts with the long-term worker interest that is production-for-use. Expansion of exploitation goes against working class interests, that much is hopefully obvious - you’re not gonna find anyone but bourgeois or workers deep in nationalist superstructure being happy about their nation state having GDP growth.
On the other hand, a society that produces for use rather than for profit that doesn’t have the exploitative surplus extraction mechanism - now that and it’s growth is inherently in the interests of the working class.
China hasn’t made even the most gradual of shifts towards this, it’s a full on market economy that maintains the exploitative relation and sometimes merely transfers ownership around, but this doesn’t materially affect the relationship between the worker and means of production.
Mere promises for the “future plans” do not alter the bourgeois essence of the economy as it stands now in China, and I highly doubt that a state maintaining this essence that is in it’s national material interests will one day just do a 180, completely go against those interests and abolish the current state of things.
This is true for literally most capitalist countries during its active development, or after WW2. It is also a blatantly anti-marxist socdem narrative, as the marxist goal is abolishment of current state of things rather than merely making things temporarily better until capitalist contradictions inevitably catch up and result in crisis.
Mhmm, really digging your expansion here as an addendum to our earlier conversation on the same subject.
Thanks! Happy to help!
Thank you, for taking the time. I honestly can’t wait for their next argument to learn even more!