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),

Except in the PRC, infrastructure projects are explicitly made to service both the overall socialist economy, and the lives of the working classes, at the expense of the domestic bourgeoisie. Your argument is essentially “the PRC has infrastructure projects, therefore it’s capitalist,” and considering I already demonstrated that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state run by the working classes, we need to re-examine these infrastructure projects. You are, again, confusing form for essence, and focusing on similarities while turning a blind eye towards stark differences. Again, making a mockery of dialectical materialism.

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),

Except in those economies, private ownership still remained principle. This is why I brought up Bismark earlier, and that I agree that nationalized industry isn’t inherently a sign of socialism. That’s why, as Marxists, we need to take the dialectical materialist approach and analyze not just individual elements, but the nature of the economy as a whole. Nationalization in the context of an economy where private ownership is principle ultimately is in service of the bourgeoisie. The Republic of Korea is dominated by giant megacorps like Samsung, LG, Hyundai, etc, despite having a strong bourgeois state, while the PRC is dominated by public ownership and SOEs with a proletarian state, despite having bourgeois ownership over small and medium secondary industries.

Again, since you seem to ignore your critical lack of dialectical analysis, I’ll keep pointing it out every time it comes up. You are, again, confusing form for essence, and focusing on similarities while turning a blind eye towards stark differences.

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…

Except the PRC’s “boom period” seems to persist even in times of instability, and for many decades at a time, while fascist regimes have been flashes in the pan and boom/bust cycles in capitalist economies are regular. The highest approval rates in capitalist economies come in times of war, yet the PRC has been at peace for many decades and still retains this approval rate.

Again, since you seem to ignore your critical lack of dialectical analysis, I’ll keep pointing it out every time it comes up. You are, again, confusing form for essence, and focusing on similarities while turning a blind eye towards stark differences.

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.

This is a deeply confused analysis. The PRC has public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, not private. Growth in production is essential for actually being capable of production-for-use, and this very problem was what caused instability under the Gang of Four. The idea that the small proprietors, the secondary, small industries, and the agricultural cooperatives need to be nationalized overnight is anti-Marxist analysis. You’re using phrasemongering to try to paint increased industrial capacity as something contrary to worker interests.

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.

The backbone of China’s economy is production for use, though. Exploitation is a contradiction, correct, but trying to nationalize industry before it actually socializes is unnecessary from Marxist analysis, and delays productivity. You’re making the argument of the Gang of Four, that being that it’s better to be working in a fully nationalized economy as a poor worker than working in partially privatized yet ultimately socialist economy with more productive capacity and access to goods and services. Marxism doesn’t posit that dogmatically nationalizing is inherently better because it gets rid of exploitation, but instead takes a scientific approach to analyzing production and distribution.

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

Utterly baseless claims, when the economy is dominated by the public sector and Five Year Plans guide the development of the economy. I’ve given you multiple examples backing this up, while you return with unbacked claims counter to reality.

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.

China doesn’t need to pull a 180, it’s already a socialist economy gradually nationalizing the small and medium secondary industries as they develop and socialize. This isn’t about “future plans,” they are already socialist and already in the long and protracted process of transition between capitalism and communism, ie socialism. Nowhere in my comments thus far have I stated that they need to pull a 180, they need to continue their process of folding socialized production into the public sector and maintain the DotP.

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.

Except this is entirely false. The capitalist countries during active devevelopment have not directed their gains towards the benefits of the working classes, and post-WWII the capitalist countries entered an era of even greater imperialism. This, in the context of a post about the US Empire (which you batted hard to defend under the guise of worry about the labor aristocracy there), is clear social chauvanism. Further, the idea that the PRC is only making things temporarily better until “capitalist contradictions inevitably catch up and result in crisis” is entirely unfounded, as I explained earlier the PRC has been in a period of stable growth without a boom/bust cycle for decades, far longer than the capitalist world.

Repeating it because you ignored this, and accused me of being anti-Marxist and a “socdem:” 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.

Again, you are confusing how propaganda works. Propaganda doesn’t “create” sentiment, it appeals to underlying sentiment. The working classes aren’t morally just, nor gullible, nor intelligent, but instead rational, and therefore generally seek narratives that conform to their felt conditions.

It’s not that I confuse cause for effect, it’s that I go deeper, the cause is actually the devastation in capitalism compared to socialism resulting in rising socialist sentiment, the effect is that the nationalists take notice and are trying to twist it into Russian nationalism, causing a struggle between Russian nationalism and socialist nostalgia playing out in the Russian Federation, the effect of which is large increases in CPRF membership and restoration of soviet monuments and nomenclature. Cause and effect do not exist in a vacuum, but are instead the result of endless spirals. Dialectics at work.

Further, the CPRF supports Russia United against Kiev in the war, and has taken a stance of critical support. The fact that United Russia is doing better electorally right now doesn’t mean communism is falling out of favor, but that communist analysis is rallying around the nationalists in Russia, and partisans aren’t willing to advocate for overtaking the current system at the moment.

This also explains why polling suggests that sympathies for the Soviet Union mostly (not fully) consist of cultural and military pride.

Polling does not suggest this, it suggests that the increase in poverty, austerity, sex work, drug abuse, homelessness, and overall devastation of capitalism wasn’t worth it for the broad majority of society. You seek to explain sentiment derived from real, material economic conditions via culture and vibes, when the culture and vibes are a reflection of the economic base. You did it earlier with the idea that the nationalists are creating soviet pride in a vacuum, ignoring economic conditions, and you do it here again.

As for Ukraine, it’s very convenient that you skip over the Banderite coup in 2014 where the nationalists took political power. Ukraine did used to be more pro-communist, especially in the Donbass region, but after the western-backed Euromaidan coup the nationalists took political supremacy and started punishing communists. Same for East Germany, after reunification the communists were punished in show trials and purged, leaving the right-wing West German political force with supremacy. This purge of leftists created a vacuum for far-right populists and nationalists, as capitalist devastation combined with a lack of leftist organizing results in the faf-right having free-reign.

Overall, when we take your convenient framing of trends and insistence on explaining demographic shifts not by real, material conditions but instead by a battle of vibes and ideas alone, we have to question your entire thought process. It’s clear that you view history not as a long process that progresses in spirals, but as static snapshots, and the ideas held by the people not as coming from their real conditions economically but instead as beamed from above, and these failures in analysis are why you come to incorrect conclusions.

The US Empire (and Europe as well) is the one installing compradors. No, the US Empire isn’t trying to tell people to “not be corrupt,” they want that so the comoradors sell out their countries and force austerity, privatization of nationalized industries, etc. This is how imperialism works, and is why the US Empire has hundreds of overseas millitary bases while the PRC has ~3. If you nationalize your resources, the US Empire tries to destroy you, because the US Empire depends entirely on this system of super-exploiting for super-profits.

BRI and the PRC’s presence in Africa and the global south in general isn’t imperialist. 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.

As for China’s democracy, it’s actually better than the US Empire by a wide margin. 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 strong perceptions around this democracy:

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.

Overall, you have a deeply confused notion of what’s going on in the global south. The US is the world’s largest empire and is colonizing the world, China is focusing on win-win economic development.

A rise in party membership in the CPRF does indeed suggest that they are growing, and further establishing legitimacy. National election results in war-time aren’t a major indicator of popularity of the CPRF. Further, no, the nationalists are not creating soviet sympathies, but trying to take advantage of them. Capitalism has been devestating for Russia, and people yearn for the old days when their needs were better taken care of. The nationalists are appealing to that and trying to turn it into Russian pride.

The idea that the nationalists are just beaming sympathies to the heads of the citizenry, rather than the citizenry longing for a working system after the devastation of cspitalism and the nationalists are trying to take advantage of that, is absurd. That’s not how propaganda works, you have to identify actually felt beliefs and leverage them.

• They recieved 63,000 new members over 4 years

• The CPRF has restored ties with communist parties around the world

• Stalin’s popularity in Russia in general is rising dramatically, to the point of being reported in the west

And much more. At the end of the day, the Russian Federation is a bourgeois dictstorship, so it isn’t going to just accept rising communist sympathies at a state level. The nationalists have a balancing act to play, trying to take advantage of rising soviet smpathies without legitimizing socialism.

Haha, hopefully there are fewer arguments and more constructive discussions.

With every crisis, with every bit of imperilism that dies, the Statesian public becomes more aware of their chains. Media is only useful for giving people narratives they want to agree with, not for convincing people outright. The Empire is dying, and with it comes dramatic radicalization. Even looking at younger generations over time, communism is rapidly rising in popularity:

Quantitative buildup is reaching qualitative leaps, like heating water until it boils. It looks like nothing’s happening until suddenly everything is.

Thanks! Happy to help!

What makes you say that?

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.

Gorbachev had also implemented Perestroika, and his policy of Glasnost had weakened the soviet system. The seeds for radical change for the worse and instability were already there. My point isn’t that there was 0 discontent and it flipped to 100% discontent, but that people, despite the various nationalist movements in some of the member-states, overall did support the socialist project up to the end. After the vote, there was the hardliner coup, dramatic sharpening of contradictions, and the internal, anti-democratic dissolution by Yeltsin claiming legitimacy from the rising nationalist movements.

You have no evidence supporting your claims other than the idea that there was some discontent, which I never denied, and that people ultimately lost faith in the stabilty of the soviet union right at the end itself. Further, support for returning to socialism doesn’t simply “evaporate,” and again, it depends highly on the political fuckery in the region, the purging of communists by westerners, and the sheer devastation these countries went through. Trying to chalk it all up to simple pride in a stronger nation instead of the actual material benefits is an extraordinary claim.

Russia and Belarus, for example, are seeing rising waves of socialist sympathy among the populace. The CPRF is rising rapidly, and people fundamentally feel that capitalism should not last any longer. This represents the large majority of the post-soviet population.

The DNC would not have stopped the genocide, they have consistently funded and supplied it. Further, even if the DNC lost because Leftists sat out (which there’s no evidence that this is the case), it means the DNC ran a pro-genocide campaign and alienated a vital voting bloc in doing so.

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.

Voting for a different party of genocidal imperialists doesn’t actually buy time to organize, though. Both parties fund ICE, both wage war on the global south, both are actively against worker organization that stands to threaten the system they both stand for.

I personally do not care if someone votes, as long as they are also organizing. If someone is only engaged with politics via voting, then they have no leg to stand on when others advocate for voting third party and organizing in real life. If someone organizes and happens to vote DNC, I really could not care less, they can do that as long as they actually participate in party building.

Can you elaborate? Is being a communist “Russian state propaganda?” I don’t think I’ve ever even linked RT to make a point. Do you have any evidence of this, or is this just an accusation you hurl when confronted by someone to your left?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that I’m either Russian or a bot? I’m a Statesian communist, accusing me of being a spooky scary foreigner and dehumanizing me for disagreeing with you is low.

If lefties refusing to vote for genocide actually meaningfully steered the election, then it’s the fault of the DNC for running on a pro-genocide platform and alienating lefties. No, the DNC doesn’t represent the working classes in any capacity, neither does the GOP. With or without midterms or a general election, revolution has always been necessary, and that will not change.

I understand the spoiler effect, but since neither party represents me in any capacity, there’s nothing to spoil. PSL represents me. I also understand that it’s impossible for a working class party to win, currently, so I actually organize politically in real life, year-round, not just voting once in a while and talking online. MAGA took power because the US Empire is declining, and the DNC is incapable of representing the working classes, so there has been a rightward shift.

Even if every single third-party voter voted Harris in every state, she still would have lost. Nothing you claimed is true in any capacity.

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.

No, that’s not how first past the post works. Voting third party is a vote for third party, not for the GOP nor DNC, as neither represents me. You’re assuming my vote would be for the DNC by default for your math, but that’s not correct, I condemn both the GOP and DNC. That’s the reality, and it doesn’t matter what fuzzy logic you use to justify what you believe.