once it becomes the leading economic superpower? — Shawn

Don't spread this shite.

China is not communist and for many of the same reasons that the US did not want communism to spread, China should not want communism either. They want to open markets for their businesses, to drive the economic growth of China and maintain the rule of the CCP. The belt and road initiative (BRI) is one example of China's foreign policy, nations like Pakistan scare off Western investment and create opportunities for China. Pakistan owes Chinese banks loans that they can't repay, such investments, China is making across the world, the purpose is geopolitical and economic but it's more comparable to 1800s British imperialism than cold war era ideological expansion.

China is not communist — Judaka

:100: :up:

China is the epitome of state capitalism.

Even without communism it seems the Chinese Communist Party has plenty of dangerous ideals to export.

It is scaring how slowly China has been climbing to the top of the world’s power during decades.

Yup. I try not to buy Chinese stuff since a few months into the Hong Kong protests. It's almost impossible so I go second best where I can and buy second hand. But second hand electronics... Not sure how that's going to pan out over time.

I really think Chinese exports should be subject to taxation based on a points system. No democracy? 10% tax. Ongoing genocide? 100% tax plus prohibited import on any products that have a potential (military) dual use or produced by companies also making military equipment. Jailing of dissidents? 5% etc. Etc.

Agree with you. China should have more control in the Occidental market. Paying more taxes or whatever or duties to their products. But how can we punish them? It seems so impossible. They are powerful and I think we cannot do anything without their amazing supplying/developing shite like electronics, clothes, accessories, etc... also it is country with zero human rights so many big companies go there to have slaves as “workers” (Apple for example builds their accessories in China...)
They are huge country who cares zero about life and rights. Facing them it is very complex.

China is not communist
— Judaka

:100: :up:

China is the epitome of state capitalism. — Pfhorrest

This is simply wrong. It's not.

And I know people here: they don't believe and totally disregard totally those that actually say that they are Marxists and communists... if they are Chinese. In fact, the actual views of the Chinese communists running China are not at all even taken into account and ignored.

Yet if you yourself had experienced Mao's Cultural Revolution, seen how "The Great Leap" failed and seen how the Soviet Union collapsed, you really might think twice before going down that path again. And so have the Chinese communists done. They have had to build their system on that basis and improved their system in reality, not go off into dreaming about a Marxist la-la-land as a way to criticize the Western capitalism here. And they have performed a historical economic growth (even if, well, Taiwan, is more wealthy.)

So let's just look at what the leader of China, Xi Jinping, takes as 14 point policy for Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era:

1. Ensuring Chinese Communist Party leadership over all forms of work in China.
2. The Chinese Communist Party should take a people-centric approach for the public interest.
3. The continuation of "comprehensive deepening of reforms".
4. Adopting new development ideas based on science and for "innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development".
5. Following "socialism with Chinese characteristics" with "people as the masters of the country".
6. Governing China with the rule of law.
7. "Practise socialist core values", including Marxism-Leninism, Communism and "socialism with Chinese characteristics".
8. "Improving people's livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development".
9. Coexist well with nature with "energy conservation and environmental protection" policies and "contribute to global ecological safety".
10. Strengthen national security.
11. The Chinese Communist Party should have "absolute leadership over" China's People's Liberation Army.
12. Promoting the one country, two systems system for Hong Kong and Macau with a future of "complete national reunification"; and to follow the One-China policy and 1992 Consensus for Taiwan.
13. Establish a common destiny between Chinese people and other people around the world with a "peaceful international environment".
14. Improve party discipline in the Chinese Communist Party.

From a speech from Xi Jinping comes clear the attitude of these Marxists:

Scientific socialism is not an immutable dogma. I once said that China’s great social transformation is not a masterplate from which we simply continue our history and culture, nor a pattern from which we mechanically apply the ideas of classic Marxist authors, nor a reprint of the practice of socialism in other countries, nor a duplicate of modernization from abroad. There is no orthodox, immutable version of socialism. It is only by closely linking the basic principles of scientific socialism with a country’s specific realities, history, cultural traditions, and contemporary needs, and by continually conducting inquiries and reviews in the practice of socialism, that a blueprint can become a bright reality.

What works is used, basically. And there is no immutable version of socialism. Hence the totalitarian system evolves. And many non-democratic nations can indeed look to China for an example to copy.

Hence it's basically quite ignorant (and arrogant) to say that China isn't socialist. I think that these people, members of the CCP, genuinely believe that they are socialists and for some Westerners to refute that is simply Western hubris.

these people, members of the CCP, genuinely believe that they are socialists — ssu

And "anarcho-capitalists" genuinely believe that they are anarchists, but that doesn't make it so.

I don't really care about any west-vs-east rhetoric, but as it happens the people who coined the concept of socialism lived in the west, so if some people in the east decide to do things in a contrary way but still call it "socialism" then any conflict there is their doing, not that of anyone who sticks to the original definitions and just happens to live in the west.

Those policy points are very clearly and unapologetically authoritarian, which is not only completely contrary to the original (libertarian) socialism, but even contrary to the stated end-goal of Marxism, and is the reason why Marxism(-Leninism) consistently fails to actually achieve socialist ends:

You simply cannot have authority without hierarchy, or vice versa; nor conversely equality without liberty, or vice versa; so trying to force equality through authority (rather than just stopping authorities from propping up hierarchies) is doomed to fail, just like trying to abolish authority while allowing hierarchies to persist (as "anarcho-capitalists" do) is doomed, because hierarchies will inevitably create authorities and vice versa.

second hand electronics... Not sure how that's going to pan out over time. — Benkei

Completely off topic I know, but... The failure rate for electronic items is huge, well over 3%, sometimes as high as 15%. So buying new only gives you an 85-97% chance of a lasting device. Second hand (couple of years old) you've eliminated all those. All that's left in the market are the one's which were not factory duds. So yeah, you're taking a risk on ones which have acquired defects in the years they've been owned, but you're eliminating those which came off the factory floor with defects to start with. Second-hand is not necessarily a less robust option.

I've been surprised by how China and Russia have somewhat cold relations with one another. Although, they plan to go back to the moon soon for scientific reasons.

What's your take on the West judging whether China is really communist or not? Hilarious or just dumb?

Those policy points are very clearly and unapologetically authoritarian, which is not only completely contrary to the original (libertarian) socialism, but even contrary to the stated end-goal of Marxism, and is the reason why Marxism(-Leninism) consistently fails to actually achieve socialist ends: — Pfhorrest

Perfect.

What you just said is a prime example of this houlier than thou -attitude so plentiful with Western socialists when it comes to ideology. Western social democracy might not be authoritarian, yet a lot of socialism is de facto authoritarian. And Marxism hasn't been so keen on upholding libertarian values.

I've been surprised by how China and Russia have somewhat cold relations with one another. Although, they plan to go back to the moon soon for scientific reasons. — Shawn

Remember that even the Soviet Union and Communist China had a border conflict in 1969 after the Sino-Soviet Split, starting from things like Mao didn't like that Khrushchev denounced Stalin.

Tensions at the border:


And let's not forget that earlier Russia was one of those Western imperial powers that took chunks of Chinese held lands up until the Russo-Japanese war replaced them in Manchuria and still Russia does hold areas that have been Chinese territory during the Ming dynasty and still in the 19th Century. Those kind of issue do create tensions.



Especially American political commentators are keen on to look at the differences and difficulties that the two countries have, yet I think that their relations are quite OK. Neither of the countries, Russia or China, want to play second fiddle in an alliance, and why upset the US with an alliance? Hence no alliance between them.

What's your take on the West judging whether China is really communist or not? Hilarious or just dumb? — Shawn

We simply don't care what they actually think, if it's not what we think. We judge those that think else than us. And unfortunately, we are getting only worse.

Secondly, China being communist or not is a question like "Is US a free market capitalist country or not?", really. A current question especially after now the US government giving a record breaking handouts to it's citizens and large corporations: many could question the "free market" part, just as people question the "communist" part in China. Yet if people really believe that they are for free market capitalism or for Marxism, they take the ideology close to heart, who to judge them and say they are totally wrong, that they are not what they say they are?

Especially American political commentators are keen on to look at the differences and difficulties that the two countries have, yet I think that their relations are quite OK. Neither of the countries, Russia or China, want to play second fiddle in an alliance, and why upset the US with an alliance? Hence no alliance between them. — ssu

Not a lot heard about the two cooperating, indeed. Yet, I think, China has been having a cooling of relations with the US and is looking for closer relations with Russia to support trades between the two countries. I'm somewhat mistaken to think that they were both or maybe still are still both on the same political Overton window; but, well it may as well not be true.

It's strange between Russia and China. In a manner of speech the two can accomplish great tasks if they don't fight against closer relations.

You can't refute the idea that China isn't communist by saying they're socialist because these two things aren't the same. China is a mixed economy with both capitalist and socialist aspects and that is the factual reality, regardless of what anyone says. Workers in China are exploited by the factory owners, China has a class-based society with massive wealth inequality, China has billionaire business owners, the population buys from businesses what they need and so on. Party rhetoric should be considered propaganda, if you ignored it, there's no way you could come to the conclusion that the CCP is actually communist just by looking at the country they govern and their policies.

Not a lot heard about the two cooperating, indeed. — Shawn

Never heard of the BRIC countries?



Or that basically Soviet Union and Russia has been a major arms supplier for China, selling to China it's first aircraft carrier, for example. Only now has China had a wide variety of indigenous arms, yet there are a lot copied from Russian and Western counterparts. Only in the last decade has Chinese domestic military industrial complex come to such quality that imports from Russia have gone down:

And as the US is a mixed economy, one could argue also that it's not a free market capitalist economy. Or (ignoring the propaganda) and looking at the policies of the Biden administration. (As Biden surely would be in favour of free markets and capitalism, when asked about it.) To quote again Xi Jinping, there is no orthodox, immutable version of socialism. And it's obvious that they have had to make a change starting with Deng Xiaoping, or continue with the orthodox Maoism and the cultural revolution, which would have resulted in a similar or worse situation as North Korea.

There is theory and ideology and then there is reality. And Chinese economic growth, starting from a situation where the Chinese economy was smaller than the GDP of the Netherlands and then climbing to where it is, isn't a small feat. You can call whatever you want it: authoritarianism, fascism or capitalism, to make some point of a complex issue, yet that doesn't change China. What the people think there country is does matter, both with China or the US.

Simply put it: the socialism of the CCP does matter. You can see this in a variety of things. One example is how the Chinese billionaires have been crushed right from the start if they have said anything critical about China. China surely will not let independent oligarchs rule or influence politics in China.

You can call whatever you want it: authoritarianism, fascism or capitalism, to make some point of a complex issue, yet that doesn't change China — ssu

It is about correctly labelling China, nobody is trying to change them with labels. The CCP resembles something like Nazi Germany, an advanced capitalist economy with a totalitarian government. What did Deng Xiaoping do? He instituted limited capitalism, he opened his country up for foreign investment and he utilised the geopolitical situation to his advantage. China utilised Western capitalism and Western geopolitics to achieve its economic growth, it was not a result of whether they're democratic or authoritarian... unless we're talking geopolitics.

If the CCP acts like they're a communist government and calls themselves a communist government then there's no reason to dispute it. If they call themselves communist and their policies are the antithesis of communism, then calling them communist just means you got fooled, no? Just like when someone believed any of the thousands of lies Trump told, they were fooled by those lies. That's all this is, governments lie but we don't need to believe those lies, if we know they can't be true then we call a lie a lie and that's the correct thing to do.

Pay is either competitive or exploitative, factories are run to maximise output and the average worker has no voice. There is unequal pay, class divisions and wealth inequality. The CCP owns businesses but most of them are aimed at maximising profit just like any other business. Instead of the CCP relinquishing control, allowing the state to "die out", they're constantly finding new ways to expand their control and becoming increasingly totalitarian. The CCP runs a hypercompetitive, profit-driven economy and a totalitarian government that has total control over a politicised army, spies across the world and surveillance on its own people to stamp out any dissent.

Just like we don't call a country a democracy just because its in their name or because the ruling party claims they had fair elections. If you want to call the CCP communist, may as well call North Korea a democracy. What do you think the bare minimum should be for a country to demonstrate that it is in fact communist and not simply saying that for whatever propaganda purpose it may serve?

Never heard of the BRIC countries? — ssu

I did actually. But, it's interesting about the whole new world currency in plans by China.

Do you think it will happen?

It is about correctly labelling China, nobody is trying to change them with labels. The CCP resembles something like Nazi Germany, an advanced capitalist economy with a totalitarian government. — Judaka

Except with everything else? It was persuasively argued before that if anything the structure has become more authoritarian only.

China is not communist — Judaka

:up:

Yeah, it's just socialist.

The CCP resembles something like Nazi Germany, an advanced capitalist economy with a totalitarian government. — Judaka

It's typical that you say it resembles Nazi Germany, not that it grew out of something similar to Stalinist Soviet Union, which was close to heart for Mao. The Third Reich emerged from the Weimar Republic, which was capitalist. Modern day China emerged from Maoist China. For some peculiar reason Soviet Union or Marxism-Leninism or the authoritarianism of (Marxist) socialist regimes is all disappeared from the definitions of communism in the 21st Century. How neat.



And then again, the Chinese banged their head on the wall enough to understand that the ideologically pure Marxism-Leninism simply didn't work. Hence these authoritarians eased with the ideological central planning (which was a total disaster) and started to use parts of capitalism and Western investment to shorten the technological gap the West has enjoyed. And I remember those European intellectuals who were totally fascinated with the Cultural Revolution and in "their critique" of the West rejoiced the Revolution and Mao. Still have some books which praise the cultural revolution from the 1970's written by Westerners.

So how dare they!

Chinese banged their head on the wall enough to understand that the ideologically pure Marxism-Leninism simply didn't work. How dare they!

@ssu

True. Very important point. Deng Xiaoping was clever making this statement. I guess this is way China started creating a powerful method to be in the rule of the world. Other communist countries did not make this for example Cambodia or Cuba. They are isolated in a global world so this is why their socialism is failing.
China has a ferreous system. I guess they changed everything about what communism/socialism should looks like in the Marx eyes.

. Deng Xiaoping was clever making this statement. — javi2541997

Exactly.

And just look at the situation from Deng's point of view: When everybody understands what a disaster the Cultural Revolution was (and before that the Great Leap), what can you do as a communist? Saying "This didn't and doesn't work" and disbanding the CCP and perhaps (if before 1975) ask Chiang Kai-Shek come back? Out of the question. The transition to repair the economy and get economic growth going was done without the "Glasnost" and "Perestroika" that Gorbachev tried. And at least here Marx was correct: the economy is most important. Events on Tianamen Square in 1989 showed quite clearly what would happen if the CCP wouldn't get their act together. The Chinese couldn't , as the old Soviet joke went, simply close the curtains on the train and assume that it was going forward when the locomotive had broken down.

And the economic growth has kept the Chinese happy. Not those that had before democracy, the people of Hong Kong, but others. The CCP has successfully gotten the idea through that western type democracy would lead to the collapse of China and create a turmoil. In fact with Xi Jinping we can see that now the CCP is relaxing and thinking they have everything quite well under control and no need for the Western investors anymore. Good time to show what they are really like.

I think Xi Jinping is failing in some points because he is showing how evident China wants to control the world. Check out how they are already working in Africa or Latinoamerica. Also the amazing fact of how they ended up in Mars. So they are powerful but now is so evident and people is getting angry because of them. Another example could be covid-19. Everything of this chaos started in China but now they are quite again while the rest is suffering. Imagine trying to make a movement against China... I guess nobody actually can't. But this, somehow is making the people starts hating or rejecting them when it is literally impossible.
Back in the day we did not know so much about China and their issues. Somehow they were covert. Now we can know everything about them and the Hong Kong political conflict. I guess being in the target so much can affect negatively in the long run but we don't know because China is always making clever moments.
Yes, sadly for Russians, perestroika was a big fail. Nevertheless it is interesting how always they avoid "European market" or the Euro itself. They don't want be part of it. This shows how powerful Russia is despite the fall of socialism/communism in 1991. It is country we still have to consider as very important in the rule of the world.

Just for fun - with an edge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DH4v6FnbvM

I think Xi Jinping is failing in some points because he is showing how evident China wants to control the world. — javi2541997

It's still not so evident. The Belt and Road initiative might be compared to a "Marshall Plan", but China isn't building up an alliance to contain the US. A more logical reason for the "Belt and Road" initiative is to do something with the massive industrial base that has been created to build those hundreds of new cities in order to prevent a huge economy recession.

. Nevertheless it is interesting how always they avoid "European market" or the Euro itself. They don't want be part of it. This shows how powerful Russia is despite the fall of socialism/communism in 1991. — javi2541997

Or perhaps once you have been a Superpower, an ordinary "Great Power" status where you still would need to work with your peers as equals simply isn't the thing for you. Putin's Russia thinks it can be a Superpower still and Xi Jingping's China thinks it ought to be a Superpower.

I've always said that there was a brief window of opportunity when Russia could indeed have been open to join the West, but you would have needed larger than life politicians for that to happen. We hadn't them: we had only George Bush senior, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, average politicians.

(A fleeing moment in Russian history: The statue of Felix Dzerzinski, the founder of the Soviet secret police, comes down in front of the KGB headquarters as the Soviet Union collapses. Now the prior head of the successor organization of the KGB rules Russia as an autocrat.)

Can and will China promote communism once it becomes the leading economic superpower? — Shawn

Let's hope so...

I think far more successful will be the young Americans who so vehemently oppose to everything their country stands for.

Who better to promote communism than those never haven seen or experienced it. :cool: