Comradeship // Freechat

To many of us, socialism is simply the opposite of capitalism rather than its negation, therefore socialism must be the absence of the most hated features of capitalism in our experiences and opinions.

I have been thinking about this since I read it a couple hours ago. Brilliant insight, thank you for sharing.

To many of us, socialism is simply the opposite of capitalism rather than its negation, therefore socialism must be the absence of the most hated features of capitalism in our experiences and opinions. China doesn’t always live up to these expectations.

I would say a couple important components of this that are hard for some of us to grapple with at times (if only because of how complex it is to understand):

• The realities of socialist states operating in a global economy dominated by the capitalist mode and its imperial tendrils. Had socialist China developed in a world where socialist states were common, it might be they'd look a lot more socialist right now even on a surface level. But they instead had to develop under a kind of siege from global Red Scare violence and it was critical to develop their "productive forces" in order to be capable of meeting the moment. As far as I can tell, they effectively decided the way for them to do this was to couple themselves up intricately in the global economy and its capitalist mechanisms, while taking care to maintain collective control over the means of production and distribution at home.

• The nature of transition itself. If I understand right, China came from being largely feudalist prior to the revolution and from fighting off imperial Japan. It wasn't like they had highly developed capitalist, industrial forces already and for reasons unknown, decided to make them less restricted. They didn't have that kind of development yet, or at least, not at scale. So they essentially had to spend decades playing catch up with the world's biggest industrial powers to be able to stand up to them properly, much less do what they're doing now and surpass them. They could have tried to do this while also being as dogmatically "true socialist" as possible, but they needed rapid growth and were probably not going to get that from dogma.

And in spite of this, China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty and is a much more equitable and helpful government than anything western capitalist governments tend to provide. So even despite the limitations of the conditions, they're still something to look to as a good example.

It's sort of a funny thing in a way, seemingly contradictory. I think China may be the most successful example of applied marxist theory, or "scientific socialism", in spite of how they can look on the surface. When the conditions were more fitting for revolution and the dismantling of the old reactionary ways, they were led by Mao. When the conditions were more fitting for industrializing as fast as possible, they were led by Deng. Obviously it was not all neat and tidy along the way, and even internally there were splits on how to do things, but overall, what they appear to have done is faced down "contradictions" (in the dialectical meaning) on both a global and local scale.

And one way I think ultras can get tripped up is in viewing the struggle as primarily local and that if you make allowances for geopolitical scale contradictions, you're betraying the cause at the local level somehow. But it truly is about the global proletariat and liberating the local is sometimes inexplicably intertwined with the global as well. And in this way, China's Belt and Road, and other such forms of interdependence, are strides toward increasing the quality of life for thousands or millions beyond themselves, while also helping those places to extricate themselves from western imperialist exploitation and dependence.

I feel like in some sense, you could say they are working to build "dual power" on a global scale context, which might be a lot harder if not possible, if they were not so thoroughly coupled into global trade and production. And they are already so far into the transition, that one of the western empire's more clumsy attempts to punish the world and decouple (the tariff nonsense) has more helped secure China as an alternative to others than reaffirmed the bullying mob boss that is the western empire.

This turned into a huge post more so than I meant to lol, but I was kind of thinking things through as I wrote. I think anyone who doubts China as a force of "scientific socialism" should look at what they mean for some of the most exploited, not just what they mean for people in a sense of transitioning from developed capitalism to more developed socialism. And that goes back to what you originally said. It really comes down to looking at things in their proper context.

I think I want to point out that for every guerrilla movement not supported by china, there's probably two countries being lifted out of poverty and indentured servitude to thr imperialist powers.

Ive been reading wretched of the Earth lately and this quote on pg. 105 really struck me. "The Cold War must be ended, for it leads nowhere. The plans for nuclearizing the world must stop, and large-scale investments and technical aid must be given to underdeveloped regions. The fate of the world depends on the answer that is given to this question." Is this not exactly what China has done?

and will let their own people be used as cheap disposable labor 48+ hours a week making US toys.

This hasn't been happening for years, it's come to a point where factories have trouble finding workers and have to offer more and more incentives, and most people pick it up as a summer job to save some money. Of course, development is unequal and this is true across generations too; there are people in China who have been factory workers all of their adult life (and maybe even their teenage life), but this is rarely the case with the newer generations.

Retirement age for them is something like 55 for women and 58 for men.

In general it's safe to say China plays the long game. It's not unique to the CPC; even imperial dynasties planned ahead like that. Deng, Xi etc plan ahead for centuries after their death. We can see that with Hong Kong for example, the lease was 100 years. After 100 years (and the fall of the original government that signed the lease) , China came knocking and said time's up, give it back now. They understand that there are short(ish) terms sacrifices to make for long term prosperity.

When considering the difference between how Ultras see things and we do; I think it comes down to something extremely simple. A question.

What is the goal of the socialist movement?

For some reason a lot of people, in the west especially, get very intellectual about this. They think the goal should be strict adherance to a political philosphy. To the teachings and writings of whatever hodgeposh of socialist thinkers they've put together as "the good ones".

When any "real" socialist- that is a socialist actually furthering the cause of socialism/participating in an active communist party -will probably tell you its something along the lines of improving the lives of the greatest number of people by preventing their oppression and exploitation. Its to unite the working class and use that solidarity to push for our own best interests.

So when China does very pragmatic things in order to do the 2nd thing, and protect themselves for the long term it enrages the people who think the first way. They've spent all this time studying theory and learning its ins, and outs. Mostly because their own country is devoid of a real party apparatus to put them to work, and they end up doing that as an outlet for their frustrations instead.

"How dare China come out here, and be super successful while not doing things the way they're supposed to. It can't be "real socialism" because it doesn't look like what i pictured in my head."

That's basically the mindset i think they are stuck in.

It is a very human thing to do. To latch on to something specific and get upset when things don't work out how you wanted exactly. People just need to get over it.

The Chinese are trailblazing for socialism in an era with new technologies no other socialist figures of the past knew about, and with new geopolitical situations nobody 50 years ago could have imagined. They have no choice, but to just make it up as they go. To be pragmatic, and cautious, and do the best they can. Because the stakes are quite literally humanities future.

If China fails there is a pretty good chance we just go extinct sometime in the next few centuries. Even if we don't life won't be good for most people. The entire species fate is literally riding on the Chinese's shoulders. Luckily everything I've seen suggests that the people running the CPC are some of the greatest tactical minds in history.

This is a very reasonable take.

Even for them, China is offering progress

Thanks for this. I wonder why they left 1 bank to not be state owned

The nice part is that despite Huawei being a private company, it is a cooperative. An ESOP, to be more exact.