• spectre [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 years ago

            The argument is that capital is completely subservient to the party, rather than the other way around. I think it’s partially true, and enough to keep China in the socialism family, but they’re on watch. If they can make good on their promise to turn back toward a socialist mode of production in a decade or two, then great, if no, then they are what they are, and socialist countries/movements will need to carry on without them (or in direct opposition to them, which they should be doing anyway tbh)

            • Sarcasm24 [none/use name]@hexbear.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 years ago

              If capital were completely subservient to the party and the party were actually trying to do communism, they wouldn’t have billionaires and they wouldn’t be doing imperialism. I get what you’re saying and I think it might be true, but it’s feels a bit like jumping through hoops to justify capitalist exploitation instead of just admitting that that’s what they’re doing

              • spectre [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 years ago

                They are absolutely doing capitalist exploitaition. It’s more a question of “is it worth it?” and “will they stop?”. They have billionaires as a result of their liberalism, yes, but at least their billionaires can get prison sentences or death sentences for their crimes. Compare that to the US where billionaires have near-impunity.

                I wouldn’t call Chinese foreign policy “imperialistic” myself, you can see what a western liberal who directly worked with Chinese diplomats has to say about the issue, if you’d like. I would consider them to go to far in a non-interventionist direction, personally. They don’t seem to have very much concern for international socialist movements, which makes them bad comrades (though we are also discussing whether they are comrades at all). I am posting in parallel, but to add to my other post in this thread, the CCP is not homogeneous either. It’s very opaque, so it’s difficult to get a fix on how things work, but there are both neo-Maoists and liberals inside the party (among others).

      • CyborgMarx [any, any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 years ago

        They disagree with your lots manipulative usage of that statement, China is good despite being capitalist just like voting for capitalist Bernie was good. You morons think your arguing with Stalinist but you’re so goddamn imperialistic you don’t realize your arguing with your fellow Keynesians

  • ComradeRat [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 years ago

    Yes. Anyone saying that the economy of China is not capitalist is wrong. What tankies say about China is that the CCP is a ML institution, and is in control of the capitalists. The goal being to build enough productive forces to overcome the US.