It is truly a shame that he has the best audiobooks available. No text to speech, good voice, good mic. Apparently insanely difficult to achieve these three things considering that no other comrade is capable of it lmao.
He even adds little bits of information to put the text into context (like democratic socialists being cool way back then, but basically libs now etc.)
Thanks! However, mic quality just isn’t that great imo and i personally like deeper male voices more for my audiobooks, but that’s just personal preference.
I had tried listening to their audiobooks of anna louise strong, but i honestly found it somewhat grating for me :(
It’s for sure the next best after S4A and likely has better politics as well.
They are also the co-creator of Lemmy.
Ah yeah now I remember! They did a pretty good job dare i say.
Folks like these tend to be too reactionary to be truly revolutionary.
China isn’t socialist anymore, vro. 🥀 It’s objectively and clearly a capitalist state and has been since Deng took over. S4A is correct. Let’s, for example, look at this.
China has markets, while maintaining public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy and working class control of the state. Per Mao, the principal aspect of something, what is rising and dominant within it, is its nature. From Mao’s On Contradiction:
As we have said, one must not treat all the contradictions in a process as being equal but must distinguish between the principal and the secondary contradictions, and pay special attention to grasping the principal one. But, in any given contradiction, whether principal or secondary, should the two contradictory aspects be treated as equal? Again, no. In any contradiction the development of the contradictory aspects is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however only temporary and relative, while unevenness is basic. Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is the one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect which has gained the dominant position.
China is socialist. What Xi Jinping is saying here is that at the present moment markets are a useful tool, as China develops markets will gradually centralize and lose effectiveness, giving way to the planned sector. Their officials call it a socialist market economy, because that’s what best describes it. Here’s Xi Jinping, in 2013:
First of all: Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other “ism.” The guiding principles of scientific socialism thus cannot be abandoned. Our Party has always emphasized adherence to the basic principles of scientific socialism, but adapted to the particular conditions of China. This means that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not some other doctrine.
…
In recent years commentators both at home and abroad have questioned whether the road pursued by China is truly socialist. Some have called our road “Social Capitalism,” others “State Capitalism,” and yet others “Technocratic Capitalism.” These are all completely wrong. We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, by which we mean that despite reform we adhere to the socialist road — our road, our theory, our system, and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress. This includes building a socialist market economy; socialist democratic politics; advanced socialist culture; socialist civil harmony and ecology; all-around human development; the gradual realization of common prosperity for all people; a rich, strong, democratic and harmonious socialist modern state under the leadership of the CPC with economic construction as the center; adhering to the Four Cardinal Principles; insisting on Reform and Opening Up; and the liberation and development of the productive forces. It includes adhering to the system of People’s Congresses; the system of multi-party cooperation under the leadership of the CPC; the systems of national autonomy at the regional level and mass autonomy at the grassroots level; the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics; and the basic economic system in which public ownership is the mainstay and a variety of auxiliary ownership systems develop alongside. These goals embody the basic principles of scientific socialism under our current historical conditions. Adherence to the socialist road demands that we fulfill them.
Capitalism is not markets, but it is also not determined by simple ratio of private property to public, nor is a system with X% private and Y% public X% capitalist and Y% socialist. Dialectics rejects these frames of analysis as metaphysics. What matters is what is principle, what is rising and dominating the economy. In the PRC, the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned.
The private sector in China is about half sole proprietorships and cooperatives, and the rest small and medium firms. Despite making up a sizable portion of GDP, these do not control the economy, nor direct its trajectory. The basis of communist production is in large industry, not just collectivizing even the small firms before markets have centralized them. This does not mean it is necessary for private property to exist to develop socialized production, the DPRK is a good example of this (though they have special economic zones like Rason). However, it does mean that by maintaining public ownership of the large firms and key industries, socialism can be maintained. China’s socialism is the socialism suited for China.
The problem with looking at simple ratio, is that this makes no analysis of how power is distributed, what tendencies are rising and which are dying away. This views production and distribution not as something that changes in identity as time moves forward, but instead as a substance in flux. In this way, it is metaphysical. When accurately contextualizing the relationship between public and private in China, it is the public sector that holds all of the power, that absorbs the private over time as the private grows and develops. Dialectically, China exists in the transitional state between capitalism and communism that we call socialism.
Harkening back to Cheng Enfu’s diagram, they are in the developing and intermediate stages of socialism. They are not advanced in socialism, and likely will not be for a while. Their progress is thanks to socialism, however, built by Mao Zedong and the CPC, carried to today and interated upon as new conditions arise and new contradictions form.
Firstly i want to thank you for giving such a detailed breakdown. I’m embarrassed I wasn’t able to give one.
Secondly, Im always struck by how surprisingly articulate Xi is when his full quotes are given. I think he’s less passionate than Mao or Jiang (not that thats a bad thing, just that in the western media hes not given as much airtime), but hes certainly a good logician and communicator. I need to read governance of China again
No worries! And yep, Xi Jinping is very articulate. I liked reading how people felt about him as a bit bland, but extremely driven:
Women thought Xi was boring and yet he’s married to a superstar. What did they mean by this?
Honestly no clue, haha. Might be his quiet and firm personality being seen as boring at first glance?
It is likely that Xi could, however, be “corrupted by power.”
What did the professor mean by that? Xi Jinping seems pretty clean for a politician to me.
Pretty sure that’s an internal assessment, not the professor saying that.
Thank you for doing such a detailed breakdown on it. This is the kind of post I wanted to link but couldn’t find in my bookmarks (I’m sure there have been similar posts in the past, but was not finding them). I’m bookmarking this one for the future.
Glad you enjoyed it! If you like that comment, you might want to read this exchange, where the other party had a far more developed analysis than “China imperialist.” Still something I disagree with, but by being a more developed opinion it had more to engage with and reveal more.
Dialectically, China exists in the transitional state between capitalism and communism that we call socialism.
In the primary stage of socialism - officially. Most critiques of the PRC from the left, particularly from Maoists hinge on the idea that China could be much further down the socialist pipeline than they are right now given that they are a middle income economy with comparatively advanced productive forces. Historically, higher stages of socialism were achieved in the Soviet Union than China has in a considerably less amount of time. Of course, you couldn’t directly compare the material conditions of Czechoslovakia to a country as large and diverse as China.
The existence of markets and a nascent capitalist class in the base eventually led to the collapse of the largest socialist project to-date, the Soviet Union.
The existence of markets and a nascent capitalist class in the base eventually led to the collapse of the largest socialist project to-date, the Soviet Union.
This is not accurate and it is not a very helpful explanation on why the USSR collapsed for anyone interested. A better explanation is to study the Perestroika and Glasnost reform that severely weakened the USSR state and allowed liberalism to blend in. Great analysis quoted in Lemmygrad cover this and more:
- https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7854832
- https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9381921
- https://lemmygrad.ml/post/11001050
It is important to correctly identify what happened. Otherwise, we will have a misleading interpretation that could lead us to mistakes even in our agitation.
It’s best to think of the CPC’s decision to go at the pace they have as a decision with tradeoffs. While they could have a larger share of public ownership, they would be giving up their advantageous position as one of the most important countries in global trade, a position that has helped them facilitate south-south trade and undermine imperialism. Importantly, the soviet union’s reforms fractured the system and weakened state power, while the PRC’s did not. The PRC maintained full state control of the large firms and key industries, and did not undermine CPC power.
In other words, the soviet union’s house burned down because they did not adequately fireproof their housing, as they did not think it necessary while running on electric power. The PRC on the other hand used gas heating and electric power, and fireproofed their house as they saw what happened to the soviet union.
since Deng took over
Are you gonna be one anti-Mao too after reading that?
Nah, Mao is a magical superman to these people, completely morally perfect and pure and any quotes or evidence of him being just a regular person is actually just “propaganda” put forth by the evil devil Deng who ruined China for ever and turned it capitalist, but secretly, so that only brilliant western brains can figure it out while all of China was brainwashed by him.
Where did you get this citation?
It’s from the Selected works of Mao Tsetung: THE IDENTITY OF INTERESTS BETWEEN THE SOVIET UNION AND ALL MANKIND
Thank you
No problem.
The difference is that the Soviet Union actually did help Chinese communists and the Spanish partisans. What form of material help has China provided the Palestinian resistance? Zilch.
You didn’t even read the quote you posted, did you? “(…) the reason being that it actually is helping China”
This is a legitimate, very material critique of the Chinese project and cannot be handwaved away. It is disingenuous to do so.
China has affirmed that Palestinians must control Palestine in their own state, and served as a vital mediator for the 2024 Beijing Declaration, where Fatah and Hamas were brought closer together and the resistance as a whole in Palestine came together to collaborate more closely, alongside China. In the 2024 Beijing Declaration, which China was a core mediator for, it was declared that the resistance must not be disarmed.
China is contributing to a multi-polar world, which undermines Israel and supports Palestine. China’s position in the global stage facilitates south-south trade, which bypasses unequal exchange, where the global north maintains monopolies on high tech industries so as to consistently charge monopoly prices in exchange with the global south. China charges non-monopoly prices, and this is why exchange with China, alongside the rise of the Belt and Road Initiative, has resulted in dramatic development in African and Latin American countries. This is ultimately the single greatest contributor to the downfall of imperialism globally, and is why right now there is such a large cold war with China.
In facilitating south-south trade and undermining the US Empire’s hegemony, the PRC is undermining Israel as a settler-colony. It also served as a vital supporter of Palestinian statehood, and is an ally to the resistance and mediator between their factions.
You’re talking about China being a mediator for different resistance groups within Palestine. That’s not significant material help. That’s almost nothing. Many countries mediate discussions between different political entities. This is not new, and this is not a service Palestinians could not have rendered from elsewhere.
Real material support would be Iran, who bombed Tel Aviv. It would be Houthis, who were the only ones who blockaded Israel in accordance with international law. Hezbollah helped my sending missiles to Isntreal. Even fucking Qatar sent, for many years, financial support for Hamas. That’s help - real, material help. This, China has not provided in any meaningful way.
I don’t know why you wrote your grand theory about how China is going destroy the United States and destroy imperialism and destroy unequal exchange and destroy US hegemony. Regardless of if that is true, or if that is going to happen, the larger narrative that the BRI has anything to do with Palestinian liberation is just wishful thinking. You do not help burn victims by selling fireproof bricks. You need bandages and medication, and you need it right now. You might help future, hypothetical burn victims by making fireproof bricks, but that doesn’t help burn victims now.
I don’t know what you’re trying to prove, but the fact that China hasn’t helped Palestine as much as a country of its size and influence could have is rather evident. If the Soviet Union still existed, the Zionazis couldn’t have been so blatant in its genocide, never in a million years. This is a legitimate critique of the Socialist project in China.
is an ally to the resistance and mediator between their factions
China is not an ally to the Palestinian people. Allies send weapons and money. Allies fight on your behalf. At the very least allies do not trade with your opponents. China doesn’t do any of these. The most China has ever come to being an ally to Palestine was affirming Palestinian statehood. But most countries on Earth have that position, including liberal democratic regimes. That is not a very controversial position to have for a country. Have they called for the dismantling of Israel? Have they affirmed their support for the one state solution? No they haven’t. Quit pretending. China helps the bare minimum it feels like it has to. It hedges its bets so that it can come winning no matter the outcome, even at the detriment of Palestinian resistance.
Just remember, Qatar, an Arab monarchy, and a US puppet, even they did so much more to help Palestinians than China ever did.
The soviet union, for all its merits, no longer exists, and Israel was still genocidal during its existence. Further, the idea that simple mediation is all the PRC does is blindness. Israel exists because of US support, and undermining US imperialism undermines Israel’s basis for existence. Further still, the PRC has been providing support behind the scenes, from intel in Iran to Hamas using many Chinese-made weaponry. As China becomes more self-reliant, it will be able to be more proactive in the internationalist struggle, but it is not that day.
and undermining US imperialism undermines Israel’s basis for existence
You know what would really undermine Israel’s basis for existence? Funding Hamas. Which China doesn’t do.
to Hamas using many Chinese-made weaponry
Are you kidding me? This is the same as saying that Osama Bin Laden was helped by the USSR because the Mujahideen used AKs. Chinese guns are cheap, so they buy it, with their own money, from people that have bought them. China does not supply arms to Palestinian resistance.
Israel was still genocidal during its existence
The Soviet Union and various entities within the Soviet bloc provided real material help to Palestinian resistance. This that can be counted and measured. Not thoughts and prayers. They did so much as hijack planes to demand the release of Palestinian prisoners
You’re continuing to undermine the significance of the Beijing Declaration, where Fatah and Hamas were brought closer together, and understating the significance of China’s sale of weaponry to Hamas and restrictions on rare Earths and vital components for weaponry to Israel and the US Empire. I am not washing aside the soviet union’s valiant efforts, but at the same time it could only do so thanks to its independence and self-sufficiency, which the PRC does not have yet. It’s no coincidence that self-reliance is a big part of the 15th Five Year Plan, which gives the PRC far more room to act on the international stage.
I too wish China was doing more, but I’m not going to pretend that they are doing nothing. Nor am I going to pretend that undermining imperialism has no connection to Palestinian liberation.
deleted by creator
This is a legitimate, very material critique of the Chinese project and cannot be handwaved away. It is disingenuous to do so.
It’s also not the critique that was made by the person I replied to.
I am refuting your meme independently. What you posted insinuates that what the Soviet Union did is equivalent to what China is doing now. Regardless of who you were replying to, my point stands. Mao would indeed be rolling in his grave if he saw what China was doing today on Palestine. Mao’s China would have supported Palestine in a much more substantial, material way, and indeed they did.
The People’s Republic of China must not be uncritically supported. The critical in critical support means something. Their (and everyone else’s for that matter) trade and profiting off of Palestinian misery must be condemned. Trading with an apartheid state is immoral and unethical.
Joined 13 hours ago, 1 comment, and it’s ultra-left shlock that conflates trade with capitalism. Come on.
Why do you think you know China better than the billion+ people who live there?
“Ultra-left schlock” So trading with the genocidal rape colony is acceptable for you?
“Why do you think you know China better than the billion+ people who live there?” Completely irrelevant. Come up with an actual argument, plus there are a lot of Chinese people who don’t like China, and it’s not just liberals.
China is objectively revisionist. You aren’t gonna change that with your cope arguments.
“Why do you think you know China better than the billion+ people who live there?” Completely irrelevant.
No, it’s very relevant, actually. If you have no humility about the subject and think you can effortlessly judge China from the comfort of an ivory tower based on one of its trading partners being israel, it’s going to be hard to have a reasonable discussion about it.
there are a lot of Chinese people who don’t like China
Self-hating racists then? You forgot to say the line “the Chinese government”. Or do you mean to sound racist? Please clarify.
There’s no racism here, bruh. 💀 https://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI-Maoist-Docs/Books/China-Social-Imperialism-CPI-Maoist-2021-Eng-view.pdf
Linking a Maoist document in a Marxist-Leninist community isn’t really an effective way to engage. The only way to get someone to read something that long is by first getting them to somewhat agree with you, unless you depend on having highly dedicated debate opponents.
To be clear, I disagree with you and the doc, my purpose here is more to encourage you to rethink your position and method.
That party tends to repeat US state dept talking points, truely an example of the vanguard.
That was not the kind of clarification I meant. Anyone can say they’re not racist. Did you mean China or the CPC?
Stalin traded with Japan and I don’t you see you calling him revisionist
The USSR even traded with the Third Reich before Barbarossa.
Ah yes, “socialism is when no markets.”
The readings will continue until the theory improves.
China is everyone’s 1st/2nd/3rd largest trading partner.
The bait used to be believable
One question, are you thermonuclear ?
Hell, they even trade with the United States
Edit: guess people didn’t appreciate the spirit of my joke but w/e. Here, I forgot this: /s
