Nobody said they achieved Communism, just that they are authentically working towards it through Socialism.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism-Leninism applied to the PRC’s present productive forces and material conditions. They have not reached Communism, but they are firmly on their way to full socialization of the economy. The only way you could think they have abandoned Communism as a goal is if you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and therefore have never studied Historical Materialism.
The reason it’s painfully obvious that you haven’t studied Historical Materialism is because you clearly believe Communism is something that develops through decree, not degree, that the goal of Communism is to immediately socialize all production. This is absurd, and Utopian. Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning. If the productive forces aren’t ready, then Communism can’t be achieved without struggles.
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
What happened in China, is that Mao tried to jump to Communism before the productive forces had naturally socialized themselves, which led to unstable growth and recessions. Deng stepped in and created a Socialist Market Economy by luring in foreign Capital, which both smoothed economic growth and eliminated recessions. This was not an abandonment of Communism, but a return to Marxism from Ultraleft Maoism.
Today, China has over 50% of the economy in the public sector. About a 10th of the economy is in the cooperative sector, and the rest is private. The majority of the economy is centrally planned and publicly owned! Do you call the US Socialist because of the Post Office? Absurd.
Moreover, the private sector is centrally planned in a birdcage model, Capital runs by the CPC’s rules. As the markets give way to said monopolist syndicates, the CPC increases control and ownership, folding them into the public sector. This is how Marx envisioned Communism to be established in the first place! Via a DotP, and by degree, not decree! The role of the DotP is to wrest Capital as it socializes and centrally plan it, not to establish Communism through fiat.
I didnt say they werent working towards it tho. i said they arent communist and i listed obvious examples they are not distributing power and money equally nor horizontally
They are led by Communists that are working towards Communism along Marxist lines. What do you mean when you say they aren’t Communist? That they haven’t achieved upper-stage Communism?
Not the commenter but tbh some see it as a continuation of Lenin’s ideology which broke away from Marxist lines
Lenin started something like a reactionary coup of the concept, forming into a fundamental shift. Sure it can be explained by the situation if one wants to have justification for it
While Lenin claimed to apply Marxism, he introduced significant changes to diverge from Marx’s vision.
Lenin didn’t break away from Marxism, he returned the broader Communist international to Marxism from opportunism and revisionism, and then applied Marxist analysis to his present conditions.
Not communist obviously, since there’s still very much a state and class division. But socialist because the state primarily serves the workers, with the stated goal of striving towards communism.
Now whether it’ll stay that way or not, we’ll see. Deng’s reforms have given liberals too much power after all; there seems to be an active class war happening in the Chinese state.
I find it’s useful to select more descriptive terms than use the literal dozens of varying definitions of ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. The terms by themselves can be so vague that I can truthfully state this - “communism is the goal of communism!” A communist society, for example, is different from a communist party or a communist state (aka. Marxist–Leninist state), which are only parts of the communist movement and the communist school of thought. Obviously no-one looks at the PRC and sees a stateless, classless society, but that’s an understandable (albeit condescending) interpretation of when people say “China is communist”.
(Pinging @xnx@slrpnk.net as I’m also replying to their comment)
Workers own the means of production through the state, it’s on its way to communism in a step later described as socialism after Marx and Engels deaths.
Not even after their deaths, Marx already acknowledged dictatorship of the proletariat as the practical way after first proletarian revolution, Paris Commune experiences.
Neither are correct. Your phrase is correct, but that specifically refers to post-scarcity, Upper-Stage Communism, not Communism itself. Communism is essentially a global, fully socialized republic devoid of private property, after classes have been abolished and Capital finally fully wrested and incorporated into the public sector.
The “needs” of Upper-Stage Communism are also wants. It largely doesn’t matter, Marx wasn’t a Utopian, he didn’t advocate for Socialism out of any moral reason, but by analyzing where Capitalism was developing.
The workers dont own the means of production. Its not communism
Nobody said they achieved Communism, just that they are authentically working towards it through Socialism.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism-Leninism applied to the PRC’s present productive forces and material conditions. They have not reached Communism, but they are firmly on their way to full socialization of the economy. The only way you could think they have abandoned Communism as a goal is if you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and therefore have never studied Historical Materialism.
The reason it’s painfully obvious that you haven’t studied Historical Materialism is because you clearly believe Communism is something that develops through decree, not degree, that the goal of Communism is to immediately socialize all production. This is absurd, and Utopian. Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning. If the productive forces aren’t ready, then Communism can’t be achieved without struggles.
In Question 17 of The Principles of Communism, Engels makes this clear:
What happened in China, is that Mao tried to jump to Communism before the productive forces had naturally socialized themselves, which led to unstable growth and recessions. Deng stepped in and created a Socialist Market Economy by luring in foreign Capital, which both smoothed economic growth and eliminated recessions. This was not an abandonment of Communism, but a return to Marxism from Ultraleft Maoism.
Today, China has over 50% of the economy in the public sector. About a 10th of the economy is in the cooperative sector, and the rest is private. The majority of the economy is centrally planned and publicly owned! Do you call the US Socialist because of the Post Office? Absurd.
Moreover, the private sector is centrally planned in a birdcage model, Capital runs by the CPC’s rules. As the markets give way to said monopolist syndicates, the CPC increases control and ownership, folding them into the public sector. This is how Marx envisioned Communism to be established in the first place! Via a DotP, and by degree, not decree! The role of the DotP is to wrest Capital as it socializes and centrally plan it, not to establish Communism through fiat.
Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism, and read Marx himself before you act like an authority without even understanding Historical Materialism.
I didnt say they werent working towards it tho. i said they arent communist and i listed obvious examples they are not distributing power and money equally nor horizontally
They are led by Communists that are working towards Communism along Marxist lines. What do you mean when you say they aren’t Communist? That they haven’t achieved upper-stage Communism?
Not the commenter but tbh some see it as a continuation of Lenin’s ideology which broke away from Marxist lines
Lenin started something like a reactionary coup of the concept, forming into a fundamental shift. Sure it can be explained by the situation if one wants to have justification for it
While Lenin claimed to apply Marxism, he introduced significant changes to diverge from Marx’s vision.
Lenin didn’t break away from Marxism, he returned the broader Communist international to Marxism from opportunism and revisionism, and then applied Marxist analysis to his present conditions.
Not communist obviously, since there’s still very much a state and class division. But socialist because the state primarily serves the workers, with the stated goal of striving towards communism.
Now whether it’ll stay that way or not, we’ll see. Deng’s reforms have given liberals too much power after all; there seems to be an active class war happening in the Chinese state.
I find it’s useful to select more descriptive terms than use the literal dozens of varying definitions of ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. The terms by themselves can be so vague that I can truthfully state this - “communism is the goal of communism!” A communist society, for example, is different from a communist party or a communist state (aka. Marxist–Leninist state), which are only parts of the communist movement and the communist school of thought. Obviously no-one looks at the PRC and sees a stateless, classless society, but that’s an understandable (albeit condescending) interpretation of when people say “China is communist”.
(Pinging @xnx@slrpnk.net as I’m also replying to their comment)
Workers own the means of production through the state, it’s on its way to communism in a step later described as socialism after Marx and Engels deaths.
Not even after their deaths, Marx already acknowledged dictatorship of the proletariat as the practical way after first proletarian revolution, Paris Commune experiences.
Wrong, and it’s clear you read none of the links above. Especially this one: https://archive.ph/DwD1n
And when was a requirement for communism?
A stateless, classless, moneyless society. How can a class own something then?
Absolute nonsense.
Communism is from each according to their ability, to each according to their want.
And it’s a centuries long process.
I thought it was “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”?
Wants and needs are often conflated but the outcomes of each phase would likely look incredibly different.
Neither are correct. Your phrase is correct, but that specifically refers to post-scarcity, Upper-Stage Communism, not Communism itself. Communism is essentially a global, fully socialized republic devoid of private property, after classes have been abolished and Capital finally fully wrested and incorporated into the public sector.
The “needs” of Upper-Stage Communism are also wants. It largely doesn’t matter, Marx wasn’t a Utopian, he didn’t advocate for Socialism out of any moral reason, but by analyzing where Capitalism was developing.