China and Statism
- This topic has 67 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 6 hours, 13 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
And I have already told you, Grandpa, that we already exposed Bolshevism in 1918. But obviously you are just gliding by our postings in order to repeat the same old things.
“As Marx wrote, capital comes into the world “dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” More than societies who abandoned capitalism put into mass graves?
Grandpa, Far from abandoning capitalism, the Bolsheviks explicitly embraced it
“Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If, in a small space of time, we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory.”
Vladimir Lenin, addressing the Central Executive Committee, April 29th 1918“State capitalism would be our salvation. If we had it in Russia, the transition to full socialism would be easy, would be within our grasp, because state capitalism is something centralised, calculated, controlled and socialised, and that is exactly what we lack.”
Vladimir Lenin, addressing the Central Executive Committee, April 29th 1918
“Evolution in the direction of state capitalism, there you have the evil, the enemy, which we are invited to combat.
When I read these references to such enemies in the newspaper of the Left Communists, I ask: what has happened to these people that fragments of book-learning can make them forget reality? Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in Russia, that would be a victory.
How is it that they cannot see that it is the petty proprietor, small capital, that is our enemy? How can they regard state capitalism as the chief enemy? They ought not to forget that in the transition from capitalism to socialism our chief enemy is the petty bourgeoisie, its habits and customs, its economic position. The petty proprietor fears state capitalism above all, because he has only one desire—to grab, to get as much as possible for himself, to ruin and smash the big landowners, the big exploiters. In this the petty proprietor eagerly supports us”
REPORT ON THE IMMEDIATE TASKS OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT TO THE SESSION OF THE ALL- RUSSIA C.E.C
APRIL 29, 1918“While the revolution in Germany is still slow in coming forth, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it.”
— Lenin, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government (1918)Lenin on state capitalism
Before the russian revolution, we also debunked Lenin and Leninism, his major works like What Is to Be Done? State and the Revolution, Imperialism: The Higher Stage of Capitalism, and the colonial and national question were also debunked by the socialist party
Yes, I do read your posts. I smile at the terminology of words such as ‘reactionary, peasants’ and ‘bourgeoisie’, it’s 2026 people, not 1894. I think the last time someone called me ‘comrade’ was back in the 70s. You’re trying to rewrite history and adapt it to the modern era. It’s why it sounds so weird, not just to me, but to the millions of workers you aren’t convincing either. I don’t lecture, I just focus on reality.
Some of my recent favourites:
“Mao wasn’t a communist.” That one had me in stitches.
“You talk to any of those so-called anti-communist exiles from the Cold War period, and they do not have a clue of what socialism really is …” You mean people like Bukovsky who spent years in a Gulag for criticising a country that abandoned capitalism?
“Socialism/communism, as we have said several times in this forum, would be a society without a state and without a leader, and without government.” A bit like Somalia in the 90s? The Spanish anarchists already tried that. In any group of people a leader will emerge, it’s human nature and usually of the type
You’re telling me what Marxism should look like in theory. I’m telling you what happens when countries abandon capitalism. So who should I believe? Classical Marxism? Leninist and state socialism? Critical Marxists, Anarchism, Libertarian and autonomous Marxism? Everyone of them says they’re right.
You’re flogging a dead horse. The workers aren’t interested. They’re interested in how much they’ll get in their wage packets next week, not dreaming of some fantasy of moneyless societies and no government. How many will be listening to the budget and hoping they get something out of it?
Yes, I laughed as well watching them sitting there wisely nodding their heads and pretending half of them aren’t dipping their fingers in the till, but can you imagine what a leaderless country would look like with an executive committee or whatever they’d call themselves? Explain the difference between a leader and manager.
Grandpa has stated “In any group of people a leader will emerge, it’s human nature”
This is a very absolutist statement. There is no equivocation, “any group of people” However, as just as one example, the SPGB has been in existence since 1904, in that period of 126 years there have been several thousands of people who have been members of the SPGB and their companion Parties. They definitely meet Grandpa’s criteria of being part of any group of people. Yet in all that time, with all of those people no leader has emerged. So it is unarguable that Grandpa’s statement is incorrect. I could give many, many other examples of groups where leaders don’t emerge.
This may seem a trivial point, but it is extremely indicative of Grandpa’s style of constructing argument. Take an opinion, attempt to dress it up with a fact, and then, despite all of the evidence that proves the opinion is false, use it as a foundation for more opinions dressed up as facts.
I would describe Grandpa style as being sophistry, but I think the original sophists would turn in their collective graves if such a poor example as Grandpa was included in their practice.
I would like to call it the sniper tactic a term used by several groups in Argentina describing false argumenter like grandpa
You are pretending to be a modernist but you are not, you are supporting a 300 years economic system that is obsolete and it is in decline and it is holding itself thru gangsterism and it is based in archaic economics law which are not applicable to reality
During the 2008 crisis bourgeois economists were forced to grab Marx capital because they did not know the root and the cause of the crisis but for years we were saying that over production produces cyclical crisis, therefore their economic laws are archaic and banks do not add any real value and Marx volume 3 explained the cause of the crisis, as dunayeskaya wrote. Marx volume 3 was written for our epoch it shows how capitalism operates within its own logic and capital is one of the enemies of the capitalist class
The terms that you have mentioned they are widely used more now than before, capitalists do not use because them because they want to hide class division and class struggle and to alienate workers on nationalism and patriotism for their own wars they need the support of the working class
They are used in different languages and French newspapers continued using the term bourgeoise in the USA where class struggle is under the carpet they use the term oligarchy which is the same even more Joe Biden used it and he discovered the wheel because the USA has been governed by a oligarchy for 250 years since 1776
The term peasant is widely used in Latin America such as campesinos jibaro and guajiros and all newspapers used the term, the peasants call themselves peasants and there are communes and workers integrated by peasants and they are the ones placing leaders in power and there many communes of peasants who do not have any leaders they manage among themselves which debunk your concept of leadership they do not need leaders and they produce for themselves like the zapatistas and others groups in Bolivia and the government is weaker now because of their resistance
You can not see and understand that Mao was not a communist because you do not have the appropriate definition of socialism, you are using the capitalist term. I read Mao works and there is not socialism on his writing even more stalinists like enver hoxha rejected him, he called him the modern Confucius and a bourgeois idealist Stalin did know the definition of socialism much better than Mao and TrotskyYou said that Mao took power by a coup and that is wrong the Chinese revolution was more popular than the bolsheviks . ( 3% only ) Most peasants supported that revolution and they placed Mao in power like the French peasants placed the jacobin in power both were bourgeoise revolutions like the Russian of 1917 was the continuation of the 1905 bourgeois revolution, those revolutions are archaic. Plehanov described it pretty well
In the USA they use the term middle class which is an archaic term applicable to peasants and artisans in England and they became proletariats or wage slaves and they lost everything, the term is distracting because it separates the whole working class from other members of the workings class, it is just an illusion and it was proven in 2008 that they were proletariats or wage slaves An intellectual is a wage slaves too
Even more, Vladimir Lenin was not a communist either; he was an apologist for state capitalism, and without Leninism and without the soviet union and its offspring socialism/comunism would have been in a much better state, and we would not have this type of conversation right now. Without the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin would have been just a normal opportunist politician; he wrote 42 volumes of work, but all of them are socialist distortions. He created his own distorted version of socialism, and Marx and Engels gave all the merits to the world working class. Someone dared to say that Marxian theory is workers’ practice turned into a theory.
We have spent more time clarifying the mess created by Leninism and the soviet union than spreading the concept of socialism, and without them, we would not have confused workers like you in this forum because, for most people, socialism is the soviet union, China, North Korea and Cuba, Social Democrats’ reforms, and third world dictators.
The situation is so messed up that we have heard the concept of corporate socialism and nazism better than socialism, which is totally nonsense, and capitalist parties calling themselves socialists, and capitalist parties being called socialists by outsiders like the US Democratic Party. A person with a few inches on his/her forehead knows that it is just a capitalist party.
An avalanche of books has been written by ignoramuses who do not know one centimetre about socialism; one of them is titled The Black Book of Communism, and one of its writers was an ex-Maoist, and it is a book full of craps; even more, they included the death of Russia produced by a capitalist war as the death produced by communism.
The Socialist Party has been forced to deal with all these craps and nonsense for more than 75 years of lies and distortions, and has been forced to debunk all of them, one by one; our index is full of those writings, and some of us have spent years reading them.
We can even say that an ex-capitalist living in a socialist society would be living in a much better situation than under capitalism, where they have your lovely Rolls-Royce and Bentley, which you would love to have, but happiness and freedom would not be measured by money, possession and ambition. We have seen many capitalists jumping from windows, killing themselves because they are not happy in the same world created by them. Engels was a capitalist, and he betrayed his own social class, and he spent his whole life working for the cause of the world working class. In one of his books,s he said that communism is a product of the working class.
When my father died, he left a business and properties for my mother, and she said: I would prefer to have him than his business, because he was her happiness, he was her life, and she adored him until she died, and she never got married again, and we had to bury her next to him. Therefore, in a socialist society, the concept of life is going to be different; it is going to be more real, and enjoyment is going to be better for mankind, and common possession would be much better than private possession: no more wars, no more national disputes and no racism. Voluntary labour and working for society would be a pleasure; no more xenophobia, borders and nations; value for use instead of value of exchange; we are not going to be another commodity
Grandpa has stated “In any group of people a leader will emerge, it’s human nature”
This is a very absolutist statement. There is no equivocation, “any group of people” However, as just as one example, the SPGB has been in existence since 1904, in that period of 126 years there have been several thousands of people who have been members of the SPGB and their companion Parties. They definitely meet Grandpa’s criteria of being part of any group of people. Yet in all that time, with all of those people no leader has emerged. So it is unarguable that Grandpa’s statement is incorrect. I could give many, many other examples of groups where leaders don’t emerge.
This may seem a trivial point, but it is extremely indicative of Grandpa’s style of constructing argument. Take an opinion, attempt to dress it up with a fact, and then, despite all of the evidence that proves the opinion is false, use it as a foundation for more opinions dressed up as facts.
I would describe Grandpa style as being sophistry, but I think the original sophists would turn in their collective graves if such a poor example as Grandpa was included in their practice.
I don’t blindly tie myself into any group or ideology because none of them are perfect. You hit the nail on the head when you say that since 1904 thousands have been members of the SPGB and like minded splinter groups. What percentage is that of tens of millions? Never mind about Grandpa, not exactly been a success has it. What you’re giving me is the theory of a man who was writing nearly a century and a half ago in an age of absolute poverty and suggesting it would work in a modern era.
Notice he does not respond to any content, including our pointing out his historical errors.
One can only believe he has very little knowledge of 20th century Chinese history too. It is through awareness of history that we understand the world we live in today.
He sees Têng Hsiao-p’ing as the capitalist saviour of his “regulated capitalist” China, in spite of the fact that Têng was a butchering bandit in the 1930s and the violent repressor of the 1989 pro-democracy uprising.
You’re not pointing out anything the SPGB didn’t tell you. I lived there, I didn’t get what I wrote from someone else.
“Widely regarded as the “architect of modern China,” he [Deng Xiaoping] transformed the nation from a rigid, isolated communist economy into a global economic powerhouse.” – Wiki.
Did he, or didn’t he? Stop wasting your time constantly referring to what the SPGB said. I don’t read them as I already know what they’re going to say.
And I already know what you’re going to say – and I didn’t get my knowledge of modern Chinese history from the SPGB.
In this case your response is even callous.
You associate us with Leninist atrocities, yet it is evident here that you not only put the interests of the capitalist class above those of your own class, you also support one-party dictatorship and are against democracy.
He said that he lives in China, but he is not aware of the history of China; he has not read the works of Mao Tse-Tung, and he has not read Peking Review. He said that Mao took power through a coup, which means that he had not heard about the peasant uprising in China which led the revolution.
Teng Hsiao Ping has been rejected by the hardcore Maoists and the pro-Albanian tendency, and he has been accused of commanding a party coup that removed the so-called Gang of Four to ally himself with the USA and the Western powers, and he was the one who commanded the attack on Vietnam. He was a despot when he was a military man, at the same level as when Trotsky was in charge of the Red Army
Stalin did not promote a party coup; he used the decline in the popularity of Leon Trotsky to become the head of the central committee of the Russian Communist Party, but the case of Ping was different; the popular ones were the members of the Gang of Four, which included the wife of Mao Tse-tung.
Teng Tsiao Ping was praised by the Western capitalists because he was the leader who conducted the so-called Four Modernisations based on further capitalist development, market opening, and he got closer to the USA, the West, and the establishment of factories in China after the visit of Richard Nixon; and he opened the doors to the IMF. In this case, it was Bill Clinton, the pro-capitalist president, who visited China during the time of Teng Tsiao Ping; the Chinese workers were served on a silver platter for the Western corporations, as it was done in Vietnam
Communist Voice Journal has written several articles on China; they are ex-Maoists, and they have written about the large privatisation that is taking place in China and the large deregulation that the state is carrying out to favour the Chinese capitalist class.
This article was written by a Leninist-Stalinist on Mao, China and Deng Xiaoping; he is using Leninist jargon, but he describes the real capitalist character of Maoism.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm
Again Grandpa, you obfuscate yet again, you stated that “in any group of people a leader will emerge”
I have given you a clear example that shows this is not the case. There are hundreds of other examples. (I go to a bridge club which has run for nearly 100 years has premises, etc. and has managed all of that time without a leader) The CIU has existed for decades with millions of members and millions of pounds of resources (they once had a huge brewery) without needing leaders.
If you had any integrity you would simply admit you were wrong and state that you over exaggerated.
You’re not pointing out anything the SPGB didn’t tell you. I lived there; I didn’t get what I wrote from someone else.
“Widely regarded as the “architect of modern China,” he [Deng Xiaoping] transformed the nation from a rigid, isolated communist economy into a global economic powerhouse.” –
Did he, or didn’t he? Stop wasting your time constantly referring to what the SPGB said. I don’t read them, as I already know what they’re going to say.
————————————————————————————————————
You are not pointing out any difference from the propaganda of the capitalist class, and you are taking your information from Wikipedia, which is not detached from the capitalist ideology. You are not providing your own analysis; Wikipedia is giving it to you.You can not understand the writing of the SPGB because you must understand socialism and Marxian theory first, and it takes years to read the complete index of the socialist party. I have read some for several decades, and I am still learning
I have been there too, and all over Eastern Europe and Albania, and I was only able to see capitalism as in any other capitalist country, based on economic exploitation, wage slavery and production of profits.
Ping is the darling of the Western capitalists because he bent over to them, and he was part of the party coup that overthrew the four. I know more than you about that because I read all the works of Enver Hoxha and the Albanian Party of Labour, and all the works of Mao Tse-tung, and all the Peking Review, and the history of China when China Books and Periodicals was selling their books.
Notice that he does not respond to any content, including our pointing out his historical errors.
One can only believe he has very little knowledge of 20th-century Chinese history, too. It is through awareness of history that we understand the world we live in today.
He sees Têng Hsiao-p’ing as the capitalist saviour of his “regulated capitalist” China, even though Têng was a butchering bandit in the 1930s and the violent repressor of the 1989 pro-democracy uprising.
—————————————————
Teng is the favourite of the Western capitalists because he was the one who brought the International Monetary Fund and placed the Chinese workers on a silver platter. Nothing different from what was done in Vietnam and what Trump is doing in Venezuela with Delcy Rodriguez; she is the Teng Tsiao Ping of Venezuela
Probably he has not read the ethnological notebooks of Karl Marx about the despotic Chinese and Asiatic mode of production; the Russians did not bother to study them because their society was similar to the russian state capitalism, which is not different from the actual Chinese mode of production based on despotism too.o
To understand history, first you must understand the materialist conception of history, and he is basing his analysis on the bourgeois conception of history and on Wikipedia, which is pure idealism
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.