Marxists, please explain China.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Marxists, please explain China.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As with the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc states, there were only two ways out: move-forward to real socialism, losing the perks and privileges that come with absolute power, or restore capitalism in such a way that they retain perks, privileges, and power. They chose the latter at Tiananmen Square.

It was more complicated than that. Initially Deng supported the reformers, but they failed to reined in the protestors to pave the course for slow and gradual reforms. Deng felt that either something similar to the Cultural Revolution would be coming, or the country would be splintered into pieces. Thus, he changed his position to support the hardliners.

[DaShi]

"Wipe them out. All of them."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GerarDream
As english is not my first language and it's still a little hard to me to understand it, maybe someone has said the next, if it is the case, I'm sorry:

The Marxist-Leninst theory doesn't accept "Marxists Countries" or "Communist Countries". That is because the communist (not socialist) theory says:

Communism is a society without classes and without State.

The desired end result of class struggle is a classless, nationless world, with no state. The means are what differ among communists. That's why it is reasonable to believe that a socialist nation may make moves toward capitalism.

[Ned]

Yeah, but Kid, what is the point of moving to capitalism that increases the differences in wealth if the goal is equality?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Yeah, but Kid, what is the point of moving to capitalism that increases the differences in wealth if the goal is equality?

The end result is what is important. Some of us think that capitalism must be allowed to run its course, before communism can be successfull. Usually we tend to be less progressive than the rest I think.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, it is interesting that you think what is going on in China may only be a phase in the development of the communism: First, let the capitalists develop the country, then nationalize all the businesses and revert to socialism.

I did not say that's what I think is happening, only what may be happening. As I said, by letting capitalists in to the party, it seems that this is not a Chinese NEP, but a Chinese Yeltsin, i.e., a counter-revolution.

[Ned]

Kid, Welcome to the Republican Party! A rising tide raises all boats,and so on.

[David Floyd]

I did not say that's what I think is happening, only what may be happening.

It seems to me that if the only, or at least the most efficient, way to develop the country is to adopt capitalism, then moving away from capitalism would lead to decline.

On the other hand, this might not be a problem if the communists are more interested in a morally pure system than an efficient or wealthy one. However, if this is the case, and if they define morally pure as "communism" (and, by extension, say that capitalism is immoral), then they need to explain why they are adopting capitalism to get rich.

But, if capitalism ISN'T immoral (assuming the communists are consistent), and IS the most efficient way to make money and develop the nation (which our hypothetical "communists" obviously think, if they are going this route), then why revert to socialism at all? It can't be out of a sense of moral purity, and it can't be out of a wish to maximize money, so what is it?

So, either they are contradicting themselves, or they are setting themselves up for a huge fall.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, Welcome to the Republican Party! A rising tide raises all boats,and so on.

I'm not a Republican, but I'm not a Democrat either.

Originally posted by Ned
A rising tide raises all boats,and so on.

You actually believe that? You're so cute.

[Urban Ranger]

Nobody said politics is consistent. Not in the real world, anyway.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I did not say that's what I think is happening, only what may be happening. As I said, by letting capitalists in to the party, it seems that this is not a Chinese NEP, but a Chinese Yeltsin, i.e., a counter-revolution.

It depends. Probably depend on how high the capitalists get.

[Kidlicious]

There's some confusion over Marxist theory here. There is a reason for capitalism. That is, there's a reason that the world economic system didn't go from feudalism to communism. Che can probably explain it.

[Ned]

Kid, well for one thing, technical progress virtually halts under communism. Competition is the engine that drives invention. There is no competition under communism. So, in order to achieve a high level of production before one adopts communism, society has to have a (at least one) period of capitalism.

[David Floyd]

Nobody said politics is consistent. Not in the real world, anyway.

Oh, granted. But if that's the case, it'd be nice for the communists to admit that a)they know capitalism works better for generating wealth, b)they are willing to go against their ideals in order to generate wealth, and c)they know that once they establish their "perfect system", they won't generate as much wealth and will slide backwards. One wonders why they go through all the nonsense - they should just have established their dictatorship to begin with, and left out all of the wealth generation. It makes them appear more intellectually honest.

[Bosh]

The CCP doesn't care about China so much as their own perks and being in a position to give junior a hand with his career.

But communist theory does say that there's a historical stage in which capitalism is appropriate and one in which it isn't, so it could make sense to instutute capitalism until the historically-appointed capitalist stage comes to an end.

And Floyd, your earnestness is so cute