I don’t really blame many of the Marxists here for being short on patience, much of the arguments we have are the same exact arguments we’ve had day after day. I do think patience tends to be more useful in dialogue, but I also can’t expect everyone else to uphold that.

Take care!

First off, I apologize if I came off as hostile. That’s not really my intent, I try to correct misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding Marxism and Marxism-Leninism when I see them.

Overall, the Marxist view on markets is that at lower stages of development, they can serve a progressive role, but at higher stages they impede progress and even turn into imperialism, as we see in Europe and the US, ie the global north. Capitalism is best described as a system by which private property is the principle aspect of an economy, ie the large firms and key industries are privately owned. In such a condition, this means private property also has control of the state, so markets will largely play a reactionary role in exploiting and oppressing the masses. Socialism can make use of limited markets while retaining state control of the large firms and key industries to get the good growth of markets in lower development while taking advantage of the numerous benefits of central planning at higher stages in development.

Capitalism itself leads to inequality and fascism. There isn’t a way to escape this, there is no such thing as a static capitalism. It either forces imperialism outwardly, is stuck at simple reproduction in imperialized countries (rather than reproduction on an expanded scale), or turns to fascism, if it doesn’t have a socialist revolution.

As for the PRC, they are firmly Marxist-Leninist, specifically Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought, which is largely a synthesis of ML-Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, itself an addendum to MZT. Their system is firmly socialist, their use of markets and private property is in a controlled manner that can only be controlled as such in a primarily planned economy. Without understanding this, you won’t be able to see why the PRC is on the rise and is so stable, while Social Democracies in Europe are on the decline.

You’re welcome for the links. If you want a standard reading list for Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory one you can check out if you ever get the interest. You’ll be able to better understand the USSR, it’s strengths and weaknesses, and why the PRC is currently succeeding.

I’m not trying to be mean here, but I really don’t care about anecdotes. When I say that the Soviet economy was strong and maintained some of the highest rates of growth in the world all while having a lower disparity, it’s because I’ve done the reading and research to see that. A quick article like *Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowans, or a full book like Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union by Albert Syzmanski or Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti all do a far better job than anecdotes at seeing what conditions were actually like systemically.

From the moment in 1928 that the Soviet economy became publicly owned and planned, to the point in 1989 that the economy was pushed in a free market direction, Soviet GDP per capita growth exceeded that of all other countries but Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. GDP per person grew by a factor of 5.2, compared to 4.0 for Western Europe and 3.3 for the Western European offshoots (the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) (Allen, 2003). In other words, over the period in which its publicly owned, planned economy was in place, the USSR‘s record in raising incomes was better than that of the major industrialized capitalist countries. The Soviet Union’s robust growth over this period is all the more impressive considering that the period includes the war years when a major assault by Nazi Germany left a trail of utter destruction in its wake. The German invaders destroyed over 1,500 cities and towns, along with 70,000 villages, 31,000 factories, and nearly 100 million head of livestock (Leffler, 1994). Growth was highest to 1970, at which point expansion of the Soviet economy began to slow. However, even during this so-called (and misnamed) post-1970 period of stagnation, GDP per capita grew 27 percent (Allen, 2003).

I’m also not saying the Soviet Union was perfect. There indeed were issues with black markets, misplanning, etc, but they didn’t outweigh the dramatic benefits the system provided. It’s no wonder that the majority of people who lived through the Soviet system wish it had remained. With the reintroduction of capitalism in the 90s, an estimated 7 million people died due to a loss in safety nets and a dramatic increase in poverty around the world.

The achievements of the USSR and its failings need to be contextualized in the fact that, unlike western countries, the USSR was a developing country. With it, however, came around the developed world a mass expansion in safety nets in order to provide what the USSR was already providing for its people. With the fall of the USSR, wealth disparity around the world began to climb more rapidly than ever:

As for the PRC, “Socialist Market Economy” is the official term for its economy. The fact that you admit to never hearing that term before means you haven’t actually done much research into it. State Capitalism refers to countries where private ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries, but with strong state influence, like Bismark’s Germany, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. In the PRC, it’s public property that governs the large firms and key industries.

The system overall is called Socialism With Chinese Characteristics, or SWCC. Here’s a study guide for it, in more depth. The key takeaway is that private property and markets existed in Mao’s era, in the USSR, etc, the modern PRC isn’t very different from those in terms of where the balance of power lies. Trying to plan all of the small, underdeveloped industry can often slow growth, while planning and controlling the large firms and key industries is not only more effective economically, also retains proletarian control over the economy. As the small and medium firms are developed through market forces, they can be better intrgrated into central planning and have their property gradually sublimated. It’s Marxism-Leninism applied to the conditions of modern China, also called Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought. So yes, China is absolutely socialist.

Read or take a dose of melatonin.

All socialism is democratic, “democratic socialism” normally refers to reformist socialism. The corruption, in that case, makes sense, as reformism is usually conceding to the status quo.

1. Cuba, USSR, Vietnam, etc. Socialism works.

2. China 100% counts as socialist. The Gang of Four diverged from Marxism-Leninism into ultraleft dogmatism. Ultraleftism is not “pure socialism,” there is no such thing as “pure” socialism, capitalism, etc. The PRC under Mao had markets, private property, etc, as did the USSR. As a consequence, the modern CPC is course-corrected to a standard Marxist-Leninist outlook. Both Mao and Stalin are seen as 70% good by the modern CPC.

3. The claims of “authoritarianism” are the repression of capitalists.

4. Yes, I’ve read Capital, volume 1. I’m on volume 2 right now. More importantly, I’ve read a ton of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and far more Marxist authors, all who speak about Dialectical Materialism and socialism, how to bring about communism, and more, all of which you won’t find in Capital. I’m skeptical that you’ve even read Volume 1, to be honest, your understanding of Marxism is incredibly poor. Using “I’ve read Capital” as an “I win the argument” tool is incredibly poor rhetoric, if you have a good argument, make it, don’t appeal to your own authority.

5. Yes, political theory isn’t a religion, you seem to think it is though.

This is nonsense, again.

1. The Soviet economy worked very well, and was one of the fastest growing economies of the 20th century. The difference between the wealthiest and the poorest was about 5 times, compared to hundreds to thousands in capitalist countries (and even more).

2. The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, the large firms and key industries are state owned and planned. They are pragmatic and learned, which is why they maintained socialism.

3. Yes, the PRC is proof that socialism works astoundingly well.

4. Again, you return to vibes-based nonsense. The Soviet Union was more democratic than capitalist countries, and the PRC is as well.

This is just you replacing sound economic analysis with vibes-based idealism, ironically you’re divorcing yourself from reality while claiming others need to see it better. A quick example is that socialism has resulted in far lower inequality while maintaining stable growth than capitalism has, yet you pretend they are the same in disparity. Connect with reality.

I’m not misunderstanding you, I simply disagree with you and your frame of analysis. Not everyone you speak to that disagrees is misunderstanding you, same with me.

You have a very idealist frame of analysis. Capitalism’s persistence is not due to ideas, but material conditions. The compulsion for socialism isn’t something won over because some people have socialist ideas, but because capitalism necessarily paves the way for socialism and creates its own demise.

Plus, the PRC is the largest economy in BRICS, and is a socialist country. Even if your frame of analysis requiring BRICS to have large socialist elements to supplant capitalism was correct, it’s already correct, China eclipses every other economy in BRICS.

All very fair points, comrade. Ultimately, even if we can see the US on a downward spiral and countries like the PRC on the rise, we can’t know for sure how this will pan out. All the more reason to get organized, rather than wait and see.

This is a very myopic, eurocentric point of view. Capitalism in the global north is sustained by imperialism. The global south, and its suffering, is what keeps prices artificially low in the global north. This system is crumbling, and disparity is rising faster than ever in the global north as a consequence. Countries like Burkina Faso are kicking out occupiers like France, and BRICS is gaining as the west is falling in relevance.

Further, the UK did not go socialist, unless I’m misreading your meaning. Socialism, as it exists in the real world, can be found in countries like the PRC, Cuba, and former USSR. I’m not talking about welfare.

Further, the US is seeing normalization of socialism. Mamdani may be a socdem, but has implied a far more socialist line, ie collectivizing production. The assassination of the United Healthcare CEO is being met with united support among the working class, and parties like the Party for Socialism and Liberation are reporting record member growth.

Opinions aren’t what drive social change, material conditions evolving and changing do. The material conditions of capitalism in the west are declining, and socialism is gaining. The global south is increasingly throwing off the shackles of imperialism. If you take a very myopic, eurocentric view, then it can be easy to only see companies getting larger and larger and disparity rising, but if you zoom out this very system is pushing the profit motive and capitalism with it to the brink.

The capitalists have always had control of governments within capitalism. States are not distinct from the ruling class, but an extension. What we are seeing is not a shift from capitalism to neofeudalism, but the consequences of the dying stages of capitalism before socialism. Capitalism has decayed and is dying due to monopolization and centralization of capital, and due to imperialism, but these same conditions prep capitalism for revolution and collective ownership and planning, into socialism.

Social safety nets were stronger and income inequality was lower, largely thanks to the post-war economy retaining a lot of its state planning towards full employment, and largely due to the expansion in safety nets under FDR as a response to the Soviet Union’s massive improvement in safety nets. Time was good, if you were a hetero white man. The US was also emerging as the clear imperial hegemon.

Reactionary rhetoric tries to turn the clock backwards, to when the contradictions of society weren’t as sharpened. It’s usually a petite bourgeois conception, but can also be a part of other classes. It’s the opposite of progressive movement, trying to move the clock forward into the next mode of production, socialism in the case of the US.

The US doesn’t have the industrial capacity, there’s a difference between currency and the actual physical industrialization needed to maintain a proxy war.

Socialism has a better track record than capitalism, but either way, my point is that necessary systemic changes need socialism for them to happen. Socialism isn’t a promise, it’s a mode of production. Further, countries like the PRC are rapdily electrifying, at the top of solar panel production and infrastructure initiatives, and combatting desertification, that’s the power of a publicly driven economy.

Why does political content need to be “new” or “fresh?” A lot of the latest events in the world are new developments on very old struggles that have been discussed for a very long time, something fundamentally changing that calculus is rare.

Yes? I don’t really follow what you mean, here.

What do you mean?

I really don’t think we are. You propose we push for change within the system, as it’s better to have a tweaked current system than a non-tweaked current system. My point is that the reason the current system lacks those popular and necessary tweaks is because its built to resist anything that risks lowering profits, so our strategy should focus on changing to a system that allows us to make those tweaks in the first place.

You may not agree with me, but I don’t think we are having different discussions.

I’m focusing on capitalism because we can’t let the progress we can imagine be the enemy of the progress we can actually achieve in the real world. Just like going up to Elon Musk and asking him nicely to not be a Nazi isn’t a viable solution to systemic issues, so too is trying to use regulations against the system they are meant to solidify and protect. Socialism is necessary because without it, we can’t get these well thought-through taxes and regulations to begin with, we are utterly at the mercy of profits.