The Offtopicgrad Soviet: A Place to Discuss All Things Red

[Cheezy the Wiz]

China is a capitalist country and does not have good living conditions for its working class.

This is an objectively false statement. China may have a capitalist sector, but the commanding heights of its economy are dominated by the state - a state run by a proletarian dictatorship.

Looks consistent with what Leninists do to em

You have such a bizarre understanding of what Leninism is. Where have you gotten this warped understanding?

Even Maoists have a thing about following the ''mass line'', Leninists just want intellectuals to patronizingly lead the working class.

Couple of things:

1. Mao was a Marxist-Leninist

2. "Mass Line" is just a more refined conceptualization of what MLs called "contact with the masses." Mao's work elucidating this strategy was extremely useful.

3. This "intellectuals patronizingly leading the working class" thing is quite obviously bullcrap with no connection to reality. First, because all ML parties operate on the same concept of mass line that Mao elucidated, and second, because even a cursory look at any ML organization now or in history shows that this conceptualization is not the case. First, because "intellectual" can apply to anyone, even a working class person, who studies concepts and ideas and discusses them, and second, because the vast majority of every ML party is and has been working class people and not middle or upper-class intelligentsia, which is what you're implying. And plus, many Marxist-Leninist revolutions have succeeded; will you commit the grave injustice of spitting on all those workers who supported those revolutions, and the socialist societies that they [the workers] created?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

More political freedom in China?

Yes


Link to video.

 

[Hygro]

I remember you posting that before. I liked that video.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@Hygro: I especially liked how Eric X Li dissed Obama by saying Obama would not qualify to be a minor county official with hos experience.

 

[Hygro]

Shows you why the Chinese system has unnecessary layers of bureaucracy #GAMERECOGNIZEGAME

...but I enjoyed liked that point myself as well

 

[Ajidica]

Anybody remember the time Hygro was an approved poster in Ask a Red?

 

[Traitorfish]

This is an objectively false statement. China may have a capitalist sector, but the commanding heights of its economy are dominated by the state - a state run by a proletarian dictatorship.

This is obviously the crux of the matter. Not amount of state intervention makes a state socialist in itself, I think we can all at least agree on that much. So the key distinguishing point, here, for defenders of China's socialist credentials, is the proletarian character of its government.

So, how does one distinguish a proletarian dictatorship from any other kind of political formation? And how specifically do these distinctions manifest them in the Chinese case? (Or, more broadly, in any of the surviving or defunct socialist states of the twentieth century.)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is obviously the crux of the matter. Not amount of state intervention makes a state socialist in itself, I think we can all at least agree on that much. So the key distinguishing point, here, for defenders of China's socialist credentials, is the proletarian character of its government.

So, how does one distinguish a proletarian dictatorship from any other kind of political formation? And how specifically do these distinctions manifest them in the Chinese case? (Or, more broadly, in any of the surviving or defunct socialist states of the twentieth century.)

Well in this case, as in most cases, there's really only one other possible formation: capitalism. And we know exactly what a capitalist state looks like: it does not even pretend to communist. Everywhere that capitalism has overthrown the DotP in counter-revolution, an aggressive de-communistization has taken place. Massive selloffs of state industries, destruction of the welfare state, a large decrease in the quality of life of the working class and poor, the destruction of the socialist state forms (soviets, collectivized farms, city councils, party branches, etc), and an all-out attack on the legacy of the socialist era. We see lustration, or the destruction of statues and symbolism, and the smearing and corruption of the history and people from that era.

When people point to many of these events happening in China, they are greatly exaggerating their size and importance. Yes there were some privatizations, yes, the capitalist sector is sizeable, yes, the Party since Mao has a questionable relationship with the legacy of the Mao era.

In contrast, where the proletariat controls the state we see a different type of organization of society. The welfare state becomes more comprehensive, extending not merely into generalized medical care, but specialization for child care and maternity facilities, creches and clinics in communities for the poor. We see the formation of, and protection of, the basic structures of a socialist state: namely, "soviets," i.e. councils in society and industry that feed into the central state apparatus. We see the control of, at the very least, the commanding heights of the economy: heavy industries like transportation, oil and gas, and steel, and/or other related fields, including foreign exchange. We see the formation of socialist Ideological State Apparatuses, and all the other pieces of a socialist superstructure that could not exist without a socialist base to support it: socialist institutions of law that favor the working class and punish or repress the bourgeoisie, or provide them unfavorable terms as compared to working people (think about how that relationship is reversed in capitalism); socialist "civil society" that replaces those that reproduce capitalist ideology (here I refer to Communist Youth vs. Boy Scouts, to give one example), and the same priorities that extend into all the realms of culture, entertainment, and the arts. And finally, we see the leading role of the Communist Party, an institution that could not exist with massive proletarian support. There are 87 million members of the CCP, the vast, vast majority of whom are proletarian. Would they (could they?) continue to support a capitalist restoration government that claimed to rule in their name, in the name of socialism? Such a thing would not be possible.

And finally, there remains the question of this: if we can at least agree that a Proletarian Dictatorship existed at some point in China, then where did it go? Who can point to the moment that the Chinese socialist state was overthrown and the bourgeoisie returned to power, destroying the socialist state's forms and building its own capitalist state in turn? If the CCP somehow magically "slid" into capitalist restoration without a counter-revolution, then doesn't that suggest the opposite: that a capitalist state can "slide" into socialism? We know at the very least from Marx and Engels (and from subsequent history) that this is not possible. It goes against the Marxist conception of the state as a tool of violence and class dictatorship by whoever owns it. It goes against the dialectical conception of the movement of forms. And most importantly, it defies all objective definition. It becomes up to each person to decide when it "feels" like China returned to capitalism, and that is quite frankly a useless measure if we are to imagine that any of this matters outside of personal opinion, and I think to 1.2 billion people, it matters very much.

 

[Traitorfish]

So the difference is... Policy? Ideology? That seems a very low bar to set when we're talking about the fundamental class character of a state- of an entire society. Every concrete characteristic you list- state intervention, welfare state, industrial committees- could have been found in any postwar European social democracy, to some degree or another, and the rest are ideological, a matter of the state's self-identification (or even simply of its public identity), not an objective statement of its fundamental social character. You're not giving us a description of what distinguishes a "proletarian" state from a "bourgeois" state at any fundamental level- in fact, if we read beneath the rhetoric to what you're actually saying, you seem outright sceptical of the notion that any such fundamental difference exists, and that socialism is instead a matter of piling up progressive social programs and ring-fencing them against reform.

You cite Marx and Engels, but there's very little in this post that so much as nods towards their work. So let's go back to basics: what distinguishes the working class from the capitalist class, and what distinguishes working class political organisation from capitalist organisation? And how have each manifested in China, or in the other examples of "actually-existing socialism" which have been cited?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So the difference is... Policy? Ideology? That seems a very low bar to set when we're talking about the fundamental class character of a state- of an entire society. Every concrete characteristic you list- state intervention, welfare state, industrial committees- could have been found in any postwar European social democracy,

Actually they couldn't have. You cannot have a socialist superstructure with a capitalist base. It's not "just" a matter of policy, these things are politically infeasible if the capitalist class controls the state.

and the rest are ideological, a matter of the state's self-identification (or even simply of its public identity), not an objective statement of its fundamental social character. You're not giving us a description of what distinguishes a "proletarian" state from a "bourgeois" state at any fundamental level- in fact, if we read beneath the rhetoric to what you're actually saying, you seem outright sceptical of the notion that any such fundamental difference exists, and that socialism is instead a matter of piling up progressive social programs.

I literally said the opposite, but whatever. You seem to think that the leading role of revolutionary communist party means literally nothing.

The bourgeois state is gone. The problem isn't that I don't know what a socialist state is, the problem is that you don't know what a capitalist state is.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually they couldn't have. You cannot have a socialist superstructure with a capitalist base. It's not "just" a matter of policy, these things are politically infeasible if the capitalist class controls the state.

"Could have been" as in "demonstrably was". Welfare state, "commanding heights of the economy", all that stuff was present across Europe in the immediate post-war period. It didn't last too long, I'll grant you, but if Russia can have a "counter-revolution", why not Britain?

I literally said the opposite, but whatever. You seem to think that the leading role of revolutionary communist party means literally nothing.

I think that "revolutionary" and "communist" are labels that individuals and organisations apply to themselves. They're not self-evidently true- and, indeed, from a Marxist perspective, only of limited significant even if they are true, because they have no inherent class content. If you want to convince people that the "leading role of the revolutionary communist party" is sufficient to establish the sort of distinctions you want to make you'll have to, well, convince them. Argue the point. Don't just insist upon it.

The bourgeois state is gone. The problem isn't that I don't know what a socialist state is, the problem is that you don't know what a capitalist state is.

Okay, so: what is it? In terms of the fundamental social character of the social order and not just in terms of prevalent trends in social policy, makes China "socialist" and other societies "capitalist"?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"Could have been" as in "demonstrably was". Welfare state, "commanding heights of the economy", all that stuff was present across Europe in the immediate post-war period. It didn't last too long, I'll grant you, but if Russia can have a "counter-revolution", why not Britain?

The proletariat was never in command of the British state.

And no, the commanding heights of the economy were not nationalized. But even if they were, it doesn't matter because the proletariat was not in control of it, the bourgeois state remained in control of it.

I think that "revolutionary" and "communist" are labels that individuals and organisations apply to themselves. They're not self-evidently true- and, indeed, from a Marxist perspective, only of limited significant even if they are true, because they have no inherent class content. If you want to convince people that the "leading role of the revolutionary communist party" is sufficient to establish the sort of distinctions you want to make you'll have to, well, convince them. Argue the point. Don't just insist upon it.

So you want proof of some innate property of revolutionary and communist? They don't exist. Their actions are what make them true descriptors. The Communist Party of China made a socialist revolution and won it. They advocate and carry out a political program that can and is transforming their society into a socialist one, that destroyed the bourgeois state and built a socialist state, that places the working class in command of politics and the economy. That's the proof. If that doesn't satisfy you then nothing will.

Okay, so: what is it? In terms of the fundamental social character of the social order and not just in terms of prevalent trends in social policy, makes China "socialist" and other societies "capitalist"?

Ignoring my points doesn't make you right. Stop arguing for the sake of being obtuse and actually look at the situation. I'm not entertained by your practiced pedantry.

I mean I know where we're going with this. You're an anarchist, and you don't see a fundamental difference between any states. It's all oppression, just a different cast of characters. Well maybe a little of the above will sink in for people who are actually interested in the material side of things and not just ideological posturing that makes you feel good but accomplishes nothing.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

The class in power makes China socialist; as the class in power makes The US capitalist.

Power is the question. Marx was real clear on that. Any time you allow a movement to be hijacked by non-strata elements, such as college kids, bourgeois intellectuals or opportunist politicians, you lose. That is why Lenin added the organization element to the prior ideological and political struggle. You had to have a bicameral apparatus: a workers organization upon which is placed little demand; and an organization of revokutionaries, steeled in struggle, devoid of ulterior motivation able to combat the political police. One cannot stand without the other.

Marx had seen that hope in the Chartists, as an antidote to 1848.

 

[Traitorfish]

The proletariat was never in command of the British state.

And no, the commanding heights of the economy were not nationalized. But even if they were, it doesn't matter because the proletariat was not in control of it, the bourgeois state remained in control of it.

Under the Attlee government, the state controlled healthcare, education, public transport, haulage (including road haulage) and water. It controlled iron and steel production, and it controlled coal, gas and nuclear energy. It controlled the postal service and telecommunications. Under the continuing rationing system, it even had a major hand in the production and distribution of food- more so than the Chinese government does today. If those aren't the "commanding heights" of the economy, what else is there?

So the issue is whether the proletariat commanded the British state. But you've cited state-control of the "commanding heights" of the Chinese economy as evidence of its proletarian character. So unless some further clarification is offered, this seems like circular reasoning.

So you want proof of some innate property of revolutionary and communist? They don't exist. Their actions are what make them true descriptors. The Communist Party of China made a socialist revolution and won it. They advocate and carry out a political program that can and is transforming their society into a socialist one, that destroyed the bourgeois state and built a socialist state, that places the working class in command of politics and the economy. That's the proof. If that doesn't satisfy you then nothing will.

Again: argue the point, don't just insist upon it. You say their program is socialist: in what respect? You say they built a socialist state: what makes it so? And I'm not just asking you to expand on the claim, but lay out the terms you're working with. Even if we're not going to agree about this, we can at least make an effort to understand where the other is coming from. It's possible for reasonable people to disagree.

Ignoring my points doesn't make you right.

I agree emphatically. So, again, I ask you: what is the fundamental distinction between a "bourgeois" and a "proletarian" state? Not simply how these differences express themselves in terms of policy, but the fundamental structural differences themselves?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

The bourgeois state in control of health care is not socialism. The class in power determines socialism. The class in power during any "labor" government in the UK was never the proletariat.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sure! But Cheezy cited that the existence of an interventionist state in China- "state control of the commanding hieghts of the economy"- as evidence of a "proletarian dictatorship". My question is, what qualifications can be introduced that would prevent this reasoning from being applied to the post-war European social democracies, some of which had more far-reaching nationalisation policies than China does today?

"Red-hair is proof of Irish nationality. But Frenchmen with red-hair don't count, because they're not Irish."

That's the sort of reasoning we want to avoid, if you follow me.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Of which part of post-war europe do you speak? Because Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia all established socialism via elections -- then were elected out. The only reason the French didn't go socialist, even though the Maqui took Paris, was that they did not have the stones to keep Paris.

Austria, Greece and Italy all had popular socialist movements that were crushed by the bourgeoisie.

 

[Traitorfish]

I mean, if Patton was a morning's drive away with the entire Third Army at his back, I'd probably find myself wondering if socialism wasn't a "next year" thing, too.

Ah, but perhaps you're built of sterner stuff.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I am, indeed.


Also, any reason's a good reason if you just don't want to fight. Amirite, Traitor?

 

[Agent327]

Of which part of post-war europe do you speak? Because Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia all established socialism via elections -- then were elected out. The only reason the French didn't go socialist, even though the Maqui took Paris, was that they did not have the stones to keep Paris.

So many historical inaccuracies in just two sentences. Eastern Europe primarily got its 'socialist' governments via ousting non-socialist 'elements'. Elections tended to become a party only process afterwards. (This, of course, didn't prevent from worker movements spontaneously manifesting themselves, but they had no parliamentary goals.) And, of course, if socialist initiatives threatened the Moscow line, there always was the Warsaw Pact. Once the Warsaw Pact was removed from the equation, socialism mysteriously simply evaporated all over Eastern Europe. So much for 'popular support'. As to the maquis, they may have taken Paris, but the maquis weren't the socialist movement.

Austria, Greece and Italy all had popular socialist movements that were crushed by the bourgeoisie.

That can happen in elections. It's a tricky process. See Eastern Europe. Also, the left in Italy retained mass support for quite long. Mass support alone doesn't make governments though. The left in France had themselves to combat; no need for bourgeois help there. (Socialist experiments would occur later, but not very successfully. That said, France still has a large government sector in its economy.)