ExotiqueMatter

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Okay, what proof is there China has been making progress on the transition?

There are several. The private sector has never dominated the economy, the public sector always kept a firm hold on banking, raw materials, energy production and infrastructure that the private sector is dependent on to make and deliver what they sell, in other word, a massive leverage the state can use to pressure the private sector.

They can literally starve private companies of financing if they want, which they did when they let real estate speculators go bankrupt after the state voluntarily burst the real estate bubble. Something a bourgeois ruled capitalist country would have never done.

Moreover since a few years ago, the proportion of the economy that is privately owned has been decreasing while the state's control over them has increased.

Here is a video explaining China's socialist system in which some such evidences are presented.

That’s approximately the time Xi has been president. Since 2012. I’m not going to place blame on him for regimes before him.

That's still very arbitrary.

When Lenin attempted to implement this transition he eventually fell ill and was unable to prevent Stalin’s authoritarian takeover.

I'll let answering this one to someone with more more knowledge on 1922-1925 period. I'll only say that Lenin never tried to prevent Stalin from taking power. The Lenin testament, assuming you are at least partially referring to that, is most likely forged. We know from Lenin's numerous letters and other writing that Lenin had an extremely poor opinion of Trotsky and his politics, and as such would have never recommended Trotsky as a potential general secretary of the party. Furthermore, Lenin and Stalin were close friends.

It seems as though there needs to be some time limit on having full state power consolidated in one place because every regime change risks the goals being changed.

If a leader gets in who realizes that having a board seat on powerful companies can benefit them personally, and they decide not to transition, what can be done at that point?

They can be voted out of their position. Literally.

The political system in China, to put it very simply, is a bottom up elected council system. The peoples vote for local administrators like mayors and such, these local administrator vote to elect the rank above them, who themselves vote in the ranks above them and so on all the way up to the congress general secretary (side note: Xi is both the president and the general secretary, but the president is a largely ceremonial role and doesn't have that much power, Xi's real political power comes from him being the general secretary, no from him being the president).

And for each rank, the elected officials can be un-elected by the ranks bellow. Even Xi could be un-elected, he won't because he is very popular among both the peoples and the party members, but he could be. This is one of the rational behind why they removed the terms limit by the way, why have a time limit that automatically end the general secretary's term when he can be un-elected at any time?

China was the second-largest supplier of the US in 2024, with goods valued at $462.62 billion.

Capitalism will remain the dominant mode of production as long as China continues to play a key role in funding of the American economy and continuing to loan them increasingly more money.

Yes, as I said, in a capitalist world exchanges between countries are done mostly through businesses. So in order to have exchanges of resources and technology and not be cut of and starved like the USSR was, having businesses selling to other countries and businesses coming to sell in yours is a necessary evil.

Although, China has been reducing their exchanges with the US for almost a decade now, and it is only accelerating with Trump's lunacy. Right now, Chinese money is overall leaving the US, not entering it. China is now a net seller of US treasury bonds instead of a net buyer like it still was until relatively recently. China also banned the export of a lot of dual use metals, especially rare earths, to the US. And since China controls between 30 to 90% of production depending on the specific mineral, the US can't really get those from anywhere else.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

The fact that the transition takes a very long time isn't proof that it isn't transitioning. What even is this assumption that transitional periods must last less than a decade? Seriously, where the heck does that even come from?

To answer your question, this transitional state is necessary as long as capitalism remains the overwhelmingly dominant mode of production on the planet because in a mainly capitalist world, transfer of technology and resources mostly happen between businesses doing business.

If you try to go to a higher stage of socialism while the world is still almost only capitalist you'll end up with all the problems that plagued the soviet union, with the capitalist countries able to very easily sanction and isolate you since they can't get access to your markets even if they don't anyway and with you having to re-invent every new technology the rest of the capitalist world create just to keep up since there is no way the capitalists would give you the blueprints among other problems.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 hours ago

Cubans are more satisfied with their political system than americans

According to a bunch of polls, in the majority of former eastern block countries most of the population (as high as 70% and no lower than 40%) think life under socialism was better. Also, you were literally given a big list of sources for the USSR example. But clearly didn't bother reading any.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 hours ago (8 children)

What no theory does to you.

No seriously, you need to read on this, you clearly have at best a very simplistic understanding of the subject.

Private property and markets can't just be abolished immediately after a revolution, it's not magic. Young socialist systems have to go through a transitional phase during which private property and markets are still allowed under strict oversight of the state.

His does not make them capitalist as the proletariat still has control over this private sector via the socialist state, such as in China where all of the essential industry that is necessary for every other, known as the commanding heights, are fully state owned and the enterprises that are private are required by law to have a party member on their board as well as a "golden share" owned by the state that allow it unchallenged veto power over the board's decisions among other means of authority over the private sector.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

The reason why this "colloquial definition" is this way is so that capitalists can convince the masses that capitalism is natural "because it has always existed" by claiming that antique slave society, feudalism and even late hunter gatherer society were actually capitalist. This isn't a neutral definition that is as valid as the other, it is a lie crafted for propaganda purposes and shouldn't be taken seriously.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 days ago

Most books by Ha-joon Chang, especially 23 things they don't tell you about capitalism. Fun fact, Ha-joon Chang isn't a Marxist, he's a liberal, but his writing is still critical enough of capitalism that South Korea banned his books.

Anything on prolewiki's library are good reads as well.

For a broad look at the evolution modes of productions and how capitalism came to be there is this 60s textbook from the soviet academy of science, there even are a series of videos following the textbook by the finish bolshevik that is pretty good.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, we can tell

[–] [email protected] 64 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Every death by Dutch capitalism (death from the slave trade, Colonialism/Colonial wars (Oceania, Africa, ...), ...)

plus

Every death by British empire's capitalism (Irish genocide, Bengal famine, Slave trade, Colonialism/Colonial wars (India, Africa, North America, South east Asia, Oceania, Middle east, ...) , Opium wars, Massacres against independence movements (India, ...), ...)

plus

Every death by French capitalism (Colonialism/colonial wars (North America, Caribbeans, Africa, South east Asia, ...), Slave trade, Massacres against independence movements (Algeria, Haiti, ...), ...)

plus

Every death by Belgian capitalism (Colonialism/Colonial wars (Congo, ...), Slave trade, Massacres against independence movements, ...)

plus

Every death by United States' capitalism (Colonialism/Colonial wars (Cuba, Hawaii, Philipines, North America, ...), Massacres against independence movements (South east Asia, Oceania, Cuba, ...), Slave trade, ...)

plus

Every death by German capitalism (Nama and Herero genocide, Holocaust, Slave trade, ...)

plus

Every death caused by preventable starvation, lack of access to water, healthcare.

List very much non-exhaustive.

If you add it all up you easily get over 1 Billion.