• Alsephina@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Not communist obviously, since there’s still very much a state and class division. But socialist because the state primarily serves the workers, with the stated goal of striving towards communism.

      Now whether it’ll stay that way or not, we’ll see. Deng’s reforms have given liberals too much power after all; there seems to be an active class war happening in the Chinese state.

    • basmati@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Workers own the means of production through the state, it’s on its way to communism in a step later described as socialism after Marx and Engels deaths.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not even after their deaths, Marx already acknowledged dictatorship of the proletariat as the practical way after first proletarian revolution, Paris Commune experiences.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Nobody said they achieved Communism, just that they are authentically working towards it through Socialism.

      Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is Marxism-Leninism applied to the PRC’s present productive forces and material conditions. They have not reached Communism, but they are firmly on their way to full socialization of the economy. The only way you could think they have abandoned Communism as a goal is if you have never read Marx, Engels, or Lenin, and therefore have never studied Historical Materialism.

      The reason it’s painfully obvious that you haven’t studied Historical Materialism is because you clearly believe Communism is something that develops through decree, not degree, that the goal of Communism is to immediately socialize all production. This is absurd, and Utopian. Marx believed Socialism to come after Capitalism because Capitalism turns itself into a status ripe for socialism as markets coalesce into few monopolist syndicates, ripe for central planning. If the productive forces aren’t ready, then Communism can’t be achieved without struggles.

      In Question 17 of The Principles of Communism, Engels makes this clear:

      Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?

      No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

      In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

      What happened in China, is that Mao tried to jump to Communism before the productive forces had naturally socialized themselves, which led to unstable growth and recessions. Deng stepped in and created a Socialist Market Economy by luring in foreign Capital, which both smoothed economic growth and eliminated recessions. This was not an abandonment of Communism, but a return to Marxism from Ultraleft Maoism.

      Today, China has over 50% of the economy in the public sector. About a 10th of the economy is in the cooperative sector, and the rest is private. The majority of the economy is centrally planned and publicly owned! Do you call the US Socialist because of the Post Office? Absurd.

      Moreover, the private sector is centrally planned in a birdcage model, Capital runs by the CPC’s rules. As the markets give way to said monopolist syndicates, the CPC increases control and ownership, folding them into the public sector. This is how Marx envisioned Communism to be established in the first place! Via a DotP, and by degree, not decree! The role of the DotP is to wrest Capital as it socializes and centrally plan it, not to establish Communism through fiat.

      Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism, and read Marx himself before you act like an authority without even understanding Historical Materialism.