Anyone here read Mao Zedong?>Just as there is not a single thing in the world without a dual nature (this is the law of the unity of opposites), so imperialism and all reactionaries have a dual nature -- they are real tigers and paper tigers at the same time. In past history, before they won state power and for some time afterwards, the slave-owning class, the feudal landlord class and the bourgeoisie were vigorous, revolutionary and progressive; they were real tigers. But with the lapse of time, because their opposites -- the slave class, the peasant class and the proletariat -- grew in strength step by step, struggled against them and became more and more formidable, these ruling classes changed step by step into the reverse, changed into reactionaries, changed into backward people, changed into paper tigers. And eventually they were overthrown, or will be overthrown, by the people.
>>25236881I honestly would rather not
>>25236881He's kind of a watered down version of Marx. I read his collection of essays "5 essays by Mao Zedong" and it's essentially an intro to marxism but written in a propaganda simple english with omnipresent references to 20th century chinese history during the civil war. He's frankly not that interesting, I don't understand why he's so omnipresent in contemporary marxist militant groups when he's just a basic guerilla leader who fucked up his great leap forward and had to spark the cultural revolution to regain power.
>>25236881I swear the Chinese are the world's biggest racial chauvinists. The "with Chinese characteristics" thing says it all, because they do everything with with Chinese characteristics, including their brand of voodoo medicine.
>>25237015>reply with retarded characteristics
>>25236881>this is the law of the unity of oppositeWas Mao an alchemist?
>>25237015Asians do not possess the necessary mental modalities to make any use of Marxism. The Chinese characteristics part is necessary.
>>25236992For many reasons, but here are a few: one, he saw Palestine as the defining geopolitical issue of the next century, along with Taiwan, because he saw them as the twin gates to Asia and the trenches of western imperialism. For another, he saw the actual material production class would be increasingly outsourced overseas and so the class struggle would become increasingly geographic, while still affirming the American working class as having a common cause with the Chinese. Lastly, the system he set up kept Lenin's first goal of Marxist rule: keep the proles out of capitalist wars and never fight wars unless it is to support explicit communists fighting for working class rule. This last element makes China a highly unique world power today.
>>25237055It's called dialectic
>>25236992>I don't understand why he's so omnipresent in contemporary marxist militant groups when he's just a basic guerilla leader who fucked up his great leap forward and had to spark the cultural revolution to regain power.A few reasons:1. He was the first Marxist to successfully square the circle of applying Marx's "We need to go through Capitalism to reach Socialism" worldview to the building of a Communist movement in a mostly peasant-based society, without fucking it up. In Russia, the Narodniks correctly acknowledged the peasants as the main oppressed/exploited class in Russia, and therefore its main source of revolutionary potential, but fell into the trap of ignoring the necessity of industrialization to avoid being colonized, and advocated for a society of agrarian communes instead; the Bolsheviks meanwhile, correctly diagnosed that Capitalism had already begun to develop in Russia, and that even if it hadn't, Capitalist encroachment into Russia was inevitable, so Socialism must come through industrialization. They also correctly diagnosed that the peasantry opposed such industrialization, and wanted to maintain their traditional way of life, just under more equitable circumstances. For this reason, the Bolsheviks wrote off the peasantry as a primitive relic of a bygone age, who were little more than an anchor preventing the Proles from assuming their position as the country's rightful leaders. Mao was the first leader ever to develop a praxis which managed to combine peasant-leadership over a society where they were the majority of the population, with industrialization, and to not fuck it up. There are still predominantly agrarian societies out there, and Mao's innovations on that front are indispensable for building a Socialist movement in such countries. 2. He correctly diagnosed that the rightward-turn in the USSR under Krushchev was not simply a course-correction, which kept the fundamentals of Leninist governance, while abandoning the worst excesses of Stalin's run, but rather a jettisoning of core-aspects of the Socialist project, which enabled the rise of a new bourgeois class, and would eventually lead the USSR to totally backslide into Capitalism. Unlike Hoxha, he didn't channel this revelation into becoming an ultra-dogmatist; he realized that failures during the earlier period of Lenin and Stalin's leadership had created the conditions under which the rise of Krushchevite-revisionism was possible. The existences of NEPmen, Nomenklatura, kulaks, etc. and the failure of the party to handle the contradictions between them and the rest of society properly was what ultimately led to the partial failure of Socialism in the USSR in 1956, and by extension the total failure of 1991. Mao therefore concluded that "Class struggle continues under Socialism." and this is a doctrine every Marxist on Earth now accepts, whether they're a Maoist or not. (cont.)
another Marxist making a thread so he can write his gay little essays in it
>>252372053. He's one of the greatest contributors to the modern scientific study of Guerilla Warfare, to the extent that anyone who's ever taken a course on that in the last 50-60 years will have read his writings on the topic, even if they're explicitly anti-Communist, and their education was the same. This is relevant to Marxist theory in particular, though, because prior to Mao's emergence on the scene, the only two extant theories of Marxist revolution were either Marx's own outmoded doctrine based on the Paris Commune, in which the workers essentially just storm the factories, and the palace; and Lenin's doctrine of building a dual-power structure, and then waiting for a moment of revolutionary crisis, in which it becomes possible for the party to seize power. Mao introduced the idea of seizing power over a small base-area, and then using a combination of sabotage, and defensive warfare to secure your position, and weaken the enemy's, until you can obtain power over a second, then a third, and then a fourth, until you have control over such a sizeable swathe of the country that you can begin to wage conventional warfare. 4. The idea of specifically formulating contradictions as either "Primary" or "Secondary"; or "Antagonistic" or "Non-Antagonistic", though rooted in earlier Marxist theory, provides a clearer, and more robust lens through which to analyse social structures. An example of this would be Marx's own, overly-teleological theory of the French Revolution, in which he argued that it was fundamentally an effort by the Bourgeoisie to overthrow the Aristocracy, thus replacing Feudalism with Capitalism. This does not square with modern historiography. However, if we apply Mao's theory of contradiction, it becomes possible to view the contradiction betwen the third estate, and the first two as primary, and the contradiction between the Bourgeois and non-Bourgeois elements of the third estate as secondary, and the French revolution thus becomes the story of how the primary contradiction is resolved, and a secondary contradiction becomes primary as a result.
>>25237208As a famous internet Marxist has said, Lying is OP
>>25236881I'm no Mao specialist, but anti-imperialism and third-worldism quickly devolve into apologetics for third-world capitalism. Indeed, embracing capitalism is what ultimately happened to China.
>>25237276I wouldn't say Xi embraced capitalism. He has attracted major criticism from the Economist for saying houses are for living in, not speculation, in light of declining Chinese property prices. Xi has also turned around the CCP since today if you join it and aren't working class, it doesn't do much for you, but if you are working class it leads to rapid advancement and obvious wage improvements. Also Xi has followed the Leninist maxim to not send proles into war unless it is for communismI would say China has allowed capitalism to dominate but that the CCP has its own long-term agenda. They have become extremely pragmatic but also returned to their original radicalism
>>25237283>I wouldn't say Xi embraced capitalism. Mate, China's been Capitalist since the Deng Era. Xi has barely had any meaningful effect on that one way or the other.
>>25237291Xi reversed a lot of Deng's policies, an awful lot, on foreign policy he has become much more aggressive, and in domestic policy the communist party is now much more involved in running the enterprises where they are represented. Besides the working class in the party issue I mentioned (a bug change from Deng when most of the party became capitalist), Xi has cracked down enormously on nepotism and bribery in everything from the military to medicine
>>25237283China is nationalist socialist and is using some capitalist instruments/institutions intentionally under state authority to develop towards a total post capitalist socialism.
>>25237296May I ask where you're getting this information? If you're right, then I'm dead curious to read about it, as it may be one of the first things I've read in a while to inspire genuine optimism.
>>25236881He was a genius in war and politics but a total retard regarding anything else.
>>25237283>if you are working class it leads to rapid advancement and obvious wage improvementsCapitalism isn't the rule of bourgeoisie, but rather the rule of capital. The bourgeoisie are merely the functionaries of capital. You can certainly support higher wages for working people, but this remains in the realm of capitalist politics. China's economy is still oriented towards capital accumulation and mediated by the commodity form, built from the labor of the working class. Will all due respect however, perhaps this was the best that could be done in the context of a failed international socialist revolution.
>>25237306The ideological core of natsoc is a view that WWI is patriotic and that society must be militarized for patriotic wars, in contrast to left socialist who thought WWI was fucking retarded. China is obviously the opposite, Xi does not support random wars for the great patriotism (bankers)
>>25237308I actually get it from the Economist.
>>25237313No doubt. In part that wss because liberalization started after Mao's death. But Xi is very much on a campaign to purge the party as well as inject it with a different element. The party is not homogenous and after Mao up until Xi maybe 90% of "careerists" and the hardliners became increaingly pissed. It was rhe very old hardliners who pushed for Xi and expect him to thrn around the partyy
>>25237324Maybe 90% became made up of* "careerists*
>>25236881>>25236881id be willing to read some, just to get to know it.the macro text is basic marx, he deferred to local manifestations. the green text, i find the reliance upon the idea of opposites a bit cliche. deconstruction exists to undo the stasis of hierarchical binomials. and it would seem the real opposites here are paper tigers and real tigers. ive always seen dialectics as a mode of conceiving and perceiving of change, rather than a strict theory built around opposites.
>>25237332It's both
>>25237317Natsoc is not characterised by war at allChina is the closest thing to the original fascist vision that exists
>>25237205>fell into the trap of ignoring the necessity of industrialization to avoid being colonizedRussia went from an agrarian peasant society to a nuclear superpower in 3 decades retard. Stop asking ChatGPT what to think and read a book.
>>25237335Nazism is absolutely characterized by war and is rooted in the belief WWI was a patriotic war and that Germany needs lebensraumFascism under Mussolini was about reviving the Roman Empire and launched an immediate war against Ethiopia
>>25237339Learn to fucking read. I said that about the Narodniks, not the Bolsheviks. The latter are the ones who came to power, and oversaw that industralization.
>>25237317You're historicizing too much what should be a pure theoretical term. Would swapping it around to be socialist nationalism be better? Same idea either way, dont let angry mustache man and the natzees monopolize and ruin it for everyone else like they did the Chaplin stache and swastika
>>25237348Yeah nationalist socialists emphasized their support for WWI in contrast with internationalist socialists. China is the latter and the CCP joins an international assembly of communist parties every year. Their foreign policy is anchored in solidarity among communist parties
>>25237324>campaign to purge the party as well as inject it with a different elementMy problem with the single-party state is that is associates the party (a voluntary organization) with the state (the organ of class domination). Thus, society is framed as emergent from the state instead of the reverse. This makes China a bonapartist state instead of its dialectical opposite, a dictatorship of the proletariat.>>25237335>>25237343Fascism is a flavor of bonapartism, which manages the contradictions of capitalism by means of a political entity outside of society: the state.
>>25237355China isn't a one-party state lil bro
>>25237351>continues to historicize
>>25237362>I want to use the term "nationalism" but divorced from any historical significafionOkay that's fine. What is your "real nationalism"?
>>25237343And in Romania?Militarism is an aspect of Fascism sure, and China is hugely militaristic
>>25237388China is renowned for staying out of warsIn Romania, it means killing communists
>>25236881I don't think many people here can read mandarin.
>>25237388Romania literally invaded Russia (and several other countries) in WW2 mate.
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if any recent localization of mao warped by the translator. Unless you can do it yourself, I imagine it'll be filled with academic class cliches from entrenched communists. Academic commies have been working hard to fuck themselves in the ass for a long time now, haven't they?
>>25237444Mao's translations into English are done by Chinese publishers
>>25236881China as a country is an imperialist state that has for millenia colonized variois groups under the tyranny and exploitation of one cultural elite lol1.4 billion people are one nation czhecoslovakia is too different to be one country.
>>25237469Mao supporter multi culturalism and so did the Chinese government, there was a lot of emphasis on maintaining diversity in the party and nuturing plurality of languages and peoples
>>25237205>1. He was the first Marxist to successfully square the circle of applying Marx's "We need to go through Capitalism to reach Socialism" worldview to the building of a Communist movement That's just not true. When Mao took power in 1949, he established the "New Democracy" which was a form of state-lead capitalism until collectivization was accomplished. By 1954, he had virtually accomplished this and put the peasants, which at the time represented 80% of China, into the Commune based system, which is anything BUT a transition from feudalism to capitalism. Capitalism was less developed in China when Mao collectivized then in Russia when the Bolshevik took power.>2. He correctly diagnosed that the rightward-turn in the USSR under Krushchev was not simply a course-correctionAlso not true. The meme of the revolution going on under socialist construction was only a pragmatic power-grab for him to justify the cultural revolution. Mao had been exiled from power after the complete failure of the Great Leap Forward and had been discarded within his own party. He was forced to perform self-criticism and was sidelined in favor of more pragmatic figures. To combat this, he launched the cultural revolution to regain power. Mao didn't give a shit about "pursuing" the revolution, as perfectly exemplified by the "anti-rightist" campaign which purged the intellectual class after he had allowed them to criticize him and the Party in the "Hundred Flowers Campaign". He did not care a bit of internal critique of politics.>4. The idea of specifically formulating contradictions as either "Primary" or "Secondary"; or "Antagonistic" or "Non-Antagonistic"To understand the second dichotomy, you need to understand that Mao developed his "on the correct way to handle contradictions amongst people" essay (where he presents the antagonistic/non antagonistic model) as a way to justify establishing division between the people and its enemies. The essay justifies using force against antagonistic contradictions by positing that these can't be resolved through peaceful means. However, as you probably don't know, the Chinese Constitution of 1954 establishes the "people" of China not as a monolithic citizenship based on blood/soil, but by virtue of adhering to socialist construction. This means that the Party has the complete power to strip you out of your citizenship if you're deemed as opposing "socialism". Once you understand this, you realize that the essay is essentially a giant justification to imprison whichever is deemed as being unable to adhere to the socialist project.>>25237317NatSoc is not Hitlerism. China is also not the opposite. Xi absolutely does support wars for patriotism. Which explains why tensions have risen with Taïwan, or why there's systematic repression of autonomous movement (beyond the usual anti-protest forces). Modern china is essentially a fascist state (authoritarian nationalism with class collaboration to develop the nation).
>>25237671lol You only want to claim China so bad because all the actually overt Fascist countries either got destroyed in wwii or collapsed into democracy in the 1970s (Franco, Greece).
>>25237674wtf are you trying to say here ?
>>25237693China is not fascist. You only say that because actual Fascism is a failure so you have to take credit for a socialist nation.
>>25237674>>25237696China is Fascist because it functions like a Fascist state as outlined by the original Fascists, this is very very easy to validate
>>25237697I totally forgot that Fascist Italy and Germany had 56 protected minority groups. I must have missed that.
>>25237697> Officially recognized ethnic groups receive or have received certain benefits over Han Chinese under the regional ethnic autonomy system, including affirmative action, exemptions from the one-child policy, designated seats in political organs and government support to preserve their culture. Ethnic minority autonomous areas receive additional state subsidies.[5][6] Languages of officially recognized minorities are used in official government documents.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China
>>25237698>56 protected minority groupsNot a real thing in practice. Ask the tibetans, uyghurs, hu etc and you'll realize.Beyond that China does not consider itself an ethnic nation, but is rather more akin to a "civic" nation. btw Mussolini granted rights to the Libyans too. It's basic political maneuver ffs. If you want to support a socialist state, support Cuba. All the other ones have collapsed or transitionned into auth-nat-capitalism
>>25237708My “support” as well as yours means nothing outside of discussing the political matters and making maybe pro-Xi memes on the internet. There is only what is going to happen and what is not. China is a socialist nation and it’s going to continue on for another however many decades because there aren’t constant protests and street fights erupting there like there are here in the west. I mean, China as a whole simply isn’t going to collapse any time soon. The people there love there government probably more than westerners love their governments. I don’t believe otherwise. My nominal support has nothing to do with it.
>>25237698>>25237704>it can't be Fascism because certain native ethnicities haven't been marked for exterminationnow try permanently moving to China if you're not native to itthey also just passed a new ethnic harmony law that explicitly places Han culture over everything elsenone of this even matters because if you Marxist retards actually read your own theory you'd know it's the Base that defines the Superstructure, and in China this happens to align almost exactly with Fascism
>>25237722What you say is a bunch of gobbledygook which means nothing. China is economically a socialist Democrat nation ran by a Marxist party.
>>25237723I accept your concession
>>25237720>>25237723>socialistHow is it socialist ? I want to laugh at your failure.
>>25237708You listed the two regions notes for insurrections and nationalism, with the Uyghur nationalism issue itself only arising relatively lately, probably not without some outside instigation. But you add etc like this is some sort of model instead of exceptions in response to nationalist insurrection
>>25237697>China functions like a warrior state pissed off at socialists mostly for being against capitalist wars EXCEPT it doesn't fight capitalist wars because it's against them
>>25237463That's why there's a traditionalist and simplified version of mandarin? What if the leap forward? Are you saying the English translation is from PRC civilians or American/European ones?
>>25236881Yeah the chinese have a blend of socialism and nationalism. One might call it national socialism.
>>25237965You would know why there a simplified version of the characters of mandarin if you ever tried to write it and found yourself taking twenty minutes to write three words. The language is the same, the extremely elaborate words just have fewer strokesChina's communist party and ideology was organized by European Bolsheviks at their request, in order to use the Bolshevik party as a model. Mao did not see himself as inventing a new ideology but building upon Marxism-Leninism
>>25237966Except Marxist-Leninist. And internationalist
>>25237985It absolutely isnt
>>25237015The best is sex with Chinese characteristics
>>25237988Esl
>>25237984Easier to educate others. If it was simply a matter of time consumption then traditional wouldn't be used. Also, there wouldn't be stigma between traditional and simplified. It's mao so people jump to Marxist lenin. It's interesting that you skip over the sino Japanese wars and the Qing dynasty. Your consideration is favored more for Manchuria?
>>25237985>MarxistSort of. They're a state-controlled capitalist economy with a heavy socialist political culture, especially with their cadre political papers that they still publish to set the terms of discussion>InternationalistNo. China is probably one of the largest nationalist states that exist. Being generous, there is at least a very large sect of Chinese politicians that are diehard nationalists above being internationalists, and that sect happens to have consolidated power. Basically everything China does and especially says for internal audiences is to highlight Chinese, and especially Han, greatness, to overcome the century of humiliation and "tell the Chinese story well"
>>25237984The Bolsheviks prize is the northern part of the Korean peninsula.
>>25238024Traditional is much much much more time consuming to learn and to write because over the centuries it became increasingly embellished and baroqueIt's not Mao so much as his party. Mao did not found the CCP. It was founded by Chinese communist with Bolshevik advisors. Mao just ended up in charge and became a vigorous opponent of liberalism within the party
>>25238049>Bolshevism is when you're a tiny country in an ongoing ceasefire in a modern war with America which has a massive military buildup on your border itching invade and has isolated you from rest of the planet in trade or travel
>>25238048Thanks your analysis, BAP. I'll be sure to tune to next time to Oiled and Homo Rhythms
>>25238117...Black American Princess?Well at least SOMEONE here can recognize
>>25238113>Bolshevism is when feminism and niggers.
>>25238148Wow, now THIS is MAGAnificent! You have earned the Gold Paw of Awoo, MAGAlord! *sawoootes you*
>>25238164All of them whiter and manlier than you.
>>25238170Untrue, I am a highlander-Scandnavian mix with large qualities in every respect
>>25236992>I don't understand why he's so omnipresent Because he accomplished what they actually want and what their chief goal is: societal upheaval. All communism boils down to resentment and envy, particularly of those in power, and results in the desolute beating their immediat neighbors to death until too few people are left to till fields or pay taxes.
>>25238177Yes, you now pass the liberal purity test. You may accept your graded branding for the breeding program with joy now, comrad.
>>25237015Anon, they called themselves the middle kingdom for well over 2000 years
>>25238192To be clear, the breeding progom is the application of a feminist manifesto.
>>25238049Lmao Leningrad is such a horrible place to live. It’s the prize of the Bolsheviks.
>>25238117That anon is right and you're a retard
>>25238184Not necessarily. In the Chinese case. The communist revolution was less about ideology, and more about preventing the gradual erosion of the chinese states sovereignty, as it slowly became a pseudo colony of the British Empire. If you view it through that lens, everything they did and continue to do makes more sense
>>25238335that photo's taken during the Siege of Leningrad. Kys retard.
>>25238353>>>>/his/18450419
>>25238348That anon doesn't even know what "internationalist" means in a Marxist context, neither do you. It means focus on collaboration with other communist parties
>>25238350The Chinese civil war was between the nationalists and communists and was ongoing even as both were fighting the Japanese invasiin. Taiwan is now all that is left of the nationalist territory
>>25238386Yeah I know that. China does not give a fuck about that beyond self interest. Look at the lack of real support on ukraine
>>25238387That wasnt between nationalists vs internationalists. It was communist-in-name-only vs republicans. After deng, China ceased to be communist in any way beyond party autocracy.
>>25238388What the fuck does Ukraine have to do with communism? Neither side is fighting for communism
>>25238391Well that and collectivization of everything
>>25238399The original Novorossiya separatists actually were fighting for Donbas as a breakaway confederation of M-L states.
>>25238399Russia is ostensibly a communist or post communist state by your own standard if youre appraising chinas current model as legitimate communism (which it isnt). Therefore they should be helping Russia win the war
>>25238401Nothing is collectivized there anymore. Just subordinate to state veto under private models
>>25238404Russia is not ruled by a Marxist party. According to Marxist-Lenin, the first duty of any Marxist party is to keep the proles of the country out of any wars unless it is to support revolutionaries who want proletarian rule. According to Lenin, most wars are simply capitalists fighting over control of markets.
>>25238408Are you backpedalling now?
>>25238412No? My position the entire time has been that theyre state capitalist and closer to national socialism
>>25238415But you're saying collectivism is "communism in name only"?
>>25238410https://eu.eot.su/2016/01/16/a-brief-history-of-the-essence-of-time-combat-unit-in-donbass/The Donbas conflict was a communist rebellion against Kiev that got subsumed into an Ukraine vs Russia conflict when Russia sent their army in as backup and annexed them to prevent Kiev reinvading (again). You fell for the Russia is a Nazi invader optics.
>>25238422Whatever it was, Russia is absolutely NOT fighting for Marxist ideology. This has nothing to do with siding with Ukraine which is a NATO proxy. It is just a repeat of the same geopolitica of WWI which is exactly why Lenin said these sorts of wars are bullshit
>>25238429It would still be China’s moral imperative to acknowledge Donbas and Crimea as Russian. The fact they don’t shows them as the grifters they are, spewing rhetoric of spreading communism and opposing war yet being anything but. China used to sell drones to Ukraine. Donald Trump (god bless him) has done more to help Donetsk civilians and bring an end to the war than the warmonger Xi Jinping has.
>>25238335Comrad, we both agree that romanticism is evil. Shall we now argue over which region deserves the most niggers? It's our academic imperative.
>>25236992>I don't understand why he's so omnipresent in contemporary marxist militant groups when he's just a basic guerilla leader who fucked up his great leap forward and had to spark the cultural revolution to regain power.I think he was innovative in combining guerrilla warfare practices with a strategy for the conquest of national power, which was still relatively novel at the time. From what I read of him though, you'd get in trouble quick taking him too literally as the Marxist groups tend to do with him, and they get very culty with that. The way I interpreted his lines about paper tigers is more like saying the enemy seems powerful but he's not impossible to defeat, which was intended to create a sense of agency in the people expected to read that. Like it's kind of poetic and situational, but honestly the Maoist thing often leads to a Life of Brian kind of situation where Mao (I think) is trying to get people to think critically in dealing with various problems and enemies and his followers all hyper-literally repeat "yes, we must look at both aspects of the contradiction" in unison while not actually looking at both aspects of the contradiction.
>>25238439No war but the class war
>>25238421No, I said it isnt collectivism. It's private enterprise, subordinated to the state, rather than state run enterprise. Which would be collectivized communism. It's way closer to national socialism
>>25238643So you don't think anything was collectivized under Mao?
>>25238657Yeah I do, but subordinated to Chinese state interests, always primary. Stalin was similar. By the time you got to Deng, they didnt even arm guerillas anymore in revolutions. So communist in name only in the sense of the internationale and long arcMao seemed to believe in it more but Mao was a retard who almost destroyed the country. The architect of what China is today as a nation was Deng. Mao won a war. Then maoism nearly destroyed the country
>>25238726dont forget that modern china is the crown jewel of neoliberalism
>>25238726State interests are who owns the state and the country. A state is nothing but the glove of a class. I would actually say Hitler is the retard who destroyed his country. So was Mussolini. Both led their countries to be slaughtered by foreigners and occupied in order to feed the capitalists. By contrast, Mao turned an extremely rural land into a power strong enough to stay sovereign on the world stage. National socialism, or as I call it, Grand Retardation, is not actually socialism. "But, but the government REGULATES the market, that's socialism!" you insist. No, socialism is when the proletariat owns the state. National socialism, which urges proles to die and kill each other solely to increase profits for capitalists, is a state owned by capitalists and arises to defend them from socialism--always historically the case.Now it is true that Deng introduced liberalism. That was a natural symptom of Mao passing away which led the party become dominated by careerists, that is, men who see the communist party as just a career, which Mao identified with liberalism. In some ways that might have helped, since Marxism posits capitalism is required for industrializarion. However China is not homogenous. Even the CCP is not, it has 100 million members. Xi was in the faction strongly opposed to careerism and gained power based on that. He has been purging careerists who can be found guilty of nepotism or corruption, and those who can't have found most of their perks gradually ebbing away, while Xi simultaneously focused on recruiting a younger base for the party of non-bureaucrats from the working class who have a serious ideological commitment. In foreign policy too he has shifted back to communist internationalism and focused building ties with other communist parties. Had Xi not come along, the CCP probably would have gone through "de Mao ification" same as the USSR went through "de-Stalinization". This would have culminated in the party being destroyed. Xi emphasized the danger of this and considers defending Mao's legacy and goals to be critical in his leadership. And so his struggle against the careerist faction is ongoing, the party is massive and he is not All-Powerful like the west thinks, he can't and wouldn't purge all of his opposition just for being his subtle opposition. So this is where things are going
>muh socialism not natsoc! Muh social is not fash!
>>25238853Free Tibet!
>>25238863Not happening under my boy kimkim
>>25238853happened 13 years after the revisionist takeover of the party...
>>25238800The government doesn't regulate the market in China. It by default owns a major share in each enterprise specifically so it has veto power over the firm. That is a meger of state and corporate power, by definition. I'm not even saying its good or bad. And yeah Hitler and Mussolini were indeed retards (Mussolini less so, his biggest flaw was befriending Hitler), but thats neither here nor there for this conversation, so idk why you brought it up at all. Deng introduced liberalism bc communism is a retarded ideology and system that doesn't work any time it is tried, and Deng was not a full blown vegetative retard who cared about his country and could see that the previous king was a lunatic. So he switched to a market system aka the system that works. Ask Lenin how long it all lasted before he instituted the NEP. Ask the people who lived through the dark age of sparrows, the personal steel mills in backyards, the great leap forward how great communism is. China moved on from communism specifically bc it doesnt work, and sucks, and thats why they still exist and are doing so well. Name these "communist internationales" China is currently aiding/supporting. Also, are you Chinese? You got real bent out of shape here, when my words were descriptive, not insulting.
>>25238897I'm not interested in handing Western commies ammo.
