既要革命，就要有一个革命的党。没有一个革命的党，没有一个按照马克思列宁主义的革命理论和革命风格建立起来的革命党，就不可能领导工人阶级和广大人民群众战胜帝国主义及其走狗。
- 0 Posts
- 47 Comments
Your observation of the coexistence of poverty and billionaires is a reasonable observation at first glance, however the theoretical conclusions drawn from it need to be examined within the proper framework of materialist analysis.
Historical materialism points out that the evolution of social formations is fundamentally constrained by the level of development of productive forces. China is currently, and will likely remain for a time, in the primary stage of socialism. At this stage, the core task of society is to liberate and develop the productive forces, accumulating the necessary material foundation for the transition to a higher stage of socialism and eventually communism (once capitalism on a global scale has been overcome). We cannot disregard the objective limitations of material conditions and attempt to leapfrog historical stages solely based on moral will or egalitarian distribution methods; such approaches have historically (such as under the gang of four) only led to common poverty rather than common prosperity.
Regarding the market economy and the continuation of private property. China implements a socialist market economy, allowing the existence of non-public ownership and private capital. This is not a departure from communist principles, nor is it so-called class collaboration, but rather a return to the standard application of Marxist theory (compared to the USSR and it’s war economy). Utilizing market mechanisms and private capital as a means of developing productive forces, under the premise that the proletariat holds state power, is the most efficient strategy at the current stage while also protecting revolutionary gains by avoiding the creation of large black markets of small and medium producers. The emergence of billionaires is an unfortunate byproduct of this secondary form of private property (like all forms of private property) and market distribution mechanism at a specific stage of development.
The key difference lies in the nature of the state power and its control over the economy. Unlike capitalist countries where capital captures the state apparatus, China upholds the dominant position of public ownership, with the state firmly controlling economic lifelines such as finance, energy, land, and communications. The development of private capital is strictly confined within the framework of serving the overall national development strategy. The poverty alleviation, rural revitalization, and regional coordinated development strategies that continue to this day, as well as the regulation of disorderly capital expansion, are precisely to ensure that wealth created by the market can be used for the goal of common prosperity through the institutional arrangements of primary distribution, redistribution, and tertiary distribution.
Regarding the mixed economy direction you mentioned, Marx already clarified in Critique of the Gotha Programme that a society newly emerging from capitalism still bears the traces of the old society from which it emerged. Socialism itself is a transitional period full of contradictions. A certain degree of inequality and private wealth accumulation is unavoidable to create the material prerequisites for the ultimate elimination of inequality. China has not stopped its efforts to eliminate poverty. The current policy focus is on addressing the principal contradiction between the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development through rural renewal and continued poverty alleviation campaigns.
Judging China’s current situation as a static historical snapshot falls into a metaphysical trap. Whether a country adheres to socialism does not depend on whether it meets certain subjective assumptions or dogmatic criteria. One must employ the correct dialectical materialist analysis, viewing history as the dynamic process of continuous movement, development, and evolution that it is. The key to examining the nature of a society lies in grasping the essence of its relations of production, the class nature of its state power, and its long-term development trajectory. China’s development path is precisely about harnessing capital rather than being harnessed by it, steadily moving towards the ultimate historical direction of eliminating class differences and realizing the comprehensive and free development of human beings through continuous dialectical negation.
what i fucking want is there to not be anymore poverty
Poverty reduction is absolutely not something we have made strides in. Over 940 million lifted out of poverty?Who? Being the country almost solely keeping global anti poverty trend positive through domestic poverty alleviation and investment in the global south? So? (Massive /S)This was overly mean but the point stands that poverty alleviation has been one of the forefront policies of the CPC. Poverty can’t be removed at the wave of a wand.
Doesn’t China have a Gini coefficient almost as high as the US’s?
No. Actually China’s Gini coefficient is one of the lowest in the world
China: 0.26 US: 0.418
i have no idea where to start with reading xi’s speeches or whatever
The Governance of China is probably a good start
10·14 days agoI’m not sure the president of Ireland is a good analogy since they don’t sit for life.
Theoretically the Kim’s don’t either hence the elections, they’re just that popular and whether you like it or not that’s how democracy works the person the most people like wins.
All the sources I can find say that the General Secretary of WPK is a de facto power position, not a ceremonial one
Given the republicans are in power in America right now would you say Joe Gruters is central to state power? (Obviously not). Also I never said they don’t hold power just that they weren’t central and spent the majority of their time on LARGELY ceremonial and advisory tasks.
Yeah that’s why I didn’t want to make that particular analogy because it appears to have whizzed over your head even when I included the end bit to try solidify the actual point at hand. The point is the roles they are elected to (which they are in stark contrast to a monarchy of any kind) are high ranking but not central to political power or work. Largely ceremonial and advisory.
The burden of proof is on you. You’re making the claim. Also it’s not an adhominem you should look up what words mean if you don’t know before using them.
ad hominem
Attacking a person’s character or motivations rather than a position or argument.
I did no such thing. I simply said you need to provide evidence for your claims instead of demanding others prove a negative.
Pointing out you are throwing a tantrum does not an ad hominem make.
The comparison I’m about to make isn’t 100% accurate but it’s close enough to make the point I hope. The British royal family theoretically due to their position swears in the pm and leads the country etc etc, whereas in reality it’s the parliament that is the actual central political power. The Kim family is habitually elected high positions like general secretary due to the legacy they hold but in reality most of their time is spent on more ceremonial work like inspecting new developments etc while the Supreme People’s Assembly is the actual central state power. Another similar analogy is the president of Ireland as I understand it signs the laws and swears in politicians but is generally a ceremonial role this analogy is probably more accurate as like the Kim’s it is an elected position however the general point remains.
You’re just hear to debate the quality of evidence! Of course that must be it!
No I’m simply saying you should provide evidence for your claims instead of crashing out and throwing a tantrum demanding others prove a negative.
The DPRK people you met are part of an elite class connected to the regime. Of course they support it.
I never realised farmers learning agricultural science in a neighboring country were an elite class. (Also I don’t think you know what the word class really means). Regime is a silly word (“government I don’t like”).
As I understand it after the dissolution of the position of President, Kim Jong il and Kim Jong Un have held positions that are while important certainly not central such as General Secretary of the WPK. The Standing Committee of the Supreme People’s Assembly is the central state power and it’s members are elected by the Supreme People’s Assembly who are in turn elected through direct nationwide blind ballot.
workers paradise
Great strawman of what others are saying very impressive.
You’re replying in support of this workers paradise, are you not?
Not at this moment no. What I’m responding in favour of is people who make claims providing evidence instead of telling others to provide evidence to prove a negative. You’re making the claim the DPRK is a shithole you have to provide the evidence that proves that (and ideally can survive some scrutiny of backing, bias etc.)
The DPRK is an authoritarian shithole. Why are you so offended by this statement?
I’m not particularly other then the fact that the people from the DPRK I met during my time in college were always so nice and proud of how far they’ve come as a nation and seeing you disparage that and generally be kind of an asshole is distasteful.
You’re the one making claims. The burden of proof is on you. Why are you surprised you’re being asked for evidence?
Not a single dprk source. Please post a DPRK source saying the things you claim they are saying not westerns asserting this is what they say.
Stealing from @RiverRock@lemmy.ml
I’m not an expert on DPRK history, so instead I’ll try and speak to the prominence of the Kims:
Think back to the enormous popularity the Kennedy family enjoyed in the US for decades. For a good thirty years, if you had a guy named Kennedy on your ticket, he was gonna win. Even Capcom, as recently as 2004, named their heroic American protagonist Leon S Kennedy, because the association of “Kennedy” with “Heroic/good/representative of America’s better angels” was strong in pop culture. It’s an incorrect association, but what matters is it existed.
But what did John, the one people remember most fondly, actually do to earn his reputation? Give a couple well-received speeches, have sex with a trafficked actress, propose a drawdown in Vietnam that never happened, and then get his shit blown smoove off? That’s not much of a legacy when you put it on paper, but here in America our standards are very low. with that in mind, let’s imagine a different history:
The Nazis win WW2. Doesn’t matter how, they just do. After cannibalizing Europe to rebuild their military, they cross the Atlantic with a massive fleet and start systematically dismantling the United Stated via carpet bombing. First electricity goes, then water, then food as every farm, dam and railway is destroyed. After all the infrastructure is gone they start leveling apartment blocks and houses, and entire towns are wiped off the map with few survivors every night. The bombers never stop coming, hitting even ruins where people might be hiding, scouring nearby forests with incendiaries, and allegedly (though I believe it) dropping viral and bacterial weapons with knowledge given to them by Japanese war criminals. Somewhere between one fifth and one quarter of the population is dead, starvation and disease are rampant, every single building has been leveled, and the traumatized survivors are hiding in caves. At this moment John F Kennedy shows up, leads the military in pushing the Nazis out of the northern states with help from Canada, and organizes the rebuilding of the liberated area. When the Nazis consolidate their hold on the southern states and create a military puppet government there to serve as a foothold for invasion, he oversees preparations to drive them back again. Obviously he becomes an instant folk hero, and his descendants both enjoy great political goodwill by association and experience great pressure to live up to the accomplishments of their fathers. //End hypothetical
In the US, a place that has not been touched by war in living memory, we very easily fall into the trap of thinking of other peoples as somehow sillier and more emotional, or more prone to irrational thinking. This is the message that our corporate media has always given us, through careful implication, picture choice, orientalist framing. The unspoken message is always: look at the latest inscrutable conflict these primitives have gotten themselves embroiled in now, aren’t you glad to live somewhere civilized where rule of law prevails?
Of course, the truth is that we export our instability: more than that, our stability depends on constantly destabilizing others and collapsing entire societies into nightmares from which can be easily siphoned cheap labor and resources. These aren’t random conflicts: almost always, they’re our conflicts, our proxy wars, our coups and propaganda drives. “Our” prosperity (mostly the prosperity of the capitalist class, but we do still get the crumbs) is inextricable from their suffering, it depends on it. If other societies are able to stand up for themselves, they can’t be threatened into extortionate “free trade” deals that let western corpos make an insane markup on some tv assembled with rare earth minerals from Vassal Country A by wage slaves in Vassal Country B. That sounds random but it has to be stressed that almost every supply chain for everything in the entire “first world” is built on that relationship, all the profitability of western companies is built on that relationship, and they have before and will again kill untold millions if that relationship is ever threatened.
To tie it all together, my thesis about the apparent popularity of the Kim family (and I say apparent because I can’t know for sure from outside the DPRK either way, but haven’t seen any signs of internal struggles, which you know our western press would pounce on) is this:
-The US and it’s co-belligerents visit an untold amount of conflict and misery on the global south as a matter of course
-Those who stand up to them are remembered fondly by their society, especially if they succeed, especially if they succeed and survive to old age
-Those who stand up are demonized in the western press, especially if they succeed, especially if they succeed and survive to old age
-The people we in the US are conditioned to view as lesser are if anything much more level headed on average than we are, and if the armageddon we made over there happened to us over here the result would probably look less like a socialist republic and more like a loose confederation of death cults
-With this in mind, and knowing that they aren’t actually central to the government of the country, I cannot possibly begrudge Korean society and the Korean state their affinity for the Kim family as a national symbol
Yeah that’s not a citation. Please post a link to any official DPRK source to back up your claims of what they say.
From the same country that says it has a cure for cancer and aids, and that unicorns actually existed at some point.
Citation needed.
你一开口就是“我们为全世界社会主义革命而进行的斗争”。好大的口气！一个连本国工人运动都组织不起来、连一个基层支部都建不起来的澳大利亚键盘政治家，倒有资格给全世界的革命道路制定标准，还能对十四亿人的实践经验盖棺定论了？更荒唐的是，你居然单方面把中国以及所有支持中国社会主义道路的力量都开除出了“我们的斗争”。这个“我们”到底是谁？是那些在历史上真正夺取过政权、真正搞过建设、真正让工人阶级掌握权力的严肃共产党，还是你和网上几个互相吹捧的熟人？现实世界里，凡是取得过任何实质性成就的共产党，几乎都承认中国的社会主义性质，并且认真研究中国经验。你所谓的“许多左翼”，拆开来看，无非就是托洛茨基主义者、极左宗派主义者和“无政府主义者”。其中绝大多数是白人、西方、尤其是北美的知识分子，一辈子连一次成功罢工都没组织过，选举没赢过，合作社也没建成过，却没完没了地“批判”别人几代人用鲜血和汗水走出来的道路。这种“批判”说到底不过是嫉妒，是无能者面对实践者时的一种精神胜利法。
你把中国共产党称作一个“统治阶级”。凡是受过一点基本政治经济学训练的人，都能看出来你连《资本论》第一卷都没有真正读懂。什么叫阶级？阶级不是幼儿园水平的“谁坐在上面、谁待在下面”。阶级是由其在生产关系中的地位决定的；核心标准，是对生产资料的所有权，以及由此产生的、私人地无偿占有他人劳动所创造剩余价值的能力。在中国，土地实行全民所有和集体所有；金融、能源、通信、交通等关系国民经济命脉的重要部门掌握在公有制经济手中；国有资本所产生的收益归全民所有，并通过财政体系重新用于教育、医疗、基础设施建设和大规模扶贫等公共事业。你把“国有化比例很高的资本主义国家”和“社会主义”混为一谈，恰恰说明你根本分不清形式上的国家资本主义与事实上处于无产阶级专政条件下的公有制经济。你连最基本的经济概念都没弄明白。
接着，你又“简单地”宣布中国工人对社会没有民主控制。注意，你没有提供任何证据，没有调查，没有数据，只有一句轻飘飘的“就是如此”和一个“毫无疑问”。那事实是什么？哈佛大学阿什民主治理与创新中心连续多年的调查显示，中国公众对中央政府的满意度长期维持在90%以上。爱德曼信任度调查中，中国公众对政府的信任度也多年位居世界前列。这些可不是什么中国官方宣传数据，而是第三方机构、甚至是西方机构做出的调查。你一句“工人没有控制权”就想把这些全部抹掉，可你所谓“民主控制”的标准到底是什么？是不是非得长得像威斯敏斯特议会那样，才配叫民主？
你大概不知道，在中国，县级和乡镇级人民代表大会代表实行直接选举，选民登记率超过90%。你大概也不知道，中国存在一整套自下而上的意见表达、反馈和纠错机制：从村委会、居委会到街道办事处，从地方党委信访部门到12345政务服务便民热线，从人民网“领导留言板”到各级纪检监察举报平台。你大概还不知道，在“十四五”规划编制过程中，中央通过网络向社会征集了数以百万计的意见建议，其中相当一部分被直接吸收到相关文件中。你不知道这些，不是因为它们不存在，而是因为你从来懒得认真了解一个你早已决定鄙视的国家。
你说你“和中国人聊过”，然后得出结论，说中国实行的是一种“善意的等级制政府”。行啊，那我也可以跑到澳大利亚一家酒吧里，找几个喝醉了的矿工聊聊天，然后宣布澳大利亚其实是“封建君主制”。拿几次私人谈话代替社会调查，拿游客式的印象代替阶级分析，这就是你的方法。
说到“等级”，你好像还觉得自己发现了一个多么高明的论据：中国存在层级，因此中国不是社会主义。稍微读过点书的无政府主义者恐怕都不敢把逻辑讲得这么粗糙。巴枯宁过去一百五十年以后，就连当代无政府主义理论都不得不把“废除一切等级”修改成“废除不合理的等级关系”，因为他们自己也承认，只要协作规模超过几十个人，就必然需要协调机制、劳动分工以及某种形式的指挥体系。社会主义要消灭的是剥削性的阶级等级，是资本对劳动的支配，而不是消灭一切组织形式、一切管理结构和一切必要的集中。把“存在层级结构”等同于“不是社会主义”，这已经不只是把孩子连洗澡水一起倒掉了，你倒掉的那个“孩子”本身都是你自己想象出来的稻草人。
然后你又说，中国“缺乏能够实现有意义政治改变的途径”。又是“直接下结论”，又是毫无证据。你似乎不知道党内有民主生活会，有批评与自我批评的传统，有纪律检查和监察制度；不知道中国人民政治协商会议是一个涵盖各民主党派、人民团体、各民族和各界人士的协商平台；不知道还有立法听证、基层协商民主以及“枫桥经验”式的矛盾纠纷化解机制。你说“加入其他政党不算”，可以，那你知不知道中国的八个民主党派不是反对党，而是参政党，直接参与国家大政方针的协商讨论，而且其成员在各级政府、人民代表大会和人民政协中都担任实职？你要么根本不知道，要么明明知道，只是因为这些事实不符合你预设的模板，所以就宣布它们“不算”。
你还谈到工会，说中国没有工会，说“唯一的工会被中共控制”。拥有三亿多会员、世界上规模最大的工会组织（中华全国总工会）到了你嘴里居然就等于“不存在”。你的理由是，它和社会主义国家“纠缠在一起”。可是同志，在无产阶级专政条件下，工会同国家之间本来就不是敌对关系。在资本主义社会里，工会的重要意义在于同资本以及资产阶级国家进行斗争；而在社会主义社会里，国家本身就是工人阶级的国家，工会的任务是组织工人参与管理、维护劳动权益、促进生产发展、教育工人阶级，它的基本方向自然同社会主义国家是一致的。拿衡量资本主义国家工会的同一套“独立性”标准去衡量社会主义国家的工会，就跟按照鱼的标准去判断鸟会不会飞一样荒谬。
你又提到对罢工的“严厉镇压”，却故意无视中国《劳动法》《劳动合同法》《工会法》对劳动者权益的明确保护，无视劳动仲裁制度，也无视近年来大量工人通过法律渠道和集体协商成功维权的案例。你只是选择性地盯住那一小部分符合你预设结论的材料，然后假装除此之外什么都不存在。
最后，你说：“只有中国以外的人才会说中国是社会主义。”中国共产党拥有一亿多名党员，再加上共青团、工会、妇联等组织的覆盖，这个国家有数以亿计的人直接参与社会主义制度的组织和运转。你随便去问一个生活、工作在中国工厂、农村、社区或者学校里的人，问他知不知道自己生活在社会主义制度之下；难道还非得由你来告诉他：“其实你们不是社会主义”？
一个澳大利亚人拿旅游签证来过几次中国，跟几个人喝过几次茶，回去以后就宣布十四亿人都误解了自己社会的性质。这种傲慢，说到底不过是殖民心态的左翼变种：我比你更懂你的国家，我比你更有资格定义你应该走什么道路，你们自己的实践都不算数，只有我的标准才算数。
I don’t think you really understood what I’m saying. You claimed every UN source is from every member nation this isn’t true, the UN has many members under the US umbrella this is true. Being skeptical is thus reasonable given these 2 facts.
Also the UN report on Xinjiang explicitly did not call it a genocide but that there were abuses which is true, during the ETIM crackdowns there definitely were abuses genocide however is another story the only “source” for which is a German evangelical on a mission from god to destroy china who speaks neither Uyghur nor mandarin and works for the victims of communism memorial foundation (I really should have to explain why that would cast doubt in this case I hope).
See if you actually understood what class was, the purpose of the state or how modern political economy actually functioned you wouldn’t be reduced to idiotic oneliners that don’t actually align with reality but sound good to burgers with no understanding.
It’s not party bullshit it’s reality Spavor sued Korvig and the Canadian government and won $6million for them turning him into an intelligence asset without his knowledge leading to his arrest. Espionage is a capitol offence in China it was Canada holding Meng Wanzhou hostage at the behest of the Americans that spared them. Also I don’t think Canadians (or any other US satellite like the Europeans) get to decide who is “a benign member of the international community” after you helped the Americans rampage across the world committing non stop atrocities for the last 81 years.
You’d feel like you lost a war too if your country went through what east Germany did during reunification. It can only be described as a looting leaving tens to hundreds of housands without jobs, security or prospects for the future.