GenZhouArchive

u/aimixin - originally from r/GenZhou
If you want to claim the CPC is inserting dogma into Marxism, then you need to demonstrate that, but what the CPC is saying is clearly more inline with classical Marxism than the Maoist interpretation. The video link even states "Xi Jinping Rejects Mao Zedong Thought on Class Struggle", which naturally leads me to assume the uploader of the video is posting this because he thinks the CPC should return to Maoist economics, which are more of a deviation from classical Marxism than Deng Xiaoping Theory.

Your point about whether or not they have a good "balance" I do think is a much more reasonable question to ask. But you should not base the view over whether or not they have this good "balance" on this single 1 minute and 12 second clip.

This clip doesn't even really address that, it is talking about past developments from Mao to Deng, so you can't really extrapolate anything from this clip about whether or not they have a good balance or not today since that is a separate question entirely from what this video even discusses.

Whether or not CPC is doing a good job keeping the bourgeoisie under control or whether or not the bourgeoisie is gaining ground in controlling the CPC, or whether or not they already control the CPC, is a more complex discussion than whether or not there should be a bourgeoisie allowed at all that can be worked with.

It is hard to know what is going on inside of the CPC as an outsider exactly. I base some of my views on economic indicators. If the bourgeoisie was in control, wealth inequality would be growing and not shrinking, its enormous list of policies for poverty alleviation and reducing the wealth gap would not be there, it would eventually begin to stagnate like we've seen in most every western country and Japan rather than investing heavily into new technology and infrastructure, there would be attempts to mass privatize the public sector but Xi Jinping has only been trying to strengthen the public sector, there would be a declination in social spending and not an increase in spending as a percentage of GDP every single year consistently, etc.

So I do view that currently the bourgeoisie is not in power. Of course, whether or not the bourgeoisie is in power is a different question and an entirely different discussion from whether or not they are gaining ground and could be in power in the long-run.

I don't think I really have enough expertise on answering that particular question. Someone who has more knowledge on policies they have implemented to prevent that could probably have a better discussion with you on that particular point.

u/aimixin - originally from r/GenZhou

I think you are being a little dogmatic comrade.

You think I'm going to respond positively when you legitimately start off calling me dogmatic for criticizing the huge side of leftists who think material conditions aren't relevant?

One aspect of this I would argue is that historical materialism explains how contradictions of hierarchy rewrite society through revolution over and over again until the contradictions are eliminated.

The "hierarchies" result from the relations of production, which are determined by the productive forces. Not the other way around.

“…social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production. With the discover of a new instrument of warfare, the firearm, the whole internal organization of the army was necessarily altered, the relations within which individuals compose an army and can work as an army were transformed, and the relation of different armies to another was likewise changed.

We thus see that the social relations within which individuals produce, the social relations of production, are altered, transformed, with the change and development of the material means of production, of the forces of production. The relations of production in their totality constitute what is called the social relations, society, and, moreover, a society at a definite stage of historical development, a society with peculiar, distinctive characteristics. Ancient society, feudal society, bourgeois (or capitalist) society, are such totalities of relations of production, each of which denotes a particular stage of development in the history of mankind.”

— Karl Marx, “Wage-Labour and Capital”

.

This however does not mean that all societies must start as some feudal monarchy and evolve through all stages of societal development in order to reach capitalism. By the same token, all societies do not need to start at the beginning in order to reach socialism.

People that already know what they are developing can skip straight to the system they intend to implement, with some degree of tightening the belt in-between due to resources. The fact that they skipped straight to their intended system does not guarantee failure of those societies at all and by the same token I don't think you should hold to the idea that you must absolutely force yourself through stages before you'll reach your intended target.

While it is technically true that it would not violate the laws of physics for someone to win a war using incredibly outdated battle tactics not actually suited for modern day weaponry, it would not only be an incredibly inefficient of winning that war but they significantly increase their likelihood of losing.

I see historical materialism as the natural process by which contradiction resolves itself through class struggle over and over again, driving forwards reorganisation of society. This natural process will inevitably reach socialism if given a long enough timeline to play out, but that does not mean that you can not proceed with intent just as any society could be started on Mars tomorrow with the intent of being capitalist.

This is not what historical materialism is.

Historical materialism comes back to the material. The class struggle originates in contradictory relations of production, but the relations of production originate in the level of the productive forces.

Class struggle does not develop into anything if it is static. Marx's entire purpose of writing Capital was to analyze how the development of the productive forces in capitalism leads to changes in the relations of production.

The development of capitalism socializes production, brings workers out of competition and into cooperation, lays the infrastructure for central planning, and constantly reduces the number of capitalists will constantly increasing the number of workers.

Hence, the relations of production inevitably change as a process of the development of the productive forces in a way that is constantly giving workers a stronger position, so eventually it will topple over for the workers.

But that does not mean you can just implement socialism by decree "if you know what you are doing". Why is it all you extreme dogmatists who never read a word on historical materialism come here pretending to be experts and saying everyone who disagrees must be the "dogmatist"?

You have an idealist view of economics where the economic system is simply a reflection of human ideas and not based in material conditions, and therefore in your mind, you conclude that the most developed economic system is merely a reflection of the most developed ideas, hence you state this quite blatantly, "People that already know what they are developing can skip straight to the system they intend to implement".

To you, having the knowledge of the system is enough. Just having the most developed ideas is enough. When this is quite literally the opposite of what Marx argues. Economic systems are not a reflection of a certain level of development in human ideas. It is the opposite. Human ideas are a reflection of a certain level of development of the economic system.

"we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life."

— Karl Marx, “The German Ideology"

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

— Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”

You have no understanding of this topic at all. Historical materialism is not simply about "hierarchies" contradicting therefore making socialism "inevitable". It is about the material basis of society ultimately and in the last instance determining the superstructure of society.

Just to add -- this isn't a refutation of the Chinese approach. I support what they're doing as it's necessary in the current conditions to prevent isolation and destruction by the bourgeoisie. I just don't think it's right to say that any stages are requirements.

You objectively could not have implemented a feudal economy in primitive hunter-gatherer times. You objectively could not have simply implemented capitalism by fiat in early feudal times. You could not even have abolished slavery by fiat in early ancient times. This required certain technological innovations to improve agricultural production, such as the spinning jenny. These were things that required a certain level of development of the productive forces.

"it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. 'Liberation' is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse."

— Karl Marx, “The German Ideology"

You say you can just ignore the level of development of the productive forces and implement whatever system you want willy-nilly as long as you "you know what you are doing".

Let's take a look at what Friedrich Engels had to say about ancient slave-based societies.

"It was slavery that first made possible the division of labour between agriculture and industry on a larger scale, and thereby also Hellenism, the flowering of the ancient world. Without slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art and science, without slavery, no Roman Empire. But without the basis laid by Hellenism and the Roman Empire, also no modern Europe...In this sense we are entitled to say: Without the slavery of antiquity no modern socialism. It is very easy to inveigh against slavery and similar things in general terms, and to give vent to high moral indignation at such infamies. Unfortunately all that this conveys is only what everyone knows, namely, that these institutions of antiquity are no longer in accord with our present conditions and our sentiments, which these conditions determine."

— Friedrich Engels, "Anti-Durhing"

Was Engels a dogmatist?