So tl;dr (and of course in best Marxist historical determinism /s):
He is saying China introduced Capitalism as a means to reach Communism…
If you ever bother reading Marx then you’ll see that Marx plainly states that he believe capitalism is likely a necessary stage for society to pass through in order to develop productive forces. My favorite part about anarchists is having unlimited smugness coupled with consistent ignorance.
That was my point when mentioning “historical determinism”. I happen to know Marx’s writing quite well. But that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he wrote. Specifically the historical determinism stuff is pretty absurd ;)
If you actually read Marx and think that Marx advocates for “historical determinism”, then you clearly have not understood what Marx was saying.
Marx believed that the productive forces have a tendency to develop as history unfolds. This is not the same as claiming that they progress linearly towards some predetermined state. Meanwhile, the agent of this development is whatever social class is in command of material production. Productive forces and those who control them act as selection pressure for how society develops.
There comes a point when the prevailing social relations, far from promoting the growth of the productive forces, begin to act as an obstacle to them. This creates a contradiction and sets the stage for a political revolution. The class struggle sharpens, and a social class capable of taking the forces of production forward assumes power.
Capitalism staggers from one crisis to another by virtue of the social relations it involves. At a certain point in its decline the conditions become such that the working class is in the position to take over the ownership and control of production.
Claiming this view is absurd would be akin to claiming that evolution through natural selection pressure is absurd.
You are making up a straw man argument. I know that Marx did not “advocate” for it, but claimed (as you write) that it is some sort of likely natural progression. This might have seemed logical to a certain extend when (and where) he wrote it, but in hindsight it is pretty absurd. Edit: If there is any natural progression it is that Capitalism leads to societal collapse and/or regression to feudalism. It is highly unlikely to lead to communism as Marx speculated.
And even if we would agree that it isn’t absurd by itself, what Vijay Prashad seems to claim here is that the CPC intentionally introduced a form of Capitalism in China to bring about Communism, which is even more absurd.
Please quote the specific passage from Marx that makes claims regarding historical determinism. Meanwhile, there is nothing absurd about the idea that contradictions of capitalism set the stage for socialism to be possible.
There’s also absolutely nothing absurd about what Vijay claims. The fact of the matter is that we live in a world where capitalism is the dominant ideology, and capitalism is overtly hostile towards communism.
The only things that’s absurd here is to claim that there were obviously better options available. USSR tried to create its own independent economy and it was crushed by capitalists. USSR was forced to spend incredible amount of resources on its military in order to counter NATO, and that came directly at the cost of improving the material conditions for its citizens.
China learned from USSR and chose a different approach. They created special economic zones where capitalism is allowed, and by doing so they removed the threat of war and economic sanctions. This allowed them to develop in relative peace, and to have rapid technological advancement by learning from the technological experience of the west. China was able to focus their productive power on improving lives of their citizens and the results we see today speak for themselves. Incidentally, the approach that China took is precisely what Lenin advocates here. I guess Lenin just didn’t understand communism enough though.
Again, you seem to not understand what I write and argue against some sort of strawman. I don’t need to quote some passage from Marx as I am not even disputing what you wrote.
Even by Marx’s own assumptions and exactly as you write yourself further up, artificially introducing Capitalism with the intention that it will somehow through a misunderstood historical determinism lead to Communism is totally absurd. Even Marx himself would say so. It might be that I totally misunderstood what Vijay was saying, but this kind of absurd thinking seems to be part of it.
So yes, I guess we agree then that China is capitalist today? At least that is what you seem to write? And sure it improved the living conditions of a lot of people, no doubt about that. But thinking that by introducing Capitalism you somehow bring about Communism in the future is absurd.
P.S.: yes Lenin was a highly misguided counter-revolutionary that pretty much had no idea what he was talking about.
I happen to know Marx’s writing quite well. But that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he wrote. Specifically the historical determinism stuff is pretty absurd
I simply asked you to show a quote from Marx substantiating this claim. Seems like you’re the one making a straw man with it.
Even by Marx’s own assumptions and exactly as you write yourself further up, artificially introducing Capitalism with the intention that it will somehow through a misunderstood historical determinism lead to Communism is totally absurd.
I’ve explained to you precisely the conditions that led to capitalism being introduced as well as how the alternative turned out. I notice that you haven’t actually bothered addressing my point.
It might be that I totally misunderstood what Vijay was saying, but this kind of absurd thinking seems to be part of it.
What specifically are you claiming is absurd and why?
So yes, I guess we agree then that China is capitalist today?
China is capitalist exactly the same way Canada is communist because Canada has some social services like free healthcare. Again, you’re simply showing your shallow understanding of the subject you’re debating. China is a socialist country with a communist party in power that is in the process of working towards becoming a communist society.
I notice that anarchists often struggle with the idea that you can’t just flip a switch and create a communist society.
P.S.: yes Lenin was a highly misguided counter-revolutionary that pretty much had no idea what he was talking about.
Anarchist galaxy brain moment here. 😂
China is capitalist.
It’s demonstrably not, but it’s pretty clear no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince people living in the imperial core.
Of course they’re communist, it’s in the name!
And they very much live up to the name. If we take China out of the equation poverty actually increased in real terms:
China also massively invests in infrastructure. They used more concrete in 3 years than US in all of 20th century, they built 27,000km of high speed rail in a decade. 90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. Real wage (i.e. the wage adjusted for the prices you pay) has gone up 4x in the past 25 years, more than any other country. This is staggering considering it’s the most populous country on the planet. Social mobility is very high as well.
And then there’s the handling of the pandemic where it’s all but eliminated in China with life getting back to normal. On the other hand, capitalist nations left their people out to dry in order to protect business interests as one would expect a capitalist state to do.
Chinese government has recently passed massive regulation on big business and released a a five-year blueprint calling for greater regulation of vast parts of the economy. The government has also openly stated that the era of capital expansion is over and the interests of the majority outweigh the interests of shareholders.
This is something that simply does not happen under capitalism. Compare China to India and you can a stark contrast in their development with India going the capitalist route.
Finally, 87.6% of young Chinese identify with Marxism, and the party has 95 million members. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that these people do in fact understand what communism is, and likely a lot better than you do.
None of this goes against capitalism. Your definition of communism is “when the government does stuff”.
All these statistics show me is that China has a capitalist system with a high growth rate and a heavy handed government.
No, my definition of communism is a country where the working class is in charge. This is very clearly the case in China. It’s also worth noting that all the core industry in China is publicly owned which is not the case in any actual capitalist state.
Your argument is basically that since China has special economic zones where capitalism is allowed that makes it capitalist. This line of argument is just as absurd as saying that Canada is communist because there’s free healthcare.
To sum up, China is a country where Marxism-Leninism is the official state ideology, it’s governed by the communist party, vast majority of the population are communists, all the essential economy is state owned, but it’s actually capitalist. Some serious galaxy brain logic there bud.
