Asklemmy

Why are you framing people's democracy as less democratic than bourgeois dictatorship?

Properly define authoritarian before using it as a thought-terminating scare word, & you will come to the conclusion that it is simply used to conjure up stereotypical images about certain peoples & their governments.

How do I know this? Because it is so abstract as to be meaningless without further context, & the further context makes countries like China look like fully-realised communism compared to the coloniser states.

Contradictions & struggle increase under a socialist system; they do not evaporate overnight. It's not easy, & every Party that has led a socialist state is extremely aware that the struggle for communism gets even harder under socialism, because socialism needs to deal with resurgent bourgeois elements, provide for healthcare, establish & defend all the peoples rights (housing, work according to personal ability, healthy food, clean water).

Most importantly it needs to constantly try to get all the people involved in the political sphere with constant bottom-up appointments and elections for leadership and also deal with constant feedback from below and surveying/referenda. And unlike other systems, socialism involves self-criticism & the Party keeping each other honest, on the path, & meeting planning goals (or else you get Yugoslavia).

Anti-corruption must be an even stronger priority under socialism. The Xi era is markedly better for socialism than the era starting with Deng. The CPC has already been reshuffling & getting rid of corrupt actors/aspirant bourgeoisie in the military & in civilian sectors. The remants of capital in the form of Chinese billionaires live terrified lives for a good reason, & their assets are ultimately on-condition & used to sabotage them (by appropriating & investing in all-China development instead of letting them buy political power). This would not have happened if China's socialist revolution somehow just reverted to feudalism/early capitalism. Instead, maybe there would be a Brezhnev-like "maintenance era" of stagnation (that was a bit better than Khruschev but still bad, and did not correct the political damage done by the preceding one).

We would not see enormous developmental progress, very high civic engagement, low crime, & imcreasing arts-&-culture exports, & potential world-leader status, nor would we see favourable trade terms with other countries & "pay when you can" loans to those ravaged by colonialism, nor would we see unwillingness to engage in shared pillage exploits (ie. military alliances formed to harass poor nations). All of the above happening at the same time is an unfathomable contradiction in a capitalist country.

The evidence just does not show that the CPC are doing such a bad job cultivating socialism that an ultra-left civil war is necessary to course-correct for Deng. Moreover, another civil war in China is implicitly an endorsement of the imperial order, and I hope you aren't seriously suggesting the neocolonial capitalist slaver bloc ought to go on unopposed.

There's so much wrong with your comment it's hard to know where to begin, but definitely read theory.

Sorry I'm going to take a swing here and say that you're a white EuroAmerican just completely uninformed to the reality of the Chinese people, Chinese law and Chinese sentiments. You are completely detached from the reality of China. And honestly even from this short comment it doesn't appear you have a strong grasp of Marxist theory either.

Marketing is for shit-for-brains, is the main problem here. The workers, once exposed to what socialism is in a correct form, become skeptical of exploitation, especially marketing.

Smartening up the deliberately-infantilised workers, who are kept ignorant & pliable on purpose, is the way. Or else you simply believe education is impossible just because education is trash in the "west".

It's funny how lefters and righters accusing Ursula von Der leyen to be on other side. She is just f@$#&! Marionette for who pays more. She is hated of both sides.

Marxist-Leninist model has everything to do with China's development. You can read this book on the subject which explains how China's rise is a direct product of Marxist central planning.

The whole idea of state capitalism is a bit of a misnomer. It basically says that even though USSR had state owned enterprise, the internal capitalist relations within it remain largely the same. While that’s true, there is a fundamental difference here. Capitalism is a system where people who own capital hire workers to exploit there labor with the purpose of increasing their capital. The goal of capitalist enterprise is to create wealth for the owners with any social benefits being strictly incidental. On the other hand, the purpose of state enterprise is to provide social value. Workers in state owned companies are producing things that the society needs. They are working for their own benefit and those of others around them. Therefore, the nature of work itself is fundamentally different from actual capitalism.

And this is precisely what socialism is. It's a transitional stage between a capitalist society and a future communist society where the working class has seized the control of the state, but existing material relations have not yet been abolished.

Also worth noting that the state in China is firmly in control of the commanding heights of the economy.

The actual innovation in China is in combining high level central planning with dynamic allocation. The problem with Soviet economy was that any large system will produce a lot of noise as information travels through it. So, when you do central planning the way USSR was, it becomes very difficult to balance things. You make a plan, the directives travel down to the factories and farms where production happens, there's delay in the information arriving, mistakes in transcription, and so on. Then the same thing happens on the way back up, so the picture at the top is divergent from the situation on the ground. And that leads to things like overcorrections, and plans based on false data, so the system becomes unbalanced over time. And that's what we saw happen in USSR. I can highly recommend reading Thinking in Systems for a deeper explanation of the problem.

Now, that doesn't mean that the idea of central planning itself is wrong. The problem is with trying to do micromanagement at high level which just doesn't work. And this is the problem China figure out how to solve by using markets as allocators within the centrally planned system. The planners still set five year plans, they still control the commanding heights of the economy, and give overall direction on what types of things should be produced, but the details are left to market mechanisms to work out dynamically at the appropriate level. And this type of a hybrid system is proving to be highly effective.

Latin America is my vote, could happen in Mexico, I would have voted Argentina better Milei, and maybe Venezuela before Trump.

Truthfully though, I think we're locked in, globally, permanently to Capitalism and right wing ideology into the end of humanity now for deeply complex reasons.

The game changed drastically this year and most people are just not aware how literally impossible it is to change.