Also he is a libertarian
Also how would you decide what is “genuinely transitional” and what is it transitioning to?
Organizational structures that undermine the modern logic of private capital accumulation and elevates worker and community ownership of the means of productions either thru local representative bodies or direct control, eventually leading to the abolition of commodity form, that’s what I mean by transitional
China’s regional devolution policies toward local municipal representative party control of state owned enterprises points to an outline of a transitional state in its early stages
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)
Not saying this is what China is, but if a vague outline of this transformation does develop because of Chinese regional devolution, well bucko we’re in business
As much as it’s memed on, one of the primary contradictions of socialism/communism and command economies built on those principles (USSR) is literally “communism no iPhone”. We as workers under bourgeois dictatorship and exploitation can see that it’s all a lie, but those living in the USSR genuinely wanted Western consumer goods.
The productive forces of the Soviet states weren’t really designed for that sort of consumer production though as they were developed for war and siege. This led to a massive lack of consumer goods and the formation of huge black markets to fulfill the demand that the state couldn’t.
China saw this and attempted to solve it by just getting all the western companies to build their consumer goods factories there. Which so far seems to have worked really fucking well…
far from undermining “modern logic of private capital accumulation” has helped capitalism by providing a huge new market for labor and commodities
It’s also provided the Chinese Communist Party with enormous economic leverage and industrial capacity, you really can’t see any advantages to this arrangement?
Why? Because Huawei is a co-op? Or because some Chinese factories are state owned?
You’re describing the tail end of the devolution strategy, which capitalists in China take advantage of on the national scale, I’m specifically referring to the regional and municipal scale of organization which the Chinese state takes advantage of to guide national level industrial/infrastructure policy, if the transition happens, it’s gonna happen on the local level not the national/state level
even this is not true, as the level of state ownership is declining in terms of assets, employment and profits
What did you think I meant when I said devolution?
Once again, transition towards what?
I already told you, theoretically towards DotP, like I literally said that
and even if they were growing, what would they transition to?
DEVOLVED MUNICIPAL WORKER LEAD COOPERATIVES OR INDUSTRIAL COMBINES…that would eventually lead to DotP
or do Marxists call that rank opportunism and have railed against it for 150 years?
They also correctly railed against idealistic utopianism
Socialism is when the state delegates control of capitalist firms to smaller authorities.
If those smaller authorities directly represent the workers then yes, again that’s where the debate lays, it’s not about having fAitH it’s literally just me laying out the framework of THE DEBATE, it could go either way
In the Communist manifesto among other places.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
The quotation I gave you was, first of all, not one of the numbered demands like a graduated income tax schedule but in fact one of the “general principles” which are “as correct today as ever”, and the Communist Party of China seems to be well aware of the fact that the practical application in China depends on the historical conditions existing in China, they’ve formulated their entire approach to implementing socialism on that very idea. That’s why they call their economic system Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Calling their system just “capitalist” kind of ignores some fundamental questions about how an economy operates. Who is making the decisions in the economy, for the benefit of whom and at the expense of whom?
