It’s a sentence I made, just because the PRC agrees with describing themselves that way doesn’t mean I’m not adding to meaningful conversation. When you declare that China is a cocktail of Capitalism and Socialism, what does that actually mean? It seemed like your comment was more about not analyzing China’s economy than coming up with a coherent and consistent answer, which is what I pushed forward.

Basically, Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors of overall systems, not portions of an economy, so calling a system a cocktail of each doesn’t make too much sense and adds confusion more than clarity.

China has a Socialist Market Economy, it isn’t so much a cocktail as it is Marxism-Leninism applied to China’s current conditions.

Vaush has to, by virtue of his profession, at least pretend to know what he’s talking about with Marxism, so it can seem convincing. The issue is that it is abundantly clear every time he makes a mistake to anyone who takes theory seriously, yet that isn’t Vaush’s target audience, who are mainly western liberals and occasionally pro-US Anarchists.

That’s why I recommend reading theory, the only way to be 100% sure is to go the source.

Russia is Capitalist, the EU is Capitalist, the US is Capitalist, and China is Socialist. Communism must be global, but Socialism is the process of building towards that through publicly owning large firms and key industries. Communism exists as an ideology for now, and hasn’t been achieved yet.

The USSR didn’t “do repression and violence to speed up Communism,” they had a successful revolution and established Socialism. By all accounts it was quite successful overall, but we can learn from where they erred and adapt for the future.

The only ones who believe the Soviet Union wasn’t Socialist are generally Western Trots or liberals/Anarchists who already don’t want the form of society Marxists want, which is a government that publicly owns its large and key industries and gradually folds in the new firms that grow to that level until the entire economy is publicly owned.

Yes and no. The AES ststes of today have learned from what happened to the USSR and other former Socialist countries snd have adapted, such as China’s Socialist Market Economy an stance towards international investment, not closing off but not ceding power.

Can you elaborate? They have a better respect for human rights than the vast majority of states.

One of the worst issues is when he depicts AES as “not real Socialism” because they contain contradictions, when Dialectical Materialism shows that all systems contain contradictions and must resolve them, that doesn’t mean they aren’t that system. Ie, Capitalist states contain public ownership, which is a contradiction but does not define the system.

One of the recent and larger-scale issues was when he tried to explain Lenin advocated voting Socialism into existence.

I don’t make it a point to hate-watch sex offenders that do the work of the US state department.

The vast majority of them, to be honest. He has no grasp of Dialectical and Historical Materialism, has no knowledge of AES, and horrendously distorts Lenin.

He’s a liberal that cosplays an Anarchist and pretends to have beyond a Wikipedia understanding of Marxism.

That’s, of course, ignoring that he’s a chaser, pedophile, sex offender.

Fantastic question! The answer is no, not necessarily. The PRC is Socialist, and never had a true “Capitalist” phase. It currently has a Socialist Market Economy, but never really had a stage dominated entirely by Capitalism.

There are also reversions. Russia reverted to Capitalism, and Germany almost became Communist, but was stopped by the Nazi Party coming to power.

However, all of that being said, history does generally progress alongside technological development, and the Mode of Production follows suit.

Most people don’t become Marxist-Leninists without doing a lot of reading, in my experience.

East Germany was the side with practically no industry, and the Soviets de-Nazified it and made it pay reparations, as the Soviet Union, unlike the US, emerged from the war with massive reconstruction costs and tens of millions of lives lost. It was not in a position to offer the same kind of support the US gave to West Germany, it had to build itself up first and then help out more. Later on, the DDR was much better and support increased.

In addition, the DDR provided free, high quality education, while the West offered higher pay, meaning a lot of educated workers could get the “best of both worlds” by getting educated in East Germany and defecting to the West.

The East had a good system, but it was bogged down by sitiational problems.

I didn’t say the USSR didn’t support East Germany, I explained the unique struggles East Germany faced compared to West Germany.

Why not? It’s rapidly overtaking everyone else, and has made massive strides for workers. What would you call it?

Neither is accurate. Stalin tried to resign several times, in fact, but was rejected, and Marx wasn’t a Utopian, but in favor of Scientific Socialism. Now, that doesn’t mean Stalin was a saint or that Marx didn’t have a beautiful vision for the future, but it does mean you should read up a bit more before making judgement calls. I have an introductory reading list for Marxism-Leninism you can check out for that, if you’re interested.

Hard to do so in the aftermath of World War II when the Nazis destroyed half your buildings and murdered 20 million of your people. The Soviets did 80% of the combat against the Nazis.

100% agreed, excellent comment.

In a way, yes, the US Empire is the current world hegemon, but it really succeeds the UK. Either way, the length of a system doesn’t determine its effectiveness, moreover the PRC is showing no signs of collapse.

Some did, others didn’t. Calling primitive communism “primitive communism” is a judgement on its class character, not a moral one.

Can’t really call a civil war against Tsarists and fascists “killing their own civilians.” Moreover, the US bombed Cambodia more than any other country on the planet. Pol Pot wasn’t a Communist, but he was stopped by the Vietnamese Communists.