Laissez-faire capitalism, mostly with a dash of oligarchy. You know, “American characteristics”. One masquerades as something it isn’t, the other embraces its shittiness. Strangely much like the two major parties in the American electrical system.
But at the end of the day, they both serve moneyed interests. They both have class division, they both clearly embrace fiat currencies, and neither one is anywhere NEAR abolishing their respective states.
China is about as Communist as the United States is united.
Just about everything about this referencing China is wrong, so I’m not really sure where to begin with it. As State and Revolution outlines, the purpose of a dictatorship of the proletariat state is to suppress the capitalist class, guard against the reaction, and transition toward communism. China is communist, but it has not reached the stage of communism; an important distinction.
Remember that no socialist project exists in a vacuum, left alone to develop at its own pace as it pleases. All of them have had to contend with imperialist forces wanting to violently undermine them* and the Soviet Union fell in part because of that opposition. China chose its own path to contend with that dynamic, one that would rapidly develop its productive forces. I’m sure you can find things to criticize in the choices made, but the ways you are describing it as equivalent to the US is nothing short of nonsense.
*this also applies to anti-imperialist / liberation movements that attempt to be more stateless: one of the core arguments for why the transition state is needed in the first place
Good progress for state capitalism, I guess?
But yes, trains are cool, old and new, regardless.
If China is “state capitalism”, then what function does the US state serve?
Laissez-faire capitalism, mostly with a dash of oligarchy. You know, “American characteristics”. One masquerades as something it isn’t, the other embraces its shittiness. Strangely much like the two major parties in the American electrical system.
But at the end of the day, they both serve moneyed interests. They both have class division, they both clearly embrace fiat currencies, and neither one is anywhere NEAR abolishing their respective states.
China is about as Communist as the United States is united.
Just about everything about this referencing China is wrong, so I’m not really sure where to begin with it. As State and Revolution outlines, the purpose of a dictatorship of the proletariat state is to suppress the capitalist class, guard against the reaction, and transition toward communism. China is communist, but it has not reached the stage of communism; an important distinction.
You can read some on Deng’s thought process here, on the direction China took: https://redsails.org/marxism-is-a-science/
Remember that no socialist project exists in a vacuum, left alone to develop at its own pace as it pleases. All of them have had to contend with imperialist forces wanting to violently undermine them* and the Soviet Union fell in part because of that opposition. China chose its own path to contend with that dynamic, one that would rapidly develop its productive forces. I’m sure you can find things to criticize in the choices made, but the ways you are describing it as equivalent to the US is nothing short of nonsense.
*this also applies to anti-imperialist / liberation movements that attempt to be more stateless: one of the core arguments for why the transition state is needed in the first place