The absolute state of this fucking thread man.
Maybe we can get back to some modicum of good discussion, because the horse has so far been beat to death. We get it, there are people out there who think China is on a road to socialism and has done things as best they can with obvious flaws as to its implementation. There are others who spend a lot of time tearing down China because they don't believe the government is socialist and takes some offense at so many people defending and taking cues from what they believe to be at the least, a revisionist entity and at worse a capitalist entity masquerading as socialists. So let me frame my view of the conversation, as a supporter of China and as a supporter of the idea that China is indeed a socialist country run by a party doing its utmost to stick to Marxist values. My credentials are just a couple college courses in Marxist theory as well as my own reading and studying since I went through college about a decade ago. There is no real Marxist party here like some of you folks not based in the US, so unfortunately it has been a pretty solitary endeavor for me.
First off, as to why a logical socialist would throw their personal support behind the CPC. Well, first and foremost would be the understanding of Marx's work. One might argue that the CPC has been a fairly orthodox Marxist organization since its inception, with the one caveat being Mao's revolutionary (I don't mean red revolutionary here, just very novel) idea that one can take a peasantry and make that section of society the driver of revolution in a feudal country. The main thing I want to speak to though to support the orthodox nature of the party, is how the development of China thus far has been fairly consistent with Marx's layout of the progression of society i.e slave societies into feudal societies into capitalism and eventually into socialism. They first established a rule by the people led by the CPC, solidify that rule through the use of the party (cultural revolution, very important and understated) and then has been guiding China through a period of state supervised capitalism. If you've read Marx, he had a real sort of admiration for what capitalism could do as far as transforming the world and bringing together people, resources and capital together. In this sense, they really took Lenin's quote of "a capitalist will sell you the rope you need to hang him" and took capital from the imperialist countries who were just bent on cheap labor and making the proverbial quick buck to slingshot a feudal backwater into a space age country.
<The PRC's machiavellian foreign policy moves in the past.
Admittedly, the PRC made a lot of moves to preserve what they had created and made a couple proverbial deals with the devil to survive. For example, when they supported the training and outfitting of the Mujahadeen against the USSR they received weapons and weapon tech from the USA in return. When they invaded Vietnam it was to offset the posturing of the USSR especially what Deng Xiaoping perceived to be aggressive posturing against the PRC by an increasingly hostile Vietnam/USSR tandem (the same Vietnam that received a whole fuckload of aid during its war against America, as well). Plainly, when I read about these things I think about two things: Realpolitik and the necessity of keeping your hopes alive for everyone else. Despite posting from Mao during the Korean War and especially his willingness to talk shit about nukes not being able to win a war that his people would die to fight, I think the CPC realized it couldn't survive like this and if it kept it up it wouldn't. I could go into how, from what I read the USSR was trying to push junior partnership on China not to mention the detestable anti-Stalinization they went through but its a lot of backstory. However, my main point here isn't to write an essay on this topic but to give a small platform a grounding: That China has always made moves to preserve its revolution and to make sure China is never again thrust into a century of humiliation. And I think there is a big character difference that it boils down to: if it was between preserving your revolution and sacrificing the revolution of others, what do you do? I'm happy to hear how it doesn't have to come down to this, but we also live in fucking 2020. The Cold War is over, it is what it is. What use is fighting about this?
<Billionaires in the party.
There are five stars on the flag of the PRC, and two of them stand for the petite-bourgousie and another for the national bourgeoisie. There are two caveats I look at. One being that the communist party could never truly get a handle on the development of the country especially their economic policy if they didn't add party members who were apart of these events themselves. Second, that Jack Ma isn't in the central committee of the CPC, and as I understand they're relegated to the National People's Congress. Mao pretty neatly sums it up, the same Mao who hung landlords and presided over the Cultural Revolution.
>Mao Zedong: To counter imperialist oppression and to raise her backward economy to a higher level, China must utilize all the factors of urban and rural capitalism that are beneficial and not harmful to the national economy and the people's livelihood; and we must unite with the national bourgeoisie in common struggle. Our present policy is to regulate capitalism, not to destroy it. But the national bourgeoisie cannot be the leader of the revolution, nor should it have the chief role in state power. The reason it cannot be the leader of the revolution and should not have the chief role in state power is that the social and economic position of the national bourgeoisie determines its weakness; it lacks foresight and sufficient courage and many of its members are afraid of the masses.
As far as I can see, the capitalists in the party are not in a chief role in state power and they are not leading the revolution. But they are party to it and will be apart of the process of destroying themselves by raising the proletariat (still being created and consolidated, btw) and the productive forces to levels that can sustain socialism.
<Inequality, lack of socialized healthcare, lack of socialized higher education.
These are things which I am still reading into, and while I have an understanding of the goals I can't yet understand why they haven't been put on the top of the list as far as far as party priorities yet. The inequality... poverty reduction programs are a huge part of the inequality portion for me and honestly its the only of its kind in the world. So, the inequality for me isn't so much an issue anymore especially as I know that the party is doing things to alleviate it in a big way. But the two things I can't really abide by are the lack of healthcare and the lack of free college education. As I understand it, China's healthcare still leads life expectancy on average to be higher than some of its neighboring countries that have socialized healthcare (I can't be assed too look into sources at this second) and that's pretty damn good. But, these two things are my biggest fucking peeves and I surely have to be missing something here.
I'm just a dude, with lots of books and a day job. If you want to say I'm not up on theory, fine. I read my Marx, my Lenin, my Engels, and have a whole lot of other history books and niche ideological shit up there too. Along with my understanding of history and the world, I think one quote pretty much sums it up for me:
>Cross the river by feeling for stones.
What the CPC has accomplished, regardless of their socialist cred is amazing. They have 1.2 billion people to take care of, and when I think of my complaints I think back to various things I've had to do in my life that involved many less participants than 1.2 billion I shudder at how I would start. My gripes about healthcare, free school... alongside comprehensive poverty reduction programs. Call me weak but I don't think I could start on how to do these things in my own country while making sure things don't fall apart over the span of 70 years.