Challenging the purists: the Marxist debate over China’s path - Friends of Socialist China
socialistchina.org
The article below was submitted by Dan Farhat, an author and researcher based in Beirut, Lebanon. Dan responds to the critique made of China by some of the (particularly Western) left, that the introduction of market mechanisms from 1978 onwards was a betrayal of socialism and that China has become – or is on its … Continue reading Challenging the purists: the Marxist debate over China’s path
  • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    17·
    2 days ago

    By only focusing on theoretical ideals, critics overlook and often fail to consider the dialectical nature of Socialism, which cannot be reduced to static definitions; but rather, its relevance and survival depend on its ability to reform and adapt.

    This is pretty much why i don’t consider ultras as marxist, they lack the fundamental philosophical framework of marxism and rather than developing it, they take Marxist writings as ghospel.

    Benjamin saw that this exact separation created a ‘terrible social isolation’ of the ‘NEP man,’ as their wealth did not translate into political influence.

    This analysis is pretty spot on, Jack Ma instantly comes to mind.

  • AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml
    12·
    2 days ago

    Domenico Losurdo’s understanding of the NEP is consistent with that of the prominent German philosopher Walter Benjamin. During his 1927 visit to Moscow, Benjamin noted that the NEP created a separation between economic wealth and political power, with the Soviet state maintaining full political control while still allowing private economic activity. Benjamin saw that this exact separation created a ‘terrible social isolation’ of the ‘NEP man,’ as their wealth did not translate into political influence. Losurdo uses Benjamin’s insight to argue that although market reforms were introduced it did not bring back the capitalist system, as the Communist Party still held on to power.

    Missing this is the key to the fundamental misunderstanding of the China-critical supposed Communists. The US and its vassals have always been ruled by their wealthy elites, more clearly since the 80s and almost explicitly since around '08. Elections take place as the supposed expression of people’s will, yet the successors fundamentally keep to the policies of their predecessors. In fact, this is a topic of joke among the populace, even as they keep calling their systems off governance democracies. Indeed, the main criticism a westerner can lob at China or other proletarian states is merely a revelation of their warped priorities, holding up their rubber stamp powers as true authority while ignoring all the means with which the governments China, Cuba, Vietnam, DPR Korea interact with, listen to and are held to account by their people.

    Truly, it takes ignorance of the realities of the PRC and of theory to claim the CPC does anything short of upholding Marxism-Leninism.