Beautiful but unintelligent people can make far more mistakes than intelligent but not beautiful people.

Intelligence, easier to figure out how to improve my attractiveness and deal with complex problems in general than trying to get smarter.

Cool! I want to take my language learning and fitness up a notch or two this year, so this came just in time, haha.

Marxism is Dialectical, it recognizes that “pure” systems are close to fantasy, sure.

As for the UK, again, the Monarchy shouldn’t exist, period, and the fact that you think the press was too free only cements bourgeois rule as the dominant factor in UK society. Money is the driver of your society just like it is for all Capitalist countries.

Taiwan is a complicated issue and will likely be resolved in a way that nobody is initially happy with due to external pressures like US involvement.

Yep, there are good spots for that on Lemmy.

The truth is that close to every economy beyond the very earliest tribal formations were all mixed economies. When people say a country is Socialist or Capitalist, they are making a judgement of which aspect of the economy holds power, and is thus primary. The idea that an economy can be 32% Capitalist and 68% Socialist is nonsense, everything in an economy exists in the context of the rest of it and thus cannot be seen as static quantities.

Your next bit, on saying the people “have the power to kick out government peacefully,” is frankly misguided. The laws in Capitalist society, such as the UK, are ultimately determined by the Bourgeoisie and to a lesser extent the remnants of the Monarchy. What is cast as voteable is what has already been predetermined as acceptable to the ruling class. A “free press” is really “free to be manipulated by wealth,” and it is in this manner that narratives are massaged. The truth is that there is no such thing as free press. No matter how independent or dependent, all press has an agenda, and all press has a bias.

As for the PRC, it had higher rates of Public Ownership in the past, yes. This did not make it “more Communist.” When understanding Marxism, one must understand that modes of production and forms of property ownership have different levels of development they excel at. Because the PRC collectivized too early, growth was unstable (though positive) and there was a lot of chaos. The expansion (not introduction!) of Markets and the invitation of foreign investment served to better suit the material conditions of the PRC in the 90s, and now that said industrialization has played enough of its part, the CPC is gradually extending more control and ownership. Marxism was applied under Mao, then it served its purpose and Marxism was applied again under Deng, then it served its purpose and now Marxism is being applied again under Xi and is continuing to serve its purpose based on new material conditions.

The Taiwan bit is complicated. The majority of Taiwanese people like the current status, but don’t want to be independent nor folded in. Many want to be folded into the PRC, and some are outright hostile. The Nationalist Kuomintang fled there during the end of the Communist Revolution, so in its present state it remains at odds with the Communist mainland.

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words! I know most people likely aren’t going to get much out of what I say, but I also know many others will learn a thing or two, and when they point that out it helps!

It would be a massive shame to not throw Fallout: New Vegas a nod.

The CPC is a Communist Party, they are trying to build Communism. Communism is a global system, so no, we aren’t on the same page here.

Capitalism did not “come to China” via Deng. Markets existed even under Mao, what Deng did was invite foreign investment and allow profits to be made off of Chines labor in exchange for industrialization, training, and development. This was a bit of a gamble, but has been critical for the modern success of the PRC. This isn’t a total subversion of Socialism and a return to Capitalism, key industries were maintained in the Public Sector like banking, energy, steel, and so forth.

Next, this Private Sector has been more and more under direct control of the CPC as it develops, especially in the last decade. The CPC exerts firm control and executes strong central planning. This is an increase in socialization of the economy, gradually. This is fundamentally and entirely different from Capitalist countries, where the Private Sector is dominant and Capitalists control the state.

Finally, the PRC is democratic and accountable to the people, just not to wealthy Capitalists. I’m not sure where you are pulling this myth from, to be honest, there are elections, councils, mass participation, and multiple political parties. It isn’t the same as western systems, but it is democratic.

Overall, I think you need to do a fair bit more research into Marxism and the PRC if you want to be making qualitative judgments of it along Marxian lines, no shame in learning something new!

Private Ownership isn’t the basis of the PRC’s economy, though. The PRC isn’t at Communism yet, either, rather they are Socialist. The base of their economy is in the Public Sector with strong state control over the Private Sector.

To ask this in another way, are you of the belief that a “single drop” of Capitalism makes the system Capitalist? The natural conclusion to that is that neither “Capitalism” nor “Socialism” has ever existed. This is obviously wrong, of course, the answer is that the system is determined by the sector with power over the economy.

What do you mean by China is “clearly Capitalist?” What do you think Capitalism and Socialism are?

You can’t have Communism in one country, as Communism must be international, global, and have fully eradicated Private Property and Commodity Production. You absolutely can have Socialism in one country, however. Socialism is a transitional status towards Communism from Capitalism, and is dependent upon human supremacy over Capital and a trajectory towards further collectivization and the dominance of the Public Sector over the Private not in percentage, but power.

To take the opposite claim, that you can’t have Socialism in one country, is to determine that you must call a fully publicly owned economy “Capitalist” despite eradication of Markets and commodity production in general. Further, to claim that Socialism can only exist internationally is to make the asserted claim that a 99% publicly owned and planned economy is actually dominated by the 1% in the market sector and is thus Capitalist, these are anti-dialectical judgements.

Further, revisiting Marx, he considered countries where feudalism was still the majority of the economy yet Capitalism well on its way to dominate the entire economy to already be Capitalist. The dialectical method acknowledges that there is nearly no such thing as a “pure” system, to require “purity” for Socialism alone and not any of the previous Modes of Production erases the foundation of Scientific Socialism.

All in all, I am getting a definite Trotskyist vibe from your analysis and that would explain your stances a bit more, but I really do wonder in particular how you personally reconcile Dialectics with an anti-dialectical approach to Socialism specifically. The productive mode does not depend on a “one drop” rule of commodity production, but the dominant mode and the trajectory of the system as a whole.

I suggest reading What is Socialism? Here’s a relevant snippet from it talking about your exact argument:

Let’s imagine trying to apply this line of thinking to any other mode of production. If any hint of private ownership, commodity production, and the anarchy of production in a socialist society would serve to prove it is not socialist, then, by logical necessity, any hint of public ownership, social production, and economic planning in a capitalist society would serve to prove it is not capitalist. Real capitalism, therefore, just like socialism, can be proven to have never been tried.

This also leads to another absurdity. There is an enormous gulf between these two systems. How, then, does one transition between capitalism and socialism? If a mode of production can only exist in its most pure form, then how does one mode of production transition into the next? Necessarily, it must be an instantaneous jump, from one pure form to another. It fundamentally cannot be any other way.

Yes, all Socialist societies should work towards the eventual end of commodity production, however neither Marx nor Engels figured that it could be done away with immediately. From Principles of Communism:

Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

From Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Ultimately, it remains a contradiction that eventually the PRC will have to do away with. However, this is a gradual process that can only be accomplished through trial and error. There is a Chinese proverb often referenced in the CPC, that “one must cross the river by feeling for the stones,” and this reflects their cautious strategy. Moreover, we must understand that the USSR fell, and the CPC saw that in real time. Not wanting to repeat the Cultural Revolution nor the fall of the USSR, the CPC adjusted their practice. It remains to be seen what will happen in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, of course, but currently the CPC is behaving in a manner we can understand as Marxist.

I think it’s perfectly in line, Communists more than anyone know that “organizing” on Lemmy isn’t practical in any way, discussing theory and the news sure, but not organizing.

Yes, hence why I asked OP to clarify if they mean discussing particular legal problems, or practical techniques for building an org and how to operate within them.

Which part is ironic?

Building an org is a practical application of theoretical principles, you don’t form an org by praying it into existence but by studying proper org mechanics and building them, adjusting as you go and figure out what does and does not work. Any actual discussion on the particulars of org building should be done within the org being built, by the organizers of the org.

I don’t know what you mean by a “mass society,” these principles and methods are practical even in starting small orgs in existing Capitalist society. You’ll have to be more clear on why you think they aren’t.

Secondly, the theoretical principles and works I listed are absolutely in line with what you describe, particularly the subjects of Mediation, Organization Design, Effective Communication, Facilitation, and Process Design. I struggle to see why you think what I already listed doesn’t fulfill those.

I mean, that falls under the subset of theory, though, and concrete discussion of local org building should be done in private among those actually involved for OPSEC reasons.

There are a lot of similarities between the PRC’s economic model and the NEP, but this doesn’t mean it’s Capitalist, nor is it accurate to say it has all of the negatives of Capitalism. The PRC is in the early stages of Socialism, and this is shown through strong government control of the Private Sector, a robust and expansive Public Sector, and large-scale Central Planning. You’re correct that it is far from being Stateless, Classless, or Moneyless, but at the same time you have to acknowledge that they simply can’t push the “Communism button” and establish a global Republic of full Public Ownership and Central Planning and an established system of labor vouchers or other such non-money form of accounting.

The process of building Communism is long and drawn out after the revolution, and must be a global process as well.