China: from revolution to Tiananmen

[@moheduldaud9380]

Good Wonderful Say

[@BB-dm3pm]

CHINA: FROM REVOLUTION TO TIANANMEN The illusion in this presentation is that the Tiananmen 'movement' was 'progressive' and, in a sense, even "heroic" and 'revolutionary'. The reality is that it was infantile and, predominantly, counter-revolutionary. The few pro-revolutionary elements in the movement were poorly organised and unfocused. And as the presenter himself said, most of the students were bourgeois and contemptuous of the workers amongst them. The intellectuals who helped to trigger the movement not only dumpep it, but some of them later openly denounced it. Thus, the lesson of the Tiananmen movement is that behind infantilism of that sort in China lurkes two things: a coup or counterrevolution. And if the 'movement' had succeeded, there would have been massacres of socialists/communists and, even the banning of left wing parties, culminating in the rise of fascism or bourgeois plutocracy. Deng Xiaoping's painful and reluctant decision to crush the movement was the right one. The result, as we have seen, is the upliftment of 500-700 million Chinese out of poverty. 'People must eat before they philosophise'. Marx more than anyone else realised this. China, is at present, in transition. It has strong features of capitalism managed, not by capitalists themselves but, by a Communist Party. State owned enterprises (soc) still represent a significant proportion of the economy. And national economic direction is decided, not by corporations but, by the CCCP. Some Marxists may dismiss this as bureaucratic, others may call it state capitalism. What matters is still not the colour of the cat but that it does its job: improve the quality of life of the masses. Right and left wing ideological puritans may not appreciate this. But we the masses do. Whatever anyone labels the Chinese system is irrelevant. What is relevant is that those who run it are producing outstanding results in advancing human welfare. If this is what "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is, give us more of it around the developing world, where World Bank/IMF structural adjustment programmes killed many and even led to total economic dislocations and civil wars in some parts of Africa. The CCP does not consider its system a model, but its socialism with Chinese characteristics sure has features that other nations in the developing world can learn from. Develoment is not a fixed model, but an upgrading experiment. Marxism deserves upgrading.

[@gymnopedie4445]

TIL Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew was communist because state capitalism=communism.

[@fenceyhen4249]

@@gymnopedie4445 Exactly lol. Capitalism under an authoritarian state might be slightly better coordinated, especially when it is built on the industrial base gained through socialist revolution but that doesn't make it socialism or really anything worth celebrating

[@youngmurphy7556]

It never surprises me that Trotskyists can't point to a country they think does or has done things right or even one that Trotskyists have led and done things their obviously superior way. They're the Marxist wing of western imperialism. The implication is always western bourgeois liberalism is preferable to some peculiar, foreign version of socialism that doesn't match their infantile 'socialism by numbers' analysis. And it's no surprise either that they proliferate in the imperial core either. They struggle to recruit into the hundreds in the global south, whereas Marxist-Leninist (what they call Stalinist) parties reach millions.

[@mrchangcooler]

Bernsteinian nonsense

[@noname-bu1ux]

ty.