@Brocade Sky
I will respond to that in a private message to you. Although there isn’t really that much, I don’t want us to keep terrorizing this comment section.

@dworder
My major is not Politics and history,they are just my hobbies,my major is Natural Science,so I used AI to organize my opinions and refute you:

Your entire argument rests on dogmatism that misinterprets Marxist texts out of context, confuses economic tools with social systems, and disregards the specific national conditions of different countries, containing multiple fundamental theoretical fallacies:

First, you distort Critique of the Gotha Programme, ignoring that the marketless socialism envisioned by Marx is a long-term ideal predicated on highly developed productive forces. You deliberately dismiss the theoretical innovations of Lenin’s New Economic Policy and socialism with Chinese characteristics in leveraging markets to develop productive forces. Worse still, you maliciously equate the use of markets with Proudhonian reformism, completely severing the core criteria for distinguishing social systems—ownership of the means of production and class rule. The market is merely an instrument of economic regulation and does not determine the nature of a society. The institutional foundation of China, where public ownership plays the dominant role and the people are masters of the country, dictates that our path bears no resemblance to Proudhonian reformism.

Second, you simplistically attribute China’s industrialization achievements to capitalism, conflating the “utilization of capital as a tool” with the “capitalist system”. Key sectors of China’s national economy are under public ownership; the state is capable of regulating capital, redistributing wealth, and advancing common prosperity. Our industrialization relies on the institutional strength of socialism—the ability to pool resources to accomplish major tasks—making it fundamentally distinct from Western capitalist industrialization built upon colonial exploitation.

Third, you misrepresent Soviet socialism as feudalism and equate China’s macroeconomic regulation with bourgeois Keynesianism, entirely overlooking the stark differences between the two systems in of ownership of the means of production, ruling classes, and developmental goals. Keynesianism is a reformist approach designed to preserve private ownership and uphold capitalism, whereas China’s regulatory policies serve the long-term interests of all people. Soviet socialism eliminated landlords and capitalists, and cannot be reasonably compared to feudalism, a system rooted in hereditary land exploitation. Socialism with Chinese characteristics represents an independent innovation of Marxism adapted to China’s national realities, and is by no means some warped variant of Stalinism.

Fourth, you construct a false binary opposition by claiming that recognizing socialism with Chinese characteristics as genuine socialism is tantamount to endorsing Nordic social democracy. Nordic social democracy retains a system dominated by private capital, abandons the dictatorship of the proletariat, and forsakes the long-term goal of eradicating exploitation. By contrast, China consistently upholds the dominant position of public ownership and the people’s democratic dictatorship, with common prosperity as its ultimate objective. There exists an unbridgeable divide between the two in their ideological lines and ultimate goals, and they cannot be lumped together.

Marxism has never been rigid dogma detached from reality. Materialist dialectics compels us to objectively examine the historical role of commodities and markets in light of each country’s unique stage of productive development. Judging contemporary socialist experiments by the standards of the far-off advanced stage of communism, without ing for the actual level of productive forces, constitutes metaphysical fallacy and fails to explain the objective realities of socialist construction across the world. Rooted in the fundamental tenets of Marxism and tailored to China’s underdeveloped productive forces, the modernization path of socialism with Chinese characteristics stands as a successful contemporary practice of scientific socialism. It is categorically not capitalism, nor can it be conflated with reformism.

@Brocade Sky
Market socialism is not socialism. The notion that markets can be separated from the class society is proudhonian, not marxist. According to Marx, producers do not exchange products and money is abolished in what is known as the lower-stage communism, aka socialism.
I do not disagree that China is a successful state with a decent living quality - as of right now it is the industrial peak of humanity achieved through capitalism.
I do not think that it is the same as Stalin’s USSR either. I precisely stated that the ML states were closer to feudalism, because nowadays all that did not collapse are explicitly bourgeois states utilizing keynesian economics. But they nevertheless follow Stalin in some twisted form, as he is one of the pillars of their ideology.
If you think that socialism with chinese characteristics is socialism, you may as well become a social-democrat and start glazing Scandinavia.

@dworder
marxist-leninist states were a lot closer to feudalism than fascism was”,This is how the Capitalism Countries’ People think abt Marxist😭.U Stupid ass even Thought today’s China is following Stalin modern😭,Js search that what is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics‌ and Socialist Market Economy

marxist-leninist states were a lot closer to feudalism than fascism was, actually. Especially given that Stalin argued that the existence of commodity production under feudalism and slave economy, while not leading to capitalism, legitimizes the persistence of commodity production in socialism too.
Plus ML states had their economic and political power in a personal union much stricter than fascist states i’d argue, which is something representative of feudalism. The consequence of which being that labour, while ofc being sold, was not sold as freely as in capitalism. This made the enterprise free on the cost of the workers’ slavery.
Essentially what Bordiga once wrote:

@Brocade Sky
You deadass think socialism (worker’s ownership of the means of production) means the government owning them and proles still being alienated doing wage labour and participating in the commodity production?
If so, then yeah, China might fill the criteria of some non-marxian socialism, such as the lassallean one. But by no means this bourgeois nation-state with a red flag overcame the very premise of capitalism, which is, according to Marx at least, commodity production and the value form (not even USSR had done that).
And no, government intervention, full employment, state welfare and public services do not change anything, and are not contradictory with the interest of capital, as the course of XX-th century should’ve shown.

@Background Pony #BF4A
State Capitalist?Pls tell me which State Capitalist got more than 50% public ownership economy‌?Have you listent what is “Public ownership as the mainstay with the coexistence of diverse forms of ownership”?We have ran the private ownership to cooperate with Capitalism Country and rise China’s economy,but the Public Ownership is still the mainstay,the major part.Got it?If China isn’t a Socialism country,then the China’s Government won’t let PLA save Chinese people when they fall into the destroy just like America did when Los Angeles wildfires.Just like “This is sadly a product of a socialist government”Said by the Mayor Tom Boyd of Colorado City, Texas in 2021.Dude,may you should try to know about China,but not jump to conclusions.

@Brocade Sky
china is state-capitalist now my dude

@Deaky
Finally,for these 2 “communism rules”,I just wanna say I also like playing memes,I don’t like to use iPhone but many of my classmates use it. And Trixie Lunamoon is Great and Powerful!Maybe I’m too serious,it’s just a meme,but I just wanna complain this situation and show my mind of this situation.But maybe it’s too serious.So please don’t mind my tone,just understand what I said

@Deaky
Excuse me,this artist,I don’t wanna be serious at first,But I Already seen Many times that you non-socialism country’s people always made communism as a memes or brianrot just for making fun,and u don’t even know what’s the basic knowledge of it,I just wanna let u guys know that’s so funny and silly in our opinion and let u guys try to study or understand what it is but not just let it be a tool to amuse.

@Deaky
These 2 “communsim rules” u said showed That u Just wanna make fun,and u are full of the Pride and Prejudice.Maybe u even Don’t know What communsim is.I just wanna say that you most of Western guys haven’t understood the basic knowledge of coummunism but Just make communism memes or Brainrot for fun,u can only see a few Western people really try to learn and study communism Seriously,and the rest of people just for making fun,It’s not the First time I had seen this situation,so I just wanna show my opinion,got it?

@Deaky
That’s Feudalism’s or Fascism’s rules

@Brocade Sky
communism rules:

It seems that for you Western guys,the Communism is Just a fashion toy that shows how special You are?It’s the good Medicine to treat the Capitalism illness,not the kid’s toy!It needs Revolution and blood.You’d better understand What it actually means!Suggestions from the People’s Republic of China.

We’re going back to 2007 with this one 🗣️🗣️🗣️