Yes, as they have class struggle and haven’t reached communism. Once production is fully collectivized does class disappear, and then the state becomes superfluous. Until then, it’s necessary.

A good preview is looking at socialist states currently, but with fully collectivized production and distribution globally, no borders, and no oppressive forces like police to enforce property rights. It’s not that the state is killed, but that it withers due to becoming superfluous.

The state and administration aren’t necessarily the same thing, which is why I tend to stress the difference between collectivized and communalized production. Collectivized production requires the infrastructure of complex planning.

To be fair, “democratic socialism” doesn’t really mean anything either. It’s used interchangeably between a socialist economy with liberal forms of democracy and reformist approaches to establishing socialism, it isn’t really a branch of thought with solid consistency. It’s also a misnomer, in that socialism itself is democratic, it’s like saying I like cold ice cream.

SocDem.

Yes, small and medium firms do exploit workers more than collectivized industry, correct. Establishing a fully collectivized economy isn’t an overnight endeavor. I think this is where your lack of understanding of Marxism is coming into play, you claim I’m fully sold on ideological dogma but it’s because I’ve read theory and listen to Chinese economists, follow metrics and data, etc that I can see why they are taking the course they are taking and why it works.

The working class supports their system in China, because it has steadily delivered rapid improvements and continues to put the working class first. Socialism is not some moral absence of exploitation, but an economic system, and one that continues to deliver better and better results for the working class.

I don’t “cheerlead” Russia. I know it’s a dictatorship of capital, my critical support for Russia rests in that it opposes the US Empire, has a populace increasingly supportive of returning to socialism, and is a valuable ally and trade partner to socialist countries like China, Cuba, DPRK, etc, and in that respect plays a progressive role in the global transition to socialism and eventually communism.

China had a larger portion of public ownership under the Gang of Four, and they were poor. They tried to collectivize production before the level of development actually suited publiv ownership, at the expense of growth and prosperity. The market reforms were a return to Marxist understandings of economics, and stableized growth. I read Marxist-Leninist theory, and I study China’s growth and metrics over time. Being a translator while remaining entirely disengaged from Marxist theory and Chinese economics doesn’t give you a leg up, I can find people that believe Trump is a communist unironically.

In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized:

Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.

China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.

Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.

I aware of your point about Finland’s proximity. I’ve already explained that Ukraine is different because it’s more millitarized, was actively at war, and was cozying up to NATO. I don’t think you repeating that they’re the same and me repeating that they’re different is going to solve anything.

Secondly, as for socialism not being the absence of private property, I’m a communist, not an anarchist. Once a socialist state is established, production and distribution is gradually collectivized as it develops. This is increasing over time in China, after a correction from the ultraleft Gang of Four period. Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism, it has elements of the former as they are gradually phased out. Again, here’s Cheng Enfu’s diagram illustrating it:

As for Russia being wildly unequal, you’re correct! It’s a nationalist capitalist country, I’ve never stated otherwise. Secondly, I am not interested in “justifying” Russia, I’m telling you that it’s important to understand actual root causes rather than invent ones. The idea that Russia is trying to conquer all of Europe or something isn’t accurate.

China has soveriegnty over their own factories, China’s large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the working class is in control, rather than a comprador regime selling out the people.

Ultimately, the problem is that you’re trying to have an in-depth conversation about a subject you haven’t studied and have already made up your mind about.

You have yet to prove that the war is about extraction, your only point is that Russia hasn’t invaded Finland despite being entirely different situations.

Secondly, in China the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, and the working class is in control. Socialism is not the absence of private property, no matter how much you point at China having markets you still won’t have a point.

Russia has an absolutely tiny amount of the world’s largest companies, it’s an industrialized economy that has no colonies. Doing production overseas is not itself colonialism nor imperialism. There is both a massive quantitative difference and a qualitative difference as a result of that massive gap.

You have yet to prove anything you’ve asserted, you just keep re-asserting.

Extraction happens via export of capital. Think outsourcing, where factories are built overseas to take advantage of cheap labor, and millitant force is used to keep wages low.

This entire comment is just erasing Donetsk and Luhansk, and the right of their self-determination. Documentation of the war in Donbass has been going on for over a decade. Finland is not nearly as armed as Ukraine, nor was it in active war with ethnic Russians. This is going in circles, you deny material facts then dance around points I bring up, or drop the subject entirely when you’re disproven without acknowledging.

Totally mistyped when I said the “influence” idea was dominant in the global south, China, etc. In the global south, China, etc, understanding imperialism as a form of international extraction is the dominant understanding. I corrected the comment.

This is going in circles.

Ukraine is right on Russia’s doorstep, is still at active war with Donetsk and Luhansk, and was increasingly belligerant and building up troops in the Donbass while getting closer to NATO. Norway and Finland are not at active war and are not increasingly belligerant towards Russia beyond the usual condemnations. Self-determination, morals, etc are not the driving reasons for why this war is happening. Why not support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to self determination? Why are you acting like a Banderite ignoring the interest of any other etnicity/community/nation of the region?

I know Russia is capitalist. I also know that it isn’t at war with Kiev to plunder Ukraine.

As for China, I already explained, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned:

Markets are not capitalism, nor are markets incompatible with socialism. China is in the developing phases of socialism, they can’t just nationalize all industry overnight without serious problems arising:

I know you aren’t a Marxist, so I’m not sure why you’re so obsessed with misunderstanding socialism.

The Nazis were imperialist, and went to war specifically to try to create new colonies. This is well-documented.

That’s pretty accurate, lol.

No, the idea that imperialism is about extraction and not about vague “influence” is the dominant understanding in the global south, China, etc. It’s dominant because it has clear roots and causes, as well as mechanics. It’s an established process rather than a vibe.

Secondly, as I had already stated, the fact that Ukraine was increasingly belligerant and warming up to NATO was why the war kicked off. Location plays a part, as Russia isn’t going to go to war with, say, Israel despite Ukraine being similarly used by the US. I don’t know why you keep forgetting things we’ve already covered.

As for the ratio thing, you tried to show GDP ratios and whatnot even though I said what matters in determining if a system is capitalist or socialist is whichever is principle. You just kinda brushed that under the rug and made up your own definition to attack. You’ve done similar things to it many times here.

Edit: corrected imperialism comment.

No, the definition of imperialism as a system of international extraction is consistent and is the most widely used. The west is not the world.

Secondly, it’s not about absolute proximity, but the terrain and capability of moving troops and materiel through. You keep relying on metrics that don’t actually matter nearly as much, you did it earlier too when you thought socialism was a ratio thing.

No problem! If you want something like that, Hexbear is like at least half queer and is overtly leftist.

-Selling commodities is not imperialism. I said export of capital. Commodities can function as capital, but in selling them through export these are not exported as capital.

-The IMF wanted Ukraine to destroy its safety nets for loans, Ukraine’s ousted president went with the Russian loan that didn’t. It’s as simple as that.

-Russia is achieving its goals with respect to the SMO. Crimea was in Ukraine, but voted to join Russia.

-Ukraine has been at war with the Donbass region for a decade. This is fact.

-I’ve never said Russia was socialist, or a model to emulate. I’m aware of the wealth disparity.

-The USSR had stable food supply. It was a remarkably effective system, and capitalism has been devastating for it.

-I don’t support imperialism. I’m a Marxist-Leninist, and my opinions are in line with that.

All in all, none of your points are worth responding to in any greater depth than that. They’re all coated in doublespeak and anecdote.

sh.itjust.works has a transphobic, US nationalist admin, and two of the most active communities are anti-communist and pro-NATO circlejerks respectively.