Thanks comrade 🫡

Marxist-Leninism is an entirely made-up ideology by the Stalinist USSR that to this day has no clear definition due to its constantly changing definition that fits whatever the ruling party’s agenda is at the time

Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Marxism with Lenin’s revolutionary advancements on Marxism, chiefly his analysis of imperialism and organizational theory. It’s very well-understood.

Ex: “communism with Chinese characteristics” completely dismissing China’s abandonment of proletariat rule, abandonment of giving the means of production to the proletariat, and embracing the system of capital.

It’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and it’s still dominated by the proletariat. Public ownership is the principle aspect of China’s economy, and capitalists are held on a tight leash to focus on developing the productive forces. The large firms and key industries in China are publicly owned, it’s only the small and medium firms that are private.

I’ve explained how the working class is in control of the state, you don’t have to trust the government, you can trust the people themselves. The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:

China does have billionaires, yes. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principle aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:

The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.

Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.

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.

In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.

For further reading:

1. Qiao Collective’s Introductory Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Study Guide

2. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics ProleWiki page

3. Socialist Market Economy ProleWiki Page

4. People’s Republic of China ProleWiki Page

Again, no need to waste time on tankie cope posting. Especially as the sources you provide are all just that.

More rhetorical gibberish from yourself, you pull the “tankie” thought termination card to excuse yourself from engaging in discussion.

You want an accurate picture of what communism should be? How about instead of reading g revisionism, you read the works of Marx.

I have. Are you trying to make this a reading competiton? Not that this would prove anything, but I’ve read at least the following from Marx alone:

1. Manifesto of the Communist Party
2. Third Economic Manuscript of 1844
3. Critique of the Gotha Programme
4. Theses on Feurbach
5. Wage Labor and Capital
6. Value, Price, and Profit
7. Marx to Ruge
8. Capital: Volume 1
9. Capital: Volume 2
10. Critique of Hegel’s Dialectic and General Philosophy
11. A Few Brief Remarks Regarding My Study of Political Economy

Not to mention various small other bits here and there, or the works of Engels, Lenin, and other Marxists I’ve read. Your argument that I haven’t done the reading doesn’t work, I’ve clearly done so, which is why your thought-terminating argument doesn’t work.

Fun fact: he loved democracy. Wanna know why? He saw it as the most stable path to socialism.

Marx was a revolutionary, and supported socialist democracy. From Marx:

The revolution is essential not merely because the dominant class cannot be overthrown by any other means, but also because only in the course of the revolution can the class which overthrows cleanse itself of the mire of the old society and become fit to create a new society.

Revolution is necessary to fully transform society into a socialist one.

You know who doesn’t love democracy? Fascists and tankies… who are just red fascists.

More gibberish. Marxist-Leninists love democracy for the working classes, you should read Soviet Democracy and This Soviet World. The soviets had a well-developed system of socialist democracy.

You have no points, only posturing and rhetoric. Fascism and socialism are entirely incompatible and have historically served opposed classes, Blackshirts and Reds is an excellent overview of this.

You’re losing