What “machine?” What thinking am I doing for anyone? If people react to a statement you make in a similar way, why is that not evidence of being a sensible conclusion to your assertion?

China arresting a diplomatic delegation would be considered an act of war. China has absolutely nothing to gain by attacking individual Statesian CEOs, and far more to gain by building alternative partnerships that sidestep the US and Europe altogether, if need be, which is what they have been ramping up in the last decade (and why the heat is turning up).

What would China gain from arresting any of these goons, who would immediately be replaced? You’re treating them like they believe themselves to be, special individuals that got to the top through merit and cannot be easily replaced, when in reality it’s the working classes that built them.

You’re defining socialism as “no billionaires,” which means “no private property,” which means “no transition at all between capitalism and communism.” There’s no hypocrisy here, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what constitutes socialism, which is working class control of the state and an economy where public ownership is principal, both of which apply to China.

This fundamentally flawed outlook is why you’re saying China isn’t truly socialist if they don’t immediately declare war on the US Empire and potentially plunge the world into nuclear war, purely to satisfy an online commenter. You see socialism not as a mode of production, but purely violence against capitalists. This is just a worship of adventurism, not a commitment to ending class society through scientific analysis of development and the conquest of political and economic power via revolution, which China completed in 1949.

The point of the meme is that critique is easy, learning is hard. It doesn’t pit the two against each other, it says westerners have one without the other. Further, I’d say genuine critique that allows for learning is much harder than any critique, which can be low-effort.

As for the vague aspects you listed at the end, I can’t really respond without specifics. Nobody has ever said China has never made a mistake in the construction of socialism, but if you aren’t going to give an example of what you consider to be negative and avoidable lasting ramifications that MLs sideline as necessary, then there’s nothing for me to add other than I don’t see this. All that leaves is a perspective difference on the same topics, most likely.

China took advantage of the technology gap and capital flooding to build up its industry. Now, it is pivoting to increasing domestic consumption and multilateralism with the global south, energy independence, and cooperative agreements with the rest of the global south. It is not a permanently static system (nothing truly is), but one that adapts as time progresses to new conditions. The China of today is not the China of the 90s.

China has billionaires because it has private property, and it has private property as a concession to help speed up and smooth out development, keep it tightly interconnected on the global stage, and for technology transfer. Socialism is not “0 billionaires,” it’s a transitional mode of production that carries characteristics of the former mode of production and the new. Public ownership is the principal aspect of China’s economy, and the working classes control the state, ergo it is socialist.

I haven’t seen anyone claim the DPRK is a utopia, just an existing socialist country with its own struggles.

No ML makes the point that China is perfect, nor that we should copy it. Perfection is an impossibility, and China’s model of socialism is the socialism suited to China, not to be dogmatically copied. Every country will have their own socialist construction process suited to their own conditions, China being highly agrarian at the time of its revolution has had a dramatic impact on how it has pursued socialism.

I mean I was responding to you in particular casually, not that China is taking a casual approach.

That’s not my attitude, though, that’s your perception of my attitude.

“Sure” means “yes,” but casually.

Sure.

De-dollarization, expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative, a transition from fossil-fuels to renewables, energy independence not just in China but in the periphery, revolution in the imperial core, a decrease in marketization and an increase in public ownership by ratio of the economy, etc. All of these are important milestones, but they do not happen overnight.

It’s already started, there’s no such thing as a static system, and China has been advancing steadily along the socialist road already. Once imperialism falls, China’s strategic place within the global markets will change character and will accelerate socialization of production and distribution. China doesn’t have private property for the sake of it, but as a strategic concession to both help develop underdeveloped sectors of its economy, and to become something the west relies on and therefore cannot risk attacking.

The PRC is already in the process of eliminating the commodity form, requirements for doing so include breaking the international system of imperialism, and the establishment of socialism in countries China does trade with. Imperialism still exists, the periphery is breaking free from the domination of the core, but this does not happen overnight. The countries China trades with are largely not socialist either. Much of China itself is underdeveloped, and if the PRC is not indisputably ahead of the rest of the world then this will be turned against it if it makes any larher movements.

In other words, China cannot end the commodity form at the present moment, but that does not mean it is not working at the present moment on fulfilling the requirements to do so.

It would likely make a difference, but probably wouldn’t reduce conflict by much. Capitalism doesn’t exist because humans are evil, or unintelligent, for example.

Probably not. Conflict doesn’t arise because people don’t have the right ideas, more so conflict is the result of material conditions and processes. The battle for resources, the right to surplus extraction, class struggle, imperialism, all of these result from the evolution of class society, and not because of intelligence.

Essentially, in its modern context, it’s used against anti-imperialists and those who support existing socialist countries. Those using it as a pejorative have a different view of these countries and thus see “tankies” as defending the indefensible, while “tankies” tend to have more depth of knowledge going against the hegemonic grain.

Both justify investigation, that’s my point. Investigating why the USSR fell is important for any socialist, and thankfully socialist states have learned from it. Likewise, anarchists need to take anarchist history seriously and not just pitch it all on narratives of socialist “betrayal.”

Fantastic lol!