1. This is all wishy-washy vibes based analysis, though, which is why I urged you to take a materialist perspective. None of your comment answers that.

2. Trump is explicitly hand-picked by the bourgeoisie to fulfill their will, as has been the case with all US presidents. He is not above them, but a servant to them and their interests.

Yes, you’re exactly correct. Marx’s most major observations of Capitalism were its centralizing nature, and this is why he posited that the natural next phase of human development is harnessing this and turning to full public ownership and central planning. If you want an “intro to Marx,” I made a Marxist reading list.

It really hit the right balance, it prompted discussion in what is (hopefully) a productive manner by highlighting mass support for violence against billionaires compared to the actions of AES states. Hopefully people start reading Marx after this.

1. You are correct that the PRC’s economy is tied with the rest of the world. This is by design. The PRC witnessed the fall of the USSR in real time, and decided to take the opposite approach while still working towards Socialism: make themselves the producers of the world so the US can’t directly oppose them. This has paid off in spades. Further, what is “authoritarian?” What mechanically gives rise to that, why does it exist, and why is it bad? Is there an arbitrary level where democracy turns to authoritarianism?

2. I would love to see any proof behind this other than vibes. Until then, the logical conclusion is likely the correct one.

3. Same as 2, I would love to see any proof that isn’t just vibes.

I have not seen a single Marxist make this claim. Deng wasn’t pro-billionaire, but wished to return to a Marxist analysis of the PRC’s economy. It had taken on an ultraleft character and was unstable, they had socialized more than they should have with their level of productive forces, and have consistently been working their way back to that level of socialization now that the Socialist Market Economy has proven wildly successful. Without doing so, extreme poverty could not have been eradicated like it has been.

1. How do you get rid of Billionaires while remaining interlocked in a global economy and not suffer from Capital Flight and Brain Drain? Decouple and go the same way as the USSR? Ultraleftists like yourself reject Marx and let right take priority over what’s possible at the present moment, and risk the entire Socialist project.

2. What has given you the impression that the US government can subdue Billionaires, let alone will? The last time Trump was in power the opposite was the case, and that has consistently been true for every presidency.

3. This is silly. Trump is in this to get rich, his interests are in billionaires getting richer. He isn’t going to “subdue” anyone for those aims.

The PRC has a hair over 50% of its economy in the Public Sector, and another near tenth in the Cooperative Sector. The Private Sector makes up the minority of the economy. Furthermore, this Private Sector is gradually being folded into the Public Sector. Moreover, the Public Sector has key industries like Steel that the Private Sector must rely on, further making the Public Sector primary. In what manner is the Private Sector dominant? At what arbitrary point would you say the PRC needs to reach for it to pass your imaginary thresholds? This is silly, and anti-Marxist.

Your next paragraph elaborates on your conflation of Socialism with Communism. Communism must be international, and must be global, eventually. Socialism can begin in one country, as Socialism is the transitional phase to Communism. By your definition, a fully socialized economy in one country would still be Capitalist! Again, you directly shatter Marx and Engels telling you that under the DotP, Capital will be wrested gradually with the degree to which it develops, and call this phase “Capitalism” for seemingly no other reason than to discredit AES, even if it ends in absurd conclusions like a 99% socialized global economy being Capitalist, or a 100% socialized country being Capitalist.

This “no true Socialism” stance is anti-Marxist as well, Marx referred to the Paris Commune as a DotP and a Socialist system until it was overthrown. Even if we ignore all of AES that Marx never lived to, there has been Socialism even by Marx’s words. Same with Engels, who analyzed Utopian Socialists who were working down the wrong path, but still could be considered “Socialist.”

Additionally, productive forces have different levels of development in different sectors where public ownership and central planning makes more sense. There isn’t such thing as a “general” level of development. Your steel industry may be well developed and thus easily planned, but your automotive may not be yet, at which point you want to use markets to centralize and then gradually increase control and ownership over that industry until its fully socialized. To go further than reality is anti-Marxist.

Further, you reference a joke, and not actual working hours, when trying to discredit the PRC. Furthermore, such a system absolutely can be present in a DotP, a DotP does not mean there is suddenly a “worker’s paradise,” but that the Proletariat is in control. The CPC has an over 95% approval rate, unheard of in most countries, and it owes this to the rapid transformative capacity of a Socialist economy to rapidly plan and build up infrastructure, and eliminate poverty. I want to stress, you opt to not analyze the structures and class dynamics at play, and instead believe you can reference a joke about how the PRC isn’t a wonderland, not actual working hour statistics, and think that means the Bourgeoisie is in control? This is absurdity.

You have no points, Socialism is Communism for you, and you refer to a DotP with a largely publicly owned and centrally planned economy that is further absorbing the Private Sector as “Capitalist.” Can you please make a point that logically follows what Marx and Engels were writing and explain why they clearly stated that the DotP will gradually wrest Capital from the Bourgeoisie, and why you believe this phase to be called “Capitalism?” This reeks of Trotskyism, which coincidentally is only really found in western countries as it isn’t practical in any capacity and thus isn’t dangerous to the status quo, and moreover adopts an anti-solidarity stance with AES in the Global South.

When everyone is using Class in a specific manner, the addition of a “class” that doesn’t actually exist just for a quip is really odd. You have to make the argument that it even exists in the first place first.

Can you explain what Socialism is, and what “State Capitalism” is?

Do you have any source on the PRC killing or imprisoning anyone who complains about it? Moreover, what do you think about 95%+ Chinese citizens supporting the CPC? If we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."

What the heck is an “elite class?” Where did Marx talk about it?

Yes, Capitalism is dominated by such a Mode of Production. It is not defined by it being present even in the microscopic. Answer, why do you think Marx and Engels wrong in the context of my quotations? This is a very “wikipedia” understanding of Marx. Do you think Marx believed Capitalism to not be dominant because feudalism was still apparent? This is silly.

I am sorry, but none of what you have said makes any sense from a Marxist perspective.

1. The presense of Commodity production does not mean the system is Capitalist. To that extent, if you have a 99% publicly owned and centrally planned economy, it must be Capitalist, and once that final 1% is absorbed, it becomes Communist. There is no Socialism by this definition, it’s a straight jump from Capitalism to Communism. Even in the PRC, the majority of the economy is Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned. Engels disagrees with your stance:

Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?

Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.

You kill the Scientific and Dialectical aspects of Marxism and deny the existence of Socialism.

2. This is really 2 points in 1. “Employer” is not a class. Classes are not jobs, but relations to production. Communism will have managers, planners, and so forth to assist with economic production. The other point, on the PRC not using labor vouchers, that’s for when China reaches Communism, when they are currently Socialist.

3. This is entirely anti-Marxist. The State is an extension of the class in power. In a fully centrally planned economy with full public ownership, there is no state. The bourgeoisie is focused on competition and accumulation, it isn’t a “power dynamic” but a social relation to production. From Engels:

When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.

Bolded the most relevant bits. The state ceases to exist when classes cease to exist, because when all property is public there are no classes. However, production remains administrated and directed! I think it’s quite obvious from reading the source material that Marx was no Anarchist, nor did he believe that Socialism was devoid of private property, nor could it be. This is a gradual process for Marx, one we call Socialism, as it works towards a fully Publicly Owned and Centrally Planned Economy, Communism. The government does not “extract surplus value” in a profit accumulating manner, but to pay for public services and infrastructure, directly spelled out by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme. The State is an extension of the dominant class, and the class which is dominant can be found through real analyzing of the trends and conditions of an economy. In the PRC, those trends are towards uplifiting the working class and continuing to fold Private Property into the Public Sector.

Ensured? None. Incentivized? By focusing on eliminating the profit motive and fulfilling the will of the whole of society, there is a much larger emphasis on meeting the needs of the most impoverished and destitute.

Socialism is a transitional status from Capitalism to Communism. There can be no immediate jump from one to the other, this jump must be gradual. Moreover, you cannot eliminate Wage Labor without eliminating Private Property, and you cannot eliminate Private Property overnight, but gradually, and by the degree to its development. Socialism is about which is primary, Public Ownership and Central Planning, or Private Property and Markets, not the mere existence of one in purity or the other. Such a stance is anti-dialectical and erases Marx’s analysis of Capitalism and Communism.

Furthermore, even Communism will have an “employer-employee” relationship, insofar as it still retains labor for labor vouchers. Communism is about Central Planning and Public Ownership, not horizontalism. The passage you reference is indeed the essential condition for the existance of the bourgeoisie, and its eventual elimination, but not the existence of Socialism.

Finally, the PRC has a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. You can’t simply assert the opposite when it’s very clear that in the PRC the State is absolute over the Bourgeoisie.

All of these misconceptions of yours betray a deeply “Wikipedia-educated” notion of Marxism. If you want, you can start reading with my introductory Marxist reading list.

You don’t seem to find much of anything with your head so far buried in the sand, but whatever floats your boat.

It isn’t a dictatorship, source on it being one please? Secondly, I outright bolded where the western study outlined that the biggest factor in approval was the real material improvements in their lives. Why do you think you know more about a country than the billions that live there?

That isn’t really a counter to the claims presented, though.

Be sure to imagine “Parenti hands” while reading this for full effect

Over 95% of people support the CPC, so it’s fair to say that the people approve of the way the CPC is handling billionaires that are highly corrupt or otherwise guilty of mass crimes. If we ask Harvard themselves about the results of their study, they say “We find that first, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being, which suggests that support could be undermined by the twin challenges of declining economic growth and a deteriorating natural environment.” This directly goes against claims of “social credit” preventing this, moreover the “Orwellian Social Credit System” hinted at doesn’t even exist, at least not in the manner most think it does. Even more overtly, they state "Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread, our survey reveals that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being."