• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      0·
      8 days ago

      They certainly were/are run by Marxists trying to bring about Communism, I’m not sure what your point is here. They aren’t Anarchist, but they are certainly run by Marxists.

      • 3laws@lemmy.world
        0·
        8 days ago

        To be fair to both, these are Communist countries with different approaches to enforcing peace and distribution of goods. But none are the “ideal” representation of Communism thanks to corruption, oligarchs and crimes against Humanity 👀

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          0·
          8 days ago

          Not really. Historically, the PRC over-emphasized Class Struggle, which is only one aspect of Marxism. As a consequence, development was uneven and relatively unstable, what Marxists would consider an “ultraleft” error, ie dogmatism over pragmatism. The market reforms were done in a manner that clearly separated what must always remain in the Public Sector, like Steel, Energy, and Transportation, while opening up other industries for market reforms and foreign investment. This was a reversion to traditional Marxist economics.

          Fast-forward to today, we can analyze that economic growth was stabilized and improved, the sectors deemed as always to be in the public sector have remained, and in the current era the CPC has begun to exert more control and pressure over the Private Sector as the markets are doing their job and rapidly developing. This development of the Productive Forces drastically reduces the sheer difficulty of Central Planning by allowing markets to centralize by themselves and develop their own infrastructure for planning, and the CPC adds cadre to their top management to begin exacting more control.

          Think of it like planting seeds, watching them grow, carefully pruning them, and then harvesting them into the Public Sector. Regardless of your opinion of the PRC overall, the CPC’s methodology is firmly based in a Marxian understanding of economics, and to deny that is an error whether you are a Marxist or a Liberal. If you fail to properly analyze the PRC, it becomes a bit of a “Schroedinger’s Socialism,” neither Capitalism nor Socialism, and thus any recommendations for changing their methods or continuing them is also bound to run into traps and pitfalls.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            0·
            8 days ago

            I know they got there with Marxist ideas, but regardless, they are squarely in the realm of State Capitalism now. Where the state at least heavily influences companies run in a capitalist manner with all the abuses and exploitations of capitalism. Making it impossible to get relief from the state because they are effectively your boss. I view China as a warning of what a road to hell paved with good intentions can look like.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              0·
              8 days ago

              I think you’re a bit confused about what “State Capitalism” is in Marxian economics, here. Marx and Engels both repeatedly asserted that folding Capital into the Public Sector is a gradual process once “lower-stage Communism” (now referred to as “Socialism”) was achieved. This directly implies markets and Private Property exist even within a society that had already become Socialist. I am not sure how you can counter that without attempting to redefine Marxism or reject it wholly.

              As for the nature of the PRC’s economics, the Public Sector is primary, and the Private Sector is gradually more heavily influenced and planned by government. This does not mean it’s “impossible to get relief because the CPC is their boss,” the CPC is not run for profit like that. SOEs compete in the Private Sector, but the CPC itself is not made up of the bourgeoisie, but overwhelmingly not bourgeoisie.

              I think reading theory would help you a lot with understanding how the PRC operates and why.