Isn’t the worst socialism still better than the best capitalism? Why try to destroy “revisionist” socialism when you have capitalism to destroy? Wouldn’t it be easier to fix a revisionist socialist country than trying to convince a capitalist one to be socialist?

  • Lemmygradwontallowme [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    18·
    3 days ago

    but it still rubs me the wrong way that there are billionaires in China.

    Funny, I have the essay for you.

    But just so you know

    It is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse.

    (Note: As long as, of course, ruling class dynamics direct their efforts to it and adapt or not to this change)

    Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

    Would it be ripe time for China to prolly go socialist, yes, but the only way I see Communism overcoming and becoming the dominant system as it is, is if it the previous rivaling economic mode of production of Capitalism is destroyed, with only feudal and lower remnants to be dealt with. However, Neoliberalism still reigns as far as I’m concerned, albeit under a weakened condition.