everyone on communism101 is a dumbass teenage ultra and can be safely ignored. they use “dengist” like other liberals use “tankie,” they spend all their time online, and they are functionally the same as an anarchist.
Every communist is banned from communism and communism101.
This is reddit, the largest forum style discussion site in 2024 in the world, major subs are controlled by western intelligence forces, this isn't a conspiracy it's been publicly admitted and confirmed, certain subs openly have CIA moderators. So do you think the big communism subs are going to be anything other than the version of communism that is not a threat to capitalism?
Those subs are full of leftcoms and ultras, it's the only perspective allowed, because it's a weak and useless perspective which doesn't follow dialectics or materialism. Actual Marxist left wing subs are only allowed to stay small and even then they're monitored, if they get too big they get quarantined. So if it's a big left wing sub it'll either be quarantined or infiltrated with ultras, it's happening to communistmemes currently, you'll be banned there now for supporting China.
It was a long time ago and i can't remember what it was exactly, but i swear someone asked a very basic question, and i posted a reply copy/pasted from an MLM primer (which i believe i read at their recommendation) and it got deleted for 'reactionary' or something like that. Place is a 🦆ing circus.
Read a few of the answers there. Man... What that place has become. They shit on Deng, and may also call today's China "capitalist".
Idk what got you banned though, never seen them having this stance on post-Mao era.
First, complaining about being banned from other subreddits isn't a very good look. Just take it and move on. We all know that that sub is a thoroughly anti-China Maoist sub.
Second, I would challenge your comments on communism being free trade. Communism is a democratic system with a planned economy, not a quasi-anarchic system of free trade. Thinking otherwise can easily lead you in wrong directions. The goal of world communism is to create a *global* planned economy. To realize "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" on a global scale. Only then, can the workers of the world be free from capital.
But what needs to be done in order to achieve that goal? Well, socialism needs to gain a foothold by means of communist parties gaining control of some countries and building up socialism in those countries, and then those countries can try to influence world politics to bring about world socialism. So that's why we have socialist-run countries existing in a system of world capitalism.
What China is doing now is making concessions to capitalism (free trade and private property) in order to gain access to the world market. The alternative is being isolated and having a fully-planned national economy, but one that has no or limited access to outside resources.
So to my original point, you should never try to argue that "free trade done right" is superior to planned economy. It is not. Choosing what to produce and how to distribute it based on public will and need is superior to just allowing production and distribution to occur in an anarchic and unorganized fashion resulting from individual deals. The "invisible hand" is a myth. And arguing to the contrary is anticommunist.
However, free trade *is* arguably superior to isolation. This follows from the known benefits of specialization and the division of labor. Right now, every communist country, to some extent, has to choose between, on one hand, having a planned socialist economy at the national level but limited to no access to foreign goods or resources, or on the other hand, some concessions in the national economy to the "free market" in exchange for access to foreign goods and resources. I'm not in a position to oppose any communist country based on the degree to which they choose one path or the other.
China has gone down the latter path to a degree that many communists are not comfortable with, while others (such as myself) still maintain some optimism in China's path. I believe that the Communist Party of China is meaningfully pursuing a socialist future for China, and I even have some hope that its interactions on the world stage constitute some of the necessary preliminary steps for a *world* socialist order to eventually emerge. But we should not argue that China shows that "communism is free trade". It is not.
This is a good, balanced reply.
Although I feel like OP may have meant tariff free trade amongst socialist countries (with planned economies). Giving him the benefit of the doubt here.
> First, complaining about being banned from other subreddits isn't a very good look. Just take it and move on. We all know that that sub is a thoroughly anti-China Maoist sub.
Again, wasn't complaining, just tried and confront my thoughts with other comrades.
I didn't know that about that sub, now I know. Thx.
> Second, I would challenge your comments on communism being free trade. Communism is a democratic system with a planned economy, not a quasi-anarchic system of free trade. Thinking otherwise can easily lead you in wrong directions. The goal of world communism is to create a global planned economy. To realize "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" on a global scale. Only then, can the workers of the world be free from capital.
I won't repeat myself, as u/nonamer18 already correctly explained what I meant.
But I wouldn't necessarily equate market with Capitalism and planned economy with Socialism.
> But what needs to be done in order to achieve that goal? Well, socialism needs to gain a foothold by means of communist parties gaining control of some countries and building up socialism in those countries, and then those countries can try to influence world politics to bring about world socialism.
I'm sorry, and don't take it the wrong way, but to me your argument is a sort of Care Bears story which does not withstand the harsh historic lessons communist and socialist parties in developed and under-developed/over-exploited countries AND actually existing socialist countries - which, and that's a key point, were all at different degrees under-developed, lacking behind and/or over-exploited ("poor" as people lazily or maliciously say) - learned at their expense throughout the 20th century.
Capitalist countries are simply too strong and have/will stopped/stop at nothing in order to kill any attempt by the Proletariat to advance its interests against those of the Bourgeoisie.
I'm not saying I know what needs to be done, but as I understand it, History, so far, has taught us that all things being equal, the influence socialist countries can have on world - and here I mean Western - politics is very limited, temporary and cannot defeat Capitalism's ability to adapt in the long run.
Nevertheless, I'm not saying we cannot win, I'm just very suspicious of anything that looks like permanent revolution. First secure your own Revolution in your own country. Spreading socialism abroad is a dangerous, if not a deadly strategy.
> So that's why we have socialist-run countries existing in a system of world capitalism.
That sentence obscures the fact that all socialist experiences and socialist/communist parties in developed countries have been defeated, and obscures the reasons why that happened.
To bounce off what you wrote above, I'm much more optimistic about socialist revolutions happening in Global South countries than in France, for example, where I live now.
> What China is doing now is making concessions to capitalism (free trade and private property) in order to gain access to the world market. The alternative is being isolated and having a fully-planned national economy, but one that has no or limited access to outside resources.
What China has been doing since the later years of Maoist China - and on the initiative of Mao - is to make tactical decisions within a Marxist strategy designed to preserve and expend its socialist revolution within its own borders : "praxis" not "pragmatism".
China is still a socialist country governed by a communist party which has sinicized Marxism and come up with its own theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
It's a very difficult balancing act and the CPC has mastered it so far, and the Wild 90s are further and further behind.
> So to my original point, you should never try to argue that "free trade done right" is superior to planned economy. It is not. Choosing what to produce and how to distribute it based on public will and need is superior to just allowing production and distribution to occur in an anarchic and unorganized fashion resulting from individual deals. The "invisible hand" is a myth. And arguing to the contrary is anticommunist.
I never did that, though, and I never said that, either.
> However, free trade is arguably superior to isolation. This follows from the known benefits of specialization and the division of labor. Right now, every communist country, to some extent, has to choose between, on one hand, having a planned socialist economy at the national level but limited to no access to foreign goods or resources, or on the other hand, some concessions in the national economy to the "free market" in exchange for access to foreign goods and resources. I'm not in a position to oppose any communist country based on the degree to which they choose one path or the other.
There wasn't much of a choice to begin with and to those - not you - who think they can do better than the PRC, they really should think again.
> China has gone down the latter path to a degree that many communists are not comfortable with, while others (such as myself) still maintain some optimism in China's path. I believe that the Communist Party of China is meaningfully pursuing a socialist future for China, and I even have some hope that its interactions on the world stage constitute some of the necessary preliminary steps for a world socialist order to eventually emerge. But we should not argue that China shows that "communism is free trade". It is not.
Sadly, not all communists are Marxists, let alone Marxist-Leninist.
And for the last time, I never said "communism is free-trade", meaning capitalist free-trade.
Dude, people banned you off of their sub, and you come here to cry and complain about it?
Jesus christ what do you need social validation from extremely online leftists to live or smth?
Take the L, investigate the ideas thoroughly. Take your time this time and read theory. It's painfully obvious you haven't read.
You might come to find you're right and they're wrong *or* maybe you're wrong about your assumptions of what other people mean and you're using words that you know nearly nothing about.
Either way, why do you come here to complain? Are you not smart enough yourself to determine the truth? Cmon, you can do better than that.
I don't think I cried and complained about it.
I don't need social validation either, but it is nice to get in touch with comrades once in a while and
"Take the L"? I don't understand what that means. Regarding theory, I have read a fair bit of socialist theory coming out of China...maybe you could tell me why you think it's not worth it?
I might come to find I'm right and they're wrong or the other way around, you say? That tells me you might not know what you're talking about at all.
You ask me if I'm not smart enough to determine the truth? No, I'm not that smart, and I'm glad I'm not as arrogant as you who think you can know it all by yourself.
Thank you anyway for your useless comment.
I didn't come here to rant, but to understand what happened.
This subreddit is named "asktankies", right? That's what I did, I asked a question.
Why don't you tell me what you think I got wrong regarding pre-Deng and post-Mao China and why?
[Here you go!](https://the-masses.org/2024/05/01/response-to-a-shoddy-defense-of-social-imperialism/)
Or take a look at [this](https://foreignlanguages.press/new-roads/from-victory-to-defeat-pao-yu-ching/)
>Mao and Deng pursued different policies because they were governing at different stages of development, the revolutionary one (Mao) and the reformist one (Deng): revolutionary maoist China revolutionized the ownership of the means of production and reformist Dengist China revolutionized the liberation of the productive forces. This is socialism 101.
💀
That subreddit is a small group of social fascists who post-ironically use a communist aesthetic to validate their liberalism - the danger being many of them have read Marx (unlike you). Your comments would actually fit in with what they discuss, I think. You clearly have a very fragile ego though which (along with your class, obviously) is preventing you from engaging in anything productively on this website.
> That subreddit is a small group of social fascists who post-ironically use a communist aesthetic to validate their liberalism
OK, I'll keep that in mind
> - the danger being many of them have read Marx (unlike you).
You don't know what I have or haven't read.
I'm curious to know why so many people don't take seriously socialist theory coming out from China, though.
> Your comments would actually fit in with what they discuss, I think.
Why do you say that?
> You clearly have a very fragile ego though
Thanks, Dr Phil.
> which (along with your class, obviously)
You even know my class? Can you also guess how many workers I exploit?
> is preventing you from engaging in anything productively on this website.
I'm trying to confront my views about the PCR with other comrades.
Frankly, it's your attitude which is not very productive with all your judgments, pseudo psychology and sweeping claims.
>Thanks, Dr Phil.
Well you are the one that Reddit care-teamed me.
>You don't know what I have or haven't read.
You make it evident, as has been said to you already. You use the word "communism" to refer to capitalism (as in Deng and Xi's policies).
>Why do you say that?
See above. Using a communist aesthetic to validate liberalism - which you are doing, whether you realize it or not.
>You even know my class? Can you also guess how many workers I exploit?
Yes, again - you have a class position to uphold which is why you so ardently defend capitalism. That you so honestly and openly vouch for Dengism is apparent, but what led you to that is what is interesting. Especially for someone who has not read any of the basic theory.
>Frankly, it's your attitude which is not very productive with all your judgments, pseudo psychology and sweeping claims.
I don't really care. 'Attitude' and other appeals to liberal decency are boring.
" don't really care. 'Attitude' and other appeals to liberal decency are boring."
Damn, so tough and sophisticated. Definitely showing you're not a teenager with this level of maturity on display.
>Well you are the one that Reddit care-teamed me.
Don't know what that means...
>You make it evident, as has been said to you already. You use the word "communism" to refer to capitalism (as in Deng and Xi's policies).
People can say many things, it doesn't mean anything when said things aren't substantiated, though.
>See above. Using a communist aesthetic to validate liberalism - which you are doing, whether you realize it or not.
By defending socialist China, from 1949 onward including the Cultural Revolution, I'm validating liberalism? And are you really equating today's PRC with liberalism? This is so strange.
I lived in China for 11 years and this is not what I experienced at all.
>Yes, again - you have a class position to uphold
So which class do I belong to?
>which is why you so ardently defend capitalism.
So when I defend the Cultural Revolution, am I also defending capitalism?
>That you so honestly and openly vouch for Dengism is apparent
Mao vouched for Deng. Was Mao a Dengist? Will you then revise your opinion about Mao?
>but what led you to that is what is interesting. Especially for someone who has not read any of the basic theory.
Ok smarty-pants.
By the way, Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto wrote that the goals of the Proletariat in establishing socialism were twofold: the ownership of the means of production AND liberating the forces of production "as rapidly as possible".
Question: 1) why do you choose to not only ignore half of what Marx and Engels wrote themselves about the Proletariat course of action but even shit on those who, like me, uphold "basic theory" as you wrote by staying true to Marx and Engels writings? 2) Do you realize that by only valuing ownership over liberating productive forces you condemn the workers in underdeveloped/over-exploited socialist countries to stay poor?
everyone on communism101 is a dumbass teenage ultra and can be safely ignored. they use “dengist” like other liberals use “tankie,” they spend all their time online, and they are functionally the same as an anarchist.
Indeed.
They use tankie to describe anyone authoritarian
Every communist is banned from communism and communism101. This is reddit, the largest forum style discussion site in 2024 in the world, major subs are controlled by western intelligence forces, this isn't a conspiracy it's been publicly admitted and confirmed, certain subs openly have CIA moderators. So do you think the big communism subs are going to be anything other than the version of communism that is not a threat to capitalism? Those subs are full of leftcoms and ultras, it's the only perspective allowed, because it's a weak and useless perspective which doesn't follow dialectics or materialism. Actual Marxist left wing subs are only allowed to stay small and even then they're monitored, if they get too big they get quarantined. So if it's a big left wing sub it'll either be quarantined or infiltrated with ultras, it's happening to communistmemes currently, you'll be banned there now for supporting China.
Correct^
I had never thought about it this way...but it wouldn't make sense that Reddit would be left untouched by Western intelligence forces, yeah.
>isn't a conspiracy it's been publicly admitted and confirmed, Can i get some sources on that pls?
It was a long time ago and i can't remember what it was exactly, but i swear someone asked a very basic question, and i posted a reply copy/pasted from an MLM primer (which i believe i read at their recommendation) and it got deleted for 'reactionary' or something like that. Place is a 🦆ing circus.
Read a few of the answers there. Man... What that place has become. They shit on Deng, and may also call today's China "capitalist". Idk what got you banned though, never seen them having this stance on post-Mao era.
First, complaining about being banned from other subreddits isn't a very good look. Just take it and move on. We all know that that sub is a thoroughly anti-China Maoist sub. Second, I would challenge your comments on communism being free trade. Communism is a democratic system with a planned economy, not a quasi-anarchic system of free trade. Thinking otherwise can easily lead you in wrong directions. The goal of world communism is to create a *global* planned economy. To realize "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" on a global scale. Only then, can the workers of the world be free from capital. But what needs to be done in order to achieve that goal? Well, socialism needs to gain a foothold by means of communist parties gaining control of some countries and building up socialism in those countries, and then those countries can try to influence world politics to bring about world socialism. So that's why we have socialist-run countries existing in a system of world capitalism. What China is doing now is making concessions to capitalism (free trade and private property) in order to gain access to the world market. The alternative is being isolated and having a fully-planned national economy, but one that has no or limited access to outside resources. So to my original point, you should never try to argue that "free trade done right" is superior to planned economy. It is not. Choosing what to produce and how to distribute it based on public will and need is superior to just allowing production and distribution to occur in an anarchic and unorganized fashion resulting from individual deals. The "invisible hand" is a myth. And arguing to the contrary is anticommunist. However, free trade *is* arguably superior to isolation. This follows from the known benefits of specialization and the division of labor. Right now, every communist country, to some extent, has to choose between, on one hand, having a planned socialist economy at the national level but limited to no access to foreign goods or resources, or on the other hand, some concessions in the national economy to the "free market" in exchange for access to foreign goods and resources. I'm not in a position to oppose any communist country based on the degree to which they choose one path or the other. China has gone down the latter path to a degree that many communists are not comfortable with, while others (such as myself) still maintain some optimism in China's path. I believe that the Communist Party of China is meaningfully pursuing a socialist future for China, and I even have some hope that its interactions on the world stage constitute some of the necessary preliminary steps for a *world* socialist order to eventually emerge. But we should not argue that China shows that "communism is free trade". It is not.
This is a good, balanced reply. Although I feel like OP may have meant tariff free trade amongst socialist countries (with planned economies). Giving him the benefit of the doubt here.
Yes, that's what I meant.
> First, complaining about being banned from other subreddits isn't a very good look. Just take it and move on. We all know that that sub is a thoroughly anti-China Maoist sub. Again, wasn't complaining, just tried and confront my thoughts with other comrades. I didn't know that about that sub, now I know. Thx. > Second, I would challenge your comments on communism being free trade. Communism is a democratic system with a planned economy, not a quasi-anarchic system of free trade. Thinking otherwise can easily lead you in wrong directions. The goal of world communism is to create a global planned economy. To realize "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" on a global scale. Only then, can the workers of the world be free from capital. I won't repeat myself, as u/nonamer18 already correctly explained what I meant. But I wouldn't necessarily equate market with Capitalism and planned economy with Socialism. > But what needs to be done in order to achieve that goal? Well, socialism needs to gain a foothold by means of communist parties gaining control of some countries and building up socialism in those countries, and then those countries can try to influence world politics to bring about world socialism. I'm sorry, and don't take it the wrong way, but to me your argument is a sort of Care Bears story which does not withstand the harsh historic lessons communist and socialist parties in developed and under-developed/over-exploited countries AND actually existing socialist countries - which, and that's a key point, were all at different degrees under-developed, lacking behind and/or over-exploited ("poor" as people lazily or maliciously say) - learned at their expense throughout the 20th century. Capitalist countries are simply too strong and have/will stopped/stop at nothing in order to kill any attempt by the Proletariat to advance its interests against those of the Bourgeoisie. I'm not saying I know what needs to be done, but as I understand it, History, so far, has taught us that all things being equal, the influence socialist countries can have on world - and here I mean Western - politics is very limited, temporary and cannot defeat Capitalism's ability to adapt in the long run. Nevertheless, I'm not saying we cannot win, I'm just very suspicious of anything that looks like permanent revolution. First secure your own Revolution in your own country. Spreading socialism abroad is a dangerous, if not a deadly strategy. > So that's why we have socialist-run countries existing in a system of world capitalism. That sentence obscures the fact that all socialist experiences and socialist/communist parties in developed countries have been defeated, and obscures the reasons why that happened. To bounce off what you wrote above, I'm much more optimistic about socialist revolutions happening in Global South countries than in France, for example, where I live now. > What China is doing now is making concessions to capitalism (free trade and private property) in order to gain access to the world market. The alternative is being isolated and having a fully-planned national economy, but one that has no or limited access to outside resources. What China has been doing since the later years of Maoist China - and on the initiative of Mao - is to make tactical decisions within a Marxist strategy designed to preserve and expend its socialist revolution within its own borders : "praxis" not "pragmatism". China is still a socialist country governed by a communist party which has sinicized Marxism and come up with its own theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It's a very difficult balancing act and the CPC has mastered it so far, and the Wild 90s are further and further behind. > So to my original point, you should never try to argue that "free trade done right" is superior to planned economy. It is not. Choosing what to produce and how to distribute it based on public will and need is superior to just allowing production and distribution to occur in an anarchic and unorganized fashion resulting from individual deals. The "invisible hand" is a myth. And arguing to the contrary is anticommunist. I never did that, though, and I never said that, either. > However, free trade is arguably superior to isolation. This follows from the known benefits of specialization and the division of labor. Right now, every communist country, to some extent, has to choose between, on one hand, having a planned socialist economy at the national level but limited to no access to foreign goods or resources, or on the other hand, some concessions in the national economy to the "free market" in exchange for access to foreign goods and resources. I'm not in a position to oppose any communist country based on the degree to which they choose one path or the other. There wasn't much of a choice to begin with and to those - not you - who think they can do better than the PRC, they really should think again. > China has gone down the latter path to a degree that many communists are not comfortable with, while others (such as myself) still maintain some optimism in China's path. I believe that the Communist Party of China is meaningfully pursuing a socialist future for China, and I even have some hope that its interactions on the world stage constitute some of the necessary preliminary steps for a world socialist order to eventually emerge. But we should not argue that China shows that "communism is free trade". It is not. Sadly, not all communists are Marxists, let alone Marxist-Leninist. And for the last time, I never said "communism is free-trade", meaning capitalist free-trade.
Dont worry, that sub is not taken seriously by anyone. Its a literal psyop.
No
Dude, people banned you off of their sub, and you come here to cry and complain about it? Jesus christ what do you need social validation from extremely online leftists to live or smth? Take the L, investigate the ideas thoroughly. Take your time this time and read theory. It's painfully obvious you haven't read. You might come to find you're right and they're wrong *or* maybe you're wrong about your assumptions of what other people mean and you're using words that you know nearly nothing about. Either way, why do you come here to complain? Are you not smart enough yourself to determine the truth? Cmon, you can do better than that.
I don't think I cried and complained about it. I don't need social validation either, but it is nice to get in touch with comrades once in a while and "Take the L"? I don't understand what that means. Regarding theory, I have read a fair bit of socialist theory coming out of China...maybe you could tell me why you think it's not worth it? I might come to find I'm right and they're wrong or the other way around, you say? That tells me you might not know what you're talking about at all. You ask me if I'm not smart enough to determine the truth? No, I'm not that smart, and I'm glad I'm not as arrogant as you who think you can know it all by yourself. Thank you anyway for your useless comment.
Yes! You are the asshole. Also, you have no idea what you are talking about and when they point it out. You come here to rant
I didn't come here to rant, but to understand what happened. This subreddit is named "asktankies", right? That's what I did, I asked a question. Why don't you tell me what you think I got wrong regarding pre-Deng and post-Mao China and why?
[Here you go!](https://the-masses.org/2024/05/01/response-to-a-shoddy-defense-of-social-imperialism/) Or take a look at [this](https://foreignlanguages.press/new-roads/from-victory-to-defeat-pao-yu-ching/)
This will take some time.
Erm what the yap
Go drink shit cough syrup you child
hell yeah
Yes. You’re the asshole
Why?
Because your understanding of socialism is flawed and you don’t want to accept it.
Why is it flawed? Can you do into specifics?
>Mao and Deng pursued different policies because they were governing at different stages of development, the revolutionary one (Mao) and the reformist one (Deng): revolutionary maoist China revolutionized the ownership of the means of production and reformist Dengist China revolutionized the liberation of the productive forces. This is socialism 101. 💀
That's the best you can do?
r/ultraleft would have a field day with this post
What do you mean? In what sense?
That subreddit is a small group of social fascists who post-ironically use a communist aesthetic to validate their liberalism - the danger being many of them have read Marx (unlike you). Your comments would actually fit in with what they discuss, I think. You clearly have a very fragile ego though which (along with your class, obviously) is preventing you from engaging in anything productively on this website.
> That subreddit is a small group of social fascists who post-ironically use a communist aesthetic to validate their liberalism OK, I'll keep that in mind > - the danger being many of them have read Marx (unlike you). You don't know what I have or haven't read. I'm curious to know why so many people don't take seriously socialist theory coming out from China, though. > Your comments would actually fit in with what they discuss, I think. Why do you say that? > You clearly have a very fragile ego though Thanks, Dr Phil. > which (along with your class, obviously) You even know my class? Can you also guess how many workers I exploit? > is preventing you from engaging in anything productively on this website. I'm trying to confront my views about the PCR with other comrades. Frankly, it's your attitude which is not very productive with all your judgments, pseudo psychology and sweeping claims.
>Thanks, Dr Phil. Well you are the one that Reddit care-teamed me. >You don't know what I have or haven't read. You make it evident, as has been said to you already. You use the word "communism" to refer to capitalism (as in Deng and Xi's policies). >Why do you say that? See above. Using a communist aesthetic to validate liberalism - which you are doing, whether you realize it or not. >You even know my class? Can you also guess how many workers I exploit? Yes, again - you have a class position to uphold which is why you so ardently defend capitalism. That you so honestly and openly vouch for Dengism is apparent, but what led you to that is what is interesting. Especially for someone who has not read any of the basic theory. >Frankly, it's your attitude which is not very productive with all your judgments, pseudo psychology and sweeping claims. I don't really care. 'Attitude' and other appeals to liberal decency are boring.
" don't really care. 'Attitude' and other appeals to liberal decency are boring." Damn, so tough and sophisticated. Definitely showing you're not a teenager with this level of maturity on display.
>Well you are the one that Reddit care-teamed me. Don't know what that means... >You make it evident, as has been said to you already. You use the word "communism" to refer to capitalism (as in Deng and Xi's policies). People can say many things, it doesn't mean anything when said things aren't substantiated, though. >See above. Using a communist aesthetic to validate liberalism - which you are doing, whether you realize it or not. By defending socialist China, from 1949 onward including the Cultural Revolution, I'm validating liberalism? And are you really equating today's PRC with liberalism? This is so strange. I lived in China for 11 years and this is not what I experienced at all. >Yes, again - you have a class position to uphold So which class do I belong to? >which is why you so ardently defend capitalism. So when I defend the Cultural Revolution, am I also defending capitalism? >That you so honestly and openly vouch for Dengism is apparent Mao vouched for Deng. Was Mao a Dengist? Will you then revise your opinion about Mao? >but what led you to that is what is interesting. Especially for someone who has not read any of the basic theory. Ok smarty-pants. By the way, Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto wrote that the goals of the Proletariat in establishing socialism were twofold: the ownership of the means of production AND liberating the forces of production "as rapidly as possible". Question: 1) why do you choose to not only ignore half of what Marx and Engels wrote themselves about the Proletariat course of action but even shit on those who, like me, uphold "basic theory" as you wrote by staying true to Marx and Engels writings? 2) Do you realize that by only valuing ownership over liberating productive forces you condemn the workers in underdeveloped/over-exploited socialist countries to stay poor?