When I say "socialists globally," I mean it quite literally, as the international socialist movement. This includes AES states, which you call "Hitlerite" and "imperialist," as well as the working class in the global south and global north. AES states, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in charge of the state, are entirely different from fascist states where private ownership is principle and the bourgeoisie in charge of the state.

Confusing the fact that private ownership exists with it being principle is placing form over essence, and focusing on similarities (having a strong state and some degree of private ownership) while ignoring differences (the commanding heights of AES states are publicly owned and the working class runs the state). Further, these countries aren't imperialist either, this has no real basis.

The idea that the international working classes would not benefit from the dissolution of the international dictatorship of the bourgeoisie sides with the labor aristocracy and imperialists over the imperialized. You have an extreme chauvanism towards the global south in calling them "hitlerite," which you keep passing around like candy without basis. You're acting as a social chauvanist here, using socialist phrasemongering to argue for the perpetuation of the US Empire.

China isn't class collaborationist, they have a dictatorship of the proletariat. The fact that the bourgeoisie exist there does not mean they have leverage over the state, and the commanding heights of industy are out of their hands. There's no such thing as class collaborationism, this is a lie told by socdems to keep the bourgeoisie on top. In reality, the state can only be under the control of a single, definite class, and in the PRC that class is the proletariat. Building up the productive forces and having significant exports as a means for technological transfer and development is a good thing, actually.

It seems it wasn't a strawman at all, really. In insisting that every nation is "hitlerite," no matter if they are socialist, imperialized, or colonized, you take a stance of inaction. This is exactly what I was getting at when I said you're phrasemongering, social chauvanism to justify inaction against imperialism and siding with the imperialists and labor aristocracy.

You also ought to know that nobody really hopes for collapse over socialist revolution in the US Empire. That would be the best for everyone, but failing that the death of the world's imperial hegemon would be dramatically positive. Dissolution of the US Empire removes the largest obstacle holding global development back, and eliminates this genocidal settler-colony once and for all.

If China's bourgeois were truly powerless with no leverage and there's no class collaborationism going on, they wouldn't keep them and instead nationalize everything - after all, why keep a parasitic middle man that just sucks up billions in surplus value? To build up productive forces the bourgeois aren't necessary - the state could handle it just fine.

Also, despite being a "DOTP", China goes against worker interests almost every step of the way. Commodity production fundamentally relies on exploitation of workers and is in the interest of capital, the supposed proletarian party is actively letting bourgeois to join as seen with Three Represents for instance, independent labor unions are crushed, international proletariat interests are also being betrayed by China (like supporting Ukraine, their recent affairs within Africa, the junta I mentioned), economic imperialism via initiatives such as BRI, etc.

Painting a bourgeois nation red is such an effective strategy to fool leftists I swear. Maybe once third imperialist war drops, every bourgeois state is gonna be calling themselves socialist! Who knows....

Why does China have to nationalize the small proprietorships, agricultural cooperatives, and mid-sized secondary industries for you to accept that the bourgeoisie is kept out of political power? Markets are fairly useful for developing industry, and if private ownership has no dominance over the commanding heights of industry then that don't have political power over the socialist state. If China was controlled by the bourgeoisie, then we wouldn't see executions of billionaires at a regular basis, nor would we see such dramatic investment in infrastructure meant for the working classes.

The state could nationalize everything, sure. Under the late Mao period and during the Gang of Four, they had higher rates of public ownership, but growth was uneven. Reform and Opening Up, along with the crucial aspect of technology transfer, stableized growth and slightly increased it:

This strategy of maintaining public ownership as the principle aspect and relying on markets to help facilitate gaps left by the socialist system in a controlled manner have had dramatically positive results. They of course aren't without new contradictions, but at the same time the presence of contradictions does not imply that the bourgeoisie are in control. This approach to socialism is elaborated on by Cheng Enfu:

Currently, the PRC is working towards the intermediate stage of socialist construction, per the chart.

As for the state being run by the working classes, this is also pretty straightforward. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, and we can see the class breakdown of the top of the government itself:

This is despite the Three Represents system. Overall, this system has resulted in over 90% of the population approving the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate.

Independent labor unions aren't allowed, correct, nor do they need to be. Unions are required to be a part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, and aren’t allowed to be independent from that federation. This isn’t a violation of worker rights, though, as the only purpose rogue unions would serve is undermining the socialist system, and would be vulnerable to foreign backing (such as from the US Empire).

BRI and the PRC's presence in Africa and the global south in general isn't imperialist either. The PRC is expanding trade, but not dominance, nor does its trade deals come at the barrel of a gun. They trade with pretty much everyone, and support their allies, but this is not imperialism. To the contrary, the PRC is acting against imperialism.

• The CPC punishing Chinese landlords for improper treatment of Africans, mass arresting the landlords, passing reforms, and apologizing to the African Union
• China has forgiven over 10 billion in foreign debt
• Belt-Road Initiative: An Anti-thesis of Colonialism
• Evo Morales speaks on claims of "Chinese imperialism
• Five Imperialist Myths About China's Role in Africa
• Is China a Better Partner for Africa than Europe and the West?
• Challenging US Imperialism with Chinese Multilateralism
• The Fallacy of Denouncing Both Sides of the US-China Conflict

And many, many more sources back this up. It's no secret that imperialists have been trying to smear China into being "no better" than the west, but the reality on the ground is that partnering with China results in mutual development and cooperation, while partnering with the west results in stripped autonomy, underdevelopment, and exploitation.

The idea that the PRC is a "bourgeois state painted red," and that that's why many Marxist-Leninists are "fooled" into supporting it, is ignoring my very clear arguments that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, with the working classes in charge of the state. Your most compelling argument seems to be that they could sacrifice the economic growth that Reform and Opening up brought and stuck with a more totally planned economy similar to the DPRK, but the fact that they are taking a different path does not mean that they are taking the wrong path, one where the bourgeoisie control the state and private ownership is principle, ie capitalism.

Again, your greatest error is in confusing form for essence, and only seeing similarities while ignoring differences. This causes you to make frankly absurd statements like "every nation state is hitlerite," regardless of results and structure.

Most of what you've pointed out just now isn't even in the interest of the working class, nor is it somehow exclusive to AES states - rather, these are just common interests held by bourgeois states.

GDP growth by itself indicates greater capital accumulation, which in turn indicates that a greater degree of worker exploitation has been achieved in a commodity producing society, directly going against worker interests. Same with maintaining the existence of bourgeois and their economic position under the guise of "helping GDP grow" for obvious reasons - it's just absurd.

Aside from that, national/public ownership also doesn't automatically mean "in workers interests". For instance, majority of capitalist countries early on had or still have their means of public transportation (railroad, buses) nationally owned. Does it mean these parts were "socialist"? Of course not - cheap public transportation allows workers to travel cheaply and faster to their workplaces, which in turns allows capital to expand and accumulate value more efficiently. In other words, their purpose was capital growth.

All in all, my main point is that despite China being labeled as a DOTP, it purely advances its national capitalist interests and does nothing to advance proletarian interests. There might be incidental benefits for the proletariat here and there (as is the norm under capitalism, economic growth sometimes bringing better standard of living and infrastructure improvements), but all the actual advancements of worker interests are promised way, way into the future.

And hey - maybe China will actually achieve communist mode of production purely on its own which would largely debunk orthodox marxism, only time will tell.

Bourgeois states don't seek grand infrastructure development, aren't dominated by public ownership, and don't develop mechanisms of democracy reaching approval rates over 90%. The PRC continuously puts the working class first. The idea that development of the productive forces is bad because it implies exploitation is inherently flawed, highly developed productive forces are the basis of socialized production to begin with, as it is with this development that we can best meet the needs of everyone with as little work as possible. What's absurd is using GDP growth in an economy where public ownership as principle as a bad thing.

Secondly, I agree, nationalized infrastructure in bourgeois states, where private ownership is principle, is indeed not socialist. The PRC has public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state though, so any comparisons to, say, Bismark are entirely off-base. The PRC is qualitatively different from heavily state-driven capitalist economies like the Republic of Korea or Singapore, because in the state-driven capitalist economies private ownership governs the large firms and key industries.

I get that I'm beating a dead horse, but you keep making the same basic blunder, so I'll state it again: you confuse form for essence. You utterly ignore the principle aspect of the economy, and see presence of contradiction as evidence of subservient aspects as dominant. This error in thinking is derived from purely looking at similarities, and ignoring differences. Only seeing the general, while ignoring the particular. In other words, utterly maiming the dialectical half of dialectical materialism.

All of the actual benefits are being given to the working classes on a steady and constant basis. Their quality of life has steadily gone up dramatically year over year, in a fundamentally far greater degree than social democracies offer by ratio, without bribery from imperialism. And no, the PRC isn't saying they will achieve communism in one country, just that communism, when achieved, will fit that description. Obviously communism must be global.

The vast, vast majority of this country who are only marginally invested in politics combined the needs of capital to secure that stability will override whatever political ambitions any leadership has in the long-term. All of the current crisis is still just a flash in the pan, it will pass, the pendulum will swing the other way and the cycle will continue. I've been watching it a long ass time, I have seen nothing yet that makes me believe the country will experience wide-scale change.

It's going to get more authoritarian broadly, it's going to have more unrest and reduced rights, particularly as the climate changes and the immigration situation gets a lot more inflamed as refugees start piling up to get in, but right now, unless a LOT of people make a lot of huge changes to their media consumption habits, we're going to see a rougher, nastier status-quo for decades to come.

The USA is a HUGE boat that turns slowly, it's not one country, it's 50. And because of that, small changes have huge consequences but only decades down the line. Few people who haven't actually traveled the nation really get the scale involved and what has to change before we see lasting change.

Except that's bullshit. What China is actually doing is taking out land and resource leases for flat fees, and then moving their own people into the Africa country to extract the resources for pennies on the yuan.

USA wasn't doing any of that. They were mostly trying to tell African governments to stop being so corrupt and putting all sorts of limits and terms on aid service. But the leaders in the governments didn't like that. They liked getting big fat checks from China for resources they had no ability to extract themselves. China is more than happy to support corrupt and dictatorial governments, because well, that's what they are. They are also more than happy to sell them weapons systems and technology for lower costs and without the restrictions that come on the US/European ones.

It's colonialism. it's just the Chinese version of it. If you are support of authoritarian colonialism and exporting dictatorial governments over democratic ones, of course you'd see China as the preferred power.

The Saudis and other rising middle powers are also trying to get in on this game. Every nation to be a hegemonic power to the extent that they can.

The US Empire (and Europe as well) is the one installing compradors. No, the US Empire isn't trying to tell people to "not be corrupt," they want that so the comoradors sell out their countries and force austerity, privatization of nationalized industries, etc. This is how imperialism works, and is why the US Empire has hundreds of overseas millitary bases while the PRC has ~3. If you nationalize your resources, the US Empire tries to destroy you, because the US Empire depends entirely on this system of super-exploiting for super-profits.

BRI and the PRC's presence in Africa and the global south in general isn't imperialist. The PRC is expanding trade, but not dominance, nor does its trade deals come at the barrel of a gun. They trade with pretty much everyone, and support their allies, but this is not imperialism. To the contrary, the PRC is acting against imperialism.

• The CPC punishing Chinese landlords for improper treatment of Africans, mass arresting the landlords, passing reforms, and apologizing to the African Union
• China has forgiven over 10 billion in foreign debt
• Belt-Road Initiative: An Anti-thesis of Colonialism
• Evo Morales speaks on claims of "Chinese imperialism
• Five Imperialist Myths About China's Role in Africa
• Is China a Better Partner for Africa than Europe and the West?
• Challenging US Imperialism with Chinese Multilateralism
• The Fallacy of Denouncing Both Sides of the US-China Conflict

And many, many more sources back this up. It's no secret that imperialists have been trying to smear China into being "no better" than the west, but the reality on the ground is that partnering with China results in mutual development and cooperation, while partnering with the west results in stripped autonomy, underdevelopment, and exploitation.

As for China's democracy, it's actually better than the US Empire by a wide margin. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, and we can see the strong perceptions around this democracy:

This is despite the Three Represents system. Overall, this system has resulted in over 90% of the population approving the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate.

Overall, you have a deeply confused notion of what's going on in the global south. The US is the world's largest empire and is colonizing the world, China is focusing on win-win economic development.

Yeah, bourgeois states would never ever develop infrastructure for market expansion and capital accumulation purposes (e.g. building up infrastructure in colonial states to facilitate exports + extract resources or undertaking massive projects such as the Suez and Panama canals), they would never ever nationalize nor have dominant national ownership of their industry for national bourgeois benefit or capital stability (like in Saudi Arabia, fascist Italy, various national oil companies), nor they would have high approval rates like seen in fascist regimes and economic boom periods (entrenched superstructures also make workers "approve" things that go against their interests). Maybe there's more DOTP's out there than I thought....

The idea that development of the productive forces is bad because it implies exploitation is inherently flawed, highly developed productive forces are the basis of socialized production to begin with

Productive forces by themselves are neutral, what matters is the underlying social relations of production. Capitalist mode of production presupposes exploitation via extraction of surplus value and market constrains, which is not only exploitative but also conflicts with the long-term worker interest that is production-for-use. Expansion of exploitation goes against working class interests, that much is hopefully obvious - you're not gonna find anyone but bourgeois or workers deep in nationalist superstructure being happy about their nation state having GDP growth.

On the other hand, a society that produces for use rather than for profit that doesn't have the exploitative surplus extraction mechanism - now that and it's growth is inherently in the interests of the working class.

China hasn't made even the most gradual of shifts towards this, it's a full on market economy that maintains the exploitative relation and sometimes merely transfers ownership around, but this doesn't materially affect the relationship between the worker and means of production.

Mere promises for the "future plans" do not alter the bourgeois essence of the economy as it stands now in China, and I highly doubt that a state maintaining this essence that is in it's national material interests will one day just do a 180, completely go against those interests and abolish the current state of things.

All of the actual benefits are being given to the working classes on a steady and constant basis. Their quality of life has steadily gone up dramatically year over year, in a fundamentally far greater degree than social democracies offer by ratio, without bribery from imperialism.

This is true for literally most capitalist countries during its active development, or after WW2. It is also a blatantly anti-marxist socdem narrative, as the marxist goal is abolishment of current state of things rather than merely making things temporarily better until capitalist contradictions inevitably catch up and result in crisis.

Yeah, bourgeois states would never ever develop infrastructure for market expansion and capital accumulation purposes (e.g. building up infrastructure in colonial states to facilitate exports + extract resources or undertaking massive projects such as the Suez and Panama canals),

Except in the PRC, infrastructure projects are explicitly made to service both the overall socialist economy, and the lives of the working classes, at the expense of the domestic bourgeoisie. Your argument is essentially "the PRC has infrastructure projects, therefore it's capitalist," and considering I already demonstrated that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state run by the working classes, we need to re-examine these infrastructure projects. You are, again, confusing form for essence, and focusing on similarities while turning a blind eye towards stark differences. Again, making a mockery of dialectical materialism.

they would never ever nationalize nor have dominant national ownership of their industry for national bourgeois benefit or capital stability (like in Saudi Arabia, fascist Italy, various national oil companies),

Except in those economies, private ownership still remained principle. This is why I brought up Bismark earlier, and that I agree that nationalized industry isn't inherently a sign of socialism. That's why, as Marxists, we need to take the dialectical materialist approach and analyze not just individual elements, but the nature of the economy as a whole. Nationalization in the context of an economy where private ownership is principle ultimately is in service of the bourgeoisie. The Republic of Korea is dominated by giant megacorps like Samsung, LG, Hyundai, etc, despite having a strong bourgeois state, while the PRC is dominated by public ownership and SOEs with a proletarian state, despite having bourgeois ownership over small and medium secondary industries.

Again, since you seem to ignore your critical lack of dialectical analysis, I'll keep pointing it out every time it comes up. You are, again, confusing form for essence, and focusing on similarities while turning a blind eye towards stark differences.

nor they would have high approval rates like seen in fascist regimes and economic boom periods (entrenched superstructures also make workers “approve” things that go against their interests). Maybe there’s more DOTP’s out there than I thought…

Except the PRC's "boom period" seems to persist even in times of instability, and for many decades at a time, while fascist regimes have been flashes in the pan and boom/bust cycles in capitalist economies are regular. The highest approval rates in capitalist economies come in times of war, yet the PRC has been at peace for many decades and still retains this approval rate.

Again, since you seem to ignore your critical lack of dialectical analysis, I'll keep pointing it out every time it comes up. You are, again, confusing form for essence, and focusing on similarities while turning a blind eye towards stark differences.

Productive forces by themselves are neutral, what matters is the underlying social relations of production. Capitalist mode of production presupposes exploitation via extraction of surplus value and market constrains, which is not only exploitative but also conflicts with the long-term worker interest that is production-for-use. Expansion of exploitation goes against working class interests, that much is hopefully obvious - you’re not gonna find anyone but bourgeois or workers deep in nationalist superstructure being happy about their nation state having GDP growth.

This is a deeply confused analysis. The PRC has public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, not private. Growth in production is essential for actually being capable of production-for-use, and this very problem was what caused instability under the Gang of Four. The idea that the small proprietors, the secondary, small industries, and the agricultural cooperatives need to be nationalized overnight is anti-Marxist analysis. You're using phrasemongering to try to paint increased industrial capacity as something contrary to worker interests.

On the other hand, a society that produces for use rather than for profit that doesn’t have the exploitative surplus extraction mechanism - now that and it’s growth is inherently in the interests of the working class.

The backbone of China's economy is production for use, though. Exploitation is a contradiction, correct, but trying to nationalize industry before it actually socializes is unnecessary from Marxist analysis, and delays productivity. You're making the argument of the Gang of Four, that being that it's better to be working in a fully nationalized economy as a poor worker than working in partially privatized yet ultimately socialist economy with more productive capacity and access to goods and services. Marxism doesn't posit that dogmatically nationalizing is inherently better because it gets rid of exploitation, but instead takes a scientific approach to analyzing production and distribution.

China hasn’t made even the most gradual of shifts towards this, it’s a full on market economy that maintains the exploitative relation and sometimes merely transfers ownership around, but this doesn’t materially affect the relationship between the worker and means of production

Utterly baseless claims, when the economy is dominated by the public sector and Five Year Plans guide the development of the economy. I've given you multiple examples backing this up, while you return with unbacked claims counter to reality.

Mere promises for the “future plans” do not alter the bourgeois essence of the economy as it stands now in China, and I highly doubt that a state maintaining this essence that is in it’s national material interests will one day just do a 180, completely go against those interests and abolish the current state of things.

China doesn't need to pull a 180, it's already a socialist economy gradually nationalizing the small and medium secondary industries as they develop and socialize. This isn't about "future plans," they are already socialist and already in the long and protracted process of transition between capitalism and communism, ie socialism. Nowhere in my comments thus far have I stated that they need to pull a 180, they need to continue their process of folding socialized production into the public sector and maintain the DotP.

This is true for literally most capitalist countries during its active development, or after WW2. It is also a blatantly anti-marxist socdem narrative, as the marxist goal is abolishment of current state of things rather than merely making things temporarily better until capitalist contradictions inevitably catch up and result in crisis.

Except this is entirely false. The capitalist countries during active devevelopment have not directed their gains towards the benefits of the working classes, and post-WWII the capitalist countries entered an era of even greater imperialism. This, in the context of a post about the US Empire (which you batted hard to defend under the guise of worry about the labor aristocracy there), is clear social chauvanism. Further, the idea that the PRC is only making things temporarily better until "capitalist contradictions inevitably catch up and result in crisis" is entirely unfounded, as I explained earlier the PRC has been in a period of stable growth without a boom/bust cycle for decades, far longer than the capitalist world.

Repeating it because you ignored this, and accused me of being anti-Marxist and a "socdem:" you confuse form for essence. You utterly ignore the principle aspect of the economy, and see presence of contradiction as evidence of subservient aspects as dominant. This error in thinking is derived from purely looking at similarities, and ignoring differences. Only seeing the general, while ignoring the particular. In other words, utterly maiming the dialectical half of dialectical materialism.