With China's popularity rising, there has to come a point where a country's population decides to say:
"We need to follow a Marxist-Leninist model pronto if we want to remain a functioning society, because capitalism isn't working anymore."
Which country is gonna say it first?

marxism isn't going to emerge because of china's popularity. revolutions would occur if imperialism wasn't constantly doing black ops to kill every single last communist and their mother.

if i had to guess, it'd be somewhere in south east asia, but who knows, maybe if we don't have genocide sam in latam a few countries here could do with a revolution.

You could start by identifying the successful Marxist-Leninist country. I don't think there is one.

lol, china is biggest world economy. the soviet took a famine ridden feudal country and turned it into a global power. meanwhile kkkanadians are clapping literal nazis in parliament. keep coping while your burger reich overlords annex your settler colony and you spend all of you wage on a 2m2 appartment.

i hope you enjoy becoming the 51st state because brainworms this extensive can only lead to annexation by the us empire.

china was already mentioned

piece of nazi useless trash, butthurt cracker westoid gringo you be coping hard af.

Local lib after winning the Most insufferable Redditor award: "I love Adolf Hitler!"

You should leave.

Latin America is my vote, could happen in Mexico, I would have voted Argentina better Milei, and maybe Venezuela before Trump.

Truthfully though, I think we're locked in, globally, permanently to Capitalism and right wing ideology into the end of humanity now for deeply complex reasons.

The game changed drastically this year and most people are just not aware how literally impossible it is to change.

I don't think westerners would want to live in a country like China. If that's the case, why don't people just immigrate there?

China's recent development doesn't really hinge on Marxist-Leninist models. It went heavy into state capitalism to produce a massive improvement in the economy. I feel like China's main innovation was to create an investment model that was company agnostic; private companies competed to operate state owned factories rather than the state owning the companies. Corporate governance is more "third way" with loose control over semi-private entities.

What changed this year?

well, tbh we're going back to 2001 after milei's finished so we'll probably be so fubar that anything could happen, if the communist party here organizes a bit lol.

but yeah, people don't realize how deeply embedded the cia is involved in latam. even moderately left wing people are persecuted all across the region in one way or another, if we think about political figures in the pink wave for example.

calling china capitalist is another.

"if your country is so bad why don't you move" sorta vibes

but to answer your question, westerners have no idea what china actually is.

no it would not. it sounds to me you don't know what marxist principles are.

communism is the abolition of the state. socialism is the transition to a stateless society by using the bourgeois state against them and for the people.

marx himself (and later deng xiaoping, since the subject is the chinese state) believed capitalism and markets were necessary to develop productive forces before communism could happen.

please read marx before throwing names at people. this is the basics of marxism.

"We need to follow a Marxist-Leninist model pronto if we want to remain a functioning society, because capitalism isn't working anymore."

Aaah, the over-simplification of highly complicated changes

yes they are. are you expecting the poorest country in the world to develop itself and solve all contradictions in a couple of decades?

i know real life socialism set literal records for developing quick but things still take time. rebuilding a country is not trivial.

please read the philosopher you are telling me you already like, and study more about the method he created.

We completely agree on that. Westerners cannot conceptualize what China is really like.

The 'high complicated' change being liberals midwifing fascism.

Marxist-Leninist model has everything to do with China's development. You can read this book on the subject which explains how China's rise is a direct product of Marxist central planning.

The whole idea of state capitalism is a bit of a misnomer. It basically says that even though USSR had state owned enterprise, the internal capitalist relations within it remain largely the same. While that’s true, there is a fundamental difference here. Capitalism is a system where people who own capital hire workers to exploit there labor with the purpose of increasing their capital. The goal of capitalist enterprise is to create wealth for the owners with any social benefits being strictly incidental. On the other hand, the purpose of state enterprise is to provide social value. Workers in state owned companies are producing things that the society needs. They are working for their own benefit and those of others around them. Therefore, the nature of work itself is fundamentally different from actual capitalism.

And this is precisely what socialism is. It's a transitional stage between a capitalist society and a future communist society where the working class has seized the control of the state, but existing material relations have not yet been abolished.

Also worth noting that the state in China is firmly in control of the commanding heights of the economy.

The actual innovation in China is in combining high level central planning with dynamic allocation. The problem with Soviet economy was that any large system will produce a lot of noise as information travels through it. So, when you do central planning the way USSR was, it becomes very difficult to balance things. You make a plan, the directives travel down to the factories and farms where production happens, there's delay in the information arriving, mistakes in transcription, and so on. Then the same thing happens on the way back up, so the picture at the top is divergent from the situation on the ground. And that leads to things like overcorrections, and plans based on false data, so the system becomes unbalanced over time. And that's what we saw happen in USSR. I can highly recommend reading Thinking in Systems for a deeper explanation of the problem.

Now, that doesn't mean that the idea of central planning itself is wrong. The problem is with trying to do micromanagement at high level which just doesn't work. And this is the problem China figure out how to solve by using markets as allocators within the centrally planned system. The planners still set five year plans, they still control the commanding heights of the economy, and give overall direction on what types of things should be produced, but the details are left to market mechanisms to work out dynamically at the appropriate level. And this type of a hybrid system is proving to be highly effective.

Cuba, China, Vietnam, and DPRK are all successful Marxist-Leninist countries.

It's certainly a take anybody with even minimal understanding of what Marxism is would agree with.

Because uprooting your life and moving to a different country is really hard to do as anybody with even a minimally functioning brain would understand?

DPRK? 🤨

That's a lot of words to reiterate what I said. If China is in a transition state, then it isn't full communism. Also, China has decentralized some decision making from its planned economy, the "third way" which I reference.

The country that survived an American genocide and now is thriving? Yes.

Nobody claims that China is full communism, not even the Chinese themselves. It's a socialist state with a communist party in charge. And yes, decentralizing decision making at the lower levels while continuing to do central planning at high level is the key innovation. Your original comment was nonsensical claiming that China has diverged from Marxism-Leninism and that it's state capitalist. Next, you'll be telling me that Lenin diverged from Marxism-Leninism when he implemented NEP.

especially DPRK https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/the-wsj-just-confirmed-what-socialists

Thriving? 🤨

I hope it won't be a country, but basically the EU. It's diverse enough that eventually all people have to cooperate. They already heavily lean into Open Source and many EU laws are quite good.

My issue with the EU is just that there still seem to be a lot of half-incompetent right wing capitalists in power, e.g. Ursula von der Leyen.

The left is shit at marketing... So the communist days may never come.

There seems to be this weird Schrodinger's Cat situation where is both the "this isn't Communism yet" combined with "no, we are creating this on Communist principles".

And the talking point for the discussion is about China's form of "Communism" should be replicated across different countries. My statement that China's economy currently fits a state capitalist model is still valid because China hasn't full communist like how the Soviet Union never hit full communist. It is a step on the path.

I feel like the argument right now is that I'm using the word capitalism to describe the current step on the path.

believed capitalism and markets were necessary to develop productive forces before communism could happen.

But when will the communism finally happen? I guess the people in power often fall into a conservative trap to keep the status quo because it's working.

It's funny how lefters and righters accusing Ursula von Der leyen to be on other side. She is just f@$#&! Marionette for who pays more. She is hated of both sides.

Don't read the news much?

As I've already explained to you in the above comment, and you studiously ignored, China is a socialist state. Soviet Union was also a socialist state. There is no Schrodinger's Cat situation here at all. Your confusion stems from the fact that you don't understand what socialism actually is. Socialism is the transitional phase when the working class takes power in society, but the existing material relations have not yet been abolished. That's precisely what we see in China today. That's the whole difference between the socialist stage of development and communism which no country has achieved, and is unlikely to be possible as long as capitalism remains the dominant ideology in the world.

The argument right now is that you're just using words in nonsensical fashion because you lack understanding of the subject we're discussing. You can start educating yourself on the subject by reading this short article. https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3228-lenin-s-three-theoretical-arguments-about-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat

I'm describing a step, you're describing a walk.

Why are you framing socialism and democracy as incompatible?

China. A second socialist revolution. First, there's actually precedent for it there. Revolutionaries could call themselves restorationists, promising to fulfill the original revolution's abandoned mission. Maybe a version that actually empowers workers and builds bottom-up social democracy. Socialism without the authoritarianism. What better country for a socialist revolution than the one that gave us 9-9-6? China is ripe for a socialist revolution.

Sorry I'm going to take a swing here and say that you're a white EuroAmerican just completely uninformed to the reality of the Chinese people, Chinese law and Chinese sentiments. You are completely detached from the reality of China. And honestly even from this short comment it doesn't appear you have a strong grasp of Marxist theory either.

I'm mainly correcting the whole China isn't following Marxism-Leninism claim and clarifying what state capitalism really means. It's also important to understand what the socialist state of development actually is and how it relates to communism. Everything you've said in this thread distorts these ideas.

by lenin's logic, when the global capitalist hegemony is finally defeated. communism can't happen while capitalists would do everything to destroy it. it has to be an everyone wants it kind of thing.

this is also why you don't see country-sized anarchist societies and why we need socialism first.

So basically, we need to achieve world domination where most nations are governed by democratic socialists before we can defeat capitalism? That explains a lot.

Thank you for the explanation!

Maybe... But if she does the bidding of her right wing puppet masters, doesn't that make her a right wing puppet herself? She was CDU before, which is kinda right wing in Germany. By definition conservatives can't bring change.