A top economist has joined the growing list of China’s elite to have disappeared from public life after criticizing Xi Jinping, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Zhu Hengpeng served as deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for around a decade.
CASS is a state research think tank that reports directly to China’s cabinet. Chen Daoyin, a former associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, described it as a “body to formulate party ideology to support the leadership.”
According to the Journal, the 55-year-old disappeared shortly after remarking on China’s sluggish economy and criticizing Xi’s leadership in a private group on WeChat.
He constantly frames things vis-a-vis the freedom of workers and their having input in their government. Does that sound like China to you, or Cambodia under the Khmer?
Sure, but what he didn’t advocate for is for a new form of aristocracy to emerge from within workers’ ranks. I think this was Bakunin, not Marx, but the dangers of “labour aristocracy” were already known at the time.
I’ve read David Harvey’s synopsis of Capital (because life is too short to read the whole thing), Gotha, and of course the Manifesto. I’m actually puzzled that you see Gotha as advocating for authoritarianism. He talks about the eradication of class and about how people should not be “ruled”. Both of those things are endemic to current-day communism. I just can’t imagine that Marx would look at the way the CCP operates and think that was an accurate reflection of his personal politics.
How, exactly, does he frame them? Can you give an example? China practices Whole Process People’s Democracy, which absolutely isn’t liberal democracy, but does have more worker participation than Capitalist states.
As for Cambodia, the Khmer denounced Marx and were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists, no Communist supports the Khmer Rouge. No, what Marx described was not adopted by Cambodia, because the Khmer Rouge denounced Marx.
You’re confused on a few things here, the Labor Aristocracy is the Proletariat that makes more than the median wages in the global context due to the impacts of Imperialism, ie in the US median Proletarian wages far exceed that of wages in Chad not because the US Proletariat magically creates more value, but because wages are higher due to vast exploitation of the Global South.
Secondly, there was not a “new form of aristocracy” in AES states. AES presented an increase in democratization, including practices like instant recall elections, and units electing delegates. These delegates weren’t hereditary, had to be elected, and could be recalled at any time.
Critique of the Gotha Programme isn’t advocating for “authoritarianism,” nobody does. Critique of the Gotha Programme advocates for centralization, also alluded to by the “ceasing of the anarchy of Capitalist production.” Marx clearly crituques the vagueness of the Gotha Programme in question, along with its flawed conception of the state.
Engels elaborates in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (itself a phenomenal work that I highly recommend reading after this conversation), what form of government a Communist society would look like as Marx alludes to in Gotha:
You can see that, rather than the anarchy of decentralization, Marx and Engels advocated for centralization. The “centralized” society has no State, but it does have an Administration of Things. Think the Post-Office, and how it still has managers and administrators. These structures remain even into Communism, after Socialism, yet they aren’t considered a “state” by Marx nor Engels.
I won’t reply to all that because you’ve either moved the goalposts or misunderstood my original point. To wit:
Tankies are quintessentially authoritarian. That’s what I’ve been saying since the beginning. I agree that Marx doesn’t advocate for it, which is why I suggested he’d be repelled by tankies.
And what is authoritarianism? What are tankies?
For this to be a fruitful discussion, you two have to agree on what the definition of things are
Exactly. I think that’s why we’re having difficulty communicating.
How can you say that without responding? It seems like you ignored what I wrote, with careful, direct references to Marx and Engels. If I am going to put in the effort of taking everything you said into consideration and responding to the best of my abilities, the least you can do is acknowledge it honestly, not dissavow my efforts entirely. I haven’t undermined your ability to understand what I am talking about, nor accused you of moving the goal posts, so I’d like respect in kind.
You’ve been saying this without qualifiers. Advocating for “authoritarianism” isn’t a thing, hence Engels writing On Authority to debunk the very subject entirely. You have yet to meaningfully prove that Communists advocate for a different system and a different process than what Marx and Engels did. Saying that Communists advocate for “authoritarianism” doesn’t mean anything, what structures do Communists advocate for that go against Marx?
I can’t parse what you’re trying to say here. I suspect we’re talking past each other because you’re arguing from a purely academic point of view, rather than taking actual self-proclaimed communist states into account. Do you believe China is communist? How about the USSR?
I’m arguing for academic analysis of self-proclaimed Marxists.
China is Socialist. It practices Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, maintaining a Dictatorship of the Proletariat over a Market Economy. The CPC is Communist by ideology, but of course they haven’t achieved Communism yet, nor do they claim to. They tried to directly implement Communism under Mao and later under the Gang of Four, which ended up being a critical error in judgement as the Means of Production were not at all developed enough for it, hence the Gang of Four claiming it was “better for the Proletariat to be poor under Socialism than rich under Capitalism.”
The USSR was Socialist. They never achieved Communism, largely due to refusing to interlock with the rest of the world economy. While they managed to provide many critical necessities like healthcare, education, and so forth for free, shutting out the global market led to consumer jealousy over consumer commodities from the west, which led to democratically instating liberal market reforms, which worked against the centralized nature of the economy, leading to its dissolution.
So your stance is essentially “real communism has never been tried”? Technically correct, I suppose, but what really matters is the actions of people who claim to be communists. I refer back to my first post in this conversation where I said “insofar as those labels are used today”. I can’t think of a single practical implementation of political systems by these self-proclaimed communists that makes me think “this is what Marx would have wanted”.
No, his stance is that Communism, or as I believe Marx called it upper stage communism, has not been achieved. Lower stage communism‒or socialism‒has, as seen in China and the USSR. Both of these are/were communist, as in they are/were led by Marxist/communist parties working towards Communism.
If you truly believe they are “working towards communism”, I don’t think any amount of evidence or differing interpretations of the data will sway your faith.
No. My stance is that Communism is a stage of development that comes after Socialism, and no existing Socialist society has yet made it to Communism. This is the standard Marxist view of societal development, you cannot adopt Communism through fiat. The CPC tried under Mao and the Gang of Four, and failed because they didn’t develop the Means of Production beforehand.
Then I suggest you explain why. I have offered context and analysis of the USSR and PRC as they directly relate to Marx and Engels, without needing to reference Lenin or other Marxists. I would say my number one reading recommendation, if you don’t feel like elaborating on why you believe AES states to be not “Marx approved,” would be Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti. Additionally, the previously linked Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is critical for understanding the Marxist theory of development via Dialectical and Historical Materialism.
Because they are profoundly authoritarian, and become more so over time. You’re posting in a thread about China’s leader erasing a contrary voice from existence. I’m not sure how much clearer this could all be.