Middle class 14 year old leftists and self-hating third worldists try not to jerk off at the thought of proles in the west dying challenge (impossible)

Wanting the imperial hegemon to dissolve isn’t exclusive to either of those groups, and would significantly advance the aims of socialists globally. The western labor aristocracy is gradually aligning more with the glonal south as the bribes of imperialism dry up and austerity is forced domestically, so the chance of socialist revolution is increasingly greater than 0. Quantitative buildup is resulting in qualitative leaps.

Within the empire itself, younger generations are increasingly in favor of communism. Not socdem “socialism,” but communism. That doesn’t mean they are all committed Marxists, but the trend is extraordinarily positive and aligns with the deterioration of the labor aristocracy. This genocidal settler-colonial empire is finally reaching levels of sharpened contradictions that are forcing the populace to get organized.

If by “socialists globally” you mean hitlerite AES nation states (e.g. China, Vietnam) then yes it would benefit them immensely as now their capital accumulation gets boosted and they get to do more imperialism in the future as there’s less competition now. If you mean sub-20 member student uni book clubs, then yes it would also benefit them as now they have more stuff to larp about.

In either case, a collapse of US doesn’t help the real movement. If anything, the collapse would get rid of a ton of accumulated value, temporarily increasing the rate of profit abroad and bribing the labor aristocracy that presumably is aligning itself with global south (though I call BS, they’re as hitlerite as ever) back to defending global capital which would be counterintuitive.

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.

Nothing screams socialism more than class collaboration, active expansion of commodity production and commodity accumulation, funding military junta in Myanmar and so on. At this point China would only become socialist if its capital forces magically became conscious and went against it’s own interests.

Also good job with the slander on that last paragraph. All nation states are hitlerite, no matter if global north or south as they all brutalize their proles, are ruled by bourgeois and would happily go imperialist if they were in an economic position that necessitated it. The real chauvinism is putting some states on a pedestal and masking it with moralizing bullshit.

Also you ought to know the difference between “arbitrary collapse wouldn’t be useful and would just bring unnecessary suffering” vs “I support this empire and hope it stays forever!”. I’d much rather see all the contradictions result in US becoming a genuine DOTP once workers there finally wake up rather than millions dying for no reason other than revengeism and for some other capitalist state to take over.

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. 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 country 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.

Mhmm, really digging your expansion here as an addendum to our earlier conversation on the same subject.

Thanks! Happy to help!

Thank you, for taking the time. I honestly can’t wait for their next argument to learn even more!

Haha, hopefully there are fewer arguments and more constructive discussions.

Arguing isn’t bad. How it’s done may be!

Argument tends to be less fruitful than discussions, in my experience.

I think it’s how we’ve been trained to understand it.

If anything, debate-culture is dominant in liberal spaces, not Marxist. We should try to take a dialectical approach to education and self-education.

I understand you. What I’m saying, for example, if I am considering between a green salad, fruit, or smoothie for lunch, my argument for greens would be iron content, fruit argument may be for the C content, smoothie would be “I can get both.” But in the United States, we’re taught “argument” is disagreement, or negative. So yes. I do agree we can take a dialectical approach, which if I’m understanding it correctly, takes contradiction in ideas and basically does the same as my lunch example? But I’m still grappling with my understanding of the word, so there’s also that. As a side note, it occurs to me dialectics informs your style when correcting us on misconceptions (and also wondering if it’s your general disposition to be so patient and good natured, or if understanding and practicing dialectics had lent extension to any degree)?

Ah, gotcha. When I hear “argument,” I hear “debate culture,” the kind of liberal bloodsports that focus mostly on rhetorical wins than finding a fundamental truth. I’m not quite using dialectics the way they were first formalized in ancient society, but instead more as a dialectical materialist. We can’t come to a better understanding purely through the realm of ideas, such is the strategy of dialectical idealists, but instead we can be more cooperative in education.

As for my style, I do try to emulate the dialectical method of Marx, but I absolutely do not compare to him in skill. Practicing dialectical materialism as a method of analysis is a skill like any other, it takes repitition and intention to become more accurate. Regarding disposition, I mostly take from Liu Shaoqi’s How to be a Good Communist, which helps me maintain revolutionary optimism!