Why do "Communist" desperatly need a lone male leader in power of an only self described communist/socialist state to see their communist utopia? Marx wrote his theories i a very specific time. Im pretty sure he didnt think of stalins reign when he wrote about the means of production.

[–] tyra@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Try reading “Stalin – the History and Critique of a Black Legend”by Domenico Losurdo. And if you mind, please tell me what’s not socialist about e.g. China?

[–] Wrufieotnak@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's easy: private ownership of means of production is not socialist.

I will even include another non socialist fact : China has billionaires (in US$). Those should not exist in a socialist country.

[–] tyra@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is it that easy?

All the key industries of China are in the hands of the state.
There’s no private ownership of land in China.
China is the only major country where the number of billionaires actively decreases.
China does not develop their economy with the sole purpose of profit.

Socialism is a process. Socialism isn’t communism. Socialism isn’t “the state owns everything”. Even Lenin argues that capitalists must be employed in the service of the new socialist state, but have to be suppressed under proletarian rule. I would say, that’s happening in China? And that’s what makes the blood of Western capitalists and their media outlets boil.

So I really don’t get why we shouldn’t support the biggest country that ever tried to implement communism? What do we get — except from despair — from denying the efforts China makes?

[–] Wrufieotnak@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sure, you can see it that way and I wouldn't even argue it's illogical. But the way socialism was taught in GDR is the definition I gave above and China is not socialist under that definition.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

Read Engels

load more comments (8 replies)