My point was (and is), while brutality is inevitable and we won’t take over the world by the power of word alone, we should keep it to revolutionary means, and not to building an oppressive totalitarian state that completely warps the actual meaning of “worker’s dictatorship”.
Exterminating political enemies is necessary to lead a revolution, but it is unsustainable in the long run. Many prominent people pointed out that we should develop class consciousness and understanding of exactly why socialist/communist state is superior and vital for everyone. Just oppressing dissident thoughts will make them burst elsewhere, and at some point cracks will begin to show.
With class consciousness and actual people’s understanding of the matter we can talk about worker’s democracy and worker’s councils (aka Soviets, ironically ruined by the Soviet state itself), and a positive development of the situation without endless struggle and fight.
Again: yes, revolutionary process will require of us that we kill and oppress Nazis, bourgeoisie, and other elements hostile to the means of revolution - that’s necessary and we should do it. But it should be kept to the revolution and actual threats to the state, not any instance of dissident thought. You can’t continuously rule a people-first state with an iron fist, or you’ll turn in into an oppressive bloody dictatorship that benefits no one.
As for China…the story’s a little different. It actively plays with fire on a level at which the true socialist state would already consider it a danger. If anything, I believe China makes the leash on business too loose, but it’s a tradeoff they make to be globally competitive with a big capitalist world. Should we talk about an actual socialism, what happens in China is well beyond a point at which a state should react by cracking down. In a true socialist state, no private business should be able to grow to the level that requires big intervention in the first place (and some would argue it shouldn’t exist at all).
The point of combating ways of thinking hostile to the worker’s state isn’t to twist arms until bones break or tear limbs off. The point is to keep these types from running the country and usurping public discourse. Relevant channels will naturally be developed to give those with grievances a path to express them directly to the government, as is the case in China. China does allow criticism of the government, however matters that are especially sensitive (like the Taiwan issue) are not allowed to be freely discussed without regulation or oversight. Free speech absolutism would serve as a bridgehead for imperialist powers to gain a foothold into the country’s internal affairs, as they’ve already attempted with the grooming of extremist elements in Xinjiang’s Uyghur population. China responded by rehabilitating them once they were discovered, in order to uproot national security threats and threats to the Communist Party without unnecessary loss of life. So, yes, revolution first, reform second. There will be channels for the disgruntled to submit feedback and air grievances, in order to resolve disputes responsibly without unnecessary risk. However, it would be unwise to introduce political chaos by allowing them to speak against the state in an unregulated way without any oversight. The Chinese government works tirelessly to promote class consciousness, develop socialism with Chinese characteristics, and resolve the contradictions within its borders. We will do the same, but will not renounce or rule out the use of force to defend the revolution if individuals with reactionary tendencies develop into national security threats.
You mentioned worker’s councils and worker’s democracy being ruined by the Soviet state itself. This matter is complex and multi-faceted. The Soviet Union was the first and most primitive successful implementation of a socialist union of states, and thus did not have the necessary foresight to safeguard against all possible threats of subversion. They were put under economic blockade by the US, by having their access to the SWIFT payment system revoked. In other words, they had their money turned off in the sense that they couldn’t easily trade with other countries using the international payment system. This resulted in what is known as the “iron curtain”, which was extended to the DPRK and Cuba. They had also been destroyed from the Second World War, having millions upon millions of the most dedicated communists perishing in battle. The Soviet Union should have allowed capitalism to exist alongside state enterprises, in order to partition the forces of capital off into the marketplace and keep them from instead seeking to climb the ranks of the CPSU to pursue their ambitions of living lives of excess. Ultimately, the latter is what caused revisionism to poison and eventually destroy the Soviet Union, as Party officials were seduced by sneaky Western capital’s corrupting influence. China learned from this mistake and allowed capitalists to express and pursue their ambitions within the marketplace, while at the same time keeping them on a tight leash to prevent runaway privatization and usurping of state power, in addition to cracking down on corruption within the CPC itself, even going as far as to pursue retired officials who engaged in corruption to uproot and stamp out threats to the Party’s position and credibility.
The conditions of conglomerates existing in China, like Tencent and Alibaba, are more or less exclusively out of necessity to compete with relevant Western equivalents. In order for China to reduce the size of conglomerates without undermining their position in the global marketplace, the conditions need to be developed. Chinese industry and companies need to be in a position to have surpassed the West’s, and their influence, in order to liberate the global economy from the West’s hegemony. After this is complete, and irreversible, China will gradually work to reduce the size of private enterprise. The CPC recently pivoted to high-quality development and the pursuit of developing China into a modern socialist country in all respects by 2050, which includes worker cooperatives having replaced traditional private enterprise. The current market conditions of China are indeed socialist. It is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and the current conditions correspond to the stage of development socialism has reached within the country. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to get carried away by idealist notions of “true socialism” by thinking we can pick and choose which stage of socialism to exist overnight. It must be developed, taking into account the relevant conditions of geopolitics, and the characteristics of the nation itself.
If you have any other concerns you need addressed, I am open to further discussion. If not, I consider this matter closed.
My point was (and is), while brutality is inevitable and we won’t take over the world by the power of word alone, we should keep it to revolutionary means, and not to building an oppressive totalitarian state that completely warps the actual meaning of “worker’s dictatorship”.
Exterminating political enemies is necessary to lead a revolution, but it is unsustainable in the long run. Many prominent people pointed out that we should develop class consciousness and understanding of exactly why socialist/communist state is superior and vital for everyone. Just oppressing dissident thoughts will make them burst elsewhere, and at some point cracks will begin to show.
With class consciousness and actual people’s understanding of the matter we can talk about worker’s democracy and worker’s councils (aka Soviets, ironically ruined by the Soviet state itself), and a positive development of the situation without endless struggle and fight.
Again: yes, revolutionary process will require of us that we kill and oppress Nazis, bourgeoisie, and other elements hostile to the means of revolution - that’s necessary and we should do it. But it should be kept to the revolution and actual threats to the state, not any instance of dissident thought. You can’t continuously rule a people-first state with an iron fist, or you’ll turn in into an oppressive bloody dictatorship that benefits no one.
As for China…the story’s a little different. It actively plays with fire on a level at which the true socialist state would already consider it a danger. If anything, I believe China makes the leash on business too loose, but it’s a tradeoff they make to be globally competitive with a big capitalist world. Should we talk about an actual socialism, what happens in China is well beyond a point at which a state should react by cracking down. In a true socialist state, no private business should be able to grow to the level that requires big intervention in the first place (and some would argue it shouldn’t exist at all).
The point of combating ways of thinking hostile to the worker’s state isn’t to twist arms until bones break or tear limbs off. The point is to keep these types from running the country and usurping public discourse. Relevant channels will naturally be developed to give those with grievances a path to express them directly to the government, as is the case in China. China does allow criticism of the government, however matters that are especially sensitive (like the Taiwan issue) are not allowed to be freely discussed without regulation or oversight. Free speech absolutism would serve as a bridgehead for imperialist powers to gain a foothold into the country’s internal affairs, as they’ve already attempted with the grooming of extremist elements in Xinjiang’s Uyghur population. China responded by rehabilitating them once they were discovered, in order to uproot national security threats and threats to the Communist Party without unnecessary loss of life. So, yes, revolution first, reform second. There will be channels for the disgruntled to submit feedback and air grievances, in order to resolve disputes responsibly without unnecessary risk. However, it would be unwise to introduce political chaos by allowing them to speak against the state in an unregulated way without any oversight. The Chinese government works tirelessly to promote class consciousness, develop socialism with Chinese characteristics, and resolve the contradictions within its borders. We will do the same, but will not renounce or rule out the use of force to defend the revolution if individuals with reactionary tendencies develop into national security threats.
You mentioned worker’s councils and worker’s democracy being ruined by the Soviet state itself. This matter is complex and multi-faceted. The Soviet Union was the first and most primitive successful implementation of a socialist union of states, and thus did not have the necessary foresight to safeguard against all possible threats of subversion. They were put under economic blockade by the US, by having their access to the SWIFT payment system revoked. In other words, they had their money turned off in the sense that they couldn’t easily trade with other countries using the international payment system. This resulted in what is known as the “iron curtain”, which was extended to the DPRK and Cuba. They had also been destroyed from the Second World War, having millions upon millions of the most dedicated communists perishing in battle. The Soviet Union should have allowed capitalism to exist alongside state enterprises, in order to partition the forces of capital off into the marketplace and keep them from instead seeking to climb the ranks of the CPSU to pursue their ambitions of living lives of excess. Ultimately, the latter is what caused revisionism to poison and eventually destroy the Soviet Union, as Party officials were seduced by sneaky Western capital’s corrupting influence. China learned from this mistake and allowed capitalists to express and pursue their ambitions within the marketplace, while at the same time keeping them on a tight leash to prevent runaway privatization and usurping of state power, in addition to cracking down on corruption within the CPC itself, even going as far as to pursue retired officials who engaged in corruption to uproot and stamp out threats to the Party’s position and credibility.
The conditions of conglomerates existing in China, like Tencent and Alibaba, are more or less exclusively out of necessity to compete with relevant Western equivalents. In order for China to reduce the size of conglomerates without undermining their position in the global marketplace, the conditions need to be developed. Chinese industry and companies need to be in a position to have surpassed the West’s, and their influence, in order to liberate the global economy from the West’s hegemony. After this is complete, and irreversible, China will gradually work to reduce the size of private enterprise. The CPC recently pivoted to high-quality development and the pursuit of developing China into a modern socialist country in all respects by 2050, which includes worker cooperatives having replaced traditional private enterprise. The current market conditions of China are indeed socialist. It is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and the current conditions correspond to the stage of development socialism has reached within the country. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to get carried away by idealist notions of “true socialism” by thinking we can pick and choose which stage of socialism to exist overnight. It must be developed, taking into account the relevant conditions of geopolitics, and the characteristics of the nation itself.
If you have any other concerns you need addressed, I am open to further discussion. If not, I consider this matter closed.