I did not get you banned from Lemmy.ml (nor were you “shadow-banned,” you were just community banned for 1 week), nor am I following you. You can check my comment history, I have a lot of comments in this community. I browse by subscribed, scaled sort, so I see posts from this community. You never explained what I said is “misguided drivel painted as facts,” and when pressed you just said I wouldn’t accept it anyways, so you didn’t even bother replying.

Either way, the Marxist-Leninist study guide I made is linked in the sidebar of this community. I assume my contributions are, if not welcomed, at least tolerated enough to link my posts from other communities. This space is accepting of me and my views as a communist.

So you don’t understand material conditions either?

I’m sorry, but this just reveals that we aren’t on the same page when it comes to Marxism. Your primary error is with erasing all of the advances of historical materialism and scientific socialism from Marx, and returning it to the utopianism of pre-Marx socialists such as Robert Owen. Essentially, you are treating capitalism as “private property,” socialism as “public property,” and communism as “big socialism.” This is dogmatic, and erases that modes of production are NOT their finite parts, but instead are determined by which aspect of the economy is principal, ie dominant and rising, and which class controls the state.

When you say China is a “mix of capitalism and socialism,” this horrendously misrepresents what a mode of production actually is. In China, public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. Huge state industry forms the backbone of the economy, and governs the large firms and key industries. This is because public ownership and planning is more effective at higher levels of development.

The private property that exists in China is relegated to small and medium industries, and highly competitive ones. This is because of the key development in Marxism advancing it beyond utopianism: the form of production suits the level of development of the productive forces. Rather than taking the Utopian path, which was to “model build” and create a system outright, Marx observed that capitalism came from feudalism with the rise in industrialization, and that markets themselves were centralizing, in other words socializing production while keeping profits private!

To return, your position that “the more communist you are, the more you dogmatically collectivize, regardless of level of development” is distinctly anti-Marxist, and moreover was already tried by China! Under the Gang of Four, there became a fetishization of equality in poverty. They were dogmatic in trying to collectivize as much as possible, with little regard for the level of development. Reform & Opening Up was a return to more classical interpretations of Marx, and thus saw a stablization and slight acceleration in development. This strategy and understanding is reflected in Cheng Enfu’s diagram, here:

When Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto of the Communist Party, their basic advice to any successful revolution is to nationalize the large firms and key industries, develop the productive forces as rapidly as possible, and gradually nationalize the rest of the economy as it develops. This reflects the exact path the PRC is charting, right now. This is why it’s important to read and understand theory, as if you became a leader of a new socialist country with your current understanding, you’d likely commit the same mistakes as the Gang of Four.

You know the modlog is public information. Anyone can retrieve it can see that that was not your original comment. All you did was spew US imperialistic propaganda against a socialist country. You know nothing about socialism, communism or any other isms, and that’s pretty clear.

controlled by the Chinese

TiL that this white boy sitting in Texas is Chinese.

all I did was mention that millions of their own citizens starved to death

That’s not why, and that isn’t really what you said. The modlog is public.

“Anyone who disagrees with me is an evil foreigner!”