I decided to write a thread about why China ISN’T socialist because dengoids are annoying me even more than leftcoomers.
It will be divided the following way:

1. What is socialism?

2. Why China is not socialist?

3. Why China is not a Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

4. Bonus.

Part 1. What is socialism?

First, let’s begin with Marx’s exposition of Capital. What defines a capitalist system is the form of production. In capitalism, the predominant form of production is the capital form.

Contrary to the primitive form of commodity production, were the commodity is initially produced, turned into money and turned into a commodity again (C-M-C), the capital circulation begins with the money being invested in the production of a commodity and then being again +

turned into money (M-C-M).

Initially, the capital circulation is contradictory in itself, but all these contradictions in the totality of the phenomena becomes the modern capitalist system.

First, Marx notice that there’s no reason someone would buy something to re-sell it, unless the final amount of money is bigger than the initial. Thus, this becomes (M-C-M’, M’ > M).

Second, if the final capital is bigger than the initial, the commodity that middle the two poles of this process must have its value increased from the first exchange (M-C) to the second (C-M’).

Then, this commodity must be one that valuates itself over the time. And there’s only one commodity that obeys this law: the labor force.

Notice that the capitalist doesn’t buy the product of the labor of the worker he exploits, he buys the labor itself. He buys the own corpse of the worker for a time and then have the property of the product of his labor.

But no worker would voluntarily submit himself to these conditions. Thus, the worker would just voluntary himself to work for a boss if there’s no other choice for him to survive. Sometimes, violence is used in order to make people work in capital production, +

but the general rule is that, without any property over the means of production, the only way for the worker to produce his sustenance is selling everything he has: his labor force.

This is where all the contradictions of capitalism begin.

Communism is a new economic order that would solve all these contradictions, and then the abolition of capital circulation, and further, commodity production, is the core idea of communism.

Socialism, that is the initial phase of communism, must also abolish that. In effect, without the abolition of capital production, there’s no way for a system to be communist.

Lenin also explains in State and Revolution the necessity of, before getting a communist society, a dictatorship of the proletariat. In resume, the state is the organized violence of a class (presently, the ruling classes) against another (presently the proletariat).

After the revolution, we would abolish the bourgeois state and change it for a state that have the work of directing violence against the working classes in order to abolishing their power and them developing communism after that.

This is the transitional stage of capitalism to communism. This transitional stage would still have a capitalist economic system until the total overthrow of the bourgeois power.

In other words: capital circulation is incompatible with socialism, but actually compatible with the transitional stage.

The point I want to prove then is that China is neither a socialist society nor in a transitional stage.

Part 2. Why China is not socialist?

First, it’s kind of obvious that China has predominantly capital circulation of its commodities. It’s kind of obvious that they are a capitalist society.

In a failed attempt to prove that China is socialist, the modern revisionists use the labor movement of China to prove that, by the state “choosing the side of the workers”, the Chinese society is socialist.

But the mere existence of contradiction between the interest of the workers and their managers is a proof that class struggle, and therefore capitalism, exists.

We’ll not descend the debate to the point of proving if there is or there isn’t capital production in China. But in any case, here’s an article of the Chinese Bureau of Statistics about the profit of Chinese enterprises.
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202002/t20200204_1725014.html

But now let’s see how much capitalism is developed in China…

The first feature of imperialism, monopolies and accumulation of capital, is not hard to be noticed in China. Even if the biggest enterprises are state-owned, these state-owned industries don’t follow a socialist system.

As the CPI(Maoist) says, since 15th Congress of the CCP, that proposed a reorganization of the state-owned sector of the economy, profit is the main regulator of these enterprises. They were even congratulated by the World Bank.

The Indian Maoists also point out the overexploitation that drives the Chinese economy and the "Chinese miracle."

The greater banks of China are also mostly state-owned and a bank monopoly, what drive us to the second feature of imperialism: the union of bank capital and industrial capital, and the formation of the finance capital and a finance oligarchy.

The third and most important feature is the exportation of capital. This is the most apparent trait of imperialism for every country, including China. Since the crisis of 2008, China have become a main exporter of capital, and became officially an imperialist superpower.

Some dengists also use the words of Lenin in the start of this chapter that it’s impossible to capitalism to eradicate poverty, because it goes against profits. First, China is not eradicating poverty. Lenin surely wasn’t talking about income. https://twitter.com/Caelliox1/status/1299701962041184256

Although the Chinese imperialism is beginning and it’s not developed as the American, it’s still an imperialist superpower.

The term “new cold war” can be used to refer to the commercial war China and the US are doing, as the first cold war was nothing but a dominance dispute of imperialisms between the social-imperialist revisionist Soviet Union and the United States.

Part 3. Why China is not a Dictatorship of the Proletariat

As a Marxist, the last defense you would have of China is it being a proletarian state, used by the proletariat to violently win in the class antagonism.

But the truth is that:

1. The Chinese state doesn’t work in favor of the worker classes.

2. The Chinese state is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

The dengists love to show how the wages in China are growing, ignoring that these wages are growing due to the production that is growing. As shown before, the Chinese economy is one of the most exploitive in the world.

Another argument is the big amount of strikes, nearly 1,400 in 2019. What the dengists forget is how the labor laws in China work: every trade union must be part of the ACFTU, with workers organizing out of it being illegal and violently repressed.

One example is the independent strike of the Jasic factory: leaded by communists, mostly Maoists, it was violently repressed by the Chinese police.

And this is not an isolated case. Nearly 50% of the strikes, including under the ACFTU, in 2018 had police intervention.

But what about the one single legal trade union? Is it effective at representing the working classes?
Short answer: no. https://clb.org.hk/content/scmp-chinas-new-collective-bargaining-rule-too-weak-ease-labour-conflicts

By prohibiting every independent trade union and perpetuating an inefficient trade union, the Chinese state is protecting the bourgeoisie and their right to exploit the Chinese workers. China, in this way, fits in the Leninist definition of a bourgeois state.

Also, the mere existence of police forces in China separated from the people’s self-protection is a sign that the Chinese state is a state as Lenin provides, as a tool to maintain contradictions in limits to perpetuate the oppression.

Part 4. Bonus.

This is nothing I just want to add things here over the time.

Dengists are using the fact that the number of protests with police intervention comes from CLB, yet the CLB is the source of their arguments about China having 2000 strikes in a year.

Also, this is the full text of the Trade Union Laws in China: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/30352/118793/F1165849917/CHN30352%202.pdf

Responding to the points this guy made.

1. I don't even know why this is an argument. I specified the difference between socialism and dictatorship of the proletariat in the first part.
I also explained why dictatorship of the proletariat isn't socialism. https://twitter.com/DoobertScoobert/status/1304136193047633920

2. You made 3 points here. First, no, imperialism stands for a state of development of the capitalist system. Not about anyone who is in power.

Second, I explained the 3 main features of imperialism, that are the monopoly, financial capital and exportation of capital.

Also, these features imply each other. The financial capital can only exist if the monopolies reached the bank system. And exportation of capital only exists if there's a developed financial capital that made the profit in third-world countries bigger than in home.

Then, he says exportation of capital are good and anti-imperialist. At least he admits that capital exists and therefore they are not socialists.

Dude, I live in Brazil. My country was colonized purely by the exportation of capital of Europeans. believe me, it's not good.

And his whole argument to say that their capital exports are anti-imperialists is the fact that they are not armed. That's pretty cringe.

This is literally not knowing what capital exports are. It's simply impossible, by definition, for capital exports to be good.

Like, by investing great amount of moneys in other countries, you literally gain a way for taking profit of their commodities. It's literally just exploiting workers. By the own definition of capital, it can't be socialist and neither good.

3. My argument is that the Chinese state actively protects the exploitation of the workers with the ACFTU.

Worker's organization that don't make part of the ACFTU are outlawed and the federation is just a way to maintain worker's militancy under control.

Most of the worker's collective action is, as I said, is repressed.

Some use the argument that trade unions are different in socialism and some of a reactionary kind. This is half correct, just doesn't apply to China.

China have a capitalist economy as the part one of the thread showed. Thus, the defense of China can just be it being a dictatorship of the proletariat.

In a capitalist system, trade unions have a class feature and contribute to class struggle.

Thus, mantaining worker's activity under control is the less socialist thing you could do in a country like China.

Some argue that the ACFTU is a federation of trade unions and not necessarily puts worker's activity under control.

Against that, we have the text of the Chinese Trade Union Law saying that works as a single organization.

Finally, he starts talking about the material conditions of China. He says that China is not in conditions to abolish capitalism.

This is true and is completely fine. No one is saying that's a problem, except for the Chinese Communist Party.

By calling an obvious capitalist system socialist, the Communist Party of China deturpates the meaning of socialism, they create the illusion that capitalism is the end of history, that nothing lies beyond capitalism. By calling China socialist, the CCP exposes their revisionism.