DMNC and American creeping fascism and China’s colonial capitalism, gangster Stalinism, and Orwellian gulag system

The problem with China is that it isn’t a communism: it is a Stalinist construct whose beginning was a massacre of one million capitalists. Such a system can never be a model and I would that it is basic a system based on terror. Unfair?
Check out my DMNC model: all systems, including US and China are (degenerate versions of that model); the us has democracy in quotes, markets with a vengearnc, a bit of planning, a few nationalized tidbits, and no Commons. China has no democracy, capitalist colonialis markets, state capitalism but no Commons, and lots of planning
Bo0th systems here fail because they are fragments of DMNC.

—–
from Pen_l
The Three Revolutions of the Chinese Communist Party

By Walden Bello.

After a visit to the new Soviet Union in the 1930s, the American journalist Lincoln Steffens famously wrote, “I have seen the future and it works.” In a similar manner, China’s startling success has captivated many outside China.

One of those most mesmerized is the Columbia University economics professor Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs has done a complete turnaround from his early days as a champion of the free-market “Washington Consensus” in the 1980s and 1990s. In a recent talk with United Nations officials, Sachs claimed that “China shows a path for how it is possible to make profound transformations for well-being in a short period of time.”

Sachs, who has been accused by some of his colleagues of “channeling Xi Jin Ping,” is just one of a bevy of liberal and progressive western economists who no longer have any hope that a U.S. economy ruined by neoliberal policies that have fostered deindustrialization, out-of-control financial speculation, and spectacular inequality (with 50 per cent of the population having access to only 12 percent of the wealth) has much of value to offer the global South. China, on the other hand, is seen as the new North Star, the country most capable of providing global leadership for a strategy that Sachs calls “sustainable development.”

But China has not embraced Sachs’ “sustainable development,” nor has it promoted what some western economists have deluded themselves into thinking of as China’s response to the neoliberal Washington Consensus: the so-called Beijing Consensus. When it comes to what China has to offer the world, Beijing has gone out of its way to say it is not prescribing a model for other countries. Indeed, it has gone to some lengths to claim that what Deng Xiaoping called “socialism with Chinese characteristics” is a state-guided capitalist system unique to China and probably non-transferable.

The Three Revolutions of the Chinese Communist Party

China Pulls Itself Out of Poverty 100 Years Into Its Revolution

On February 25, 2021, China’s President Xi Jinping announced that his country of 1.4 billion people had pulled its people out of poverty as it is defined internationally. Since 1981, 853 million Chinese people have lifted themselves out of poverty thanks to large-scale interventions from both the Chinese state and the Communist Party of China More

Source: China Pulls Itself Out of Poverty 100 Years Into Its Revolution – CounterPunch.org

The R48G won’t be bullied by chinese gangster pseudo-communism…//CCP 100: Xi warns China will not be ‘oppressed’ in anniversary speech – 

Chinese pseudo-communism is nothing to celebrate. Look at these grotesque Stalinist mass demonstrations of zombie cadres.

The Chinese communists are a real threat to leftist groups across the world. They will attempt to control or infiltrate them and/or bribe/fund such.
Bullies
Let us grant that China still suffers its history of being more than bullied by imperial powers…

The Chinese leader was speaking at an event marking the centenary of the ruling Communist Party.

Source: CCP 100: Xi warns China will not be ‘oppressed’ in anniversary speech – BBC News

The origins and degeneration of the Chinese Communist Party 

The Chinese Communist Party is celebrating its centenary. From its origins among a handful of activists in an economically underdeveloped country occupied by more advanced capitalist powers, to the hegemonic bureaucracy ruling what is now one of the most powerful imperialist states in world history, the CCP has undergone several transformations.

Source: The origins and degeneration of the Chinese Communist Party | Red Flag

Our DMNC failsafe model: China is a neoliberal gangster state, it is NOT a communist realization….//100-year anniversary: Why do people join the Chinese Communist Party? 

Our critique of Marxist theory and the Bolshevik legacy can help to see what we have frequently said: by not defining terms anyone can claim their meaning. China did not collapse in 1989, too bad. It could have had the ‘success’ it has now outside of the false communist model. But that would of course validate the capitalist model. But China is in reality a neoliberal colony of global capitalism. To achieve ‘real communism’ it must dismantle its illusory system and stage a real and novel revolution.
Our DMNC model exposes at once the illusion: we must have democracy, an economy with planning, and markets, and most of all a Commons. Not state capitalism. In addition, we must infuse this model an ecological set of lenses. This form of definition, for the future, disqualifies the Chinese monstrosity on the spot. Over and out.
We can see the point of our insistence that the left must start over with a new set of categories, as above, and this quick take is of course still incomplete. But it raises key questions: how do you create a democracy in a system which has expropriated capital? What do we mean by planning and do recent computational models really work? What is a socialist market and can we create a market based on licensed resources? What is a Commons, how is it different from state communism or state ownership? Cam our neo-communism overcome covert agency murder, state/capitalist imperialism, and establish a new definition of democracy that also excludes the current pseudo-democracy? What do we mean b a Commons and how can it resolve once and for all the issue of economic (and liberal) rights.
We can see that Marxism was hopelessly confusing, never intended for precapitalist peasant states, etc…It shouldn’t have been that way, but it was. Our DMNC model works on any kind of starting point, peasant, capitalist, feudal, … and even pseudo-communism as in China.

The Chinese Communist Party boasts 92 million members from all walks of life, drawn by ideology, ambition, and the pragmatic knowledge of how to get ahead in the world’s second-largest economy. But little is known about the inner workings of the secretive organization, where open criticism is still taboo. As China prepares to celebrate the […]

Source: 100-year anniversary: Why do people join the Chinese Communist Party? | Hong Kong Free Press HKFP

Cognitive dissonance with left terminology

We need to be clear that China is not a communist system and that the attempt to influence Marxist parties will corrupt them and make Stalinism a norm.
Time to move on to something real. Chinese communism should have collapsed in 1989 along with Russia. The left needs to start over without help from CPC gangster Stalinism plus new forms of capitalist exploitation.

The Communist Party of China stands ready to work with Marxist political parties throughout the world to jointly promote human progress and advance the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, said on Thursday.Xi, who is also the Chinese president, made the remark in a congratulatory letter delivered to the virtual World Symposium for Marxist Political Parties hosted by the International Department of the CPC Central Committee.

Source: Marxist Parties Urged to Strive for Progress of Humankind | Portside

 The eonic effect and global integration…,//China needs a (neo-) communist revolution 

Without indulging in Eurocentric thinking it is important to consider the larger integrating potential of the different culture zones in question. As China moves in a kind of vacuum where the US seems in decline, it is important to see that in principle at least the Occident had a far greater set of resources to produce world civilization: it was always a mixture of multiple cultures compared to sinocentric China. It generated Christian/Muslim cultural integrator religions. The modern transition has separate German, Dutch, English, French, Spanish (and the important but slightly different case of Northern Italy). While this rapidly generated a European community it is not a question of Europe. The modern transition is system induction of the eonic sequence and succeeds proximate antiquity with its Greek/Roman, Canaanite/Israelite, Persian Zoroastrian, Indo-Buddhism, and China. It acts not as a European but as a frontier effect with respect to a global system. The European modernity is thus a eonic effect. Thus China is a key component of the larger eonic series and generated a large diffusion zone. But it is inherently less likely to create a generalized oikoumene as against the one already in existence due to the modern transition. That said the Buddhist component is an equally effective legacy, perhaps.
Thus the eonic sequence, dispelling the illusion of Eurocentric civilization, jumped to the northwest sector of Eurasia, in a typical eonic Frontier effect. Thus the modern transition emerges at the old boundary to the Roman Empire.
All this said we can see that while it suffered the dangers of nationalism, there was a far larger degree of variety and difference in unity.
Let it be said that most of these occidental pluses are already in the past now, and further that the immense beauty of the modern transition (as of the ancient parallel versions from Greece to China) seems frittered away. As Kant predicted the world system finally spawned the United Nations, etc, etc…And the socialist emergence in parallel with that of democratic spawns the idea of an International. But that whole aspect so far has failed.

The Occident had many advantages, but it seems to have squandered them. Part of the problem is the emergence of imperialism, capitalism, Darwinism and social Darwinism, all contributing to the erosion of modern potential. The socialism/communist world moved into a void to become a new kind of integrator. But its failures have been beyond expectation. So it is not clear. In any case, the sinocentrism of the Chinese succession could undermine a considerable potential where modern transition has taken effect. But it is crippled by its wretched poor Marxist version of socialist transition. We might blame this on Bolshevism, Stalinism and move to exempt the Marxist legacy. But it seems that legacy is flawed. It needs a new version and upgrade. In any case we see that China, like India, etc, is part of the modern transition, and in theory secondarily a Chinese cultural phenomenon. That raises the question of Chinese language. There are efforts to seed Africa with Chinese. Again, a look at the eonic effect shows that the modern transition zones experimented with two or three ‘koines’, Spanish, French, and English, and by and large the English version, an ultra-simple near pidgin but with hidden potential rapidly globalized. Chinese has little hope of displacing that. None of these things are chance and we note that the modern transition rapidly spawned rich literatures to give substance to this globalization of pidgin integrator languages. These are not cultural feathers in one’s cap, but gifts of eonic evolution to languages of global integration. Thus we see it is not chance but an eonic effect to examine the rise of various modern literatures.
We could leave it there for the moment, offer a warning that the Chinese case can derail faster than did the American which is barely above barbarism, capitalist domination, and genocide. Note that the US has usurped the place of the modern transition, but doesn’t have the resources of culture to do that. They can avail themselves of the huge potential of the modern transition, but we can see that Russian and the US both are struggling with inevitable factors of cultural anemia.
So in the Chinese case, a great potential is there, but the current mix seems unlikely to move beyond its limits.
Considering the immense advantages of the European and American cases it is sad to see them dissipated so swiftly as the distance to the modern transition increases. China may try to fill that void, but the judgment arrives swiftly with a warning if they can’t handle a simple case like Tibet, and have totally botched a simple case like the Uighurs.
A solution could be a new and recast international instrument that the Marxist legacy tried to provide. But that legacy is crippled by the limits of its historical materialism, pseudo-science, and reductionist science.

These are strange remarks, but they have a key: the eonic effect with its strange quirks and insights. The Chinese have a great opportunity but it must be more than a locally grounded cultural imperialism.
Overall in all cases the case of capitalism needs a resolution, the factor of democracy must be mediated with a socialist boost. China is on the verge of slipping away into oblivion on these points. The US is not far behind and is itself failing on the democracy front.

China is already communist you say? Nothing of the kind. Stalinist Maoism was a hopeless case from the start and the question shows how global Marxists are going to lose their whole legacy if they …

Source:  China needs a (neo-) communist revolution – 1848+: The End(s) of History