0:00 Introduction2:04 What is imperialism?4:42 Super-exploitation is the core of it6:10 Is China a super-exploiter, or the super-exploited?8:17 No imperialis...
If you want to understand the theoretical underpinnings of my argument, I recommend these key works:
Cheng Enfu, On the Three Stages in the Development of Socialism
This directly addresses the point I raised about the long-term nature of the socialist transitional phase. Professor Cheng systematically outlines the developmental trajectory of socialism(from the primary and intermediate stages to the advanced stage)explaining why a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach demanding absolute purity is unfeasible before productive forces have reached a sufficiently high level.
Cheng Enfu: Modern Marxist Political Economy
This book systematically expounds on how to scientifically utilize market mechanisms and capital to develop productive forces within a socialist framework, while emphasizing the state’s need to firmly control the ‘economic lifelines’ (commanding heights) which is precisely the core logic of my earlier statement.
Cheng Enfu, Theory and Practice of Socialist Market Economy
This work provides a detailed argument for the objective necessity of retaining certain market-based elements and allowing non-public ownership sectors to serve as a supplement. From the perspective of political economy, it refutes the moralistic and naive view that the mere existence of private ownership or wealthy individuals means a system is ‘not socialist.’
Cheng Enfu, Socialist Political Economy with Chinese Characteristics
Provides an in-depth analysis of the dialectical relationship between maintaining public ownership as the mainstay and the common development of diverse forms of ownership. The book clearly points out that when productive forces have not yet reached a high level of socialization, forcibly eliminating all forms of small-scale production through administrative means runs counter to economic laws and leads to disaster, a point that perfectly echoes Lenin’s warnings in The Tax in Kind.
Marx & Engels: The Communist Manifesto
Marx: Capital (Volume I)
Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme
Engels: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
Lenin: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Lenin: The State and Revolution
Lenin: On the Tax in Kind
Lenin: “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder
Why was there no overthrow of xi xinpng and his gang after this happened? or are the Cjinese epeople ACTUALLY just not socialistic and they actually want all PAlestinians to die?
ALso why do the Chinese ever trade with Isntreal? Why does China accept Isntreali passports? WHy have the CHinense people not taken up arms against their goovernment for allowing Isntrealis into the country?
Im just seriously asking cause Im curious as to why the CHinese people are like this.
If you want to be a kind of wierd chauvinist you might be more comfortable over on Reddit. You also still clearly don’t understand what socialism actually is/means as you brandish “socialistic” as an individualist bat against Chinese people. As for the rest of your bad faith largely nonsense questions I invite you return to study and learn to apply analysis rather than being a garbage person looking for dunks on the internet twisting a cause you allegedly believe in in the most bad faith ways you can.
Do you have any citations for ANY of this please?
If you want to understand the theoretical underpinnings of my argument, I recommend these key works:
This directly addresses the point I raised about the long-term nature of the socialist transitional phase. Professor Cheng systematically outlines the developmental trajectory of socialism(from the primary and intermediate stages to the advanced stage)explaining why a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach demanding absolute purity is unfeasible before productive forces have reached a sufficiently high level.
This book systematically expounds on how to scientifically utilize market mechanisms and capital to develop productive forces within a socialist framework, while emphasizing the state’s need to firmly control the ‘economic lifelines’ (commanding heights) which is precisely the core logic of my earlier statement.
This work provides a detailed argument for the objective necessity of retaining certain market-based elements and allowing non-public ownership sectors to serve as a supplement. From the perspective of political economy, it refutes the moralistic and naive view that the mere existence of private ownership or wealthy individuals means a system is ‘not socialist.’
Provides an in-depth analysis of the dialectical relationship between maintaining public ownership as the mainstay and the common development of diverse forms of ownership. The book clearly points out that when productive forces have not yet reached a high level of socialization, forcibly eliminating all forms of small-scale production through administrative means runs counter to economic laws and leads to disaster, a point that perfectly echoes Lenin’s warnings in The Tax in Kind.
I have a seriius question , iif th CHinese people are socialistic why are they OK with this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ubeCHFGZM-E&pp=ygUbYmFkZW1wYW5hZGEgY2hpbmEgcGFsZXN0aW5l0gcJCSsMAYcqIYzv
Why was there no overthrow of xi xinpng and his gang after this happened? or are the Cjinese epeople ACTUALLY just not socialistic and they actually want all PAlestinians to die?
ALso why do the Chinese ever trade with Isntreal? Why does China accept Isntreali passports? WHy have the CHinense people not taken up arms against their goovernment for allowing Isntrealis into the country?
Im just seriously asking cause Im curious as to why the CHinese people are like this.
If you want to be a kind of wierd chauvinist you might be more comfortable over on Reddit. You also still clearly don’t understand what socialism actually is/means as you brandish “socialistic” as an individualist bat against Chinese people. As for the rest of your bad faith largely nonsense questions I invite you return to study and learn to apply analysis rather than being a garbage person looking for dunks on the internet twisting a cause you allegedly believe in in the most bad faith ways you can.