CCP has long since abandoned actual Marxism, even the totalitarian kind.
Marx would probably be glad to know his work is still known, but bitterly disappointed that his work became used to justify a series of Imperial governments pretending to be Marxists who squared off with Imperial governments pretending to be Adam Smith enthusiasts while both gutted the global south as enthusiastically as possible.
China has not abandoned Marxism, they adjusted from the dogmatism of the Gang of Four to a more classical understanding of Marxism. Claims of imperialism are similarly false. Even if you disagree with China’s socialist system, it’s factually based on the Marxist understanding of marketization as useful for socializing production, while the commanding heights of the economy remain dominated by the socialist state. Here’s a handy diagram:
Adam Smith would have vehemontly disagreed and believed the free market to be the best way of allocating resources, and a permanent institution, not something definitely developing towards centralization as Marx did. When subordinate to the socialist state, this centralizing factor can be leveraged to fold industry as it develops to national monopoly into the public sector.
There’s a lot to criticize China for, but I don’t think they can be said to be “gutting the global south as enthusiastically as possible” even as hyperbole. The main accusation against China in this regard—so-called “debt-trap diplomacy”—is AFAIK strictly hypothetical.
CCP has long since abandoned actual Marxism, even the totalitarian kind.
Marx would probably be glad to know his work is still known, but bitterly disappointed that his work became used to justify a series of Imperial governments pretending to be Marxists who squared off with Imperial governments pretending to be Adam Smith enthusiasts while both gutted the global south as enthusiastically as possible.
China has not abandoned Marxism, they adjusted from the dogmatism of the Gang of Four to a more classical understanding of Marxism. Claims of imperialism are similarly false. Even if you disagree with China’s socialist system, it’s factually based on the Marxist understanding of marketization as useful for socializing production, while the commanding heights of the economy remain dominated by the socialist state. Here’s a handy diagram:
Adam Smith would have vehemontly disagreed and believed the free market to be the best way of allocating resources, and a permanent institution, not something definitely developing towards centralization as Marx did. When subordinate to the socialist state, this centralizing factor can be leveraged to fold industry as it develops to national monopoly into the public sector.
There’s a lot to criticize China for, but I don’t think they can be said to be “gutting the global south as enthusiastically as possible” even as hyperbole. The main accusation against China in this regard—so-called “debt-trap diplomacy”—is AFAIK strictly hypothetical.
The least charitable interpretation of the Belt and Road Initiative is that it’s an alternative to the IMF