Sure, there can be, but in the instance of the CPC we can observe the Political Economy of the PRC, and observe trends over time, and confirm that they are indeed Marxists.
That’s taken out of context, though. That wasn’t a pivot from the working class as a focus, that was a pivot away from the Gang of Four’s fetishization of poverty under a more direct form of Socialism as being more noble than prosperity under a more market-focused system. China has been utilizing a Socialist Market Economy to rapidly build up the productive forces, and has channeled a lot of that growth into massive expansions in poverty reduction and infrastructural improvements for the good of all.
They didn’t pull an entire 180, they course corrected from Left-Deviationism. Ironically, the Gang of Four had taken on an idealist stance, rather than materialist, by treating higher levels of socialization of the Productive Forces as inherently superior at an almost mystical level, rather than as a course in material development that becomes more suitable the more advanced industry becomes. This goes against Marx.
Put another way, what would you consider a pivot that the CPC could make to turn it “authentically Marxist?” Is this pivot even feasible, or advisable? We can always critique, the CPC for sure has valid criticism that can be made, but I wouldn’t say that takes away from its Marxist character.
Technically it’s the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, both the Republic of Korea and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea consider the other government to be illegitimate.
Either way, the CPC absolutely does follow ML-XJT. That guides their entire political economy and their strategy as a whole with regards to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
Wait you’re saying that the CCP is a Marxist organization?
Hang on let me get some coffee…
spit take
The CPC is Marxist-Leninist, currently ML-XJT.
And the US Republican party is a Constitutionalist party that believes in elected representation with Madisonian checks and balances…
There’s often a big gap between branding and reality.
Sure, there can be, but in the instance of the CPC we can observe the Political Economy of the PRC, and observe trends over time, and confirm that they are indeed Marxists.
Hm. As soon as “it is glorious to become rich” became party policy, that ship sailed for me.
That’s taken out of context, though. That wasn’t a pivot from the working class as a focus, that was a pivot away from the Gang of Four’s fetishization of poverty under a more direct form of Socialism as being more noble than prosperity under a more market-focused system. China has been utilizing a Socialist Market Economy to rapidly build up the productive forces, and has channeled a lot of that growth into massive expansions in poverty reduction and infrastructural improvements for the good of all.
They didn’t pull an entire 180, they course corrected from Left-Deviationism. Ironically, the Gang of Four had taken on an idealist stance, rather than materialist, by treating higher levels of socialization of the Productive Forces as inherently superior at an almost mystical level, rather than as a course in material development that becomes more suitable the more advanced industry becomes. This goes against Marx.
Put another way, what would you consider a pivot that the CPC could make to turn it “authentically Marxist?” Is this pivot even feasible, or advisable? We can always critique, the CPC for sure has valid criticism that can be made, but I wouldn’t say that takes away from its Marxist character.
The Democratic Republic of North Korea has entered the chat
Technically it’s the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, both the Republic of Korea and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea consider the other government to be illegitimate.
Either way, the CPC absolutely does follow ML-XJT. That guides their entire political economy and their strategy as a whole with regards to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.