Re: China's "Communist" Status

[Brian Basgen <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >   true Communism
>
>The phrase "true X" belongs in a Platonic dialogue, not in a discussion
>of historical materialism.

  Stop it Carrol, this is silly. Nothing in my remarks support
idealism, the fellow asked if China practiced true Communism, which I
took to mean whether or not it was Communist, which it cannot be.
Communism has phases, so the word "true" Communism I thought of as
Communism of the highest phase. I wrote that "true" communism
required a world-historic movement, which alone should have sufficed
to stop you from making such a remark as my response of "true"
meaning something ideal.

  But you have a better place to be, and it is in the perfection of
silence. You say nothing of China save for "Struggle", which more or
less does nothing at all to explain the historic position of China in
class society, save for the fact that, suprise suprise, it is in
struggle.

  Leaving this fellow out in the water because you are too concerned
with being correct and proper, I don't care less for. I answered
shortly with materialism, i.e. that communist China cannot be because
the world is not. Yet it is enough for you to pick a fight with,
because I responded to the same word the fellow used, "true", without
giving a lecture on why the use of such words does not become the
proper and upstanding Marxist.


Brian

___________________
marxists.org janitor

"In those days, after the defeat of the Paris Commune, history made
slow organisational and educational work the task of the day."

Vladimir Lenin, Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution
  http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/tasks/ch12.htm