rivvvver

ok this gotta be my last response bc i got better shit to do today.

so first off, i simply dont care what the marxist definition or critique of something is, so yes, please understand it as just the general anarchist critique.

Unless your point is that the delegate can only do what 100% of those who elected them want,

well yes, if they want to stay a delegate they have to comply with the mandate they were given. i also understand that there may be practical considerations that lead ppl to choose weak (e.g. 95%) consensus decisions, and u can call that hierarchical if u like, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt strive to abolish all hierarchies.

the way u have described the PRC does not sound like they have delegates, rather representatives. ive already explained the difference.

as for considering the PRC state capitalist, this is my conception (altho i know a few marxists who agree), and so far ive only argued about the ownership situation and not touched upon wealth accumulation or markets at all, but i think ive still made a fair argument.

Communism is generally held to be about class and state abolition

which are hierarchies, and the criticism of these are based on the same root issue that all hierarchies have. i admit that this statement was somewhat inflammatory, altho i firmly believe that anarchism is the natural conclusion of the communist idea.

Delegates in your model still have hierarchy,

no. the power is always among the people who choose the delegate, formulate their mandate, and can recall them at any time. the delegate has no power over the people, nor is the delegate coerced into their role.

and u can call the PRC socialist all u like, but that still dont make it true.

as a communist, i believe there is such a thing as a non-hierarchical system.

further, i dont really see how the PRC will ever achieve communism or socialism and further still, i think you are redefining socialism to include china, which is a semantical argument and not a logical one.

make sure to get some bridge adresses too! without bridges, ur ISP can still see that ur using Tor

yes! theres a "new identity" button that effectively does this

Politicians have to work their way up the rungs in order to increase their scope of decisionmaking,

i think u misunderstand the delegate model i described.

what youre describing is a hierarchical system where the higher up the "rungs" u go, the larger the scope of decisions u can make.

whereas in the delegate model, the maximum scope of decisions is always directly with the people (who could make any decision independently of delegates, if they want to), and every delegate has decision-making power smaller than that scope, meaning the scope of possible actions decreases rather than increases.

i did ask who makes the big decisions and decides "the course of the country". i agree that if the entire populace were to decide every minor detail, it would become inoperably slow.

i make a distinction between ceding all power and decisions to a representative every voting cycle (5 years for the NPC?) vs. choosing a delegate who enacts decisions made by the populace, and has decision-making power of their own in the confines of the mandate they were given by the people, and who is directly recallable at any time by a simple majority.

this attemps to give decision-making power to everyone affected by a decision, without giving it to those unaffected and slowing the process down.

whereas the state reduces the power of the individual to a decision of "1, 2, or 3" every 5 years or so, followed by all other decisions being made by their new ruler.

my argument is that the representative model does not give meaningful enough control to the people to consider this "state" an extension of the people.

i would define socialism as public ownership of the means of production. where "public" means "of the people" and ownership means "having meaningful control of".

so in my view, until the people meaningfully control the state or the means of production, it is not socialism.

ok let me try and phrase it another way:

regardless of who supposedly owns the firms, who makes the big decisions of how they are to be run? is it the people of china? or is it whoever is in government at the moment?

who makes decisions about the course of the country? is it the people who live there, or do they simply elect someone to make all of those decisions?

it does seem that we have very different understandings of the state.

in my mind, a disapproval rating larger than 0% already shows that the state =/= its people and the people do not truly control the state.

also, by the people owning industry, i meant all of them, not some subset. this means it doesnt create class distinctions, in fact, even if it was previously owned and controlled by the state (a subset of the people), this would be a reduction of class distinctions in my mind.

i think the crux of our disagreement is that u seem to consider the state as equivalent/"an extension" to the people, while i want to clarify that one may claim to be controlled entirely by the people, but this does not make it so.

Either you're trying to say Marxism-Leninism isn't Marxist, in which case some heavy justification is required, or I misunderstood your point, in which case I'd appreciate elaboration.

my claim was not about marxism or marxist-leninism, but specifically its adherents. i dont think that marxism inherently glorifies state-capitalism or imperialism, but i recognize that an uncomfortably large portion of its adherents do.

as to ur explanation of chinas economic system..

it seems that u define socialism as public ownership of industry/means of production, and capitalism as private ownership of these.

i would argue that public ownership should refer to the public i.e. the populace of the area, not the state that claims to represent them, yet according to u is disapproved of by 10% of its people.

and when the state owns all/most of the firms, and the workers/proletariat does not own them, this is another form of capitalism: one where the state owns the means of production. therefore, state capitalism.

id recommend this video series that tries to explain the state and its function in different historical contexts:

part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTwxpTyGUOI

its also available in text format if u prefer reading: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary

glorified by Marxism of any kind.

i didnt claim that.

nevertheless, china was oddly missing in ur list of state-capitalist nations that werent glorified..

ah yes, because marxist-leninism has no history of its adherents glorifying imperialism or state-capitalism.