• TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think Marxism is an historically important theoretical framework, and a useful method of analysis, but I don’t think Marxian theory alone is comprehensive enough to be the ideological foundation for a large, complex, post-industrial society.

      I will concede that the socioeconomic/sociopolitical system devised by the Communist Party of China has worked remarkably well overall at achieving the rapid economic development of their country (although I don’t know if that would be considered MLism, it seems distinct from that, although I don’t know what it would be called). However, I think the Chinese system is much more suited to economically developing nations. I don’t know if it’s the best model for an advanced economy like the United States, although, again I don’t necessarily know what is. It’s possible that system hasn’t been developed yet.

      I also think the Chinese model is better suited to nations that are very ethnically and culturally homogeneous. In a very ethnically and culturally diverse country like the US, I think the Chinese model would be much more difficult to achieve and maintain.

      • GodlessCommie@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Regardless of what it’s called, all socialism is early stage communism which includes the Chinese version called Socialism with Chinese characteristics, which is founded on Marxism.