Is the pro-China M-L position that the CPC leadership is merely an independent vanguard class benevolently working for the good of the proletariat to transition the state to a socialist mode of production, or is it that the CPC themselves form a dictatorship of the proletariat?
-
If the former, what material motivation does the CPC have to side with the proletariat when classes come into conflict? Does their socialist movement ultimately just hinge on the good will of those selected by the party to lead the party? Is this system simply benevolent class collaboration with a disempowered bourgeoisie, thus distinguishing it from past class collaboration failures?
-
Otherwise, if the latter, what makes the CPC's dictatorship 'of the proletariat'?
- Does this imply the CPC must be a democratic organization? In most provinces, direct voting by the masses exists only at the local level, but only between candidates pre-approved by the CPC. The proletariat is therefore not in control of these local candidates, and therefore not in control of the subsequent levels of elections. Surely, this would make it as much of a democracy of the proletariat as a liberal democracy is.
- What power does the proletariat itself hold over the party's rule? If the proletariat truly does not approve of their representation, do they have the power to reject it?
The results speak for themselves, but is the PRC at this point in time ultimately a victory over capitalism, without the proletarian dictatorship that Marx assumed necessary, instead forming a stable non-bourgeois state?
While the outcomes achieved by the government undoubtedly deserve attention, it is equally important to examine whether these positive results come from the actions of benevolent individuals in positions of power or from the system itself. For this reason, a thorough analysis of the system is essential. Otherwise, applying the system in other contexts may not result in same positives
I understand what you are saying but i do not think it is possible to judge a system at all just by looking at the system without having prior knowledge of how these systems operate over long periods of time.
We know for example that monarchism is bad because of all the historical examples of it going horribly wrong. We can speculate on if a system is going to work well or not and try to design it to be so, but to actually confirm it we must put it into practice.
You are right that the system doing good once does not prove the system itself is good, but the system doing consistent good over a long period of time and in various different localities with various different cultures and under various different managers does go a long way to prove this.
Putting it into practice in other places is the only way to find out if it will work in those other places. We cannot simply examine a system and know how it will function without putting it into practice many times and examining the material outcomes.
Its a scientific approach. You cant just hypothesize and be done with it. You must do experiements. Many of them. And get the same result.
Socialism has been put into practice in various different "flavors" SwCC - Chinese Socialism - is one of these. It built upon lessons learned from the USSR and is arguably the most successful and refined socialist model to date.
It is an experiment that has had positive results. To find out if it can be repeated we must attempt to repeat it elsewhere. No amount of examination of the system can give us a definitive answer as to if it will work elsewhere or not. The only way we can find out is to repeat the experiment. Many times. And see if it ever fails.