Infighting
-
No I'm pretty sure they pulled something from another post to try to misrepresent it because they're a bitter terminally online loser. That is a very generous interpretation though
I'm saying it because I've seen them make the same argument, as I have done myself, in different ways.
-
It's interesting to read that article on sci-hub. It's giving more specific details on what happened in 1939, but is otherwise in line with The Cold War & Its Origins. You don't need access to classified documents to understand the world, you can sit there in 1961 and get shit more or less right.
Yep! Just having a fairly consistent and coherent understanding of the world is usually sufficient to get things more right than not, not everyone needs to be a grandmaster-level Marxist-Leninist with decades of reading and practice to view the world in a constructive way. Theory and practice is still necessary, but even liberals can acknowledge reality.
-
Fair enough, though I do think this can still help with any broader approach to changing their overall mentality.
A moment of consensus on its own might not be enough to sway someone, but if they hear someone try and contradict what they had recently agreed on, it can then make them feel more cognitive dissonance, and potentially make them at the bare minimum just stop and think for a second.
If someone else is later trying to sway them in some way, it's going to be easier when that person says something, and they can think "I remember saying something similar" rather than "this is the opposite of what I already believe."
Plus, there's also just the sort of "exposure therapy" factor to it, as well. A lot of people are radicalized to believe that the "opposing side" is pure, limitless evil, and that they hate you and want you dead, so just interacting with them can be enough to help slowly deradicalize them.
For example, this Pew Research article states, regarding the likelihood of people to support trans people's existence:
"Though Republicans who know a trans person are more likely than Republicans who don’t to say gender can be different from sex assigned at birth, more than eight-in-ten in both groups (83% and 88%, respectively) say gender is determined by sex at birth. Meanwhile, there are large differences between Democrats who do and do not know a transgender person. A majority of Democrats who do know a trans person (72%) say someone can be a man or a woman even if that differs from their sex assigned at birth, while those who don’t know anyone who is transgender are about evenly split (48% say gender is determined by sex assigned at birth while 51% say it can be different)."
But of course, that isn't just limited to acceptance of people by gender. It also applies to race, social and economic status, recipients and non-recipients of welfare programs, people working in different industries, etc.
Again, not saying it's at all some magic universal way to change someone's mind, or that on its own it's necessarily a factor that can override their overarching condition, (hell, that quote from before shows that it had a much smaller impact on republicans than democrats even given the same exposure) but the more and more this happens, the stronger and stronger an effect it has overall, and I'd say that alone makes it worth doing.
True. And I'd expect you'd need fewer of these moments for younger people than older ones. Every little bump might be the one that diverts someone to a different path. I know it hasn't worked well on my older family members, but it was those kind of moments that helped my diverge from my religious upbringing when I was younger.
-
Your claim, sarcasm aside, was that Marxist-Leninists have a history of glorifying imperialism and state-capitalism, which I rejected, and said not just Marxism-Leninism but all Marxism rejects both. 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.
As for the PRC, I didn't list it as state-capitalist for the same reason I wouldn't list the US as socialist. The PRC has a socialist market economy. The large firms and key industries of the PRC are publicly owned, and the medium firms are heavily controlled by the state and rely on the publicly owned key industries to function. Private property and the bourgeoisie don't have political power because they don't control the large firms or key industries.
What distinguishes state capitalism from socialism is private ownership of the large firms and key industries, or public ownership. The US, Singapore, ROK, etc all have large megacorps with firm control of the state, which uses its power to relatively guide and plan the economy for private interest. In the PRC, the opposite is the case, since the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and planned, the bourgeoisie doesn't have political control, the proletariat does. This is reflected in over 90% approval rates for the government in the PRC.
The reason the PRC has a bourgeoisie and private property to begin with is because they haven't yet developed out of it. They are still in a relatively early stage of socialism, market forces are quite useful for small and medium firms to grow into centralized firms that can be gradually sublimated and folded into public ownership. This is a Marxist understanding of economics, and while it isn't what an anarchist would want, I don't personally define socialism in a manner that excludes Marxism.
Does that make sense?
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=uTwxpTyGUOIits also available in text format if u prefer reading:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionary -
This is literal ruling class propaganda. No Marxist or Marxist-Leninist is against LGBT, thinks Nazis or nationalism has a point, claims Putin is leftist, etc.
Stop trying to stir division, astroturf.
wrote last edited by [email protected]How about I talk about every time Marxist-Leninists betrayed other leftists and executed them? It's an extensive fucking list.
Also, just look it up. You will find examples of what I said within minutes. But if you wanna be lazy, go ahead.
-
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=uTwxpTyGUOIits also available in text format if u prefer reading:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anark-the-state-is-counter-revolutionarywrote last edited by [email protected]Regarding Marxists and imperialism/state capitalism, I suppose I just disagree with you there, either we are using different definitions of imperialism just like we are using different definitions of socialism and state capitalism, or you're seeing something I don't.
As for me, and socialism vs capitalism, socialism is essentially a mode of production by which collectivized ownership forms the principle aspect of society, ie the base. In practical terms, that means the large firms and key industries, which have control over the rest of the economy (controlling the rubber factory means you have power over the rubber ball factory, as an example). Capitalism is the reverse, privatized ownership of the large firms and key industries, and thus bourgeois control.
Returning to the state, the state is an extension of the ruling class, not a class in and of itself. This is principly the Marxist stance, here. The reason state ownership in a principly publicly owned economy is socialist, is because that necessitates proletarian control. If the bourgeoisie only control the medium firms, and only to the extent that they cannot work against the common, collective plan, then they have no political power, the proletariat does. The small firms are largely cooperative or petite bourgeois property in the PRC, meaning the bourgeoisie proper really only has the non-essential, smaller-scale industry. As a side note, 10% is actually higher than the disapproval rate. Disapproval is highest at the township level, but gets higher the more central you get, with only 4.3% disapproving at the top level:
State ownership is not juxtaposed with proletarian ownership, if the proletariat actually directly owned and controlled the tools they used, they would not be proletarian, but petty bourgeois. Cooperative ownership, in small-scale firms, is petty bourgeois ownership. This isn't intrinsically an issue in a broader socialist economy, but without collectivized ownership you cement class divisions, ie each cooperative is its own competing cell, rather than existing in the context of a collectivized economy run by all in the interests of all.
Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on the M-C...P...C'-M' circuit of reproduction. State-run industries don't have to adhere to this, they don't need to run a profit and they don't need to compete in a market, but in capitalism, this is the dominant mode of production over the largest and key firms and industries. The difference between how the US, for example, and PRC functions is dramatic, and its why the PRC has such large approval rates.
As for the state, Marxists and anarchists have different views. Marxists see the state as an instrument of class oppression that exists as long as class does, and so in order to get rid of it, all property needs to be gradually sublimated into collectivized property, across all of society. The principle difference is between centralization and collectivization vs decentralization and horizontalism.
I appreciate the link, but as a former anarchist myself I'm already familiar with the anarchist perspective. I'm not trying to debate anarchism, or try to explain why I agree more with Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, just defend Marxism from what I recognize as misrepresentations of it. Anark's central premise seems to be that the state creates classes, which fundamentally relies on either a different definition of class at best or a misunderstanding of the state and class at worst.
-
The only thing that matters is policy, I'll work with anyone as long as it's toward an egalitarian society with wealth redistribution.
Labels are nice for classifying, but not for executing. I don't care if you identify as leftist, or liberal, or progressive; I care if you support good policies.
hear, hear
-
It does help that the overarching theme of the right is centered around taking as much for yourself as possible and not caring about the collateral damage. The right is full of single-issue voters who might, say, not actually explicitly hate gay people but who also don’t give a shit about their rights and safety if it means they can keep their guns. The left, almost definitionally, needs to consider the complexity inherent in not being able to ignore the effects that any given policy might have on others and this means that there is so much more opportunity for conflict.
You’re correct, of course, I’m just pointing out the difference such that it might help attack the issue from a better perspective.
There's the nuance the original post relies on ignoring. But it's supposed to be a humorous joke-post anyway.
-
It's the factory preset look for these pseudo-tankies that show up in my local activism group every now and then.
Always the big earring, unkempt beard, this specific shape of glasses, and the cheap aliexpress t-shirt with a political message on it.
Not my fault Vaush stole the look!
wrote last edited by [email protected]pseudo-tankies
I'm not even sure whether this is supposed to be an insult anymore. Is a "tankie" better or worse than a "fake tankie"?
In a thread complaining about leftist infighting, there's a special irony in liberals singing out a leftist who is simultaneously too far left and not far left enough.
-
The only thing that matters is policy, I'll work with anyone as long as it's toward an egalitarian society with wealth redistribution.
Labels are nice for classifying, but not for executing. I don't care if you identify as leftist, or liberal, or progressive; I care if you support good policies.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I’ll work with anyone as long as it’s toward an egalitarian society with wealth redistribution.
Okay, but here me out? What if we just privatize the mechanism of wealth redistribution? Also we're going to be spending a bunch of money on foreign wars, but don't worry - this time the people were fighting are ontologically evil, we promise. Yes, we will have to make deep cuts to social services in order to pay for the war (while still running enormous deficits because haha, psych, deficits don't matter), but it will be vital to get the Moderate Conservative on board with our program.
Also, we control every branch of government, but we still need to compromise with fascists in the opposition.
Okay, why are you leaving? You're clearly not serious about progressive reforms.
And STOP SAYING NICE THINGS AND CHINA! This is a red line we will not tolerate!
You know what? You're not serious. We're forming a coalition with Liz Cheney. See you in the losers bracket next year.
...
You're the reason we lost control of the government.
...
Okay, now stop voting for a popular leftist mayor, or we'll burn this whole party down.
-
I'm saying it because I've seen them make the same argument, as I have done myself, in different ways.
Their argument is that I'm not anti authoritarian. Afaict you're not making that argument. I'm not interested in fighting about what is or isn't a true Scotsman. This devolves quickly into if you believe in the government having any power, that's an endorsement of authoritarianism and now no one can be anti authoritarian if they believe in any kind of enforceable law.
-
How about I talk about every time Marxist-Leninists betrayed other leftists and executed them? It's an extensive fucking list.
Also, just look it up. You will find examples of what I said within minutes. But if you wanna be lazy, go ahead.
You're just an astroturf. You are what's a stop to any temporary left unity, not those who you accuse with ridiculous strawmen.
-
Their argument is that I'm not anti authoritarian. Afaict you're not making that argument. I'm not interested in fighting about what is or isn't a true Scotsman. This devolves quickly into if you believe in the government having any power, that's an endorsement of authoritarianism and now no one can be anti authoritarian if they believe in any kind of enforceable law.
My point is that being "anti-authoritarian" is meaningless unless you qualify that with how you wish to get rid of the state and class, as until you do, there will always be one class in control of the state that oppresses the rest. "Authoritarianism" as a thing does not exist, what exists is differences in how much a state exerts its authority, and that depends on which class is in control and which circumstances it is responding to.
As an example, both Nazi Germany and modern Germany are capitalist, bourgeois states. Modern Germany doesn't need to exert its authority as much as Nazi Germany because the Nazis came to power in economic crisis, where private ownership itself was in danger. Modern Germany is just as willing to use its authority as it has the same class character, but only does so to the extent it needs to, like crushing protestors for Palestine.
-
Regarding Marxists and imperialism/state capitalism, I suppose I just disagree with you there, either we are using different definitions of imperialism just like we are using different definitions of socialism and state capitalism, or you're seeing something I don't.
As for me, and socialism vs capitalism, socialism is essentially a mode of production by which collectivized ownership forms the principle aspect of society, ie the base. In practical terms, that means the large firms and key industries, which have control over the rest of the economy (controlling the rubber factory means you have power over the rubber ball factory, as an example). Capitalism is the reverse, privatized ownership of the large firms and key industries, and thus bourgeois control.
Returning to the state, the state is an extension of the ruling class, not a class in and of itself. This is principly the Marxist stance, here. The reason state ownership in a principly publicly owned economy is socialist, is because that necessitates proletarian control. If the bourgeoisie only control the medium firms, and only to the extent that they cannot work against the common, collective plan, then they have no political power, the proletariat does. The small firms are largely cooperative or petite bourgeois property in the PRC, meaning the bourgeoisie proper really only has the non-essential, smaller-scale industry. As a side note, 10% is actually higher than the disapproval rate. Disapproval is highest at the township level, but gets higher the more central you get, with only 4.3% disapproving at the top level:
State ownership is not juxtaposed with proletarian ownership, if the proletariat actually directly owned and controlled the tools they used, they would not be proletarian, but petty bourgeois. Cooperative ownership, in small-scale firms, is petty bourgeois ownership. This isn't intrinsically an issue in a broader socialist economy, but without collectivized ownership you cement class divisions, ie each cooperative is its own competing cell, rather than existing in the context of a collectivized economy run by all in the interests of all.
Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on the M-C...P...C'-M' circuit of reproduction. State-run industries don't have to adhere to this, they don't need to run a profit and they don't need to compete in a market, but in capitalism, this is the dominant mode of production over the largest and key firms and industries. The difference between how the US, for example, and PRC functions is dramatic, and its why the PRC has such large approval rates.
As for the state, Marxists and anarchists have different views. Marxists see the state as an instrument of class oppression that exists as long as class does, and so in order to get rid of it, all property needs to be gradually sublimated into collectivized property, across all of society. The principle difference is between centralization and collectivization vs decentralization and horizontalism.
I appreciate the link, but as a former anarchist myself I'm already familiar with the anarchist perspective. I'm not trying to debate anarchism, or try to explain why I agree more with Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, just defend Marxism from what I recognize as misrepresentations of it. Anark's central premise seems to be that the state creates classes, which fundamentally relies on either a different definition of class at best or a misunderstanding of the state and class at worst.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
The idea that all "leftists" should just work together is stupid.
Leninism, Anarcho-primitivism and Social democracy (for example) are not different approaches to "leftism" that ultimately want the same things; they are completely separate ideologies that naturally come into conflict. The people who follow them disagree with each other because they want and value completely different things. If they were to put aside their differences there would be nothing left.
That doesn't mean arguing on the internet about ideology is meaningful, or that there can't be common goals or enemies, just that you should give up the idea that all "leftists" are somehow natural allies, because it doesn't make any sense.
Leninism, Anarcho-primitivism and Social democracy (for example) are not different approaches to “leftism” that ultimately want the same things; they are completely separate ideologies that naturally come into conflict.
In a fascist dictatorship, they have a lot more in common than opposition. What's more, there's ample room for compromise when members of these caucuses are able to communicate and collaborate freely.
The biggest hurdle to Left Unity I consistently see is Liberal Wreckers stepping in to insist any one ascendant philosophy is unserious and counterproductive, right before they form a coalition with corporationists and fascists.
you should give up the idea that all “leftists” are somehow natural allies
There's a material basis of alliance that stems from the communities that form the base of each faction.
The idea that a Social Democrat like Lulu or Sheinbaum can't form coalition with Anarcho-Prim native people in the rural Brazilian/Southern Mexican territories is demonstrably untrue.
The idea that a Leninist like Castro or Mandela couldn't lead a popular Socialist revolution in Cuba or South Africa is demonstrably untrue.
The idea that Bookchin-style Eco-socialists can't find allies in Xi's China or among the Maoist factions of North India is demonstrably untrue.
It takes work and it takes the right historical moment, but not everything has to end like the Spanish Civil War. Left Alliance isn't some impossible dream.
-
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.
Regarding approval rates, all classes were interviewed, including the bourgeoisie. Further, you will not find 100% of people agreeing that the Earth is round, flat-Earthers exist. What should be recognized is that the PRC has some of the highest approval rates in the world, and that that number appears to be increasing over the course of the study. I don't think your argument that there being a non-zero number of Chinese citizens that disapprove of the government doesn't mean the people aren't in charge of it, Chinese citizens aren't a hive-mind nor is the PRC a classless society. Class struggle is very much alive in China.
As for state-ownership, that doesn't mean those in government are the actual owners. That's not how public ownership works, again, the state isn't a class, but an extension, in the PRC's case of the proletariat. Public ownership rests on ownership among all citizens, just because said citizens elect managers and administrators doesn't mean these managers and administrators are the owners. If I am a local manager of a McDonalds store, I'm not the owner, I'm still a proletarian.
I don't consider the state to be equivalent to the people. I do consider the state to be an extension of the ruling class. Further, I see the state the same way Marx did, as purely the repressive elements of government that uphold the ruling class and oppress the other classes, and that once production is all centralized and democratized globally, fully collectivized, there won't be any class and thus no state, but there will be administrators, managers, accountants, etc as there must be in the kind of large-scale and interconnected production that the Marxist conception of communism holds as its basis.
The principle distinction between anarchism and Marxism is in decentralization and horizontalism vs centralization and collectivization. I hold both as socialist, and much prefer the Marxist framework of analysis, but don't really waste much time trying to discredit anarchism or anarchists.
-
pseudo-tankies
I'm not even sure whether this is supposed to be an insult anymore. Is a "tankie" better or worse than a "fake tankie"?
In a thread complaining about leftist infighting, there's a special irony in liberals singing out a leftist who is simultaneously too far left and not far left enough.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's a specific type of leftist we have in my country, french communists are a… special breed, let's say.
In the 1980s our communist party bulldozed a migrant worker dormitory because they hated migrants that much. Red MAGA or something. The party recovered from that era, but french communists are still chauvinistic, xenophobic, and strangely not that much into anti-imperialism (which is meant to be the redeeming quality of tankies). They do however share with tankies the traits of applying "class first" logic to a lot of conversations, which makes them deathly allergic to intersectionality, and being terminally online and way into infighting. Thus they usually end up booted from actual activist groups, since they tend to hold us back and prevent us from actually getting shit done in the streets.
Hence me calling them pseudo-tankies because it's hard to label them. We just call them tankies here: they're members of a party that supported the crushing of the hungarian uprising with soviet tanks, and is ambiguous about tienanmen (no denying it happened but very alt-history about it), so pro-tanks they are.
I have an easier time getting along with the average online american tankie than with our local communist party's members.
-
Regarding approval rates, all classes were interviewed, including the bourgeoisie. Further, you will not find 100% of people agreeing that the Earth is round, flat-Earthers exist. What should be recognized is that the PRC has some of the highest approval rates in the world, and that that number appears to be increasing over the course of the study. I don't think your argument that there being a non-zero number of Chinese citizens that disapprove of the government doesn't mean the people aren't in charge of it, Chinese citizens aren't a hive-mind nor is the PRC a classless society. Class struggle is very much alive in China.
As for state-ownership, that doesn't mean those in government are the actual owners. That's not how public ownership works, again, the state isn't a class, but an extension, in the PRC's case of the proletariat. Public ownership rests on ownership among all citizens, just because said citizens elect managers and administrators doesn't mean these managers and administrators are the owners. If I am a local manager of a McDonalds store, I'm not the owner, I'm still a proletarian.
I don't consider the state to be equivalent to the people. I do consider the state to be an extension of the ruling class. Further, I see the state the same way Marx did, as purely the repressive elements of government that uphold the ruling class and oppress the other classes, and that once production is all centralized and democratized globally, fully collectivized, there won't be any class and thus no state, but there will be administrators, managers, accountants, etc as there must be in the kind of large-scale and interconnected production that the Marxist conception of communism holds as its basis.
The principle distinction between anarchism and Marxism is in decentralization and horizontalism vs centralization and collectivization. I hold both as socialist, and much prefer the Marxist framework of analysis, but don't really waste much time trying to discredit anarchism or anarchists.
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's a specific type of leftist we have in my country, french communists are a… special breed, let's say.
In the 1980s our communist party bulldozed a migrant worker dormitory because they hated migrants that much. Red MAGA or something. The party recovered from that era, but french communists are still chauvinistic, xenophobic, and strangely not that much into anti-imperialism (which is meant to be the redeeming quality of tankies). They do however share with tankies the traits of applying "class first" logic to a lot of conversations, which makes them deathly allergic to intersectionality, and being terminally online and way into infighting. Thus they usually end up booted from actual activist groups, since they tend to hold us back and prevent us from actually getting shit done in the streets.
Hence me calling them pseudo-tankies because it's hard to label them. We just call them tankies here: they're members of a party that supported the crushing of the hungarian uprising with soviet tanks, and is ambiguous about tienanmen (no denying it happened but very alt-history about it), so pro-tanks they are.
I have an easier time getting along with the average online american tankie than with our local communist party's members.
I looked it up, and yep, looks like the PCF abandoned Marxism-Leninism in 1979 and adopted Eurocommunism, which is a vulgarization of Marxism that upholds western imperialism. MLs would consider them to be patsocs, same as the American Communist Party which espouses "MAGA Communism."
-
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?
If your stance is that administration and managers are incompatible with socialism, and that democratically elected representatives are not a genuine form of democracy for the people, then your stance is that Marxism in general isn't socialist to begin with. I think this is more of a semantical argument than a moral or logical one, if I ceded that Marxism isn't socialist by your definition that says nothing about whether or not Marxism is a sound framework and that Marxist "socialism" is something worth pursuing.
Further, I don't see how you could have large-scale society while requiring every decision to be made collectively, so either you're pushing for the small-scale commune model with individual or small cooperative production, or there's something else you agree with that I'm not aware of. Most anarchists recognize "justified" hierarchies of some sort to get around this issue, usually with different models like participatory economics, but I do understand that the maximally horizontalist anarchists do also exist.
As for how decisionmaking is made in the PRC, it depends on the scale. Much of the larger decisions are made centrally at the level of the NPC, but local decisions are often made directly through township councils or regional councils. It works well for its people, which is why it gets such widespread support.
