So much contradiction wrapped up into one simple comment.

They're dogmatic because they pretend that it's aligned with the sacred texts? And you're better than that because you adhere more strictly to the text? Do you see the problem here? In fact, tankies don't judge AES by textual alignment. It is not a requirement that any state that calls itself communist does what the books say.

In fact, it's clearly impossible for them to do so, because the books are theory, which comes before practice. Practice will always be ahead of the published and established theory, but it will always be behind the leading edge of theory which is not established and often not published. That theory is not settled theory. It gets settled through... practice. We are all capable of incorporating a collapse of China into our theory as much as we are capable of incorporating a transition to a more socialist organization into our theory, because our theory is built upon real world experiences, not textual analysis.

But also, how do you account for the tankies' support for the smaller, and even the smallest, state that calls itself communist? Are they worshiping them too? What about when the small states and the big states do it differently and the tankies support both of them? How does that work?

Well, the funny thing about that is that Chinese state has actually done that. Or Mao did, anyway.

See, Mao feared that the government was going to follow the same reformist path as the USSR, so he issued a series of declarations saying that the government had been infiltrated by bourgeois elements, that the people of China had a "right to rebel," and finally calling on them to "Bombard the Headquarters."

These declarations created a period of violence and disorder known as the Cultural Revolution, where independent, student-led militias known as Red Guards formed and started fighting whoever they suspected of being counter-revolutionary. With no command structure, they often wound up fighting each other, when they weren't committing atrocities.

Ironically, all this did was discredit this approach and convince a lot of people of the necessity of the reforms they were meant to prevent, and of the central government.

Of course, there were another time in Chinese history where China lacked a strong central government. After the fall of the Qing, there was no central government at all. This is generally referred to as the warlord period, and it sucked so bad that the communists and nationalists put aside their differences to try to end it. Unfortunately, China remained largely decentralized, which allowed the much smaller but more centralized nation of Japan to invade and kill tens of millions of people.

If you don't read theory/study history, it's easy to just rail against authority and centralization from an idealist perspective, but if you actually study China's history and conditions, you'll find reasons for every path they've chosen.

You understand that if China were to do that today, it would immediately be vassalized, neoliberalized, and plundered by the imperial core, just as the dissolved Soviet states were 35 years ago, right? That life expectancies would plummet and poverty would become rampant?

• Super-Imperialism
• The Shock Doctrine
• Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Until imperialism (“the highest stage of capitalism”) is dismantled, socialist states are necessary. Basically, nearly everyone has to reach socialism before anyone can reach communism, because capitalism, as long as it continues to exist, will never stop trying to expand. You can’t wish your way immediately to the end-goal. You will surely fail.