chenGOD

As I noted, I generally don't support the argument of "why don't you just move there", but since @cyanobacteriaactively promotes China as being a superior place to live, I think it's entirely appropriate.

In general, I don't support the argument of "Why don't you just move there?" as it seems trite. In this case though it seems entirely appropriate.

It's probably a combination of commitment to public services and the large amount of foreign remittances. Here is an article from a former member of the Kerala Public Expenditure Committee on the importance of those remittances. It's also important to note that while the government is communist, elections in Kerala are multi-party, and the ruling party is democratically elected. I also notice you don't include the communist states of West Bengal or Tripura in your comparisons. I wonder if that's because West Bengal is ranked 28th in HDI and Tripura 24th in HDI in India?

From the start of the Revolution to the beginning of the Second World War, the Soviet Union suffered two major famines, the first of which the US provided aid for. The second of those famines killed millions of people across the Soviet Union, with some consideration given to part of the famine as an act of genocide. Whether or not it was a genocide is somewhat moot, but it is well established that the primary cause of that second famine was the collectivization policies of Stalin. Additionally, (and we've already covered this), the Russian peasants revolted against the collectivization efforts, with much of the success of the USSR attributable to capitalist-style policies. As well, the USSR never eclipsed Western economies. What does "the advancement of the means of production" mean? Technological advancement? The means of production in the service sector is already owned by the workers, as the means of production in the services is primarily the worker. Speaking of the organization of labour, that segues nicely into the next section. What would I recommend China do? I'd recommend they scrap private health insurance, allow unionization of workers (the All-China Federation of Trade Unions is the only legally allowed trade union, is not independent from government (it's led by the Secretariat of the CCP Central Committee) and part of their mandate is: "The Chinese Trade Union insists on consciously accepting the leadership of the Communist Party of China" [中国工会坚持自觉接受中国共产党的领导], and most importantly, allow for open and fair elections, using some form of proportional representation. I don't know what word games you think I'm playing but I'm not putting forward any interpretation, the People's Bank of China literally uses Keynesian monetary policy to ensure stability with the stated goal "to maintain the stability of the value of the currency and thereby promote economic growth." This is hilariously wrong. It's also a threat to the freedom to disagree with a government. That is not how state capitalism works. I suggest you read Chalmers Johnson "MITI and the Japanese Miracle", Alice Amsden "Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization" and this paper from Dic Lo at SOAS to understand how China models and learns from those experiences (those two books are simply entry points).

China’s usage of capitalism is being shackled by the proletariat? Given that the goal of their actions is to maintain the dictatorship of the CCP, and that their economic policy indicates a shift toward more capitalist functions (increasing the service sector, raising domestic consumption, further opening up the financial sector, etc.), I’d hazard that they won’t, but if we’re still around it will be interesting to see. Have you been to India?

So if Marx was wrong about it happening in the most industrialized nations, and it can’t happen in agrarian nations (as the experiments in the Soviet Union and China have shown), where do you see socialism arising? Yes, that was the point of the discussion around the service sector (which China is trying to promote in its own economy). Given that services are an essential part of the economy, how does Marxism propose to solve that issue, when simply providing the means of production to the workers is meaningless because the means of production in a service economy are the workers.

My good man, you can say until you’re blue in the face that China is communist, but the reality is that the reforms initiated by Deng opened up China to the forces of capitalism. Since then they have used state capitalism as the primary driver of their political economy. Any other reading is simply false. Even Richard Wolff doesn’t dispute that. It’s a tried and true model in East Asia, and China was able to learn from the examples of Japan and South Korea. Their control over Ma is not for the good of the people, it’s because Ma stepped out of line and criticized the CCP. He’s still worth $40B dollars. China has serious concerns over capital flight, but a lot of very very wealthy Chinese have been moving assets abroad for fear of being expropriated. I will grant that they are finally starting to implement some socialist aspects to their economy and society, such as the beginning of universal health care (although private health insurance is still much more dominant in the country). If you would like to discuss Chinese history, we can certainly get into that. Which era would you like to start from? Do you want to go as far back as the Warring States? Their military history does have some bearing on industrial development, so not a bad starting place, although it could become very long. India post-independence, practiced import substitution industrialization which was a complete failure. Following reforms in the late 80s, they opened up to market forces, beginning the process of development in a meaningful manner and raising their population out of poverty. This is easily verifiable, and the fact that you arguing this is further demonstration of you not arguing in good faith.

I agree, if they’d been as capitalist as China, they would be better off.

Marx’s theory of division of labour refers to the work done in factories, which I don’t think is applicable. Taylor’s scientific management principles were an extreme view of this, and as I noted, have largely been discounted, precisely because of the negative impact on workers’ mental health and resultant detriment to productivity. The division of labour I’m referring to as necessary is based on Durkheim’s theory as explained in his work “The Division of Labour in Society”, which maybe I should have stated. It’s not vague, and I don’t believe the two positions are contradictory. I’m not interested in “pwning” zeff, I’m much more interested in hearing his thoughts on how Marxist thought is applicable in the modern era beyond “we need to move to a form of material production as yet unseen”. He’s already agreed that specialization is necessary, but in the discussion around alienation, he keeps referring to the Marxist theory, which as I’ve noted, isn’t particularly relevant in developed nations.

I think the theory of labour division is fairly inapplicable (most people in the US don’t work in factories), but I think the alienation that Marx discussed is very much applicable, for reasons that he probably couldn’t foresee. Considering you’re the one who claimed India hasn’t done much to reduce poverty, this is quite rich.

You’re not honest though. look at what you said in your post just before this. You basically automatically dismiss out of hand any support of capitalism, and refuse to consider any merits. There are so many misconceptions in the post about competition that I can’t get into on my phone. And your post about saying fuck the wants of first world people is mildly terrifying (as well, I’d add that people in developing nations have the same wants, even North Korea has variety in products, and advertising to sell those products), who would want to live in a world with all decisions on productions made by some central planning committee.

I don’t think that’s the totality of my argument against Marxist thought, cumrade? Capitalism doesn’t want anything, it’s an economic system that has many varieties.

I'm aware of what Marx's division of labour was in theory, but in practice, division of labour in a factory does allow you to work your way up the line as your labour adds more value. Yes you may not own the factory (a very capital intensive risk) but you can progress your skills and your wages. I gave a demonstration of that in roof trusses (the most mind numbing work I've ever done, even worse than grading undergrad papers), but the same holds true in automobile factories, and elsewhere. However, automation is truly coming to put an end to that sort of work, even in the garment industry: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/How-the-death-of-fast-fashion-is-transforming-Asia-s-garment-industry Sean and Rob specialize in making esoteric music for follicly challenged people in anoraks. It was used as an example of specialization which allows for greater productivity as opportunity cost becomes lower. Edit: I should add that Taylorism (which is the extreme version of the division of labour that Marx envisioned) became widely discouraged as a managerial practice because of the recognition of the harm it cause the workers.

Well you clearly stated that we were discussing a service provided for a commodity. I agree with a service such as mowing the lawn, assuming it is a private company it is much more straightforward, there is only one factor of production, k (including depreciation on equipment). Yes it tracks the cost but also provides a simplified method of determining the value add. I will agree that there are other factors they are not considering, including consumer behaviour. There price model of a commodity is also somewhat simplified, but it works for the purpose. I'm glad that we agree that determining the surplus value is much more complex than simply the wage of an employee and the marginal revenue of the company. Is it simple majority? 51% of the population says we want smartphones, so smartphones we make? If we look at a smartphone, is it the same process to determine what goes into a smartphone (do you really want 51% of the population determining what goes into a smartphone?), and only one type of smartphone will be made? Will there only be one smartphone maker? Will the price be fixed - if so what determines the price (and the price of each commodity), especially given we do not have material abundance - scarcity is a very real thing. If you have hierarchy, you are going to have classes, decision makers, etc. as per the division of labour and specialization (see below). So that covers basic needs - what about wants? Is it wrong to want more for doing more? Global extreme poverty had been falling steadily until the COVID-19 pandemic, but we can obviously do better in ensuring basic needs are met. That type of labour should be automated away and retraining initiatives should be implemented. But even in artisanal work, division of labour for specialization occurs. I know you are vegetarian (vegan?) but you may have seen the documentary Jiro Dream of Sushi. In that, take note of how long the master's apprentices are only allowed to make rice before they move onto other things. The same applies in factory labour - building roof trusses, you start being the guy whose job it is to place the metal plates at the joints of the truss, you move up to working the machines, you move up to being a carpenter, etc. Home construction/renovation is the same. You start off being the guy who sweeps the floors and digs the ditches, you learn how to use power tools, how to do framing, etc. And artisan work still exists in a capitalist society, and people are paid more for doing it, as they should be, because it requires a tremendous amount of knowledge and skill. But not every t-shirt you own needs to be made by an artisan. Go to fiverr...?

Like Chris Rock said - you gotta pay them more, and then you gotta pay for more training.

Yes, how much value is what we are trying to determine. Does every service interaction provide the same price level of value? For your formula P equals commodity price, ? equals service value add, W equals wages, and k equals capital outlay. Is that right? We don't know ?, and surely W is included in K in Marxian economics. Commodity price includes many other things, so this is a very simplified model. So we still don't really know how to price the added value that services provide. On the other hand, this provides a good deal of insight how to account for the value add of services. https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/2017/5/13/economic-value-added How is socially necessary labour determined? Is it just the basic infrastructure (you reference universal basic services below, but what are those?)? Is socially necessary labour the same in all societies and in all regions of a society? How do you determine compensation? Does everyone working on the project receive the same compensation, regardless of input or risk? How are the raw materials acquired for such massive infrastructure projects? Please answer using your own analysis of Marx (copying and pasting sections with no analysis leaves it as an exercise in interpretation rather than a discussion). Simply saying "advanced means of production" is not an answer (unless you can define what you mean by advanced means of production). The division of labour is precisely specialization. We don't ask Sean and Rob to build highways. Instead they use their labour in a specialized way (for example, they didn't create Max/MSP, but they are certainly specialists in its use) to produce art.

So the question is how do you determine surplus value in the services sector (the labour theory of value does not determine prices). So about those Luddites....but seriously, if you abolish services, and there is a need for those services, someone will surely establish an industry to provide those services. If you automate those services, someone will establish an industry to maintain that automation. Unless your solution is to somehow establish a universal basic income which provides housing and units of currency to purchase food for all those people put out of work (80% of all non-farm payroll employees in the US work in the services sector) with a massive decrease in tax revenue, that might need some re-thinking. Even then, a UBI only guarantees a basic level of existence - no doubt many will desire to enhance their livelihoods. While some may turn to collective workforce and communes, they may find that those who utilize capitalist modes of production while maintaining high functioning social services outcompete them, removing the source of their economic surplus that they desire. Right, that's what I said, my question is how to reduce that alienation under Marxist economic theory. Greater productivity is a form of value, how do we price that value? Why do you keep making up strawmen to argue against? Specialization may or may not occur under Marxism (although given his opposition to the division of labour in the workshop, I find it difficult to conceive of how such specialization may occur), but the capitalist mode of production makes far better use of specialized resources. Anyhow, please stop making up strawmen - it is a waste of both of our time.

I don't and nowhere did I say that - I'm asking how Marxism would solve alienation from labour (that is the removal of yourself from the product of your labour), especially in regard to the service sector. Because Marx doesn't break down his analysis by sector, and because of the change in the distribution of labour, I think this is an interesting question. It was defined by neoclassicists who were strongly influential in the Chicago school of economics, which is about as far away from Marxism as it's possible to get. So it's very interesting that you would use the term - especially as Marxism does not see a decentralization of capital (workers collectives would be susceptible to the same issues). Specialization in production leads to greater efficiency. Obviously you need some entity to put the complex system together, but people who work on say, voice recognition software don't necessarily need to know how payment processing software works, or how to program on bare metal.

OnlyFans has boobas. @Cryptowen I’d recommend reading Barrington Moore’s “Social Origins of Democracy”. Really good and under appreciated book.

Yeah and he somehow manages to ignore the massive amount of western pop that uses classical motifs, as well as the direct influence that western pop has on K-Pop, which is just a weirdly unintellectual take for a “very serious video”.

Just like Marx, Schumpeter weirdly doesn;t account for the adaptability of capitalism or that tech would actually encourage entrepreneurship (OnlyFans is a form of entrepreneurship right?) But I dunno nothing, I'm reading lowbrow trash - Game of Thrones - so base and easy to read.

Trying out this intermittent fasting thing since I don't do as much physical activity since I can't play team sports and I fucking hate jogging. Kind of meh - plus I got hit with a cold second week in, so really low energy. On the plus side, I guess being old finally paid off as I'm eligible to be vaccinated in Ontario now...

Trust when I say there is nothing of intellectual value contained in that video.

boobas