Marxist thought

[zlemflolia]

19 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

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. 

we're just repeating ourselves now, I've already addressed this.  the difference is that china's usage of capitalism is being fettered by the dictatorship of the proletariat led by the chinese communist party.  other outwardly capitalist nations don't even attempt to claim to be socialist and don't plan to ever migrate - china does plan to.  we will see if they succeed in achieving socialism by 2050. it will be a massive geopolitical event and surely cause a ww3-like event of some sort once china achieves socialism, achieves communism, then starts exporting socialist revolution worldwide, assuming the US and NATO hasn't been neutered by then

india is an absolute disaster and the more it plugs itself into global neoliberal hegemony the more it remains a slave to its previous imperial powers.  shilling for these very imperialist powers is so sad

[chenGOD]

2 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

china's usage of capitalism is being fettered by the dictatorship of the proletariat led by the chinese communist party.

China’s usage of capitalism is being shackled by the proletariat? 
 

 

3 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

we will see if they succeed in achieving socialism by 2050

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.  

11 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

india is an absolute disaster

Have you been to India?

[zlemflolia]

15 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

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.  

the soviet union was at its time the most successful proletarian achievement in world history, achieving economic growth eclipsing capitalist powers of the time, and allowing themselves to defeat certain genocide at the hands of the nazis, immediately followed by western powers importing those surrendering nazis to form their anti-communist forces against the soviet union.  if youre going to just ignore historical reality theres no point discussing.  i understand you are firmly entrenched in western capitalist narratives

as for your second paragraph, through advancement of the means of production, the seizing of ownership of the means of production, the organization of the workers to control production alongside the elimination of the bourgeois class as a class and the elimination of the proletariat class as a class, socialism is achieved whereby scientific experimentation can be used to achieve communism  and rise the people to the level enabling them to be capable of being communist.  china is not yet socialist, so it's no surprise some relics of capitalist economic requirements such as a service sector remains

explain to me what you suggest china do to become socialist.  you seem to have many left critiques of their socialism which you've not told anyone here yet but constantly act as if you have them, let's see what your plan is.  chinese communists are not utopian anarchists wishing to achieve communism overnight through the abolition of the state and no struggle and experimentation.  they are pragmatists.  if you want to play word games and put forward your own interpretation of china's ideology, that's fine, but you're doing so contrary to they themselves and frankly being chauvinistic.  they DO NOT care what you think. socialism is not a mere change of words in the laws and constitutions, it's a drastic reorganization of the entire material and social fabric of society, which is a long process that cannot be sped up apart from putting in the work. is china doing it perfectly? assuredly not.  but they are at least trying and are currently the socialist vanguard of the world proletariat.

[zlemflolia]

2 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

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?

china prosecutes corruption and prevents theft of private funds on a much deeper level than capitalist countries.  capitalists do not simply get to act freely. they must build what they are told to where and when. 

indeed the dictatorship of the CCP, the political party with heavy integration with the proletariat of China which is controlled by them and their interests - the dictatorship of the proletariat. china is not a bourgeois democracy

no I have not been to india, how is this relevant? material conditions are horrendous, so bad that we have recently seen the largest protests in world history as the capitalist government attempts to engage in enclosure of the peasant farmers commons for private ownership

[zlemflolia]

https://www.ksidc.org/keralaadvantage/quality-of-life/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Marxist)

very interesting i wonder what kerala's special sauce is that makes its quality of life so much better than the rest of india.  could be marxism? it's unclear though im sure its somehow capitalism /s

Edited April 26, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[usagi]

2 hours ago, Stickfigger said:

Start a new thread and just copy and paste the responses in as they are posted. Surely this would be a fulfilling use of your time 

surely. however that lacks the shock and awe of exploding the two threads simultaneously as a criminal, terroristic act.

[cwmbrancity]

10 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

china prosecutes corruption and prevents theft of private funds on a much deeper level than capitalist countries.  capitalists do not simply get to act freely. they must build what they are told to where and when. 

indeed the dictatorship of the CCP, the political party with heavy integration with the proletariat of China which is controlled by them and their interests - the dictatorship of the proletariat. china is not a bourgeois democracy

 

You could always, you know, move there. Wonderful air quality, fuck all pollution, all the organ harvesting stories are propaganda and maybe you could teach in one of those very friendly re-education camps. Spread the love nahmean.

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, cyanobacteria said:

the soviet union was at its time the most successful proletarian achievement in world history, achieving economic growth eclipsing capitalist powers of the time, and allowing themselves to defeat certain genocide at the hands of the nazis, immediately followed by western powers importing those surrendering nazis to form their anti-communist forces against the soviet union.

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.

 

2 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

advancement of the means of production, the seizing of ownership of the means of production, the organization of the workers to control production

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.

10 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

if you want to play word games and put forward your own interpretation of china's ideology

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."

 

10 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

china prosecutes corruption and prevents theft of private funds on a much deeper level than capitalist countries. 

This is hilariously wrong. It's also a threat to the freedom to disagree with a government. 

 

10 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

capitalists do not simply get to act freely. they must build what they are told to where and when.

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).

[Cryptowen]

aiyo china whats dis i hear u tryna genetically alter sharks to walk on land & breath fire, what u doin over there bro?

bro bro don't worry man it's cool, they's communist sharks

ah okay bro i gotchu man, that should be good then. stuff that calls itself communist usually turns out fine

Edited April 26, 2021 by Cryptowen

[Silent Member]

Success stories like the great leap and the fun for all cultural revolution really show you how sweet life in China can be. I don't understand what these jerks in Hong Kong are protesting against. dunb

[chenGOD]

11 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

https://www.ksidc.org/keralaadvantage/quality-of-life/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_India_(Marxist)

very interesting i wonder what kerala's special sauce is that makes its quality of life so much better than the rest of india.  could be marxism? it's unclear though im sure its somehow capitalism /s

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?

 

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, cwmbrancity said:

You could always, you know, move there. Wonderful air quality, fuck all pollution, all the organ harvesting stories are propaganda and maybe you could teach in one of those very friendly re-education camps. Spread the love nahmean.

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.

[milkface]

1 hour ago, cwmbrancity said:

You could always, you know, move there. Wonderful air quality, fuck all pollution, all the organ harvesting stories are propaganda and maybe you could teach in one of those very friendly re-education camps. Spread the love nahmean.

[chenGOD]

3 minutes ago, milkface said:

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.

[auxien]

13 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

it does apply in small businesses unless it is a stable small business which generates little to no revenue useful for capital expansion purposes i.e. it just pays to maintain the business, pay a wage to the owner and workers, and maintain their lives.

the thing is, i'm pretty sure that most, or at least am certain that a significant portion of, small businesses fit into the 'little to no revenue useful for capital expansion' simply because most small businesses do not expand, and at least some portion do not have expansion in mind. 

my personal take on economics, at least relating to America, is that greater regulation to encourage these types (which is largely already in place) but to discourage massive corporations (this is definitely not in place) by regulating the growth of businesses. that's not exactly relevant of course. 

13 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

we dont see many people living in communes because it's not very appealing and is a drastic change in social relations. it differs significantly from the nation or earth-scale commune posited under communism

so communes as they exist now are not very appealing, or they would never be very appealing, within a true communist civilization? or would the communes under this hypothetical communist society be so vastly different as to invalidate my question? because if that last bit's the case then again i think we're talking utopian/idealistic/unrealistic fairy tales. ones that can be good and interesting in that they may guide us in theory, but banking on them being a reality in the foreseeable future is simply ludicrous.

is there an example of a large-scale commune as posited under communism? or something approaching that level? honest question, i'm in unfamiliar territory here. and part of my assumption is that communes/communism would break down on a larger scale... to come back to cichlisuite's metaphor, that the boat is simply too unwieldy too maneuver at that size. i think the disconnection from work is inevitable in a population too large that chooses to be 'modern/advanced'

maybe a little too far past the point here but i think it may be somewhat worth mentioning.... wasn't a very large portion of China's population living in 'simple' conditions for much of the 1900's? my understanding is that much of this has changed in the last ~30ish years, but weren't many of these people living essentially hand to mouth as farmers, tradeworkers, etc.? a communal style existence, if not in exact name and structure?

13 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

and furthermore communes which exist under capitalism are still beholden to the laws of capital flow and making tax payments to the capitalist state, they can never be truly free from capitalism in isolated pockets, especially since they cant manufacture advanced objects in the small communal setting, hence the need for a scaled up communism to replace the capitalism in which they exist

very true. these communes still, in my understanding, trade with the outside world regularly, perhaps selling goods produced or via outside-held wealth etc., in order to maintain their commune as a pocket within a capitalist society. but would they be able to exist in their liminal states outside of one? i think that's a more intriguing question. are there communes set up on islands separated from nearby nations entirely, existing outside of governmental rule? there are of course native cultures here and there still existing outside of the modern world by and large, and more power to them of course...but i'm more interested in peoples who are in/from more 'modernized' cultures choosing to live outside of it.

which leads to your scaled up communism. what does the outline of this look like? i'm thinking it's essentially going to look just like a industrialized (industrialized is maybe a more important definition than capitalist here) modern society, but without great gaps in wealth inequality? without any real wealth inequality? can one gather wealth in this modern, communist society? honest questions here...because what i'm envisioning is an industrialized (capitalist) society with heavy regulations on checks and balances specifically regarding wealth and business monopoly... and that's really what the economically liberal want, isn't it? but you've railed against liberals every time the word comes up so i'm not sure if there's a difference i'm unaware of (i am making a lot of assumptions of course!) or what exactly.

i guess that's what i'm getting at, ultimately a well-regulated society using capitalism (industry) to drive growth at massive scales but with heavy taxation/regulation/social programs to ensure the health & safety of all citizens and tamp down wealth inequality is the goal....calling it 'communism' is pretty silly tho. calling it capitalism might be silly as well, or socialism, or whatever...i'm not an economist obv. 

Edited April 26, 2021 by auxien

[chenGOD]

4 minutes ago, auxien said:

ultimately a well-regulated society using capitalism (industry) to drive growth at massive scales but with heavy taxation/regulation/social programs to ensure the health & safety of all citizens and tamp down wealth inequality is the goal....calling it 'communism' is pretty silly tho. calling it capitalism might be silly as well, or socialism, or whatever...i'm not an economist obv. 

In the end, the vast majority of societies use mixed economies as the basis of their political economy, so you're entirely right that calling one "capitalism" or "communism" is pretty silly. The ultimate answer is how well society is able to enforce regulation, trust in public institutions, and how well democratic transfer of power can work.

There's a good example of a commune in California that still exists, they definitely use capitalism well. It's unappealing because working on communes is hard work. Farming is super labour intensive, even with modern technology.

[auxien]

^thanks for that link, will be reading

[cwmbrancity]

1 hour ago, milkface said:

When the so called answers come as dismissive, half arsed conundrums about water supplies and IT infrastructure (while cap tipping to a brutal totalitarian regime), you gotta ask a few pertinent questions regarding how that position enfolds in the real (as opposed to idealised) world. Lol at your cartoon in that respect, but thanks for the effort, Mel Lyman had more nous.

[zlemflolia]

4 hours ago, chenGOD said:

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?

 

Yeah you are right they are not even communist but social democrats appropriating the term Communist and Marxist

[zlemflolia]

10 hours ago, auxien said:

the thing is, i'm pretty sure that most, or at least am certain that a significant portion of, small businesses fit into the 'little to no revenue useful for capital expansion' simply because most small businesses do not expand, and at least some portion do not have expansion in mind. 

my personal take on economics, at least relating to America, is that greater regulation to encourage these types (which is largely already in place) but to discourage massive corporations (this is definitely not in place) by regulating the growth of businesses. that's not exactly relevant of course. 

so communes as they exist now are not very appealing, or they would never be very appealing, within a true communist civilization? or would the communes under this hypothetical communist society be so vastly different as to invalidate my question? because if that last bit's the case then again i think we're talking utopian/idealistic/unrealistic fairy tales. ones that can be good and interesting in that they may guide us in theory, but banking on them being a reality in the foreseeable future is simply ludicrous.

is there an example of a large-scale commune as posited under communism? or something approaching that level? honest question, i'm in unfamiliar territory here. and part of my assumption is that communes/communism would break down on a larger scale... to come back to cichlisuite's metaphor, that the boat is simply too unwieldy too maneuver at that size. i think the disconnection from work is inevitable in a population too large that chooses to be 'modern/advanced'

maybe a little too far past the point here but i think it may be somewhat worth mentioning.... wasn't a very large portion of China's population living in 'simple' conditions for much of the 1900's? my understanding is that much of this has changed in the last ~30ish years, but weren't many of these people living essentially hand to mouth as farmers, tradeworkers, etc.? a communal style existence, if not in exact name and structure?

very true. these communes still, in my understanding, trade with the outside world regularly, perhaps selling goods produced or via outside-held wealth etc., in order to maintain their commune as a pocket within a capitalist society. but would they be able to exist in their liminal states outside of one? i think that's a more intriguing question. are there communes set up on islands separated from nearby nations entirely, existing outside of governmental rule? there are of course native cultures here and there still existing outside of the modern world by and large, and more power to them of course...but i'm more interested in peoples who are in/from more 'modernized' cultures choosing to live outside of it.

which leads to your scaled up communism. what does the outline of this look like? i'm thinking it's essentially going to look just like a industrialized (industrialized is maybe a more important definition than capitalist here) modern society, but without great gaps in wealth inequality? without any real wealth inequality? can one gather wealth in this modern, communist society? honest questions here...because what i'm envisioning is an industrialized (capitalist) society with heavy regulations on checks and balances specifically regarding wealth and business monopoly... and that's really what the economically liberal want, isn't it? but you've railed against liberals every time the word comes up so i'm not sure if there's a difference i'm unaware of (i am making a lot of assumptions of course!) or what exactly.

i guess that's what i'm getting at, ultimately a well-regulated society using capitalism (industry) to drive growth at massive scales but with heavy taxation/regulation/social programs to ensure the health & safety of all citizens and tamp down wealth inequality is the goal....calling it 'communism' is pretty silly tho. calling it capitalism might be silly as well, or socialism, or whatever...i'm not an economist obv. 

 

encouraging small businesses over large one just decreases the speed of capitalist accumulation.  you can't prevent it.  it's how capitalism works.  bigger capitals swallow smaller ones.  what youre saying is utopian and not even good for economic growth.  it's not a halfway point between socialism and capitalism its just a bad policy

communes of small groups of people living close and sharing resources isnt ideal.  you scale it upward so people still live similar to now in developed countries with the communalization happening at a larger scale

by large scale i mean the entire country is a big commune and everything essential is free. the boat is NOT unwieldy to maneuver at that size, we can centrally plan the economy with modern computers easy

yes china was agrarian and destitute.  nothing did more to lift the chinese people out of poverty than the communist revolution.

these small scale island communes are utopian since they cant make cpus and other advanced things

socialism works very well on islands though, look at cuba, they are thriving so commendably despite western aggression and embargo

communism isnt about having no wealth inequality. its about meeting the needs of the people.  im ok having a small apartment, computer, and books.  other people might want a different lifestyle.  once peoples needs can be met we can work that stuff out

you dont gather wealth in a communist society through gathering things. you gather it in your muscle memory and brain.

 

[zlemflolia]

13 hours ago, chenGOD said:

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).

indeed the ussr suffered famines, as they had throughout the lifetimes of those regions.  the primary cause is collectivization? hilarious, the primary cause is clearly the kulaks literally burning grain and murdering cattle in the fields.  they are not children they can take responsibility for their actions

USSR had a higher growth rate SIGNIFICANTLY 1913-1950 please learn to read chart titles

https://i.imgur.com/VOQRMng.png

advancement for the purposes of meeting the needs of the people.  not just technological, not just GDP which is a stupid number

they already have open and fair elections.  look how well bourgeois representative democracy worked for the US in their most recent Presidential election.  a reality TV show host married to a porn star became president.  china would never be so stupid.  your understanding of democracy is westernized

 

[zlemflolia]

2 hours ago, Valleyfold said:

Hmm idk a violent revolution, war, death and dictatorship to try to achieve a utopia that has never worked seems kinda risky. Maybe try giving people healthcare first?

how has that worked so far for you? people have been trying to get universal healthcare in the US, the most heavily industrialized and advanced capitalist vanguard of the world, for decades.  nobody can get it despite the fact that it could easily provide it.  so explain me your plan.  it's like you don't realize they actively oppose our interests.  it's not like they just forgot to give us healthcare.  they don't want us to fucking have it.  stop being a liberal

[Braintree]

 

[cwmbrancity]

9 hours ago, cyanobacteria said:

 

USSR had a higher growth rate SIGNIFICANTLY 1913-1950 please learn to read chart titles

 

 

Yes & there were no purges or gulags or mass murder prior to wwii either were there.

To be frank youth, the idea of your revolution is like my kids playing with Lego - eventually it all falls down if it even gets built at all - strewn around the floors to inevitably be stood on awkwardly 

@chenGODread the charts!

[Silent Member]

Zeff, you should talk about iddems and other nice things instead of this here shitshow, we all know your opinions on China by now and I doubt continuos posting of them is going to make us woke. Communism is a nice idea, but China is by no means Marxist anymore.

Have you meme'd lately?

Edited April 27, 2021 by Silent Member