|
Ardent Communist posted:It must be pretty easy to be critical of both capitalism and communism, like some "both types are bad" south park liberal, but the fact is, these nay-sayers have no idea what they are in favour of. Admitting that communist states have made missteps is not revisionist, but it is revisionist to deny their accomplishments in promoting human development. You can talk all you want about the Asian tigers, but they were developed with foreign currencies as investment, and IMF involvement always comes with punching down in labour laws and conditions. ugh
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:It must be pretty easy to be critical of both capitalism and communism, like some "both types are bad" south park liberal, but the fact is, these nay-sayers have no idea what they are in favour of. Admitting that communist states have made missteps is not revisionist, but it is revisionist to deny their accomplishments in promoting human development. You can talk all you want about the Asian tigers, but they were developed with foreign currencies as investment, and IMF involvement always comes with punching down in labour laws and conditions. thanks for reading the thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Haha, then that's where you screwed up. Contemporary Chile is a willing volunteer in international trade? Nobody tell Allende or the IMF.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:It must be pretty easy to be critical of both capitalism and communism, like some "both types are bad" south park liberal, but the fact is, these nay-sayers have no idea what they are in favour of. Admitting that communist states have made missteps is not revisionist, but it is revisionist to deny their accomplishments in promoting human development. You can talk all you want about the Asian tigers, but they were developed with foreign currencies as investment, and IMF involvement always comes with punching down in labour laws and conditions. If the CCP was just trying to eat and drink that would be one thing. But the reality is that everyone on the Standing Committee is a literal billionaire. If you have any confidence these people, i.e. the bourgeois elements leading China, are going to abolish their own massive wealth you're out of your mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
No one get out their ouija board
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I never said anything of the sort. I pointed out that the situations of colonial India and contemporary Chile aren't comparable because the former was brutally imposed by an occupying power and the latter is voluntary international trade. How did the liberals get to you, Thug Lessons? Blink twice if the World Bank has your family.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:How did the liberals get to you, Thug Lessons? You're a liberal if you think Chilean copper exports aren't as bad as the British Empire?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:If the CCP was just trying to eat and drink that would be one thing. But the reality is that everyone on the Standing Committee is a literal billionaire. If you have any confidence these people, i.e. the bourgeois elements leading China, are going to abolish their own massive wealth you're out of your mind. So what? We don't think that the capitalist class in the U.S. will give up their wealth voluntarily either. However at the least, the Standing Committee promotes socialism, in words if not deeds, and has a better chance of assisting other countries moving away from capitalism. I'll worry about the capitalist tendencies of Chinese leaders when they are acting against the development of communism in other countries. That may happen, but the rising international revolution lifts all countries, and they will find it harder to maintain their wealth while other communist countries are established, who may be more radical. I'll reserve my criticism for my enemies, not my erstwhile allies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're a liberal if you think Chilean copper exports aren't as bad as the British Empire? you’re a liberal if you think volunteering to an unequal exchange isn’t exploitative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You're a liberal if you think Chilean copper exports aren't as bad as the British Empire? Chilean copper exports are actually woke because a Marxist president nationalized them and they've been untouched by subsequent regimes ever since Yossarian-22 fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:So what? We don't think that the capitalist class in the U.S. will give up their wealth voluntarily either. However at the least, the Standing Committee promotes socialism, in words if not deeds, and has a better chance of assisting other countries moving away from capitalism. I'll worry about the capitalist tendencies of Chinese leaders when they are acting against the development of communism in other countries. That may happen, but the rising international revolution lifts all countries, and they will find it harder to maintain their wealth while other communist countries are established, who may be more radical. lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/maoistrebelnews/status/871112846586900480
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:you’re a liberal if you think volunteering to an unequal exchange isn’t exploitative. exploitation is an unequal exchange and the more unequal the exchange the more exploitation there is. (labor-power exchanging at its value is still exploitation)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:Haha, then that's where you screwed up. Contemporary Chile is a willing volunteer in international trade? Nobody tell Allende or the IMF. Plz take ur meds
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:you’re a liberal if you think volunteering to an unequal exchange isn’t exploitative. It's not an unequal exchange, or at least not a particularly unequal one. Coltan mining in the Congo is exploitative, but the Chilean copper industry isn't. Workers accrue benefits in the form of high-paying, mostly unionized jobs in mining and smelting, and the country as a whole benefits from the export revenue. It's almost impossible to imagine a socialist future where Chile isn't still a copper exporter. By the way, China imports a lot of copper from Chile. Are they exploiting them too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
im the chinese billionaire communist ama
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Like seriously, melting down about what the West did to Chile over copper exports makes no loving sense. Chile only developed successfully because Allende nationalized copper exports and Pinochet didn't touch them. It's a legacy of Allende you loving ingrates
Yossarian-22 fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jul 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
A second revolution in China is more likely than leftism succeeding in the USA is my pessisism take
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
as a chinese billionaire communist, i can assure you that communism is good. very good
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's not an unequal exchange, or at least not a particularly unequal one. Coltan mining in the Congo is exploitative, but the Chilean copper industry isn't. Workers accrue benefits in the form of high-paying, mostly unionized jobs in mining and smelting, and the country as a whole benefits from the export revenue. It's almost impossible to imagine a socialist future where Chile isn't still a copper exporter. Yes. Did you not read any of the posts about how neocolonial imperialism works? You can’t even keep your story straight on whether trade with Chile is exploitative by admitting it’s unequal at all. So neocolonialism is true for African countries, but not true for Latin America because you decided to pick one of the most developed countries in the region. a country historically considered “white,” granting it favorable relations with Europe, and which even won imperialist wars of expansion that cut off Bolivia from a coastline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
quote:The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of the material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which the clash of interests of the classes is based every time. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him, or upon the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to his doctrines and the demands hitherto propounded which do not emanate from the interrelations of the social classes at a given moment, or from the more or less accidental level of relations of production and means of communication, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus he necessarily finds himself in a dilemma. What he can do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practised, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. Whoever puts himself in this awkward position is irrevocably lost. We have seen examples of this in recent times. We need only be reminded of the position taken in the last French provisional government by the representatives of the proletariat, though they represented only a very low level of proletarian development. Whoever can still look forward to official positions after having become familiar with the experiences of the February government – not to speak of our own noble German provisional governments and imperial regencies – is either foolish beyond measure, or at best pays only lip service to the extreme revolutionary party. I'm suddenly thinking of China and Cuba... Crazy that Engels had such foresight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/getfiscal/status/1016007411067387904
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yes. The situations in the Congo and Chile and their respective trade relations are completely different. It's very telling that you're apparently incapable of discerning to difference here but when it comes to Chinese vs. Scandinavia state intervention you have all sorts of special pleading to explain how the situation isn't at all similar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Infernot posted:I'm suddenly thinking of China and Cuba... Yeah, Engels basically nailed it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
look we can talk all day about china and cuba, but why hasnt anyone called for landlord death in the us yet
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
Basically Donald should be in charge
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
"Communist parties make the best capitalist governments" is irrelevant to whether or not said country can be called capitalist. They are. And adding that primary products are defacto exploited because they produce products that become value added by other industries, is an embarrassingly stupid argument. The level of exploitation is the difference between remuneration for labor done, and that labor done. It's not the difference between future labor done and current labor done. A primary producer, for example for oil, could exploit everyone else using monopolistic powers, by increasing the price of oil well above their labor done, and thereby extract surplus from all future consumers. The flow of production is not equivalent to the flow of exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
The reason primary producers have a tendency to be exploited, is because having sophisticated industry allows a sophisticated military and intelligence system, meaning the is a power differential. But this is entirely contingent on geopolitics, and stating an absolute relation of exploitation for primary producers, simply means you haven't understood Marx, and are performing some performative mockery of his work instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The reason primary producers have a tendency to be exploited, is because having sophisticated industry allows a sophisticated military and intelligence system, meaning the is a power differential. But this is entirely contingent on geopolitics, and stating an absolute relation of exploitation for primary producers, simply means you haven't understood Marx, and are performing some performative mockery of his work instead. He's not even pretending it's a Marxist reading. It's some sort of unholy re-reading of Lenin's Imperialism with the neoclassical concept of value-added production taking the place of FDI. It's completely of his own concoction and at odds with established third-worldist theory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The situations in the Congo and Chile and their respective trade relations are completely different. They're not completely different, and you know that. Which is why you compelled yourself to admit it's not a particularly unequal exchange. Chile gets favorable trade relations with the First World for all the reasons I enumerated. rudatron posted:And adding that primary products are defacto exploited because they produce products that become value added by other industries, is an embarrassingly stupid argument. The level of exploitation is the difference between remuneration for labor done, and that labor done. It's not the difference between future labor done and current labor done. A primary producer, for example for oil, could exploit everyone else using monopolistic powers, by increasing the price of oil well above their labor done, and thereby extract surplus from all future consumers. The flow of production is not equivalent to the flow of exploitation. Except they can't exercise monopolistic power because they're not the only oil producer in the world. They have to sell oil at the international market price, and can't even get their own cartel to cooperate after they couldn't stop the Saudis from doing the oil glut. The exploitation of countries which are primary resource extraction economies is a developmental strategy to prevent them from industrializing themselves. By maintaining the unequal exchange of trade between raw materials producers and industrialized countries, it slows the material development of primary good producers. You're trying to apply the logic of an internal exchange to an international exchange, and it just doesn't work that way. Selling finished goods back to a country which provided the raw materials is an extraction of value. You can even see this process working in the European Union, with highly industrialized Central and Western European countries developing dependencies in Eastern European countries. No matter how much progress may be made by a country like Poland, it will never catch up to Germany in terms of development so long as the exploitative balance of trade is maintained.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:However at the least, the Standing Committee promotes socialism, in words if not deeds Thank you for your service, Standing Committee
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DengoidTakes/status/1019317055714136065 https://twitter.com/DengoidTakes/status/1019118329812930561 https://twitter.com/DengoidTakes/status/1019110051771043840
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
So you admit that unequal international exchange is a consequence of geopolitical power, not primary vs. secondary producers? Germany has more leverage against Poland that 'Poland buys German products', otherwise you could have the same relationship between China and the US. You're wrong, admit it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Selling finished goods back to a country which provided the raw materials is an extraction of value.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yes. You ignored literally every single part of that post where thug's source notes that countries less developed than Chile (e.g. Bolivia) have much better paid miners
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:They're not completely different, and you know that. Which is why you compelled yourself to admit it's not a particularly unequal exchange. Chile gets favorable trade relations with the First World for all the reasons I enumerated. But Cuba maintaining sugar as its main export... now that's what I call socialist!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/DengoidTakes/status/1019317055714136065  When you have no comeback
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:You ignored literally every single part of that post where thug's source notes that countries less developed than Chile (e.g. Bolivia) have much better paid miners They were literally foreign miners brought in from outside the country. They earned 3x as much as Bolivians. rudatron posted:I gave the example of a monopoly primary producer to disprove this assertion, yet you repeat it as if nothing has happened. Yes I know in reality that oil is not monopolistically produced, it was an example to disprove your assertion here. The level of exploitation is about the difference in labor surplus, not added value for an individual product. If I work 2 hours farming, give a small amount to some tailor who works 5 hours making clothes, yet we both have clothes and food, guess who is being exploited? Think it through. Nothing has happened, because it's pure abstraction. The real world doesn't have primary producers with monopoly powers on the global market. Your thought experiment also doesn't work, because it's an exchange unrelated to national development, which is the actual topic of discussion. If you can get 5 labor time hours worth of clothes, but only gave part of your produce from 2 hours of labor time in exchange for the clothes, then under the actually existing conditions of commodity production & exchange, you'd have to be farming a product way more valuable than the finished product - something that most likely doesn't factor into the production of the good you're exchanging it for. There's no such thing as a finished product which is somehow less valuable than its component parts, unless the whole process of production has completely hosed up. rudatron posted:So you admit that unequal international exchange is a consequence of geopolitical power, not primary vs. secondary producers? Germany has more leverage against Poland that 'Poland buys German products', otherwise you could have the same relationship between China and the US. I literally did say unequal international exchanges are a consequence of geopolitical power. The whole point of production is to ultimately realize the value of its product, and the fact of the matter is that the Global North is where the value of global production is ultimately realized. For a third world country which is a primary good producer, the value of production can't be realized without exchanging money for imported finished products - and they can't produce their own finished products except in niche or cottage industries, because it's impossible for them to compete with the industrial products of the Global North. The only way out of this situation is to protect their own nascent industries from foreign competition, but this is also impossible because of the free trade regime which is imposed on the developing world by the developed world. If they attempt to develop their own industries without protections then they can't compete, and if they try to protect their industries then they will be punished by international finance. Only communist countries were able to sufficiently protect their own internal development from imperialist interests in the 20th century.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:They were literally foreign miners brought in from outside the country. They earned 3x as much as Bolivians. Okay, my mistake, that was from the section on foreign miners. And yet it's abundantly clear from the article that miners are really well paid workers, with Brazilians being paid over $75,000 annually for instance. If you want to make a larger point about how countries are kept dependent by selling natural resources as opposed to manufactured goods, that's fine. But all thug lessons is saying is that neocolonialism isn't some kind of distinction without a difference, and I don't see how "socialist" countries are defying imperialism by forming rival hegemonies within that same global capitalist framework
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:If you want to make a larger point about how countries are kept dependent by selling natural resources as opposed to manufactured goods, that's fine. But all thug lessons is saying is that neocolonialism isn't some kind of distinction without a difference The primary difference between colonialism and neocolonialism is that unequal exchanges are maintained through the appearance of voluntary relationships, which are actually compelled by economic dependencies. I didn't define it before because I felt that people ITT would get what it means, but the process of how the unequal exchange works to extract values is fundamentally the same - only the geopolitical relations are different. It's sort of like the difference between chattel slavery in the United States, and the sharecropping system which replaced it. There's no denying that sharecropping was marginally better than being a slave, but economically it was practically the same relation of production. Instead of being formally enslaved, sharecroppers were compelled to servitude through excessive debts and rents. In absolute terms their exploitation was alleviated, but remained excessive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 01:27
|
|