(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:In reality the state has not taken a more active role. Every year chinese state/public employment shrinks as a % of the workforce and private rises, every year the private sector grows to be a larger part of the Chinese economy. This has happened since the 80s and has not slowed down under Xi. I do not understand why people twist themselves in knots over this: clearly when most workers are forced to sell their labor to capitalists, and those capitalists are taking the profits, that is a capitalist economy. That is true in Denmark, that is true in Vietnam, that is true in China, it is true in essentially every society on Earth right now except for mostly in Cuba (& DPRK lol). It did not happen at all in the USSR, so yes the Soviet Union was socialist. A socialist state would act to reduce and eventually eliminate capitalist ownership of the means of production, not happily expand it as the CCP has done for the last 40 years. The problem again is that you ignored it happened in the USSR twice, and public employment has also been shrinking in Cuba and likely the DPRK as well (the numbers are hard to get at but there is clear evidence of liberalization occuring). You go over the same points because you refuse to acknowledge historicity. Is it great that every socialist/former Socialist country is privitizing to some degree? No. Does it make logical sense to those governments to liberalize to some degree right now beyond loving "capitalism", yes. Does it mean those states are no different than any other capitalist state, no. Even if you don't trust any of those governments, you have to admit there is certainly room for them to move in a more socialist direction. However, Xi has clearly ground many of the rough edges of the Deng/Jiang/Hu years and there is clearly broader social programs than there were years ago. It is true, Xi is taking more of a social democrat approach and is hardly a radical, but the "Wild West" capitalism of the 1990s/2000s is fading even if private employment is increasing. Anyway, the Leninist model broke with the Western left more than a century again for a reason. The Western left could afford to wait around for a spontaneous revolution, while Lenin had to actually run a country so everyone wouldn't starve and the NEP was the result. Gorbachev tried the same thing, but was clearly surronded by suspect advisors and generally didn't know what the f' he was doing. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 01:04 on Jun 23, 2020 |
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:The problem again is that you ignored it happened in the USSR twice, and public employment has also been shrinking in Cuba and likely the DPRK as well (the numbers are hard to get at but there is clear evidence of liberalization occuring). You go over the same points because you refuse to acknowledge historicity. Is it great that every socialist/former Socialist country is privitizing to some degree? No. Does it make logical sense to those governments to liberalize to some degree right now beyond loving "capitalism", yes. Does it mean those states are no different than any other capitalist state, no. Even if you don't trust any of those governments, you have to admit there is certainly room for them to move in a more socialist direction. Do you believe the Chinese economy is socialist? How is it denying historicity to say that an economy mostly owned by capitalists is capitalist? I trust the Cuban government, because when it was easier to do mass privatization & there were examples of it "working", they chose the harder path and fought to retain the fundamentally more just system of socialism as much as possible, and the vast majority of the Cuban economy remains in the hands of the state and out of the hands of capitalists. Cuba is genuine socialists making compromises forced by history. Frankly no I do not think the CCP is doing some trick out of necessity to build capitalism but secretly pining for a return to socialism when the conditions are ripe, because there is absolutely nothing beyond the delusional hopes of some western leftists to indicate that and everything real & material to indicate they have fully ingratiated themselves into capitalism. The NEP was a temporary measure in the early years of the USSR during a serious crisis before the bolsheviks really even had the power or capacity to centrally plan the economy, and comparing China's 40 years of dismantling socialism to it is silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:Do you believe the Chinese economy is socialist? How is it denying historicity to say that an economy mostly owned by capitalists is capitalist? The NEP only ended because the Soviet Union had an unsustainable trade deficit, not because there was a major ideological shift. China continued to have a 40 year NEP because it has had a positive trade surplus for 40 years. Cuba btw has had a trade deficit since the 1990s, and it is why tourist dollars and remittances are so important. Btw, China recently built a nickel factory that partially filled that gap. In your mind, socialism is about a command economy, when historically, it is only a tool used at various times. Both countries are doing the same thing under different conditions (btw Vietnam had to wait longer than China as well but nevertheless went on the same course). Also, in China, the state and the party is clearly paramount and there has been multiple occasions when Chinese companies have had to reign in foreign investment because Beijing has told them to do so. It is true China liberalized, but to pretend capitalists are in control of the situation like in the US/UK isn't supportable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The NEP only ended because the Soviet Union had an unsustainable trade deficit, not because there was a major ideological shift. China continued to have a 40 year NEP because it has had a positive trade surplus for 40 years. Cuba btw has had a trade deficit since the 1990s, and it is why tourist dollars and remittances are so important. Btw, China recently built a nickel factory that partially filled that gap. In your mind, socialism is about a command economy, when historically, it is only a tool used at various times. Both countries are doing the same thing under different conditions (btw Vietnam had to wait longer than China as well but nevertheless went on the same course). Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. A centrally planned economy is one of several ways of achieving that. However, I will say capitalists owning the means of production is not one of those ways, and that is the system in place for most of the Chinese economy. That system is called capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
I remain skeptical about if China is still socialist or on a path towards full capitalism. But I'll leave you two to that argument, since you have more knowledge regarding Chinese history and material reality - - I'm always looking for new books though, so link me some if you want. Instead, what I'm interested in - - at least in this moment - - is if China is still planning on building their democracy. That was part of their long term plan, wasn't it? What happened to it, and what do we know about it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
How do classical communist doctrines deal with voting-shares and non voting-shares? I ask because what the Chinese state want to do is have control over the direction of many private or partially privately owned business without getting a cut in the annual profit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
BrokenGameboy posted:I remain skeptical about if China is still socialist or on a path towards full capitalism. But I'll leave you two to that argument, since you have more knowledge regarding Chinese history and material reality - - I'm always looking for new books though, so link me some if you want. lmao no. Like the entire concept here is: 1.) Achieving communism loving sucks if the means of production have not been developed and if you are at a severe military, technological, and economic disadvantage to the US. 2.) So, let's do a capitalism to develop the means of production and achieve closer parity with (or better still, surpass) the U.S. first. 3.) But, it is imperative to ensure that "private" enterprise is under the strict control of the CPC, rather than the other way around. 4.) Parliamentary "democracy" under capitalism invariably ends up captured by and subservient to the bourgeoisie 5.) Therefore, to keep things on track, single party rule by the CPC is required to prevent a collapse into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production. A centrally planned economy is one of several ways of achieving that. However, I will say capitalists owning the means of production is not one of those ways, and that is the system in place for most of the Chinese economy. That system is called capitalism. Are capitalists truly in control of the situation when the state can swoop if it wishes? Also again, according to your definition, soon there may only be capitalist states. It seems a convenient way of saying nothing should change, I mean if a country "turns capitalist" then its all the same and we don't have to worry. There is no alternative! As for parliamentary democracy, yeah, where is that working at the moment. Argentina?!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:08
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Are capitalists truly in control of the situation when the state can swoop if it wishes? the NPC has over 100 billionaires lol why would the state swoop in to stop themselves
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:10
|
|
|
Morbus posted:lmao no. Yes, I understand their overall plan. And what I meant was proletarian democracy, since I apparently need to specify that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
The Chinese state directs investment, production, and general use of the surplus in a way unlike any Western capitalist country. Capitalists "own" the means of production in effect, though not legally, and the extent to which China is - or is becoming - a socialist state is the extent to which the CPC truly represents the interests of the workers and is able to use capitalists towards that end. I don't think it is simple enough to say that "China has billionaires. China has capitalists. Therefore, China is no different, really." A better question to ask is: Has the party been captured by capitalists?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Are capitalists truly in control of the situation when the state can swoop if it wishes? The state in every capitalist country has significant power to intervene in the economy, regulate, reward, punish capitalists that go against their interests. You are essentially trying to argue that social democracy - a strong regulatory state over a capitalist economy - is socialism. And if the entire world is capitalist, as it essentially is now, then the solution is not to cry about there being no alternative or pick the nicest capitalist state to cheerlead. The entire world was capitalist (or feudal) in 1917. Socialists changed that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
I think it was Tariq Ali that points out with regards to China, that a restoration of capitalism would look much different than we see today, where there is a an obvious continuity with the revolutionary era. Revolutions and the governments they establish can have retreats and conservative turns, without a complete restoration of the old order occurring. For example, Napoleon was a repudiation of the radical parts of the French Revolution, but the restoration of the Bourbons was a the real defeat of the revolution. More directly, Khrushchev was called a revisionist who led the Soviet Union away from socialism, but the collapse of the Eastern bloc showed what a real restoration of capitalism looks like. However much China may deviate from an ideal of socialism, the state and party that exists is a product of the revolution. If China is not run by communists, why did the ruling party keep the communist name during the end of history that was the 1990s? What was the benefit of calling itself communist, an incendiary term in Western capitals, when the goal of Chinese foreign policy for decades was to avoid confrontation with the West.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
Inertia. Changing their name and formally rebuking the foundational ideals of their state would beg the question of why then multiparty elections were not allowed
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:The Chinese state directs investment, production, and general use of the surplus in a way unlike any Western capitalist country. Capitalists "own" the means of production in effect, though not legally, and the extent to which China is - or is becoming - a socialist state is the extent to which the CPC truly represents the interests of the workers and is able to use capitalists towards that end. I don't think it is simple enough to say that "China has billionaires. China has capitalists. Therefore, China is no different, really." A better question to ask is: Has the party been captured by capitalists? communism with chinese characteristics. But pretty much China found a balance and also managed to avoid the scorched earth robber baron capitalism Russia experienced after the Soviet Union was dissolved. Especially central planned state concepts like keeping foreign companies from buying up too much of the country and other methods of protectionism to keep local companies from getting run over by a bus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
BrokenGameboy posted:Yes, I understand their overall plan. And what I meant was proletarian democracy, since I apparently need to specify that. I mean, the idea of "proletarian democracy" or "socialist democracy" or whatever you want to call it is largely a fig leaf to cover over the inescapable reality that communist parties like the CPC are necessarily authoritarian and undemocratic by any normal (or reasonable) definition of democracy. But so far as the concept of socialist democracy is normally articulated within the CPC, I think they are kind of stuck there, too, as the increasingly capitalist nature of their economy necessarily involves A.) exploitation of workers and B.) competition between vs. consensus among sectors and industry, in a way that is fundamentally contrary to proletarian democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:I think it was Tariq Ali that points out with regards to China, that a restoration of capitalism would look much different than we see today, where there is a an obvious continuity with the revolutionary era. Revolutions and the governments they establish can have retreats and conservative turns, without a complete restoration of the old order occurring. For example, Napoleon was a repudiation of the radical parts of the French Revolution, but the restoration of the Bourbons was a the real defeat of the revolution. More directly, Khrushchev was called a revisionist who led the Soviet Union away from socialism, but the collapse of the Eastern bloc showed what a real restoration of capitalism looks like. would invite completely unnecessary political instability. CCP saw what happened from glasnost and wanted no part of that. whatever small gains could be made internationally were vastly outweighed by that. also at the end of the day Communism, Mao, etc remained popular among most of China. trying to argue China is still communist because of the party name is pretty silly, its like taking the Democratic Party or Republican Party as meaningful names.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
mila kunis posted:Inertia. Changing their name and formally rebuking the foundational ideals of their state would beg the question of why then multiparty elections were not allowed Has China ever had multiparty elections? Having billionaires in a state run by a communist party seems like a bigger contradiction than just identifying as a party leading a new Chinese model of development.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:43
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:The state in every capitalist country has significant power to intervene in the economy, regulate, reward, punish capitalists that go against their interests. You are essentially trying to argue that social democracy - a strong regulatory state over a capitalist economy - is socialism. Significant power to regulate under a codified legal system differs from the state able to intervene by dictate. Power is more centralized in China. Likewise, while SOEs are less of a share of the economy than before, they are still a massive part of it and the state itself and local governments. Leninists changed that because they were willing to fight the West with tooth and nail, including the West's own tools. Social Democrats rode the coattails. You cite 1917, but Lenin was attempting literally the exact same thing before he died. Btw, the whole "Chinese characteristics issue comes down to China was successfully able to do what the Soviet Union attempted. ---- Also, who knows what proletarian democracy means in historical terms become democratic centralism. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 02:51 on Jun 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
It's always seemed to me that the fact that China is willing to at least address Marxian economics in their education system and portray Mao as someone worthy of respect and consideration means that their population would be a lot more amenable to liquidating the billionaire class and expropriating their property (compared to the US especially). Doesn't mean that Chinese billionaires have a secret plan to voluntarily remove themselves from power, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume the average Chinese person has better class consciousness than the average American, just by virtue of having a national identity that is nominally socialist
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
Pizza Segregationist posted:It's always seemed to me that the fact that China is willing to at least address Marxian economics in their education system and portray Mao as someone worthy of respect and consideration means that their population would be a lot more amenable to liquidating the billionaire class and expropriating their property (compared to the US especially). Doesn't mean that Chinese billionaires have a secret plan to voluntarily remove themselves from power, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume the average Chinese person has better class consciousness than the average American, just by virtue of having a national identity that is nominally socialist It's not just this, it's that (at least so far...) CPC leadership itself, especially at the highest levels, believes in Marxism and, more importantly, believes that capitalism is (eventually) doomed to collapse under the weight of it's own contradictions. Their bargain with capitalism is fully understood to be a risky but necessary intervention, that is ready to go completely off the rails at any moment due to the intrinsic instability of the capitalist mode of production. As such, they keep private enterprise on a very short leash, and deeply believe that the constant supervision and control of the CPC is necessary to keep the wheels from coming off. They have similar fears over bourgeoisie control of the economy--it's something intrinsically undesirable that must be actively avoided. To what extent this belief is merely self-serving and to what extent it is truly grounded in understanding and ideology I don't know, but either way, it is in stark contrast to western countries (and the US in particular), where the government at all levels is packed with true believers in the free hand of the market, and the desirability (even necessity) of bourgeoisie control. In the U.S., the fact that decision making at all levels has been mostly captured by large business interests isn't just accepted--it is celebrated as good and proper, or at the very least a necessary compromise and the lesser evil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
Isn't debating around if and what people truly believe in their heart of hearts pretty immaterial?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
We've had Western leftists jump to the defense of Venezeula, Iran, and China more on the basis of them being opposed to the US rather than any positive reasons. I still remember people bigging up Iran after the US assasinated Soleimani and then we saw them shoot down a civilian airliner, shoot a bunch of their own sailors on a military exercise, and then handle COVID even worse than the US. Attaching yourself to another country in opposition to the US is a losing proposition tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
lol Iran absolutely has not handled covid worse than Iran rae you high
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:handle COVID even worse than the US. They had 1/3rd deaths and cases per capita than the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:The US government is pretty much just the regular military, a few loyal fragments of surveillance/security state, and the money printer. The us government is 35% of it's GDP, in china the state is 47%
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
I don't even know if you can compare Iran to the US when it comes to Covid. From what I know, the US had all the ability to slow or stop the virus but refused to act. Iran couldn't even get needed supplies due to sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
BrokenGameboy posted:Isn't debating around if and what people truly believe in their heart of hearts pretty immaterial? I think it's worthwhile to discuss if the leadership of China is actually utilizing a Marxist analysis when they make decisions. That's a real material thing. They put out statements and publications saying they are, which is evidence that can be looked at. The results on the ground is other evidence. Whether those decisions are correct is a different issue. If they really believe in Marxism is the immaterial question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
BrokenGameboy posted:I don't even know if you can compare Iran to the US when it comes to Covid. From what I know, the US had all the ability to slow or stop the virus but refused to act. Iran couldn't even get needed supplies due to sanctions. The epidemic is also not over, so it's a bit early to judge which country did "better" (less worse).
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
China is pretty much screwed by climate change - think they’re a decade or two away from a hot war with India and Pakistan over water. They can’t feed their population with domestic food production. North America is ironically going to do the least worst from a resources standpoint. I wonder if we’ll all still be posting on SA in twenty years when we’re dragooned to man border machine gun nests to kill climate change refugees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:clearly when most workers are forced to sell their labor to capitalists, and those capitalists are taking the profits, that is a capitalist economy. that's soviet union too then (actually I think soviet union was still capitalist by a loose marxist definition, 'free' labor generating commodities via division of labor with surplus labor extracted, call it state capitalism)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:I think it's worthwhile to discuss if the leadership of China is actually utilizing a Marxist analysis when they make decisions. That's a real material thing. They put out statements and publications saying they are, which is evidence that can be looked at. The results on the ground is other evidence. Yeah, but much like the early social democrats believed in Marxism but were slowly absorbed and integrated into maintaining the capitalist system, so to I wonder if China might be getting absorbed and twisted into present capitalism, regardless of their indavidual beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:would invite completely unnecessary political instability. CCP saw what happened from glasnost and wanted no part of that. whatever small gains could be made internationally were vastly outweighed by that. also at the end of the day Communism, Mao, etc remained popular among most of China. trying to argue China is still communist because of the party name is pretty silly, its like taking the Democratic Party or Republican Party as meaningful names. As an example of this, left wing in china means pro party regardless of policy. It's party loyalty rather than seeking greater equality or any other principle. Left wingers are often extremely conservative in that sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:12
|
|
|
BrokenGameboy posted:Isn't debating around if and what people truly believe in their heart of hearts pretty immaterial? I think so yes. You don't need to take the CPC at their word, but we probably ought to judge their intentions by their actions rather than speculating about their "real" motives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:As an example of this, left wing in china means pro party regardless of policy. It's party loyalty rather than seeking greater equality or any other principle. Left wingers are often extremely conservative in that sense. How odd. You'd never see something like, for example, so-called left-wingers praising the police or defending military nationalism. Just unheard of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
Antonymous posted:The us government is 35% of it's GDP, in china the state is 47% Does that include state-owned industries? I have looked at multiple articles giving different numbers of Chinese state spending and SOEs. Btw, the US government doesn't necessarily have a small budget from afar...how it is spent is another question. The US could fund a cradle to grave welfare state on what it spends right now. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 05:35 on Jun 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
How does one reconcile this assertion that China as being capitalist with their actions with regards to COVID-19? Surely a nation that was actually under the thrall of the bourgeoisie wouldn't be able to turn-around production and manufacturing to the extent that the Chinese government did?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How does one reconcile this assertion that China as being capitalist with their actions with regards to COVID-19? Surely a nation that was actually under the thrall of the bourgeoisie wouldn't be able to turn-around production and manufacturing to the extent that the Chinese government did? id say what matters irt determining whether an economy is capitalist or socialist is what class owns the means of production, not a governments pandemic response.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:32
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:id say what matters irt determining whether an economy is capitalist or socialist is what class owns the means of production, not a governments pandemic response. But doesn't the response, or the behavior of the State in general, flow downstream from its politics and ideology? That is to say, would the kind of action that China took be possible if the means of production were, in fact, owned by the bourgeoisie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How does one reconcile this assertion that China as being capitalist with their actions with regards to COVID-19? Surely a nation that was actually under the thrall of the bourgeoisie wouldn't be able to turn-around production and manufacturing to the extent that the Chinese government did? sure they could, you’re confusing communism with competence. the state secures the means of production for the capitalists, but in times of crisis they can redirect it towards existential threats. hell fascism even has a history of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2020 05:41
|
|