(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
indigi posted:yeah, that’s what the rich and powerful usually do from commanding heights thats a very idealistic way of looking at the world and historical development the US is the world hegemon the USSR tried to make a 2nd world socialist system isolated from the US rules based economy this made it a target and it ultimately failed through internal decay it was too ahead of its time China is going at it differently it has an incredibly advanced state based utility financial system and a large production input planning apparatus a communist party rules the state and has a firm control of the gov mechanism now its building a 2nd world system in the shell of the old wto based us order if and when China supplants the dollar it will have incredible influence in the world and will play a huge counterweight to the neolib deathcult that currently rules it its either this slow takeover of the world trade system or a 3rd world war neolib western capitalism will not give us a future quote:if its solution to beating capitalism is “do capitalism but harder” then maybe socialism is bunk anyway this is an empty sentence western finance capitalism is an exploitative debt based extraction vampire octopus backed by a genocidal war machine China's model is based on expanding the productive infrastructure, internal investment in people and peaceful multilateral development Top City Homo has issued a correction as of 18:47 on Nov 18, 2020 |
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
I wish Marx has written more detail on how to gradually move toward a better world. Even thing like lower weekly work hour by 1 hour every decade is reasonably doable and progessive countries can adopte it and incorporate it into the UN charter. Or abolish of medical related patents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
indigi posted:doesn’t China have internal passports? or is the Hukou system that different from what they had in the USSR The hukou system was similar to internal passports the goal was to develop people's communes (just like soviet cities) in a planned manner by matching people's needs (housing, welfare, medicine, food etc) with available resources but the dissolution of the people's communes meant that the peasant class was going to be proleterized through rapid urbanization they have revoked the old hukou system so urban centers can provide services to migrant workers but at some point they will need to create a new internal passport system and introduce more central planning to manage the extreme complexity of an increased social service requirement I already see some of that happening with centralization in the healthcare system
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:I don't understand what you wanted to happen after the dissolution of the soviet union. How exactly do you propose a communist party led country defeat the US hegemony when the USSR's strategy failed? Every communist country including Cuba had to make concessions to the WTO rules in order to survive Cuba, despite being in a much more difficult economic and geopolitical position after the collapse of the USSR than China, did not surrender socialism. The vast majority of workers in Cuba still work for the state directly in the centrally planned socialist economy, housing, healthcare, education and all other fundamental services remain completely free. Cuba has made extremely limited reforms compared to China, in order to largely retain socialism, and that is commendable, unlike the CCP. Not only that, but this defense does not hold water when China began abandoning socialism in 1979 under Deng & accelerated it through the 80s. No one expected to USSR to suddenly collapse as it did then, essentially no one did until it happened. If this is all some secret plan to survive the collapse of communism and revert to socialism when the time is right (a plan which no Chinese leader has ever actually articulated, despite what people itt say Xi has never gone around saying he's planning on renationalizing the economy, it is Qanon level of delusional hope) it should have started in around 88 or so at earliest. Top City Homo posted:They are technocrats but they are not neolibs they are absolutely neoliberal, but I agree the Chinese system is a vastly better at managing capitalism than western bourgeois democracy. Sheng-Ji Yang has issued a correction as of 19:04 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
The USSR only failed because roader elements were able to convince Gorbachev that a wholesale reformation of the system was needed when really the biggest impediment to further economic growth was the turnover tax (Soviet VAT tax which essentially underpriced labor and overpriced capital). Keep in mind that even when the USSR was "stagnant" it was still growing at around 1.5 - 2.5%. Gorbachev was just incredibly naïve about the nature of competition with the United States. China isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:Cuba, despite being in a much more difficult economic and geopolitical position after the collapse of the USSR than China, did not surrender socialism. The vast majority of workers in Cuba still work for the state directly in the centrally planned socialist economy, housing, healthcare, education and all other fundamental services remain completely free. Cuba has made extremely limited reforms compared to China, in order to largely retain socialism, and that is commendable, unlike the CCP. all i can say about this is that collectivization in the USSR started to happen during the great depression and Xi is consolidating and favoring the state sector. currently, he is developing a model where state companies invest in private companies and vice versa with the final goal of taking innovative ideas, assimilating private companies into state companies or integrating private companies into state companies once they reach monopoly size small companies are left to compete and if they get bigger they require state control for investment to grow its basically a feeder system for growing the state sector the real test will be how china handles the next ecological and financial crisis. it will either liberalize or move toward more central planning. I am seeing a trend toward central planning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
the next six months are crucial
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:China is going at it differently It certainly is. The PRC learned from the mistakes of the USSR: - isolating (rather than integrating) itself in regards to the international system, - over-expenditure on military assets, - participating in fruitless wars, - maintaining strict, inflexible, and often outdated doctrines to a changing world state. That said, who is acting like the USSR today? - edit: i'm not really interested in discussions on the socialist purity tests of the PRC. i'm just here to talk about how the PRC is pretty much ascendant geopolitically as it made very good use of 20th century historical lessons
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
THS posted:the next six months are crucial UNATCO?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
Hubbert posted:It certainly is. The PRC learned from the mistakes of the USSR:   
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
Hubbert posted:It certainly is. The PRC learned from the mistakes of the USSR: all of these "mistakes" were an attempt to save Soviet socialism, a vastly more admirable goal than abandoning socialism as the CCP did in order to save their monopoly on power. The USSR did not collapse from any of these mistakes, it collapsed from the exact opposite: the sudden embrace of liberalism and reform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Hubbert posted:
Agreed, the purity discussion is foolish and anti-dialectical. Sad!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:Cuba, despite being in a much more difficult economic and geopolitical position after the collapse of the USSR than China, did not surrender socialism. The vast majority of workers in Cuba still work for the state directly in the centrally planned socialist economy, housing, healthcare, education and all other fundamental services remain completely free. Cuba has made extremely limited reforms compared to China, in order to largely retain socialism, and that is commendable, unlike the CCP. because it's held tightly to an almost completely public economy, cuba's been starved of foreign investment and generally subject to neverending embargo. that's perfectly fine because it's a relatively small country and is never going to be able to seriously challenge the west for global dominance whether or not it benefits from the investment of foreign capital. china's in a very different situation with a lot more potential, and would be leaving a lot more on the table w/r/t world socialism (not just w/r/t the personal enrichment of a subset of its population) if it stuck with autarky
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
The amount of trust posters here have for a fictional China and xi is insane. And there's an additional level of faith in the idea that the wealthy will be immediately cowed and broken by the party instead of taking it over, which we have literally seen happen. "B-but jack ma's ipo!!!" Wow a guy that put forward 9-9-6 and would be in jail in an actual communist nation is instead a major party figure and was denied an ipo, most likely because he didn't curry the right favor or maybe he pissed off the wrong person who shut him down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
您可能不喜欢它，但这就是最佳性能
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
.
sincx has issued a correction as of 05:31 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:thats a very idealistic way of looking at the world and historical development what exactly is idealistic about countless examples from history that those with power virtually never peacefully relinquish it Top City Homo posted:China's model is based on expanding the productive infrastructure, internal investment in people and peaceful multilateral development it’s expanding productive infrastructure to the large benefit of the ruling and capitalist class. hopefully in the future the party is willing and able to change that, but at the moment the fact that there’s so much private employment and private investment is unsettling. their investment in people (which admittedly is on a much larger scale than we can comprehend in the US) seems like an afterthought in the face of their investment in capital. if it was primarily based on internal investment, why are so many fairing so poorly while private wealth increases? shouldn’t the health and conditions of the workers be paramount? kudos for not being genocidally militaristic though, I do admire that they’re able to sustain their growth without doing imperialism e: Ferrinus posted:china's in a very different situation with a lot more potential, and would be leaving a lot more on the table w/r/t world socialism (not just w/r/t the personal enrichment of a subset of its population) if it stuck with autarky surely China’s vastly greater resources would offset some of the need for foreign investment? or at least be able to trade slower economic growth for better working and living conditions for its people? indigi has issued a correction as of 20:05 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
Top City Homo posted:all i can say about this is that collectivization in the USSR started to happen during the great depression and Xi is consolidating and favoring the state sector. Well, the CCP has definitely read their Lenin, that owning a decisive share of a company that owns decisive shares in other companies that own decisive shares in more companies etc. is the way to take monopolistic control over far more capital than you actually own. They're able to combat foreign monopoly capital and give some direction to private investment through all sorts of financial incentives. At this point though, I don't see what they'd need central planning for, they're doing fine for themselves by utilizing finance capital on markets. They have a system where the state supports markets and the markets support the state: the state invests in order to raise market investments, and has little to gain from taking more direct control. They're emulating the developmental state monopoly capitalism of early-mid 20th century Germany, Nordic countries, Japan etc. except adjusted for the conditions of 21st century imperialism. Maybe they'll prove to be a new type of national bourgeoisie that actually can lead a capitalist revolution under the harshest imperialism. A bourgeoisie that's basically organized into a disciplined army that can chase profits in a long term strategic manner and apply a carrot&stick on the compradors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
indigi posted:surely China’s vastly greater resources would offset some of the need for foreign investment? or at least be able to trade slower economic growth for better working and living conditions for its people? it would, but that would still mean committing themselves to X additional decades of widespread poverty and technological backwardness and give the west that much more of a productive and technical lead over them such that it's that much harder to eventually, if ever, catch up. i see china as having made basically the same devil's deal as vietnam did; ultimately, the socialists aren't going to stay in power if they can't deliver material benefits to their constituents, which include both socialists and non-socialists, and, also, the socialists aren't going to stay in power if they just let the west out-macro them in the RTS sense. "not being exploited" isn't actually the same as "seeing your standards of living rise"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:it would, but that would still mean committing themselves to X additional decades of widespread poverty and technological backwardness and give the west that much more of a productive and technical lead over them such that it's that much harder to eventually, if ever, catch up. i see china as having made basically the same devil's deal as vietnam did; ultimately, the socialists aren't going to stay in power if they can't deliver material benefits to their constituents, which include both socialists and non-socialists, and, also, the socialists aren't going to stay in power if they just let the west out-macro them in the RTS sense. "not being exploited" isn't actually the same as "seeing your standards of living rise" There is zero reason to believe that central planning could not provide that level of growth and increase in the standard of living, as it did in the USSR through significantly harder & more challenging times, unless you just don't really believe in socialism. When the USSR collapsed it had a similar GDP per capita China does now, and that was without billionaires and millionaires hogging a vast portion of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:it would, but that would still mean committing themselves to X additional decades of widespread poverty and technological backwardness and give the west that much more of a productive and technical lead over them such that it's that much harder to eventually, if ever, catch up. i see china as having made basically the same devil's deal as vietnam did; ultimately, the socialists aren't going to stay in power if they can't deliver material benefits to their constituents, which include both socialists and non-socialists, and, also, the socialists aren't going to stay in power if they just let the west out-macro them in the RTS sense. "not being exploited" isn't actually the same as "seeing your standards of living rise" I know, it’s just so depressing and disillusioning that in our best hope for a socialist future (which I still believe China is despite my criticisms) there are still millions of workers with absolutely terrible QOL. like isn’t China mostly caught up to the West as far as technology and research go? how much more catching up do they need to do before they start their transition to a less exploitative economic system? (I hope Xi’s recent pivot toward more SOEs heralds this) e: Sheng-Ji Yang posted:There is zero reason to believe that central planning could not provide that level of growth and increase in the standard of living, as it did in the USSR through significantly harder & more challenging times, unless you just don't really believe in socialism. When the USSR collapsed it had a similar GDP per capita China does now, and that was without billionaires and millionaires hogging a vast portion of it. I agree with this in a vacuum, but part of the Chinese strategy is to make themselves integral to the international economy so they can’t be iced out in the same way and gain more leverage when it comes to supporting developing nations (which does come with a cost). can central planning do that as effectively? indigi has issued a correction as of 20:31 on Nov 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
The Chinese revisionists didn’t save the people from decades of poverty, they condemned them to decades of poverty. We can only start talking about real improvement of social conditions in the 21st century, decades after the systems that kept the people from poverty had been purposefully dismantled. They hosed up a whole generation and basically blamed the social damage on the Cultural Revolution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
The west hosed up a whole generation with the boomers
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
uncop posted:The Chinese revisionists didn’t save the people from decades of poverty, they condemned them to decades of poverty. We can only start talking about real improvement of social conditions in the 21st century, decades after the systems that kept the people from poverty had been purposefully dismantled. They hosed up a whole generation and basically blamed the social damage on the Cultural Revolution. didn’t the majority of China’s elimination of extreme poverty for 800 million people come about as a result of Deng’s reforms? or is that like an accounting trick I fell for
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:There is zero reason to believe that central planning could not provide that level of growth and increase in the standard of living, as it did in the USSR through significantly harder & more challenging times, unless you just don't really believe in socialism. When the USSR collapsed it had a similar GDP per capita China does now, and that was without billionaires and millionaires hogging a vast portion of it. to be clear, i fully believe and agree that central planning would provide a better standard of living for any country, big or small, given the same starting conditions. what it won't give you, though, is scads of foreign investment. if communist china was the only continent on a planet earth that was otherwise an entire globe of ocean, then their only defensible move is to stick with a full-on command economy, no question about it. but if a much richer and more powerful capitalist west is out there the calculus changes
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
i would like to think that there are plans that have been developed by the theorist of the party to address the class contradictions which have developed over the course of the rapid development of China over the past several decades, but i also fear that institutional momentum, fear of disruption, and greed will inevitably tank the socialism of the ccp project, and then the contradictions tear down all the gains from within
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
The entire F-16 fleet of Taiwan has been grounded pending an investigation into a recent crash. That's half of Taiwan's fighter jets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/VcfCommunism/status/1328575573363482631?s=19 your all under arrest hands where I can see them
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
uncop posted:The Chinese revisionists didn’t save the people from decades of poverty, they condemned them to decades of poverty. We can only start talking about real improvement of social conditions in the 21st century, decades after the systems that kept the people from poverty had been purposefully dismantled. They hosed up a whole generation and basically blamed the social damage on the Cultural Revolution. that's largely what i mean. i can't confidently make the claim that the poverty reduction and other infrastructure drives happening now couldn't have happened (or at least couldn't have happened as quickly or with as much scope) without the money and tech baited in during the liberalization of previous decades but that's my guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:all of these "mistakes" were an attempt to save Soviet socialism, a vastly more admirable goal than abandoning socialism as the CCP did in order to save their monopoly on power. The USSR did not collapse from any of these mistakes, it collapsed from the exact opposite: the sudden embrace of liberalism and reform. It wasn't that sudden. The economists in central planning were already coming up with liberal reforms under Khruschev, and implement them as soon as he lost his power. It took decades of mismanagement and poor attempts at resolving the problems for the collapse to happen. This part is unfortunately true in the case of USSR Hubbert posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
indigi posted:didn’t the majority of China’s elimination of extreme poverty for 800 million people come about as a result of Deng’s reforms? or is that like an accounting trick I fell for The measure of extreme poverty doesn’t make the same level of sense under different social conditions. Eliminating poverty by means of subsidized housing, food, education, cultural productions and healthcare doesn’t count a single cent toward reaching the measure. Deng’s reforms easily wrecked social guarantees worth more than those stinking 2 dollars a day from the worst affected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:Cuba, despite being in a much more difficult economic and geopolitical position after the collapse of the USSR than China, did not surrender socialism. The vast majority of workers in Cuba still work for the state directly in the centrally planned socialist economy, housing, healthcare, education and all other fundamental services remain completely free. Cuba has made extremely limited reforms compared to China, in order to largely retain socialism, and that is commendable, unlike the CCP. XI's effort to curb the private sector are recent and dramatic, who knows what will come of it, but dismissing it as Qanon is bullshit and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.  https://www.ft.com/content/fcb06530-680a-11e9-9adc-98bf1d35a056 https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/China-tech/Deal-breaker-China-nationalizes-strategic-tech-with-eye-on-US quote:A total of 165 listed Chinese companies changed ownership in 2019, roughly 60% more than the year before due to China's economic slowdown, according to the China Securities Journal, a newspaper backed by the state-run Xinhua News Agency. https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-take-control-of-chinas-private-sector quote:CCP announces plan to take control of China's private sector
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
Sheng-Ji Yang posted:There is zero reason to believe that central planning could not provide that level of growth and increase in the standard of living, as it did in the USSR through significantly harder & more challenging times, unless you just don't really believe in socialism. When the USSR collapsed it had a similar GDP per capita China does now, and that was without billionaires and millionaires hogging a vast portion of it. It isn't a question of central planning (which China still carries out to a significant degree) vs. markets, but the fact that a nation can't pull itself up by its own bootstraps. The rapid development of the USSR is precisely how the West learned their lesson about selling rope to communists. The first five-year plan wouldn't have happened without the ability to sell exports and the ability to use that capital to import heavy machinery and hire foreign experts, and by the time of the founding of the PRC the US and its European allies had developed extensive strategies for economic isolation and military encirclement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
Why do you believe that this isn't a method to entrench his friends and the rest of the party elite? Transferring an item to state control doesn't preclude handing it off to another elite to enrich them further
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Why do you believe that this isn't a method to entrench his friends and the rest of the party elite? Transferring an item to state control doesn't preclude handing it off to another elite to enrich them further It could very well be this, but that didn't stop them from building 10 hospitals in a week and dealing with the virus in a way no western country has been able to do yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:Why do you believe that this isn't a method to entrench his friends and the rest of the party elite? Transferring an item to state control doesn't preclude handing it off to another elite to enrich them further it surely is, at least in part, and probably wouldn't have been as easy or possible to pull off if it wasn't. nevertheless it's a good thing to do
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
Let me direct you to my 100 page phd dissertation in which we analyze communism with chinese characteristic and the struggle against capitalism via the lens of Kill la Kill's Kiryuin Satsuki and the society she built.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Gorman Thomas posted:https://twitter.com/VcfCommunism/status/1328575573363482631?s=19 this tweet led me to learn that the Chinese mass surveillance system is really called "Skynet?" seems like bad optics also the social credit system in general seems.... awful uncop posted:The measure of extreme poverty doesn’t make the same level of sense under different social conditions. Eliminating poverty by means of subsidized housing, food, education, cultural productions and healthcare doesn’t count a single cent toward reaching the measure. Deng’s reforms easily wrecked social guarantees worth more than those stinking 2 dollars a day from the worst affected. well, poo poo Ferrinus posted:it surely is, at least in part, and probably wouldn't have been as easy or possible to pull off if it wasn't. nevertheless it's a good thing to do why is entrenching the elite a good thing? or do you just mean the state taking over private companies
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
I think central planning is good for some stage of nation building, like if a nation state is trying build out early phrase of their industries in a hurry. But it certainly is not suited for China now or last few decades of Soviet Union. I want to read up on the Meiji restoration and find if they were doing "central planning".
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:09 |
|
|
indigi posted:
yeah i mean the state increasing investment and therefore sway over private companies. this for sure shifts the balance of power between individual greedy, evil millionaires and billionaires and therefore kicks at least some of the cans down the road but i think the CPC solidifying its hold is better than the CPC slackening its hold
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2020 22:57
|
|