354
China's Marxist-Leninist Stock Exchange (lemmy.sdf.org)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/mop
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 8 months ago (8 children)

It takes mental gymnastics to call tankies both dogmatic book worshippers and simultaneously people who can accept a Chinese stock market into their understanding of revolutionary theory.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Nobody ever said tankies are good at theory. It's not complicated: Tankies dogmatically worship the biggest state that calls itself communist and pretend it's doing what the books say.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    So much contradiction wrapped up into one simple comment.

    They're dogmatic because they pretend that it's aligned with the sacred texts? And you're better than that because you adhere more strictly to the text? Do you see the problem here? In fact, tankies don't judge AES by textual alignment. It is not a requirement that any state that calls itself communist does what the books say.

    In fact, it's clearly impossible for them to do so, because the books are theory, which comes before practice. Practice will always be ahead of the published and established theory, but it will always be behind the leading edge of theory which is not established and often not published. That theory is not settled theory. It gets settled through... practice. We are all capable of incorporating a collapse of China into our theory as much as we are capable of incorporating a transition to a more socialist organization into our theory, because our theory is built upon real world experiences, not textual analysis.

    But also, how do you account for the tankies' support for the smaller, and even the smallest, state that calls itself communist? Are they worshiping them too? What about when the small states and the big states do it differently and the tankies support both of them? How does that work?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    State propaganda is the de facto means by which tankies incorporate new information into theory: People may have their own "learning processes", but ones that contradict the large state either learn to conform better, stop being tankies, or get purged. Thus anyone who has been a tankie for more than a year "settles theory" in a way that is causally determined by state propaganda, i.e. they treat it as dogma.

    This means they back the large state no matter what, and other states when the propaganda allows it. And indeed we see that tankies approve of large communist states attacking small ones or engaging in CIA-style political interference.

    I am not asking you to adhere to communist texts more closely, I am asking you to see how the process by which you change your mind can causally be traced back to the owners of large Chinese corporations justifying the accumulation of capital.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    State propaganda is the de facto means by which tankies incorporate new information into theory

    A bold claim, indeed! Surely you have research to back this up. Maybe you have a really strong theoretical argument that shows how this is inescapable. You wouldn't just open with a totally vibes-based statement and reveal your bias immediately, completely undermining your position, would you?

    People may have their own “learning processes”, but ones that contradict the large state either learn to conform better, stop being tankies, or get purged.

    Oh. I guess not. I guess you just have vibes. You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Thus anyone who has been a tankie for more than a year “settles theory” in a way that is causally determined by state propaganda, i.e. they treat it as dogma.

    Big words for such a small idea. One could also say that MLs have a shared discourse through which theory is built upon, like literally every other theoretical discipline, and then have quite varied and dynamic debates about how to incorporate empirical evidence from both historical discoveries and the present day movements. Surely we'd be able to find evidence of this.

    And of course, we do. There are people who believe the USSR was a better representation of MLism than China is today, and there are people who disagree with that. There are people who believe that neither are good representations but that Cuba has done a better job. There are those who believe MLism needs to be better integrated with decolonial and subaltern theory and those that believe decolonialism needs to transcend MLism (and of course those that believe decolonialism needs to abandon and reject MLism).

    Oh look. A basic survey of the variety of positions that are still as yet unresolved within the community of MLism around the globe. Real dogmatic if you ask me! Those dogmatists should really stop being so dogmatic about regurgitating state propaganda from the largest state.

    This means they back the large state no matter what, and other states when the propaganda allows it. And indeed we see that tankies approve of large communist states attacking small ones or engaging in CIA-style political interference.

    It's almost like you start with your bias and then reason backwards from there. Refusal to condemn entire movements for specific actions becomes approval of the specific actions, thus proving to you that these people are morally inferior and cannot think for themselves.

    The reality is that "tankies" accept errors, failures, and "evils" because they are unavoidable as a class of phenomena. Every single movement will have these moments. That movements have these moments are insufficient reasons to abandon the movements. Adherence to an ideological or moral purity test is...

    ... dogmatic.

    I am asking you to see how the process by which you change your mind can causally be traced back to the owners of large Chinese corporations justifying the accumulation of capital.

    Wild! So when Mao said that the revolution needs to embrace class collaboration as a fundamental strategy, he was the owner of a large Chinese corporation justifying the accumulation of capital? Tell me more!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    A 15th century Catholic could debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but not whether Jupiter had moons. Diversity within a walled garden does not remove the walls, and as long as narratives are not in active conflict with the bounds set by the larger state they are tolerated.

    Refusal to condemn entire movements for specific actions becomes approval of the specific actions

    If you do not condemn a specific genocide and the specific system that produced it, then you approve of genocide. As long as ML communities systematically support those that approve of genocide and genocidal regimes and condemn those that condemn genocide, ML approves genocide.

    Wild! So when Mao said

    I don't think Mao said to create a stock market, chief. Why do you think a stock market where legal entities that can hold capital can trade partial ownership in corporations that own the means of production while employing workers who have no representation within this system (except as petit bourgeois owners of small amounts of capital savings) could reasonably be considered communist?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    I don't believe any of the ML movements have been involved in a genocide nor approved a genocide. If you are referring to China not condemning Israel, well, you got me there.

    Mao did not say to create a stock market. He said to collaborate with the national bourgeoisie. That's not communism. Under communism, there is no national bourgeoisie to collaborate with. Communism, as a state of existence, is classless.

    So China has literally never been communist as a state of existence. China has been led by a communist party. That doesn't mean they have communism. It means they are building communism.

    China is going through the capitalist mode of production. Just like every single industrial nation has done. We don't know of any other way to industrialize. One of the functions industrialization needs is the efficient allocation of resources. The stock market is a tool to make that happen. It's also a way to participate in and gather resource flows from imperialist countries in Chinese currency, which has important effects in anti-imperialism at the commanding heights of world economic systems.

    You know how we know that China's industrialization process is run by communists and not capitalists? Because the industrial revolution impoverished millions in the West, but in China it lifted 800M out of abject poverty. China is a state with a communist party leading it through the capitalist mode of production to develop the productive forces of the economy. This is pretty straightforward stuff. It's only confusing if you're dogmatic about it and can't figure out why $EVIL_thing is present in a society that purports to be $GOOD_thing. Moral thinking will always confuse things. Abandon moral thinking, and it all makes much more sense

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Abandon moral thinking, and it all makes much more sense

    We agree entirely. Anyone who expects China to be good or to try to become good is going to be confused by reality. China will develop according to the material conditions it operates under. Since those conditions are capitalism, it would be foolish moralism to expect them to do the good thing in spite of their structural incentives, so they will remain capitalist indefinitely.

    I don’t believe any of the ML movements have been involved in a genocide nor approved a genocide.

    Oh hey you're going to No True Scotsman me. Anyway: Holodomor, Cambodia, Ethiopian Red Terror, Uyghurs.

    China is going through the capitalist mode of production. Just like every single industrial nation has done. We don’t know of any other way to industrialize. One of the functions industrialization needs is the efficient allocation of resources. The stock market is a tool to make that happen.

    Holy capitalist realism, batman. Communism has also never been to the moon, are you going to use capitalism to get there too? Neither has it ever solved climate change, are you going to use capitalism to do that too? If all you're going to do is ape capitalism because "it's the one that works", you're just a capitalist with extra steps.

    It’s also a way to participate in and gather resource flows from imperialist countries in Chinese currency, which has important effects in anti-imperialism at the commanding heights of world economic systems.

    Sadly, we don't know any other way to be a world hegemon other than through capitalist imperialism...

    You know how we know that China’s industrialization process is run by communists and not capitalists? Because the industrial revolution impoverished millions in the West, but in China it lifted 800M out of abject poverty.

    I guess the USA was run by communists too because poverty decreased massively from 1870 to 1970.

    Strange, though, the US had a stock market during its industrial revolution, while China is only introducing the stock market after it has already lifted those 800M out of poverty. Somehow China managed to do all that without ever needing a stock market. Almost as if an economy can industrialize perfectly well without one and the reason for adopting a stock market has nothing to do with efficient industrialization...

    Anyway, coming back to moralism, I'm sorry, but I do want my society to be good. I understand that a society being good doesn't make sense on its own, that's why anarchocommunism has prefiguration. We need to shape the material conditions to produce good things if we want good things, which we do. Having capital owners pinky swear to make communism real after the next fiscal quarter isn't going to do it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    We agree entirely. Anyone who expects China to be good or to try to become good is going to be confused by reality. China will develop according to the material conditions it operates under. Since those conditions are capitalism, it would be foolish moralism to expect them to do the good thing in spite of their structural incentives, so they will remain capitalist indefinitely.

    This is so misguided on so many level. The moral label you attach to an entity is not real. China is no more good or evil than a rock is good or evil. Morality is idealism, and it has absolutely zero explanatory power. No one will ever build communism because they are "good" just like no one ever built capitalism because they were "evil". If your entire theory of liberation requires a group of people to be "good", then you're doomed.

    But even worse is that you also obviously have zero understanding of capitalism. Marx tried to tell you. Maybe you read it and you thought he was wrong? Maybe you didn't read it? Capitalism is internally contradictory. It is a system in an unstable dynamic equilibrium. It will collapse. No society can remain capitalist indefinitely, it's logically impossible.

    Anyway: Holodomor, Cambodia, Ethiopian Red Terror, Uyghurs.

    Holodomor - not a genocide. The most widely accepted international scholarship has established this. The attempts to label it a genocide either stretch the definition of genocide to include many many many other events that we don't consider genocides or they require ignoring and deliberately omitting a lot of facts about the situation.

    Cambodia - Cambodia was a genocide. Was it an ML genocide? Let's look. Oh, that's funny. It was an extreme nationalist party that organized itself around MLism from a party discipline standpoint, but discarded literally everything else like "no privileges for any one nation, complete equality of nations and the unity, amalgamation of all workers of all nations". So, you could say I'm committing a No True Scotsman, or we could actually look at the tenets of MLism and just do a basic test. The Khmer Rouge standout among all ML parties on their xenophobic nationalism and genocide on the basis of racial hierarchy.

    Ethiopian Red Terror - Like the National Socialists, the Derg used the aesthetics of communism and absolutely none of the theory. The EPRP, actual Ethiopian Marxists, say this, not me. The Derg was not a worker's party. It was not a vanguard of the proletariat. It did not use democratic centralism. If you're going to just believe anyone who says they're anything, than Donald Trump is a non-racist Christian and a good businessman.

    Uyghurs - Such an interesting genocide that results in population growth of the people every single year that the supposed genocide is happening, don't you think? Such an interesting genocide where the people still keep their language, their religion, their cultural traditions, still keep their connections to global communities, still communicate with them, still host international conversations. If you believe there's a genocide of Uyghurs, well, I don't know if I can help you. In fact, based on these 4 examples, I would have to say you're an easy mark for grifters.

    If all you’re going to do is ape capitalism because “it’s the one that works”, you’re just a capitalist with extra steps.

    This is so weird. There's no "aping" going on. There's no tailism either. Literally are you saying that China should have just not industrialized until they figured out how to do it without capitalism? They should have stayed a deeply impoverished agrarian society for another few decades, or more, because they have a moral duty to figure out how to do it without using the mechanisms of capitalism? They didn't ape capitalism. They organized their society to use capitalism for what capitalism is good at, and they took real substantive steps before they implemented capitalism to limit the influence capitalism would have on their society. It's why even though they have stock markets and therefore private property, not a single corporation or billionaire owns any land. The CPC, understanding how capitalism works, took away many of the tools capitalism uses to empower itself against governance. So far, the CPC gambit is working. Obviously it remains to be seen if it does - communism is experimental, as I'm sure you know, and the Chinese experiment is a new one.

    I guess the USA was run by communists too because poverty decreased massively from 1870 to 1970.

    I mean, not for nothing, but the USA actually had a lot of communists during the industrial revolution, and they fought hard to keep their surplus value. Labor unions were powerful. There was literally armed warfare between workers and owners, and yes, a lot of socialists got elected into various offices. That's ultimately why the US had to have a purge in 1917 with the first Red Scare (which, by the way is a great tell for why the USA wasn't run by communists). But more importantly, the US only saw something like 15 percentage points of poverty alleviation through WWII. So no, the US did not massively reduce poverty between 1870 and 1970. They massively reduced poverty between 1950 and 1970 because they were the only country left standing untouched by WWII and they exploited the fuck out every single country in the world.

    China, on the other hand, is posting 88 percentage points of poverty alleviation, without a war economy and without the exploitation of war torn nations. These are fundamentally different things.

    Strange, though, the US had a stock market during its industrial revolution, while China is only introducing the stock market after it has already lifted those 800M out of poverty

    Do you normally write this much without any research whatsoever? China created its stock market in 1990, well before it hit even the half-way mark of its current poverty alleviation. So, just factually incorrect. Are you just running on vibes?

    Somehow China managed to do all that without ever needing a stock market. Almost as if an economy can industrialize perfectly well without one and the reason for adopting a stock market has nothing to do with efficient industrialization…

    Uh. Right. So anyway, back in the real world, China opened its first stock market in 1990 specifically to solve the problem of liquidity allocation for its most capital intensive industries because, ya know, it's a useful system for doing that. It took them a decade of preparation to open the stock market, because instead of it being driven by merchants like the West did, it was driven by the CPC looking specifically to solve resource allocation problems at the new scale they were up against as their industry began to scale.

    Anyway, coming back to moralism, I’m sorry, but I do want my society to be good

    Tough shit. Morality is a subjective descriptor. Societies don't choose actions because they are good. Societies are good because they choose actions. If your subjective description of "morally good" requires self-defeating actions, you're never going to be in a good society, or if you are, its contradictions will undo itself.

    I understand that a society being good doesn’t make sense on its own, that’s why anarchocommunism has prefiguration. We need to shape the material conditions to produce good things if we want good things, which we do

    Holy shit, that's not what prefiguration is. Prefiguration explicitly denies the idea of shaping the material conditions so that good things emerge from them and instead says you have to choose good things from the start. Like, literally that's what it means. Instead of saying "we will use military force right now to defend ourselves until we can produce the conditions of international peace", prefiguration says "start from the position of non-violence otherwise you will always have violence". That's what anarcho-pacifism is.

    Are you sure you even understand prefiguration? Marxism holds the doctrine that you have to shape the material conditions to produce the outcomes you want.

    Having capital owners pinky swear to make communism real after the next fiscal quarter isn’t going to do it.

    I don't think you understand anything about anything at this point. Maybe try engaging with ideas that you don't like for a change. You learn a lot more reading things you disagree with than reading things you do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent