▲ 410 ▼ Everything belongs to the workers (lemmy.ml) submitted 6 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml 361 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago Those who have labor as their primary source of income, but own capital and thus desire a maintenance of capitalism, are petite bourgeoisie. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 months ago whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Private property in the socialist context doesn't refer to home ownership (unless its being used for landlording). It means ownership of means of the production, exploiting labor power. You can consider it synonymous with "absentee property". There are certainly some workers who earn some from their labour, and some from exploitation of others labor, but one is usually dominant. And of course in the long term, the trend of centralization of production means that these small-scale exploiters (petit-bourgeios) are eventually pushed out by bigger fish, and have to become workers themselves (called proletarianization). permalink fedilink source parent [–] sobchak@programming.dev 7 points 6 months ago (146 children) Wouldn't a home be personal property, not private? 401ks might be a better example? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 146 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 13 points 6 months ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_vis-%C3%A0-vis_private_property permalink fedilink source parent [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) haha you’re so annoying. Jesus.. You know you can block entire instances on here right? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (142 children) It seemed very simple under true socialism: in exchange for your conscientious labor, you received an apartment for free. You could live in it—and after you, your grandchildren could live there, and so on—but you could not sell the apartment, because it was state property. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 142 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (141 children) "True" socialism isn't a thing, a system is either socialist or it is not, and socialism has many various characteristics depending on the material conditions the society building socialism is found in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 141 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (139 children) I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did "true socialism" implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are "false socialism." Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 139 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (137 children) The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its "final form," such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev's farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road. You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 137 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago (9 children) How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. As I understand it—judging by the name of this community—we are discussing socialism. Under socialism, there is no middle class. In the USSR, a manual laborer earned a higher salary than an engineer or a doctor—unless, of course, the latter was a professor. If a worker performed their job well, they received an apartment free of charge. As for what you are writing about socialism—viewing it through the prism of capitalist terminology—it strikes me as, at the very least, both strange and incomprehensible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 15 points 6 months ago (1 child) How's this pragmatic action been working out for y'all. Last I looked western countries are speedrunning fascism at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 16 points 6 months ago* Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can't take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago This isn't a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago (4 children) who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago* Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that's not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago and anarchist scholarship In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that? Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was. "György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with 'Western Marxism,' his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine." Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist I know you won't read my reply, but I'll answer anyway: it's very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin's successor. Lenin and not Lukács I studied Lenin in school. I haven't read Lukács. He wasn't popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago* Most socialists I engage with are interested in **pragmatic action ** Are they keen on thinking about private property and "the fundamental issue of private property from attention?" Am I understanding you correctly? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago Those who have labor as their primary source of income, but own capital and thus desire a maintenance of capitalism, are petite bourgeoisie. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 months ago whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Private property in the socialist context doesn't refer to home ownership (unless its being used for landlording). It means ownership of means of the production, exploiting labor power. You can consider it synonymous with "absentee property". There are certainly some workers who earn some from their labour, and some from exploitation of others labor, but one is usually dominant. And of course in the long term, the trend of centralization of production means that these small-scale exploiters (petit-bourgeios) are eventually pushed out by bigger fish, and have to become workers themselves (called proletarianization). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sobchak@programming.dev 7 points 6 months ago (146 children) Wouldn't a home be personal property, not private? 401ks might be a better example? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 146 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 13 points 6 months ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_vis-%C3%A0-vis_private_property permalink fedilink source parent [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) haha you’re so annoying. Jesus.. You know you can block entire instances on here right? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (142 children) It seemed very simple under true socialism: in exchange for your conscientious labor, you received an apartment for free. You could live in it—and after you, your grandchildren could live there, and so on—but you could not sell the apartment, because it was state property. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 142 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (141 children) "True" socialism isn't a thing, a system is either socialist or it is not, and socialism has many various characteristics depending on the material conditions the society building socialism is found in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 141 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (139 children) I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did "true socialism" implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are "false socialism." Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 139 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (137 children) The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its "final form," such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev's farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road. You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 137 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 13 points 6 months ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_vis-%C3%A0-vis_private_property permalink fedilink source parent [–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) haha you’re so annoying. Jesus.. You know you can block entire instances on here right? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (142 children) It seemed very simple under true socialism: in exchange for your conscientious labor, you received an apartment for free. You could live in it—and after you, your grandchildren could live there, and so on—but you could not sell the apartment, because it was state property. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 142 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (141 children) "True" socialism isn't a thing, a system is either socialist or it is not, and socialism has many various characteristics depending on the material conditions the society building socialism is found in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 141 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (139 children) I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did "true socialism" implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are "false socialism." Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 139 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (137 children) The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its "final form," such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev's farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road. You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 137 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 13 points 6 months ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_vis-%C3%A0-vis_private_property permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deathmetaldawgy@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) haha you’re so annoying. Jesus.. You know you can block entire instances on here right? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (142 children) It seemed very simple under true socialism: in exchange for your conscientious labor, you received an apartment for free. You could live in it—and after you, your grandchildren could live there, and so on—but you could not sell the apartment, because it was state property. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 142 child comments replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (141 children) "True" socialism isn't a thing, a system is either socialist or it is not, and socialism has many various characteristics depending on the material conditions the society building socialism is found in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 141 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (139 children) I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did "true socialism" implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are "false socialism." Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 139 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (137 children) The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its "final form," such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev's farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road. You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 137 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (141 children) "True" socialism isn't a thing, a system is either socialist or it is not, and socialism has many various characteristics depending on the material conditions the society building socialism is found in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 141 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (139 children) I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did "true socialism" implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are "false socialism." Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 139 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (137 children) The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its "final form," such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev's farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road. You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 137 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (139 children) I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did "true socialism" implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are "false socialism." Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 139 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (137 children) The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its "final form," such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev's farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road. You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 137 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (139 children) I understand and support the Soviets, the fall of the USSR was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the latter 20th century. However, calling whatever the soviets did "true socialism" implies the ways Cubans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Laoitians are practicing socialism are "false socialism." Socialism is generally a form of society where the working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. The various characteristics of each socialist country are informed by their own unique material conditions and background. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 139 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (137 children) The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its "final form," such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev's farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road. You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 137 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (137 children) The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its "final form," such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev's farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road. You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 137 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (137 children) The moon landing was real, not a hoax. Either way, the soviets built socialism, but not in its "final form," such a notion is silly and draws on Khrushchev's farcical claims that class struggle was over in the USSR. Socialism was built in the USSR, Cuba, the DPRK, China, Vietnam, Laos, etc. China is achieving its goals, steadily. It is not simply a sacrifice, each day it is continuing along the socialist road. You have a very metaphysical idea of socialism that goes against dialectics, and thus also allows idealism to bleed in. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 137 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (135 children) Yes, it's entirely realistic that the US made it to space, and has since then continuously de-industrialized, especially as imperialism has grown. As for metaphysics, I am referring to the way you are treating the development of socialism itself. Seeing the USSR as the "final" evolution of socialism implies class struggle had ended, and that it is "true" socialism, itself an idealist notion and not a materialist one. When looking at China and the former USSR, both have public ownership as principal, both have dictatorships of the proletariat, both are socialist but suited to their own material conditions. I believe you have all of these benefits from the USSR. The USSR was indeed fantastic and socialist. Countries are not determined as socialist or not by how closely they resemble the USSR's socialist path, but by how I defined it above. We reject metaphysics and idealism because they cause faulty understanding of reality, that's why we are dialectical materialists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 135 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (133 children) Vulgar empiricism was already debunked by Lenin long ago, dialectical materialism advances upon vulgar empiricism and allows us to actually analyze forces as they change through time. I am not arguing that the Soviet Union had irreversible problems. I am arguing that the Soviet form of socialism was developed by and for soviet conditions, and would not have worked copied 1 to 1 in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc. The Soviet Union was fantastic, but Utopian ideas of model-picking are not a scientific approach to building socialism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 133 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago (23 children) Workers in China are forced to work 16 hours a day because… well, simply because… Every time I see people saying stuff like this the number is always increasing by the end of the year we will be working 26 hours a day 8 days a week in the minds of foreigners. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago (20 children) Okay, let’s make it 12—is that alright?))) No. People do but just like how some European's work 3 jobs doesn't make it representative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (18 children) No you still do not understand please reread what I'm saying. Your fantasy of everyone or even most working 12 hours or 16 hours isn't real. Some Russians work 16 hours does it make sense to say Russians work 16hours a day? Obviously not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (3 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (11 children) leading Party official Ok now I know for sure you're twisting things on purpose. Best of luck to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (6 children) He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him. If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak. If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power. The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China. Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (4 children) oligarch /ˈɒlɪɡɑːk/ An oligarch is a very wealthy and powerful individual who uses their vast financial and business resources to directly influence a country's government and political landscape. The word stems from the Greek term oligarchia, which translates to "rule by the few". They have no power they are not oligarchs. There are no oligarchs in China only a bourgeois element that is shrinking year on year that holds no real power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Or am I mistaken? Yes Yeah, I’ve heard about that, but right now China is second in terms of billionaires after the US. Yes because China has a very large population and thus all absolute numbers not adjusting for this will be extremely large and out of step with reality. In reality the rate of billionaires in China is 0.288 (Between India and Kazakhstan while being far less poor and far more advanced) where as it is 2.42 in the US and 0.821 in Russia for example. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 child) I think it's what I'd expect from someone (sort of reasonably) drunk on nostalgia for what was a genuinely better time refusing to admit that that time has unfortunately passed and said better time despite being better was not perfect or globally applicable without any tailoring to each places specific conditions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (2 children) Maybe this is a language issue or maybe you have a vendetta and are twisting things on purpose but to be clear and go from the start again. You said Chinese people work 16 hours a day (implying this is normal) This is not true You then said it was 12 hours Again this is not true While some people definitely do it is not an accurate representation to say "Chinese people work 12 hours a day" as 90+% work between 6 and 10 hours. In the USSR even if technically not allowed some workers definitely worked 11+ hours be it to account for the extra labour necessary for rural upkeep or due to uneven enforcement. Would it then be fair to say soviet workers worked 11+ hours? Obviously not. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? If not I am sorry but my English is not good enough to explain this better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (107 children) I specifically said vulgar empiricism is made obsolete by dialectical materialism. The act of observation is of course a key component to dialectical materialism, but declaring oneself to be an empiricist in a conversation surrounding socialism implies a rejection of dialectical materialism. I'll chalk it up to language difference, though. As for China, workers are not working 16 hours a day. On average, working hours in China are 46 hours per week. China today resembles a more developed version of the NEP, which itself was socialist as well. There is no one form of economy in the USSR, the USSR developed quite distinct forms of economy over its existence, as has China. The differences between the USSR and China? Quite numerous. China is far more populous, with a far more agrarian mode of production as of 1949. China also watched the collapse of the USSR, which they believed was heavily contributed by the USSR's isolation from the capitalist world, as well as the historical nihilism brought upon by Khrushchev. There's also the fact that we live in a different era of imperialism. What's common among China and the Soviet Union? Both are socialist. Both had working class control of the state. Both have public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. The similarities are far more numerous than that. By trying to narrow down socialism to "whatever the soviets did," you're making metaphysical errors and practicing utopianism. A scientific socialist approach accounts for the myriad differences in development, geopolitical position, and more in understanding the complex development of socialism as it pertains to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 107 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (87 children) Regarding the question of empiricism, we are in agreement. As I already said, I mistook your identity as an empiricist to be as against dialectical materialism, as that's how it's commonly understood. Regarding you talking about workers and their rights, no, you were not. You were talking about your perception of workers and their rights, which stands in stark contrast to hard data. This is why I said you rely on vibes and anecdote, which goes against empiricism and dialectical materialism. You fall into idealism when you mistake your individual experience as conclusive for the whole. As for your yearning for the past, I can also understand that, and have. That's why I pointed at this being a language barrier issue. My problem was that you implied soviet socialism as "true" socialism, implying that all non-soviet socialism is "false" socialism. This narrows down socialism not to a broader system characterized by proletarian control of the state, and collectivized production as the principal aspect of the economy, but instead treats socialism as a uniquely soviet experience that must be replicated as closely as possible to be "true." I am still of the belief that this is largely a language barrier problem. As for why the people of China have different social safety nets from the Soviet Union, these each have their own historical roots. China's social surplus largely goes towards advancing the productive forces, alleviating the urban/rural development gap, and building mass transit and infrastructure for use by the people. For all of the soviet union's incredible results, China has managed to develop even more quickly and thus transfer that into real material gains for 1.4 billion people. China started off even less developed than Russia, and managed to develop farther because of these tradeoffs. As wonderful as the Soviet Union was, it is sadly not here today, and thus we have to recognize that existing socialist countries have had to grapple with how to avoid a similar fate. China chose integration with the world economy, and prioritizing growth over social programs, in order to surpass the west and avoid the same trap of historical nihilism that set in with Khrushchev onward. For all of the ways China is lacking compared to the Soviets, their gamble appears to be paying off, and China is indeed advancing beyond the west and transitioning more towards a more socialized economy. As for your repeated belittlement of me as a "western Marxist," I detest it. I ignored it thus far, but you've continued to do so, treating me as a simpleton with no understanding of theory, history, or contemporary conditions. This is no way to act towards someone you've been calling "comrade." As far as "western Marxism" is concerned, I am not a part of that school of thought in the slightest. I may be a westerner, but I reject the standard Trotskyism and Eurocommunist schools of thought that had dominance in the west. Marxism-Leninism is seeing a revival, and I fall squarely into that school of thought. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 87 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (60 children) Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace. Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it. While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism. As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 60 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (58 children) The NEP was forged in the context of a highly undeveloped Russia, with a necessity to uplift agriculture as soon as possible so as to rapidly improve industry. The hatred of the people towards the NEPmen was understandable, but a clear reading of the historical material conditions reveals that it was necessary. As long as the socialist state holds the commanding heights of industry, and maintains a vigilant eye towards any organized political resistance from the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, markets can be a complementary part to the broader socialist system in developing underdeveloped areas. As for Mao's economy, it was again rapid industrialization. The problem with Mao's economy was that growth was uneven and unstable. Deng Xiaoping's reforms stabilized and slightly accelerated development. You'll get no argument from me that killing off the sparrows was wrong, but knowledge of agronomics was very low comparatively in China, and thus this mistake was not repeated as their knowledge advanced. I also am not a fan of the sino-soviet split. I do not believe Mao to have been blameless for it, however, Khrushchev's venom was correctly called out by Mao. Just as Mao wasn't permanently good, so too was Khrushchev not permanently bad, but there's good reason why Khrushchev's actions enabled Gorbachev's, which enabled Yeltsin's. Regarding technology transfer, certainly you can see that Chinese manufacturing is now more advanced than soviet manufacturing. In becoming the world's factory, they not only copied western tech, but totally owned the entire production process, and now are using it to advance and develop further. There is a qualitative difference between reverse engineering every single thing you copy, and being able to simply copy what you're already manufacturing. All in all, I understand that I am not Russian. I am indeed a westerner, damned as I may be. However, I truly believe that I can recognize both the Chinese and Soviet approaches as immensely positive forces, and hope that Russia returns to socialism within my lifetime. I long to see the western empire fall, and I am happy to see existing socialist countries advance forward into the future despite western flailing. The west has fallen into China's trap, and it is too late to leave. What we are witnessing is a cornered beast that has already lost, and is throwing a fit in the aftermath. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 58 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies) [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (15 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (24 children) I want to make it clear, I am aware the Soviets had incredible technology that the west did not even have, at least for a time. My point regarding China's Socialist Market Economy is that the process of technology transfer happens faster, more completely, and is now being phased out in favor of new Chinese tech that in many fields is advanced beyond the west. China's socialist market economy is not a permanent strategy, but instead a tactical decision in a longer battle, and that's why the birdcage is closing. As for the cornered beast, I am referring to America. Russia certainly has a real need to return to socialism, but America is the one on its way out. And yes, the hatred of America is real, even liberals are beginning to detest America (though of course they will repeat nonsense about communism until they turn blue in the face). The Empire is dying. It can certainly lash out violently, but it cannot and will not save itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (16 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (7 children) I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I wouldn't put a hard date on it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children) I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments load more comments (5 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Similar to the soviet experience, Chinese workers are holding their heads high in new stages in socialist construction, with simiarly rapid levels of development. Anecdotes aside, this experience is common among both China and the USSR. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments load more comments (4 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels. As for Cheng Enfu's diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy. As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People's War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn't universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam. As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It's a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China's socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (10 children) I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree. Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China's experience. As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children) I think you're reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That's why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough. As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in "scary language." The trend is gradual, but it isn't nonexistent either. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (4 children) Again, I think you're reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn't actually there as present based on pessimism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) I'm referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it. Your mind fills in the blanks, so to speak. Nobody is immune to this, I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist. I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis. Optimism is a revolutionary feeling, pessimism leads to nihilism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (21 children) Yes, I largely agree. When I speak of "empiricism," the notion in English Marxist circles is often used to refer to "stupid materialism," as you called it, as it implies this materialism stops at empiricism and does not go into dialectics. That's why, even if we use empiricism, we do not identify as "empiricists" but "dialectical materialists." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (19 children) Really, this is what I'm more getting at: Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge. Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man. V. I. Lenin permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (4 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (14 children) There are certainly new contradictions that arose from Reform and Opening Up, but without it it is highly unlikely that China would be in the position it is today, with incredible advancements in the productive forces and a new, multipolar order. I don't believe this is a departure from classical Marxism at all, but a different application of the same classical Marxist economics. Again, the Soviet economy is not the definition of socialism, but one application of Marxist economics. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (12 children) I'm aware of the intense nostalgia faced by the post-soviet peoples. I myself would probably fall into despair seeing such a system ripped from under my feet. I know many in Russia travel to the DPRK as it more closely resembles the Soviet era, despite being its own unique form of juche socialism. However, as I stand outside of the post-soviet sphere, in a country founded on genocide and settler-colonialism that continued to prey upon the world, I also believe I can have a view of Chinese, Korean, and former Soviet socialism that recognizes them all as legitimate emancipatory efforts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (10 children) I can certainly empathize. I have emotions, I'm a human being that feels anger and frustration, and can have that cloud my judgment. In that way, I have a "soul," though to be clear I do not believe in literal souls. However, I do not believe that emotional evaluations supercede rational ones, which is why I can say I would probably feel that way despite understanding it to be incorrect. As for juche, it's a Korean word. It largely means subjecthood, and can best be described as socialism with Korean characteristics. The party is not a privledged class in the DPRK, it's similar to how it was with the CPSU. Instead, the significance of juche comes from the understanding of man as a social being. It accepts Marxism-Leninism as fundamentally true, but that the soviet method could not be dogmatically copied by the DPRK and thus the conditions in Korea meant it had to adapt. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments load more comments (10 replies)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (15 children) Why don’t Chinese farmers receive old-age pensions? Where do their taxes and surpluses go? They do. To the pensions and also the massive modernising of rural villages from unconnected backwards villages with no electricity roads or plumbing to modern villages with electricity roads plumbing WiFi and public transit. Alongside the constant and ongoing targeted poverty alleviation. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies)
[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (13 children) I recently watched a video on YouTube where a Russian blogger came to a Chinese village Comrade anecdotes are not worth much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago (9 children) How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. As I understand it—judging by the name of this community—we are discussing socialism. Under socialism, there is no middle class. In the USSR, a manual laborer earned a higher salary than an engineer or a doctor—unless, of course, the latter was a professor. If a worker performed their job well, they received an apartment free of charge. As for what you are writing about socialism—viewing it through the prism of capitalist terminology—it strikes me as, at the very least, both strange and incomprehensible. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 15 points 6 months ago (1 child) How's this pragmatic action been working out for y'all. Last I looked western countries are speedrunning fascism at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 16 points 6 months ago* Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can't take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago This isn't a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago (4 children) who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago* Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that's not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago and anarchist scholarship In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that? Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was. "György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with 'Western Marxism,' his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine." Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist I know you won't read my reply, but I'll answer anyway: it's very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin's successor. Lenin and not Lukács I studied Lenin in school. I haven't read Lukács. He wasn't popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago* Most socialists I engage with are interested in **pragmatic action ** Are they keen on thinking about private property and "the fundamental issue of private property from attention?" Am I understanding you correctly? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 15 points 6 months ago (1 child) How's this pragmatic action been working out for y'all. Last I looked western countries are speedrunning fascism at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 16 points 6 months ago* Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can't take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago This isn't a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago (4 children) who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago* Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that's not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago and anarchist scholarship In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that? Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was. "György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with 'Western Marxism,' his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine." Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist I know you won't read my reply, but I'll answer anyway: it's very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin's successor. Lenin and not Lukács I studied Lenin in school. I haven't read Lukács. He wasn't popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago* Most socialists I engage with are interested in **pragmatic action ** Are they keen on thinking about private property and "the fundamental issue of private property from attention?" Am I understanding you correctly? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 15 points 6 months ago (1 child) How's this pragmatic action been working out for y'all. Last I looked western countries are speedrunning fascism at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 16 points 6 months ago* Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can't take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 16 points 6 months ago* Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can't take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml [S] 16 points 6 months ago* Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can't take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago This isn't a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago (4 children) who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago* Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that's not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago and anarchist scholarship In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that? Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was. "György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with 'Western Marxism,' his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine." Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist I know you won't read my reply, but I'll answer anyway: it's very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin's successor. Lenin and not Lukács I studied Lenin in school. I haven't read Lukács. He wasn't popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago* Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that's not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago and anarchist scholarship In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that? Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was. "György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with 'Western Marxism,' his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine." Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist I know you won't read my reply, but I'll answer anyway: it's very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin's successor. Lenin and not Lukács I studied Lenin in school. I haven't read Lukács. He wasn't popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago* Why is Lukács relevant? Why not Lenin? Further, Lenin was Slavic, and very much not considered white at the time of writing (and still not today, depending on who you ask). Also not sure why you are so condescending towards others, that's not any kind of way to teach someone something (regardless of merit or lack thereof). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago and anarchist scholarship In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that? Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was. "György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with 'Western Marxism,' his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine." Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist I know you won't read my reply, but I'll answer anyway: it's very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin's successor. Lenin and not Lukács I studied Lenin in school. I haven't read Lukács. He wasn't popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago* Most socialists I engage with are interested in **pragmatic action ** Are they keen on thinking about private property and "the fundamental issue of private property from attention?" Am I understanding you correctly? permalink fedilink source parent
