Cowbee comments on Everything belongs to the workers

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (62 children)

To be clear, I don't believe you are a subjective idealist. I believe that your nostalgia for a once great and now lost USSR has colored your analysis, but I believe you in general are more of a materialist. My critique of certain points of yours as metaphysical or idealist is constrained to those positions.

As for the progress in China, it's already happening at a breakneck pace. Conditions are improving in China faster than anywhere else in the world. So what if they made a deal with the western devil? The soviets did so too during the NEP, the CPC revisited that idea and modified it to their contemporary conditions. Any comparison between the snake Khrushchev and Deng Xiaoping has to be understood in that Khrushchev downplayed the entirety of socialist construction thus far, creating historical pessimism, while Deng made it clear that Mao and Stalin were to be upheld, and that class struggle was alive and must be carefully fought.

The Soviet models of socialism were not idealist, nor subjective. It was materialist, worked well, and was well-suited to the Soviet Union's conditions. My issue was the idea that if, say, Bolivia's ongoing protests erupt into revolution, that they should copy some period of the Soviet Union's models of socialism, rather than learn from it and adapt to their own conditions. Bolivia's conditions are not the same as the USSR's.

As for Trotsky being for the NEP and Stalin being against it, the NEP ending early ended up being fortuitous in preparing for World War II. Had World War II not been on the horizon, then perhaps extending it may have been correct, to help develop light industry more. In China's case, their socialist market economy was handled in such a way as to rely on largely de-industrialized economies, thus the risk of war was lower while in the USSR a war was always around the corner.

As for "western Marxism," in the west it is used as a pejorative against Marxists that vulgarize Marx and Lenin, opposing socialist states. I am happy that you meant no offense by it, comrade.

parent

hideshow 62 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] 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.

parent

hideshow 60 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] 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.

parent

hideshow 58 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] 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.

parent

hideshow 24 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (22 children)

One could say that the reason the Soviets could not get the same western investment is because of the differences between the soviet system and the Chinese system. This is why it's best not to look at socialism like a static formula, but a science with options and tradeoffs. China's decision came with good and bad, the soviet decision came with good and bad, the correct decision is only truly identifiable in hindsight.

parent

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (19 children)

Stalin also made errors and mistakes in socialist construction. You are overweighting Mao's mistakes and ignoring the successes under Mao, the establishment and solidification of socialism in China. The modern CPC has learned from both the successes and mistakes of both Stalin and Mao, while the CPSU decayed. As much as I wish the USSR had not dissolved, it did, and we are in the aftermath of such a tragedy.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (17 children)

I am not undervaluing Mao's work in liberation, on that front I agree. I am disagreeing with you regarding the merits of Mao's economic practices, which ultimately did lay the groundwork for Reform and Opening Up. The Sino-Soviet split was a tragedy, indeed, but China nevertheless is carrying the banner of socialism forward today.

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (16 children)

I am disagreeing with you regarding the merits of Mao’s economic practices, which ultimately did lay the groundwork for Reform and Opening Up.

A comrade forwarded this video to me today.

The speaker is a former CIA officer. See for yourself what that "openness" actually meant.

I repeat once more, Comrade: that was not openness, but a CIA operation—staged against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the USSR and China. The U.S. simply took advantage of the situation.

A comrade forwarded me this video today.

The speaker is a former CIA officer. See for yourself what that "openness" actually meant.

I repeat once more, Comrade: that was not openness, but a CIA operation—staged against the backdrop of escalating tensions between the USSR and China. The U.S. simply capitalized on the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=xVVyS7NtB5k

And this is not the first time I have pointed out your double standards and contradictions!

Why won't you listen to me?

I repeat once again:

The criticism of Joseph Stalin—specifically, of his cult of personality—contained in Khrushchev’s report at the conclusion of the 20th Congress of the CPSU, along with the new Soviet course toward economic development under a policy of "peaceful coexistence" with capitalist nations, provoked Mao Zedong’s displeasure, as he viewed them as running counter to the concept of the "Leninist sword" and to communist ideology as a whole.

By the way, read this too: the CIA had a hand in it as well—the bastards!

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000242669.pdf

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (15 children)

I'm aware that the US Empire took advantage of the Sino-Soviet split. As I said, it was a tragedy, and a mistake. However, this does not mean China's socialism is invalid or wrong. I do not see any double standards on my part, can you explain quite clearly what they are? I value both Stalin and Mao greatly. Both made mistakes, but both were critical for the establishment of socialism.

Later Mao made more mistakes than earlier Mao. This is why the Gang of Four took power, causing all manner of confusion, and resulted in Deng Xiaoping courses correcting. Reform and Opening Up ultimately was done in a manner that the US thought they could exploit, but in reality the CPC maintained control and the US Empire's plans are failing. This is why the cold war against China is ramping up.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (14 children)

I do not see any double standards on my part, can you explain quite clearly what they are?

Yes, of course I can explain.

As we know: The primary cause of the rift between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev lay in the policy of "peaceful coexistence" with capitalist nations—a course Khrushchev proclaimed at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956. Mao Zedong viewed this policy as a departure from Marxism-Leninism and a betrayal of the global revolution, which led to deep ideological and geopolitical disagreements.

As we know: Deng adopted a policy of "peaceful coexistence" with the West in the 1970s...

Do you not see the contradiction here, Comrade? If that is the case, then China and the USSR ought to reconcile, since their policies are identical. As we recall, the 1970s saw a period of "détente" between the USSR and the USA.

Incidentally, it was when Khrushchev pivoted toward the West that the USSR became hooked on the "oil needle"—a dependency it still hasn't managed to kick...

The monetary reform of 1961 was carried out in order to peg the ruble to the dollar.

Later Mao made more mistakes than earlier Mao.

I would be very surprised, Comrade, if you said otherwise.

I met a Chinese guy on Reddit whose father fled to the U.S. during the Cultural Revolution.

But it probably wasn't any worse—because fewer people actually died during the Cultural Revolution; the events there consisted mostly of unprecedented repression.

This is why the Gang of Four took power

I think the "Gang of Four" affair was Deng clearing his own path to power. The internal political struggle at the time was extremely fierce.

Did you see the news footage of that trial?

There was one woman among the defendants—I don't recall her name, though she was a close associate of Mao—and for some reason, I felt sorry for her. When she delivered her final statement in court, it struck me that only a true communist facing execution could speak like that...

Reform and Opening Up ultimately was done in a manner that the US thought they could exploit, but in reality the CPC maintained control and the US Empire’s plans are failing. This is why the cold war against China is ramping up.

Let's put it this way: China outmaneuvered the U.S. The U.S. underestimated China's strength. This is what we have come to call the "Chinese Miracle." Americans are pragmatists; they don't believe in miracles... :))))

It is just like how the West slept on the USSR back in the 1930s... they, too, refused to believe in a miracle at the time.

However, I believe that comparing these two miracles is somewhat inappropriate. As you rightly noted, the conditions under which these goals were achieved were quite different.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (13 children)

I believe you are mistaken, comrade. I am not actually Nikita Khrushchev nor am I Mao Zedong. Any "double-standard" you see with Deng Xiaoping's Reform and Opening Up as a result of problems with the late Mao era and the Gang of Four must be considered from that context, and not merely from one aspect of Mao's critique of Khrushchev's policy before the Gang of Four era.

Regarding the Gang of Four, they were largely an extension of Mao's incorrect lines towards the end of his life, without most of his positive lines. Deng Xiaoping corrected the course for the new era of development, having inherited a basically industrialized economy but with widespread poverty and backwards technology.

As for China outmaneuvering the west, I agree. This is pretty plainly what happened, despite what the west thought they could get away with, China maintained a dictatorship of the proletariat and maintained political control in the socialist market economy.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (12 children)

Any “double-standard” you see with Deng Xiaoping’s Reform and Opening Up as a result of problems with the late Mao era

You’ve probably misunderstood me again, Comrade.

What you call Deng Xiaoping’s "openness," Mao called Khrushchev’s "revisionism."

Deng did exactly what Khrushchev had attempted to do—only later. Or do you consider it a mistake on Mao’s part that he didn’t beat Khrushchev to the punch and establish relations with the West first?

Regarding the Gang of Four, they were largely an extension of Mao’s incorrect lines towards the end of his life, without most of his positive lines. Deng Xiaoping corrected the course for the new era of development, having inherited a basically industrialized economy but with widespread poverty and backwards technology.

I don't understand why you—a man with the mindset of a dialectical materialist—are always prone to idealizing things. It is still a Party, and the same internal Party struggle is at play.

Let me tell you how it all unfolded in the USSR. When Gorbachev came to power and launched Perestroika, a great many members of the Central Committee were opposed to it. This was the so-called "Old Guard"—or, if you prefer, you could call them the "Gang of Four." These were Brezhnev's people. Within a very short timeframe—and very quietly—these individuals were either removed from their posts or sidelined for one reason or another; some were compromised and forced to step down. It wasn't as loud, brutal, or theatrical as the affair involving the original "Gang of Four," but the result was the same: the entire Old Guard—that "Gang of Four"—simply dissolved into the ether of existence...

To suggest that the "Great Helmsman" Deng was thinking about the people or about reforms back then—much as Gorbachev supposedly was during Perestroika while simultaneously purging his rivals—is, at the very least, naive, Comrade! At that time, they were thinking about one thing and one thing only: power.

And I recently told you something untrue. Gorbachev did have a plan. It was the "Acceleration" plan—a concept originally conceived by Andropov. Andropov had entrusted its development to three individuals: Ryzhkov, Gorbachev, and... well, I’ve forgotten the third one. This "Acceleration" plan concerned exclusively economic reforms—there were absolutely no political or ideological components to it!

Over the course of two years—largely thanks to Ryzhkov—the plan was fully developed, and in 1985, Gorbachev officially launched it. He immediately presented it during the very first plenary session of the Central Committee. It was Andropov’s "Acceleration" plan.

It was a plan for economic reforms!

Then, in 1987—when Perestroika truly began (that is, when the term Perestroika first started appearing in the newspapers)—the scope of the reforms expanded to encompass not only economic matters but also state-level and ideological issues. Ryzhkov opposed this expansion and subsequently resigned. This comes from the memoirs of Ryzhkov himself, who passed away not long ago.

Yakovlev—who at the time served as the USSR's chief ideologue—bears the entire blame. It was he who persuaded Gorbachev to undertake ideological reform. This was a fatal error!

However, to this day, I still cannot determine whether or not the CIA had a hand in it.

This is because Yakovlev spent a great deal of time working at the Soviet Embassy in Canada. Gorbachev, too, traveled there at Yakovlev's invitation—long before he became president. Yakovlev arranged a meeting between Gorbachev and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau—presumably, the modern-day Trudeau is his son or grandson. While in Canada, Gorbachev also met with representatives from the United States. This took place in the early 1980s. It would be fascinating to know what exactly they discussed there. I do not rule out the possibility that Yakovlev was working for the CIA—perhaps even unwittingly.

As for China outmaneuvering the west, I agree. This is pretty plainly what happened, despite what the west thought they could get away with, China maintained a dictatorship of the proletariat and maintained political control in the socialist market economy.

Yes, I agree that retaining political control is to Mao's credit, as he built the foundation of the state apparatus.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (11 children)

Deng did not do what Khrushchev did, for the following key reasons:

Deng upheld Stalin and Mao, refusing to create a historical nihilism among the people.
Deng did not state that class struggle was over, but instead that it was alive and well, and must be constantly watched out for.
Deng turned a largely backwards economy into a more progressive form, Khrushchev weakened a more advanced economy into a more regressive one.

I appreciate the added background detail for the Soviet perspective, but to equate Khrushchev and Deng is to make a clear error.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (10 children)

No, that’s not at all what I mean, Comrade!

I am talking about double standards:

The Chinese CPC labeled Khrushchev’s rapprochement with the West as "Khrushchev’s revisionism."

Some time later, Deng initiated a rapprochement with the West. The Chinese CPC called this "opening up."

but to equate Khrushchev and Deng is to make a clear error.

Khrushchev was a pale, insignificant figure compared to Stalin—and likely compared to Mao, too.

Someone in China once said—I don’t recall the exact words or who said it—that Mao was the matador and Khrushchev the bull.

Comparing Mao and Khrushchev is indeed inappropriate—except, perhaps, regarding their education and experience in economic management. In every other respect, Mao was a far more significant figure. A characteristic trait of Khrushchev’s during the Stalin era was that he executed orders very well but never showed initiative. That is likely how Khrushchev differed from Mao; Khrushchev was a sycophant and a careerist.

For instance, during the purges, Khrushchev ranked second in terms of the number of people on the lists of suspects he submitted to Stalin for approval. He was zealous in his efforts to curry favor with Stalin.

And then he accused Stalin of the very thing he himself did better than anyone else... )))

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (9 children)

It's widely acknowledged that the later Mao era and the era of the Gang of Four was filled with mistakes, and that Reform & Opening Up was a course correction. You may call this "double standards," but learning from mistakes when practice doesn't live up to expectations is how we grow.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)

It’s widely acknowledged that the later Mao

We’ve finally reached a consensus, Comrade! There’s just a slight discrepancy regarding the dates. You say the late Mao era began in 1968, whereas I maintain that the late Mao era you’re referring to actually began after Stalin’s death. Let me just clarify one more thing: from 1950 onwards—after suffering four strokes—Stalin didn’t really make any major decisions in the country. A triumvirate was formed—Malenkov, Beria, and Molotov—to prepare all key state projects, while Stalin merely affixed the final approval. So, in essence, Stalin had already died back in 1950.

If we settle on a middle ground... say, 1959—would that work for you, Comrade?... ))))

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] 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.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

Comrade, just so you know: if I use ")))", it means I'm joking.

Of course, one shouldn't date events that way.

I wanted to highlight the fact that you agreed with me on at least one thing!)))

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

I understand )))! Just not used to seeing it.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

When you see that ")))", you’ll realize you’re talking to a Russian or a Russian speaker.

Okay, in that case, let’s talk about humor.

Let’s talk about folklore. Folklore isn't about the state; it’s about the people. Folklore reflects the collective mindset of the people—I think you’d agree with that... Vox populi, vox Dei.

Here’s a Soviet-era joke; these few lines capture the whole essence:

"To launch a satellite, the Chinese formed a human pyramid a thousand stories high, but it collapsed because the guy on the three-hundred-and-seventeenth floor hadn't properly mastered Mao's Little Red Book."

You’re an intelligent person, so you surely understand that my views were formed back in early childhood. It’s something ingrained at a subconscious level.

So, please forgive me for my past stubbornness.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

I understand and can empathize with your views, I just have disagreements on certain aspects. These of course are colored by both of our upbringings, you within the Soviet Union and me entirely disconnected from socialism.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

I very often fill gaps in my theoretical knowledge with personal experience—please forgive me for that!

I would also like to note that the interpretation of Marx's theory in the USSR was somewhat simplified. For instance, the USSR acknowledged the existence of a primitive communal system but not the "Asiatic mode of production." I only heard about the latter recently. I would like to highlight this aspect; perhaps the key to what is currently happening in China lies there.

Given that my knowledge of Marx's theory is superficial—and considering that Marx did not outline a precise model for constructing socialism (his work was largely a theoretical analysis of capitalism and its consequences)—it is worth noting that philosophy never sets concrete tasks for the individual.

Regarding your view of Marx's philosophy, I can also point out an inaccuracy. You state that Marx envisioned the construction of socialism only within the context of developed capitalism, based on highly advanced productive forces.

However, that is not entirely the case. In a letter to Vera Zasulich (dated March 8, 1881),

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87,_%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

Karl Marx stated that Russia could bypass the painful stage of capitalism. He emphasized that his theory was not a universal historical prescription and that the Russian peasant commune could, under certain conditions, become the nucleus of socialist development. Marx told Zasulich at the time that education was one of the most crucial factors in the possibility of bypassing the agonizing stage of capitalism.

The bottom line is this: Lenin and Trotsky supported the NEP, whereas Stalin sided with "Zasulich." Stalin turned out to be entirely right, and he did not deviate from Marx's theory by even a millimeter.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] timdrake@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

In the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto, Marx and Engels say that the Russian commune could “pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership” only if the Russian Revolution (which he saw as inevitable, though it was not inevitable that it would "take[] place in time" (first draft of letter to Zasulich), and in the Letter to Otecestvenniye Zapisky he says that if Russia continues on its path, it will have lost this chance to skip the phase of capitalist development) is supported by wider revolution in the West. Otherwise, the Russian commune “must [] first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West.”

There’s zero approval by Marx here for the notion of skipping the phase of private production/property in one country without a wider revolution.

Marx told Zasulich at the time that education was one of the most crucial factors in the possibility of bypassing the agonizing stage of capitalism.

No he didn’t.

parent

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago

You misinterpret Marx's statement. I'm fully aware of Marx's views on the Russian commune movement, the problem is that you assume the Soviet model is what Marx was referring to, and that a more classically Marxist understanding of socialism was not what he meant. Marx was fairly explicit in what a socialist state would be, one where public ownership is principal and the working classes control the state. The Russian peasantry could have bypassed the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and went straight to a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, but they would not be able to avoid the problem of transitioning small ownership to large, industrialized ownership without the aid of markets.

The fact of the matter is that private property existed de facto in the USSR. One of the mistakes of former socialism was merely trying to punish private ownership, rather than subordinate it to the public sector. Marx analyzed markets as being enormously useful in stitching together all of the small owners and building up productive forces, and public ownership as being superior at running large industry.

Stalin ending the NEP early was a matter of survival, and was correct. China's conditions are different, and now occupies a more classically Marxist economy. It isn't even the same as the NEP, China was closer to the NEP under Mao, the socialist market economy of China is a more classically Marxist economy, with the ability to be so precisely because the imperialists cannot afford to decouple from them.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

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

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (30 children)

Abolishing the NEP in the USSR and moving onto more planned economy ended up being beneficial. However, in the case of China, the NEP-inspired socialist market economy is the reason China is where they are today. New contradictions have arisen, which is of course a gamble, but with that came highly developed productive forces and tight interconnection with the global economy. This has allowed the PRC to reach where the USSR could not, and the developed productive forces are forming the basis of the newly emerging, more planned economy.

As for Mao, China was horribly underdeveloped. Many of his mistakes were in dealing with such an environment, knowledge of agronomics was low and industrialization was non-existent. Under Mao, a solid socialist base was laid out, which managed to created the basis for the modern economy.

As for the Sino-Soviet split, it's a tragedy, and was avoidable.

parent

hideshow 30 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (7 children)

Comrade, I don't want you to be upset with me. You're a very interesting conversationalist for me.

Believe me, I'm sometimes as genuinely surprised by your information as you are by mine.

According to my information, the Great Leap Forward (1958–1960) was Mao Zedong's massive economic campaign aimed at the accelerated industrialization and modernization of China. The campaign failed due to utopian management methods, the destruction of agriculture, and environmental problems, resulting in the Great Chinese Famine—one of the largest humanitarian disasters in history.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E4%B8%89%E5%B9%B4%E5%9B%B0%E9%9A%BE%E6%97%B6%E6%9C%9F

You say that the foundation was laid...

According to my information, the imposition of pseudoscience (Lysenkoism): In agriculture, experiments were conducted with deep plowing and ultra-dense seeding, which led to soil depletion and a sharp drop in crop yields.

According to your information, crop yields increased by 150%.

If this has offended me, then I apologize to you, of course, but I don't understand what I'm apologizing for... We're talking about Mao the manager now.

What's the catch, Comrade?

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

It's certainly true that mistakes in work and management exaggerated the impacts of natural disaster. This did result in making a naturally occurring famine worse, similar to what happened in the 1930s soviet famine. However, between 1949 and 1978, agriculture was dramatically overhauled and succeeded in achieving food security, ending famine in a region where famine was historically common (again, similar to the 1930s soviet famine). Was the Great Leap Forward a clear success? No, not necessarily. Over-enthusiasm and mistakes in work magnified the impact of weather disaster. Millions did die. However, these mistakes were rectified, and agriculture was successfully advanced.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

It’s certainly true that mistakes in work and management exaggerated the impacts of natural disaster.

If you’ve lived in the countryside, you must understand that a natural disaster cannot drag on for four years.

again, similar to the 1930s soviet famine

It was just the 1933–34 season—a single season. Yes, there were miscalculations at the local level as well; much depended on the collective farm chairman and how he handled the problems. One collective farm might get by just fine in '33, while right next door, people in another were dying of starvation. People began fleeing the starving farms for the ones that weren't starving—and that, too, became a problem. The issue wasn't systemic, but rather structural or localized. Under such harsh conditions, many leaders simply couldn't cope with their responsibilities.

I had two grandmothers—my own flesh and blood—with whom I spoke back then. One grandmother was from the Kyiv region; they didn't go hungry in '33 because they owned a cow. My other grandmother was from the Kursk region—the area where the Ukrainians recently advanced. People did go hungry there, but it wasn't a mortal famine. Both of my grandfathers perished in the summer of 1941. After the war, my father arrived in the city barefoot because he had no shoes. He got a job at a factory as a rigger. Decades later, he was wearing a suit and tie, putting on a fresh shirt every day; he held a PhD... and served as the factory's Chief Engineer.

When I spoke to you about raising a generation of young people—that is the kind of generation we need to raise: a generation like my father's.

Ultimately, however, Perestroika began; science became something nobody needed anymore, and my father found himself out of work. As it turned out, he didn't know how to trade.

My point is this: in exchange for the fact that my ancestors went hungry on the collective farms in the 1930s, their children—the children of destitute and starving peasants—lived the high life for the rest of their days... right up until Perestroika. It was a generous recompense for their suffering and starvation. None of it was in vain!

The outcome of the famines is a positive rather than a negative one—namely, that new reforms and shake-ups are once again needed in their wake.

But alright, have it your way: Mao... tried... to do something similar.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] 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.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (3 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.

Comrade, that line only worked in the USSR of the 1930s—when work was a source of pride, and nothing more! In the 1960s, however, people in the USSR derived genuine physical enjoyment from the fruits of their labor—a time when store shelves were overflowing with goods. A kilogram of black caviar cost $10 back then; today in Russia, it costs $500 per kilo.

Imagine: you work as a fitter at a factory, come home, and eat black caviar by the spoonful. Of course, nobody actually did that—but a working man could easily afford to buy himself some black caviar to go with his sandwiches for breakfast.

Had it not been for the war, this reality would have arrived as early as the 1950s. The task of rebuilding the country took an immense amount of time.

Comrade, if not for the war—and if Stalin had lived longer—China would be nervously smoking on the sidelines right now... )))

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

You could be correct, but we would never know. History did not take that course, what we have is what we have. I do not believe Stalin's economy to have been bad, and wished it continued and the USSR was here today. Sadly, it is not, and the world is paying the price.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

You could be correct, but we would never know.

If only people in the USSR back then had known what they stood to lose...

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago

Agreed.

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (16 children)

I don't just mean personal property, I mean private ownership of the means of production and distribution. This is the germ of capitalism, but is not capitalism itself. Socialism and capitalism are systems, you cannot slice up parts of the system and identify some as capitalist and some as socialist.

Regarding Mao's significance in liberating China, I already agree with you. However, I sincerely disagree with your underplaying of Mao's contributions towards the buildup of socialism in China.

As for the Great Leap Forward, during 1949 and 1978, the per hectare yield of land sown with food crops increased by 145.9% and total food production rose 169.6%. During this period China’s population grew by 77.7%. On these figures, China’s per capita food production grew from 204 kilograms to 328 kilograms in the period in question.

In 1952, industry was 36% of gross value of national output in China. By 1975, industry was 72% and agriculture was 28%. It is quite obvious that Mao’s supposedly disastrous socialist economic policies paved the way for the rapid economic and industrial development of Reform and Opening Up.

Official Chinese statistics show that after the end of the Leap in 1962, industrial output value had doubled; the gross value of agricultural products increased by 35 percent; steel production in 1962 was between 10.6 million tons or 12 million tons; investment in capital construction rose to 40 percent from 35 percent in the First Five-Year Plan period; the investment in capital construction was doubled; and the average income of workers and farmers increased by up to 30 percent. Additionally, there was significant capital construction (especially in iron, steel, mining and textile enterprises) that ultimately contributed greatly to China's industrialization.

Heavy industry grew a great deal in this period too. Developments such as the establishment of the Taching oil field during the Great Leap Forward provided a great boost to the development of heavy industry. A massive oil field was developed in China. This was developed after 1960 using indigenous techniques, rather than Soviet or western techniques. (Specifically the workers used pressure from below to help extract the oil. They did not rely on constructing a multitude of derricks, as is the usual practice in oil fields).

See the original link for sources. Of course, there were mistakes, such as relying on the peasantry for the creation of steel in backyard furnaces. However, it is also undeniable that industrialization was rapidly achieved.

I have given my arguments as for why China is socialist, and the term "real socialism" is more religious and sentimental than logical. China is under a dictatorship of the proletariat, and has public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. This is true.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (15 children)

I don’t just mean personal property, I mean private ownership of the means of production and distribution. This is the germ of capitalism, but is not capitalism itself. Socialism and capitalism are systems, you cannot slice up parts of the system and identify some as capitalist and some as socialist.

I understand all of that, but I’m getting at something slightly different.

I hope you’ll agree with me that socialism in China is not yet fully built—that it is still in a raw, unfinished state.

In your view, what will socialism in China look like once it reaches its completed form?

How will people be induced—through the use of "soft power"—to give up private property? Or will they be compelled to give it up at all?

However, I sincerely disagree with your underplaying of Mao’s contributions towards the buildup of socialism in China.

Yes, Mao did lay the industrial and agrarian foundations over the course of several decades—I agree with that.

However, don't forget that by the 1940s, the USSR had risen to second place in the world in terms of industrial capacity! Stalin even appeared on the cover of Time. The entire world acknowledged it. And this wasn't merely a foundation, but a fully operational industrial sector. Furthermore, you can scarcely imagine the destitute state the country was in back in 1930.

Now, perhaps, you understand why I consider something else entirely to be truly remarkable.

the term “real socialism” is more religious and sentimental than logical.

You’re trying to take a jab at me again with this "incorrect socialism" argument.

Okay, let me be more precise, then. In that video, the host referred to Chinese socialism as Maoism—specifically stating that Maoism is a distorted superstructure built upon Marxism and Leninism. That is precisely—word for word—how it was viewed in the USSR back then.

And let me reiterate: I didn't say this to you; the USSR said it. Every single film in the Soviet Union was subjected to rigorous censorship before being aired on television.

China is under a dictatorship of the proletariat

Yes—except that the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" was struck from the CPC Charter in the early 80s... in case you didn't know.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (14 children)

Socialism in China is already existing, just in a primary stage, rather than advanced. As production and distribution advances, private ownership will continue to be gradually appropriated and folded into the public sector, creating a fully planned economy. Here's Cheng Enfu's diagram explaining it:

I'm aware that the USSR had critique of Chinese socialism. China also criticized Soviet socialism, and in many cases I agree with the Soviets over the Chinese socialists. However, this does not mean Mao Zedong Thought is a "distorted superstructure," Mao Zedong Thought is the learned experience and theory from China's specific socialist construction process. Functionally, the PRC remains a dictatorship of the proletariat.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (13 children)

Socialism in China is already existing, just in a primary stage, rather than advanced.

Yes, I completely agree with you and have never denied that. I merely pointed out China's current shortcomings—issues that need to be addressed, rather than denied as if they didn't exist.

As production and distribution advances, private ownership will continue to be gradually appropriated and folded into the public sector, creating a fully planned economy.

Yes, the ultimate goal is clear to me as well.

Here’s Cheng Enfu’s diagram explaining it:

Yes, I have a rough idea—but, Comrade, I don't know English quite as well as I'd like. And Google doesn't translate tables...

I’m aware that the USSR had critique of Chinese socialism.

That’s putting it very mildly... The thawing of relations didn't begin until the Gorbachev era. Finally, the Chinese leadership liked what was happening in the USSR... ))) But in reality, it was all very simple: the USSR admitted defeat.

China also criticized Soviet socialism

(What was written in Smena magazine, February 1–3, 1967)

"Red Guards" (紅衛兵) Block the Way

"For the sixth day, the Soviet Embassy in Beijing has been besieged by frenzied mobs of Red Guards. Anti-Soviet speeches are being broadcast via loudspeakers. Announcers read out 'death sentences' issued by the Red Guards against embassy staff members. A welcoming ceremony for Chinese students arriving in Beijing—students who had participated in hooliganistic disturbances on Red Square in Moscow on January 25—was turned into an anti-Soviet demonstration. Speeches delivered at the event contained crude invective and calls for violent reprisals against Soviet citizens. On the streets, Soviet citizens—including diplomats leaving the embassy—are surrounded by crowds of Red Guards who block their path, hold them in place for hours on end, and subject them to humiliation, intimidation, and blackmail."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_Russia,_Beijing

Mao Zedong Thought is the learned experience and theory from China’s specific socialist construction process.

...very specific, to put it mildly...

Functionally, the PRC remains a dictatorship of the proletariat.

This question should be directed at Ma—and at those who buy luxury cars. China is the global leader in luxury car purchases.

I’m curious: when China makes its full transition to socialism, what will become of all those cars, yachts, and villas? Or will every Chinese person be able to afford them? ... )))

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] 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.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (11 children)

I’m not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels.

In case you hadn't noticed, I am basing my arguments exclusively on historical facts—the vast majority of which have been verified against sources from both the West and the East.

If you have any specific questions regarding this, please point them out to me.

As for me, watching documentary footage of the events that took place in China during those years sometimes makes my hair stand on end...

We are not discussing modern Chinese history right now; we are talking about the post-war era in China.

Oh, I also forgot to add something. The USSR handed over complete technical documentation for 1,500 major industrial enterprises to Mao. The USSR provided all of this free of charge. Can you imagine what Mao would have managed to build there without it? He probably would have forced peasants to engage in mechanical engineering and metal rolling right in their vegetable gardens.

I recall you claiming that Mao built things—or something to that effect—without any involvement from the USSR... yeah, right.

To me, Mao is akin to Castro or Che Guevara—certainly not to Stalin in the 1930s. Mao was a professional, iron-willed revolutionary; Mao was a warrior. He succeeded in uniting the Chinese people and leading them. Mao established a robust state system—one that subsequently withstood the onslaught of capitalism.

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.

This is the first I've heard of the Line of Masses—very interesting.

This is the first I've heard of the "Line of the Masses"—very interesting.

Is this connected to those leaflets that were pasted on the wall? I’ve forgotten what those walls are called.

Excessive luxury is being cracked down on

I would like to understand the mechanisms of this process.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] 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.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (9 children)

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.

Yes, I’ve familiarized myself a bit with the mass line; yes, I agree, it’s a very good idea.

While looking into it, I came across this:

"But the socialist system in our country has been established only recently; its formation is not yet complete, and it has not yet fully consolidated itself. In joint state-private industrial and commercial enterprises, capitalists still receive a fixed percentage—that is, exploitation still exists; in terms of ownership, enterprises of this type are not yet fully socialist in character. Some agricultural and handicraft production cooperatives still retain a semi-socialist character; even in fully socialist cooperatives, certain specific issues regarding ownership still need to be resolved."

No, Comrade, it wasn't Xi who said that; it was Mao in 1957... ))) I hope you catch the hint, Comrade.

I decided to explore Mao's writings a bit and chose this book:

"On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People"

the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media

This is likely not an attempt to combat ostentatious displays of wealth, but rather a move to temper public resentment—to keep it out of the public eye.

and punishing those found guilty of corruption

By the way, a fierce crackdown on corruption is currently underway in Russia. This began after the war started, when it turned out that everyone had been pulling the wool over Putin's eyes with inflated reports. A great many generals are currently in prison, and the same applies to local officials; Putin has given them a bit of a shake-up.

Corruption is dangerous and harmful under any political system.

China, the number of billionaires is decreasing

Yes, I heard that the number of billionaires has decreased slightly.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)

I'm aware that Mao believed that. That's why the narrative that Deng Xiaoping "backstabbed" socialism is false, Reform & Opening Up was a continuation of the economic basis laid out by Mao.

As for cracking down on flaunting wealth, if your impression is already highly skeptical of China, it can seem that it's only to hide it from the public. A more comprehensive view of China, however, reveals it to not be mere rhetoric but the outcome of having both a socialist state and the contradictions rising from marketization.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (7 children)

I’m aware that Mao believed that.

Yes, exactly! That is the main argument—held by the Chinese themselves, by Western socialists (Trotskyists), and by the "new breed" of Western socialists (like you): that China fell out with the USSR because Khrushchev pursued a policy of "openness." But I keep telling you all that this isn't true, and it wasn't about Stalin! The reason was something else entirely.

Relations between Khrushchev and Mao deteriorated completely after Mao asked the USSR to build a nuclear submarine fleet for China. Khrushchev agreed, but with the stipulation that the fleet would be a joint venture and based in Soviet Far Eastern ports. For some reason, Mao took great offense at this and refused. Now you can see just how brazen Mao was. These are all matters of public record; you can read about it yourself.

I believe the reason for the rift was that, after Stalin's death, Mao considered himself the world's leading socialist—superior to the others and capable of handling everything on his own. He did not view Khrushchev as his equal.

We saw how that turned out.

As for cracking down on flaunting wealth, if your impression is already highly skeptical of China, it can seem that it’s only to hide it from the public.

Yes, I know the statistics: wage growth in China is 4–6% annually. But I’m not convinced that wages are rising only for the poor—or that the 4–6% gains belonging to the middle and upper classes are being taken away and redistributed to China’s lower-income population.

Show me the data on that trend, and then I’ll agree with you.

I’d like to see statistics for these companies:

JD.com: The revenue leader among China’s private enterprises, generating around 1.16 trillion yuan annually.

Alibaba Group: JD.com’s main rival in the e-commerce market, showing steady growth driven by logistics and international expansion.

ByteDance (owner of TikTok): The fastest-growing brand and largest private tech corporation. According to analyst reports, its brand value grew by 45% in a single year, reaching $153.5 billion.

In cases where profits surged by 45% (an increase of 70 billion per year), exactly how much of that actually went to the poorer segments of the population?

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] 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.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

I think you’re reading more into my position than I have stated myself.

Yes, Comrade, you’re right. It’s a very painful subject for me.

To me, this is just like Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, a work that slandered and humiliated the entire Soviet ideology. Both have fostered a distorted view of the Soviet era. They have given rise to all sorts of false theories that are published and circulated worldwide on a massive scale.

Yet the Soviet soul is all I have left in life now. I am being bombed every night, but I live in the past—I live on memories...

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.

Ma crossed a red line; Xi decided that the oligarchs were becoming a threat to him... though he seems to have realized this rather late.

We can certainly see Ma’s attempt to meddle in state affairs. People used to tell me that China has no oligarchs because Chinese billionaires don't interfere in government business. Yet, I highly doubt that was the first time Ma had meddled in state affairs—after all, he is a long-standing Communist Party member.

To be honest, Comrade, what is actually happening in China is a closely guarded secret.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] 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.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

That’s an interesting way to put it. Are you referring to Cervantes and the windmills?

My subjective pessimism stems from the fact that I’ve lost faith in my own future—my personal future. It’s just that, due to certain circumstances, I reached a point where I lost hope for what lies ahead. I’ve come to terms with that now.

As for objective pessimism, that has nothing to do with my personal outlook. If you like, you could call it dialectics in its most extreme form... )))))

But seriously, Comrade, when was the last time you saw someone looking toward humanity's future with confidence and optimism—without any illusions?

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] 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.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Sedan@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

I’m referring to someone whose own pessimism causes them to see negativity where there is no actual basis for it.

Yes, you described that guy accurately. And that’s hardly surprising, because in this world, he has no choice but to be a sociopath.

As for the idea that I might be talking nonsense—that’s unlikely; I have far too much practical life experience to spout complete rubbish. I’ve clawed my way to the top three times in my life, only to hit rock bottom again. Right now, I’m at the bottom once more. Would you be an optimist if you were in my shoes, Comrade? ... ))) And please, don’t tell me that I’m the one to blame for it all, rather than the way life is set up!

I am an optimist, a revolutionary optimist.

You just got lucky, Comrade! I'm happy for you.

I was just like that once, too.

I have to hold onto hope to move forward, and do my best to temper that with sober and grounded analysis.

Yes, it's Dostoevsky: The most terrible thing is when a person has nowhere to go. This quote reflects one of Fyodor Dostoevsky's most haunting themes: the crushing despair of total alienation and the human necessity for purpose.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 months ago

I don't mean it as a moral condemnation, or an expectation to be "better," but as an explanation for why we are in disagreement on certain aspects.

parent

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)