Cowbee
The author does not elaborate on the reasoning for their assertion that voting will never bring into manifestation the will of the workers, except to say:
This is because Reform or Revolution is a "solved question" elsewhere. In a 20 minute article, there's not much room to go over everything.
The Soviet Union lacked the communication infrastructure to be able to allow democracy to actually be able to control the entirety of the huge system. Which is true, for the Soviet Union. At that time.
We have the technology today. We have the computers. We have the AI which can quickly and easily determine the most efficient options for our democratic processes to choose from.
Yes, that's why as the PRC continues to develop and socialize, it becomes more capable of democratization. The point isn't that the USSR wasn't democratic. It was, just not a fantasy.
Why do they think big industry can ONLY be developed through market competition? What is the reasoning behind that? (Aside from what they have seen happen in the past, for older generations of people with very different material conditions to our own today?)
Markets are efficient at centralization. It isn't only possible via markets, it just comes with slower growth and recessions. More on that in Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism.
This is true. So why are you all so against voting in the United States' two-party system, when that very voting will continue to allow incredibly high levels of economic development and the GRADUAL socialization of industry and society?
Because the bourgeois state cannot simply be reformed. The State and Revolution is the clearest overview of why.
The market has created that large-scale infrastructure. Let's use it to make the world better.
Yes, let's overthrow the bourgeoisie so this can happen! Exactly.
Then what is it all for? Why do anything if it doesn't lead to an eventual utopia where everyone has their needs met and we can just hang out in parks and play games all day? Isn't that what the whole point of this thing is?? Is that NOT what we are striving for?
The point is to continue advancing, not to come up with an idea and force it into reality. That's the difference between Utopian and Scientific Socialism. We still want all of what you said.
Marx himself wanted that utopia. We have the means of achieving it today, because, as the author says, we allowed the market to create that large-scale infrastructure. The process worked. We're here now, and now we inherently deserve to be able to have a say in what we do with it. Because we're sentient beings. We deserve to have control over our own lives.
Marx was anti-utopian. You are correct in saying we can socialize now, but haven't analyzed the means.
his article is merely a defense of capitalism (and the way that China has structured itself in particular). There's logic behind it, of course, and that's clearly laid out. But it's based on presuppositions. It's based on the idea that this is the ONLY way to achieve that utopia.
It's a defense of socialist markets as a means of stabilizing growth towards Communism (not utopia).
In fact, the article itself basically says "resign yourself to the idea of never having control over your life, because you're never going to create a utopia, so you might as well just be content being a cog in the wheel of the system and be thankful that we who are in control continue to allow you to live" which is no better than the slavery system that (I thought) we (and marx) are trying to get society away from!
No, it says building Communism takes time even after siezing the means of production. Check out the other texts I linked.
Thanks for linking the article. I like most of its points, but I don't agree with this materialistic outlook that the economic development is the be-all and end-all solution to implementing "true" socialism.
There's no such thing as "true socialism," that's part of the point of the article.
I believe that the root cause of all attempts of it failing so far is that humans are selfish assholes. Unless everyone bar none starts caring about their brethren and sistren at least as much as they care about themselves, the system can't work. It's simply too prone to being overtaken by bad faith actors who will inevitably abuse it for self serving purposes in the name of "socialism".
Why do you think Socialism cares about thinfs like self-serving people?
Well maybe these two guys were a product of their time and had some not-so-good ideas, so not every word of theirs should be taken as a gospel.
Not as gospel, sure, but they have been proven correct.
but at what cost?
You said the thing! Lmao.
Either way, the industrialization originated with the CPC taking power and establishing Central Planning. Later, Deng invited foreign investment while maintaining central planning and state supremacy over Capital. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism, it's a short 20 minute essay.
That's not racism, they're literally the same race according to everyone including the fucking CCP!!! I know you don't have to worry about facts, but don't be so pathetically transparent.
This is exactly racism, there are numerous ethnic groups in China and Taipei.
Also I doubt you've been to China lately, saying they're on the path to Marxism is hilarious, let me guess, the new York stock exchange is the hub of western socialism too?
No, the New York Stock Exchange exists in the context of an 80%+ privatized system where the bourgeoisie control the state.
They've copied us in everything but name, it's a properly capitalist economy, which is why they're doing so well. They even had their own real-estate financing bubble, we're so proud.
I am once again asking you to explain why an economy that is over 50% publicly owned and managed, around 10% cooperatively managed, and the remaing private sector has CPC control, is Capitalist. Read Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. You haven't read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, or Deng, that much is obvious, but surely you can read a 20 minute article, right?
All the Healthcare and other improvements are from the west, are you honestly trying to tell me they invented any major medical breakthroughs? Because if they had, we would have copied them, which we haven't. Not a lot of western drugs licensed off China, they stick to copying the low-end.
Yes, they have invented tons of medical breakthroughs. The West is interested in profit above all else. This is western chauvanism.
And SMC is still a decade behind tsmc, no matter how much they cry, they don't have euv in volume or anything on the level of euv, and they were one of the biggest consumers of Nvidia (fabbed in Taiwan with a Taiwanese founder and ceo) until they got cut off.
And yet SMC is gaining on TSMC.
This is exactly the same mindless propaganda the Soviet union tried to spread, you need to get better.
You have never read Marx or any Marxist, why are you pretending you're an authority on Socialism? It's ridiculous cosplay.
I think it's more that related topics have Marxism brought up. I certainly don't spend all my time reading theory and trying to get people to read theory, I also love coffee (especially espresso), hiking, cooking, gaming, and I have a job. However, when there is a lot of discussion and misconceptions going around, I do my best to correct them. It's easy to think Marxism is someone's whole existence if you don't see them outside that context.
If I am relaxing, I am usually on my Hexbear alt anyways.
Because the PRC is Socialist, and following Marxism.
It has a Socialist Market Economy. Marx and Engels repeatedly stated that Private Property cannot be abolished all at once in lower-stage Communism (which modern Marxists call Socialism). The economy of China is over 50% publicly owned and centrally planned, and there is a cooperative sector as well, meaning the Private Sector is a minority. On top of this, the Private Sector is still centrally planned.
The PRC employs a "birdcage model," where competition in the markets eventually leads to monopolization into large syndicates, which the CPC then folds into the public sector steadily as it increases control by degree.
This is exactly why I linked you the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. If you aren't going to read Marx and Engels, and you aren't going to study Historical Materialism, surely you can read a 20 minute article, right?
I'll leave you with an excerpt from The Principles of Communism:
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
I bolded the section where Mao made an error in judgement and socialized the economy dramatically before the productive forces were developed enough.
I didn't say it was the majority. The Communists turned China from a largely agrarian country, one of the poorest in the world, into a superpower over the last 75 years, which came with drastic reductions in poverty and increases in life expectancy. This wasn't just "copying western medicine," but rapid industrialization and central planning.
Mao is often described as "70% good" by Communists, he helped install Socialism and wrote good theory, but he was a left-deviationist that largely failed to properly analyze China's Material Conditions.
Yes, China had a bulk of the world's population and had the largest impact on said metrics. Do you think it was magic that caused this?
If you copied any western medicine and hygiene, your life probably doubled.
Mask-off racism and western-chauvanism.
That's fine too!
The revolution in China brought a catastrophic wave of death.
Life expectancy doubled under Mao.
Meanwhile the same people across the channel had incredible prosperity without the 50m dead from the GLP and CR, while inventing incredible technologies the mainlanders can't even understand, much less copy like everything else.
Racism, much? Also not true at all, the mainland has incredibly advanced production because the majority of the world produces there.
China is absolutely crippled by the genocidal failed regime that is the CCP. They're only prospering now because Deng is a proper capitalist, and that's where the life expectancy comes from:
The PRC is has never had a recession since the Dengist reforms, which were a reversion to Marxism from the Ultraleftist Maoism. Read the article Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism. Deng was a Marxist-Leninist, and introduced a Socialist Market Economy because Mao had tried to achieve Communism through fiat, before the productive forces were ready for it. The majority of the PRC's economy is publicly owned and operated, and this proportion is increasing over time.
Mao was the only proper communist, and he just got everybody killed because he was a complete idiot. I'm sorry your ideology is so transparently broken.
Mao was an Ultraleftist, he helped bring about Socialism but miscalculated. He made numerous mistakes and errors in judgement. Deng reverted the PRC to a Marxist path.
And the Soviet union did well at first because Lenin relaxed communism in favor of partial capitalism, which Stalin reversed and killed millions in his purges, leading to the Holodomor and other catastrophic failures, which brezvhnev repeated and lead to the failure of the ussr.
Lenin used the NEP the same way the PRC is now using their Socialist Market Economy. Lenin didn't "relax" Communism, the Productive Forces weren't ready for socialization. Funny thing about Stalin is that Life Expectancy also doubled under him.
Nothing but failures all the way down.
Dramatic improvements in Life Expectancy, home ownership, access to healthcare, education, drastic jumps in literacy rates, ending famine, dramatically developing industry, and more are "nothing but failures all the way down?" You have no idea what you're talking about.
But thank you, for actually identifying with both China and the ussr, you make it much easier to prove you obviously wrong compared to the whiny little shits who dream of an ideal communism that never actually happens.
You have no clue what you're talking about, which makes it much easier to prove you obviously wrong.
You have no points, only a lack of historical knowledge. The revolutions in China, Cuba, and Russia brought huge increases in life expectancy, literacy rates, access to healthcare and education, housing rates, and more. Read Blackshirts and Reds.