this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2025
24 points (96.2% liked)
askchapo
23051 readers
363 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is nowhere near close to being proven. The planet has demonstrated enormous capacity for energy cycles. What we cannot handle is abundance built on extractive processes. We must build abundance from regenerative processes. Regenerative processes have produced eons upon eons of trillions upon trillions of organisms, all participating in systems of dynamic equilibrium.
It is deeply saddening to see communist just become Malthusians.
This is a misrepresentation of the world's limits. The world is a system, not a bank. The limits are not on natural resources, which all still exist on the planet. The limits are limits on systemic processes, and capitalism is exploiting those processes for profits in a contradictory way. If you think the world just has reserves that we'll deplete, you're thinking about it in a way that will lead to incorrect conclusions.
I agree. But of course, China remaining completely underdeveloped does absolutely nothing to address this. Had China not "reformed and opened up" all of that production would be happening in the imperial core or in some other part of the empire's colonial holdings. Don't imagine that individual nations have any direct control over production volume. Production is a historical process that follows its own logic. China can no more stop it than the USA can.
We have already ended scarcity of the most important things. We ended scarcity of many of the most important things easily 80 years ago.
I don't think more growth will solve scarcity. I think more growth is going to happen regardless and I would rather have that growth under the control of a communist party that is populated with people who have been studying Marx for 6 generations than have that growth under the control of the empire. We don't live in a world of finite growth. That's ridiculous. Growth has never stopped on this planet. The problem with humanity is that it stopped operating within the boundaries of regenerative system flows and instead chose to pursue contradictory growth. These contradictions will cause their system (society) to collapse in various way at various times with various consequences. The solution for human society is to bring it back within boundary conditions of its host ecosystem and resolve the contradictions. Resolving those contradictions takes social development - literally the evolution of human society. We are currently deeply enmeshed in a historical process of extractive growth and it cannot be stopped just because you say so. We will either find a way to stop it by evolving our society or our ecosystem will force us to stop on terms we do not choose.
No argument there.
Argument here. Profits should be abolished. Workers shouldn't own them because they shouldn't exist, nor should the concept of ownership over such things. Workers should contribute to social surplus and social surplus should be distributed by universal consent.
This is not an end. This is the means. Through the process of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat eventually abolishes itself because it abolishes all class distinction. The goal is not the proletarianization of all people, it is the end of class entirely, and therefore the end of the proletariat.
Socialism is the liberation of all persons, human and non-human.
You're arguing against a ghost. No one said socialist is solely about economic growth. But arguing that socialist projects must abandon economic development if it requires participation in the world historical processes of capitalism is a purity test that can never be satisfied. There is not a single serious Marxist that has ever refuted the position that the new society must necessarily be built from the old one and therefore will retain much of the old society's trappings until it can develop past them. Only purists, originally white Western purists, but now purists who have been poisoned by these idealist positions, hold these positions.
That is EXACTLY what we see in China.
Who, exactly, is arguing this (except Titoists)? Certainly I am not. You are arguing against ghosts.
Again, sounds a lot like Malthus. No one is saying that everyone should be elevated to the level of excess in the West, but no one is anywhere near close to that standard. No one. It is no one's goal. And the more you argue that everyone who is going to resist imperialism must live under forced austerity to meet some idealist standard, the more your position becomes indistinguishable from the imperialist who demands austerity from the position of dominance. China is literally no where near hitting the levels of excess of the USA or Europe. Stop acting like they're driven by jealousy or ignorance. Stop being an orientalist.
Sounds like you don't get temporary concessions and you don't get the need for foreign investments and you don't get need to modernize. Sounds like you've got vibes. Having China join the WTO was a master stroke of gamesmanship. Having China become literally unbombable by absorbing most of the world's productive capacity and capabilities was absolutely brilliant. Getting the West to deindustrialize and degrow without even realizing it for 40 years was goddamned genius. Your position is indistinguishable from Hoxha at this point. You are confusing individual national choices with world historical processes. You are confusing your willingness to make concessions as a single person and zero context with the willingness of a century-old communist party's willingness to make concessions. These are not the same.
You do realize that communists are by far the most knowledgeable capitalist economists in the world, right? Marx knew more about capitalism than probably anyone of his period. Studying and understanding capitalism is literally the requirement for being able to understand world historical processes that make communism possible.
Are you daft? The USSR was lost to revisionists almost immediately. The fight against the revisionist counter-revolutionaries ended when Kruschev took office in 1953. For the 30 years prior, outside of fighting for the union's life, Stalin spent almost every moment fighting the revisionists, and he still failed. He went wild with purges of all levels of intensity and still failed. Stalin was fighting to keep the revolution and he failed. That means that the USSR only had a revolutionary trajectory for what, 10 years? 15? The revisionists were obviously winning by the middle of Stalin's tenure (otherwise why would he be working so hard to purge them?)
No, you have completely misread the situation. The USSR was the very first experiment and it had the seeds of its failure right from the beginning. By the time Mao started his project, he had the benefit of decades of analysis of how the USSR failed. China understood the USSR was a failure by the time Kruschev took office.
China is, therefore, the second experiment, and it is built on top of the analysis of where the USSR failed. It could be failing too, but that would require us to compare the trajectories. If we map the decades of the USSR and the decades of China, it becomes painfully obvious that China is on a completely different trajectory. It has maintained far more Marxist foundations, it has maintained far more controls over the way it has developed, it has maintained the interest of the people far more fastidiously, it has maintained an anti-imperialist stance far more thoroughly and consistently.
There is simply no way to look at China and compare it to the USSR post Stalin. It's incomparable. It's an unserious position to hold.
I guess misreading me to be an eco fascist is very... cool i guess...
I'm not talking about energy cycles, I'm talking about simple Natural Capital. No matter what system we need to extract natural capital. We are over exploiting for simple profit production with very little recycling. For the past 250 years we have annihilated nature and its processes, our farming has depleted the soil, new mineral deposits slower to find, the earth is very finite. Just saying it'll regenerate some in a few eons does not at all pertain to the conversation when we've long passed the point where we're exploiting faster than nature can regenerate. Multiple times over in fact. Are you defending this just because you want to defend china? You really don't need to, just point out china's investments into green energy.
Have I refuted that? like... ever? I'm simply saying that China's economy is State Capitalist, and that China restored Capitalism. These are true to theory and true to the considerations of what socialism is or isn't even for deng himself.
through overproduction we have ended scarcity of goods, but increasing resource depletion. Of course a simple redistribution of many things would end scarcity, but again our current production is driving the earth towards extinction. Although I would say food, housing, and basic needs we can agree on for this. Although destruction of the meat industry would be required.
I'm glad we agree. When have I said that the CPC is the same as the USA?
You say that i'm wrong about finite growth and restate my point the next sentence. But that last system really makes me question why you think an evolution of capitalism is the next phase, although a workers dictatorship controlling production would be overthrowing it, not evolving it. I'm not saying to stop it because I say so, criticism from a Marxist Leninist perspective being demeaned as such is highly reductive to any conversation. I don't think people here know what critical support actually means anymore.
ah yes Mao's very serious deduction of "the USSR under Khruschev is the same as Hitler's Germany". Mao then proceeds to cope by integrating with global capitalism and splitting world socialism. Mao then proceeded to throw the country into chaos multiple times while deng cleaned up all his messes. Although that's too dismissive. The Great Leap Forward was necessary due to Kruschev cutting off economic aid to the PRC, and the cultural revolution was a decent effort to get rid of revisionists before it became ultra-left. After both Deng had to fix up China so that the economy didn't collapse. Khruschev definitely had his hand in splitting the communist movement, but Mao was just as opportunist. Kim Il Sung had the best perspective on this...
And although the USSR under khruschev sowed the seeds of its defeat, it still had a socialist economy until the mid 80s. You aren't judging the USSR but spitting on it.
I agree.
Building prosperity, redefining socialism as the building of wealth, is literally changing the focus to economic growth. Again, I have stated multiple times that socialism should build productive forces, but that doesn't necessitate building capitalism???? Capitalism is quite new, and productive forces can be built without it. There is a period of transition of course, we've seen it in every socialist society, but just continuing capitalism is not transitioning, its just continuing capitalism. China even admits toward preserving capitalism even when they reach 2050, and beyond it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be pleasantly surprised if I'm proved wrong, but that would require the CPC to take a different route than the one they're on.
Lenin, Stalin, and Deng... famous crackers. I am just suggesting that we should fight for more than just capitalism with some red guard rails.
You are misrepresenting me totally so you can dismiss me, I question if you're really a Marxist in your mind. I merely have criticisms, and am fully willing to rescind them if I am proved wrong. You have made me rethink some of my positions and make different ways to express them... but you seem to just be throwing labels on me and then attacking those labels instead. Stop twisting my words.
Again, capitalist in nature, but with the socialist government for now being able to direct it. The economy is the base of all analysis, and that base is capitalist in the PRC.
I... do? But theres a difference from analyzing capitalism to build socialism, than to analyze capitalism to... do capitalism better. Of course we must understand capitalism, and us marxists are the best at that. I never... said otherwise? Again you're treating me like a liberal for having criticisms of maintaining a state capitalist system.
The CPC definitely has quite a large faction that supports this way of thinking, and actively forces concessions for more liberal reforms. "Follow the party, start a business!". Also there is a large encouragement of petite bourgeoisie and national capitalist forces as it is seen, as through a state capitalist model, as duty. Arguing this doesn't exist is arguing against reality.
Part 1, reply continued in next comment.
He had won over them in the battle against the NEP, but the destruction of the USSR during WW2 killed many devoted communists, and vastly changed the situation they were in. He focused on rebuilding the eastern bloc and the USSR, to great success that lead to the 1950s "Soviet Economic Miracle".
1922-53 is almost half of the USSR's existence, what kind of marxist are you to dismiss this era as failure? In further decades the remnants of the era was the backbone of the USSR's continued success. A large portion of the Heavy Industry before the collapse was from the Stalin era.
again, Its deeply unserious to say the fall of the USSR was 'inevitable'. This isn't a fairy tale story, this is real life, theres no story arcs or 'inevitable' anything.
and can we not criticize this current 'experiment' until its collapsed? Handle a bit of criticism, its good for you.
Its development has been pretty great, no famine while industrializing so quickly is quite interesting.
It has recently actually addressed capitalist excesses and done wonders when applying a socialist model when having to fix their results. It has done well modernizing and building up their economy. It has done well to defend its interests. It has done well to engage in diplomacy to solve problems and not result to military force. It has a great many successes, why would I deny that, where have I denied that? Before Xi though, capitalism had grown the economy but brought numerous serious problems to china, that only reviving tiny bits of socialism could treat. Lets hope they revive socialism entirely.
But the anti-imperialism part is bullshit lmao. They aren't a rabid imperialist power, sure, but theyve done no more than out compete US capitalism with their own. They gave a better deal, the nations took it, all well and good. Don't worry, the debt trap myth is definitely bullshit. But actively anti imperialist? Everyone knows thats bullshit. They actively trade with Israel, they do not supply weapons or resources to Palestinian liberation. dont type out what i know you are, I am talking about thorough and consistent anti imperialism, which is not what china nor anyone else thinks they are doing.
China supports palestine and has diplomatically pressured the US and Israel to end its attack and is definitely important as a counterbalance to the US economy, allowing many countries fighting the US to have an alternative. China is weakening the US, but not to end imperialism. This is the process of the semi-periphery having enough capital and large enough economy to start trying to fight for their own influence. China is not funding national liberation, Communist parties, or any sort of anti imperialist movement. Its diplomatically seeking to stabilize situations which may increase their influence and trade. They are not pushing, they are riding the waves. Thats smart of course, I don't blame it for that.
Ah yes, and its marxist to say the development of history is set in stone towards nothing but the words of goals. It is obvious that the USSR and China are in a different trajectory. The USSR is 30 years dead. China played the game smarter and restored capitalist control of the economy while maintaining the Communist party. But the path of China is to develop itself, and to deeply integrate itself into global capitalism. That is what is happening, that is what was happening, and from what we know its going to continue to happen unless China chooses to change course.
Are you really so niave to think that once China becomes the dominant capitalist power, that it will... what? Destroy capitalism? Bring socialism to everyone? Marxists see the growing multipolar world as an opportunity to overthrow capitalism where possible while global capitalism temporarily weakens. Idealists think that Multipolar capitalism is the salvation itself.
I thought we are supposed to compare the two experiments? Is doing this unfair now? But yes, different times. China's own position is due to the decline of the USSR in the late 70s and 80s. The victory of neoliberalism, their friendship with america, and the death of world socialism saw that the best path towards continuing and thriving without a Cold War that they couldn't handle at the time, was capitulation to capitalism. Deng still set out in a way to maintain a socialist economy while allowing foreign investment, but after him there was a restoration of capitalism. In order to build socialism they must retake their economy fully into the hands of the people and the party.
China is at a crossroads
I'm pointing out Stalin because I am simply highlighting that it can be done, and it has been done before. I dont think exact replication is possible of course, nor something everyone can or should do, but a socialist economy along those lines is a definite.
I don't know why my criticisms are just seen as illegitimate though, I am fine with being wrong and would embrace it, but the more I read theory the more these concerns surface. I have dipped into Governance of China, and its quite a fascinating look. I fully believe that Xi is a devoted communist. I am critiquing the current economy, critiquing some definitions of 'development' (since development theory is made up by capitalists), and critiquing redefining socialism as prosperity. I welcome critiques, although they do hurt my pride a bit lmao, I want a socialist world more than I want to be right. I realize some of my positions are an over-correction, and I want to make clear: China is not the enemy, I just don't think they're the solution either. China is its own thing, and as an american its my position to worry first and foremost about the USA and deconstructing it. China is instrumental in unseating the power of america and undermining its influence. But the reasons for China doing that is not anti capitalism or anti imperialism, merely Multi-polar capitalist competition. Although it could very well become that.